Egypt as a Place of Refuge (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161508165, 9783161511493, 3161508165

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

51

Garrett Galvin

Egypt as a Place of Refuge

Mohr Siebeck

GARRETT GALVIN, born 1968; joined the Franciscan Friars (O. F. M. ) in 1992; 2000 Ordination; 2005 M.A. in Semitic and Egyptian Language; 2009 Ph.D in Biblical Studies; teaches at the Franciscan School of Theology, which is part of the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151149-3 ISBN 978-3-16-150816-5 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

In Memoriam Attracta Joan Galvin (1942–2009)

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I acknowledge my parents, Michael and Attracta Joan Galvin. I distinctly remember my Dad buying me a dictionary when I was a little boy and explaining the importance of words to me. My Mom always had the highest expectations of me and never countenanced anything less than what she thought I was capable of. She insisted on the importance of education and thereby endowed me with a great zeal and joy in learning. The Franciscans of St. Barbara Province have encouraged and supported me since I came to the friars in 1992. Professor Michael Guinan, O.F.M. pulled me aside as a novice and first asked me to consider studying Sacred Scripture. Three Provincials have been uniquely instrumental in allowing me to pursue higher studies: Joseph Chinnici, Finian McGinn, and Melvin Jurisich. I owe them and many other friars an enormous debt of gratitude. They often believed in me far more than I believed in myself. I am also enormously grateful for the support and hospitality of Holy Name Province during my time here. I truly learned the meaning of refuge during this writing of the dissertation. After the completion of my dissertation proposal, my original director, Michael Patrick O’Connor suddenly and tragically died. He was a great friend, mentor, and advocate. I still continue to miss him deeply. Father Christopher Begg immediately and unhesitatingly agreed to replace him in June of 2007. Father Begg has always behaved with the utmost professionalism and courtesy. If I can treat my future students half as well as he has treated me, I will have accomplished much. Father Joseph Jensen, O.S.B. and Professor Robert Miller II have offered great care in their reading of my dissertation. They both had to get involved in the dissertation well after its start, but they have been most helpful. Frank Gignac, S.J. helped me negotiate the many twists and turns after the death of Professor O’Connor and allowed this dissertation to progress as rapidly as possible. I am also grateful to the Semitics Department that gave me a desk to use for work and to store material. I am especially grateful to Monica Blanchard and Father Sidney Griffith, S.T. Finally, Professors Betsy Bryan and Richard Jasnow of Johns Hopkins University allowed me to take many classes with them there, and Professor Jasnow offered me considerable help in thinking through this material as my Dutch Uncle. All these people

VIII

Acknowledgements

have reflected God’s goodness in my life, and I hope that this project reflects my gratitude for the many refuges that God has provided for me. I would also like to thank Professor Mark S. Smith for all his hard work in helping me get my dissertation published. His insights and attention to detail are truly extraordinary. He has been very generous with his time and encouraged me at a number of different stages in this process. I am truly grateful for all the effort that he has put into this project. I am also very grateful to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki as well as the other editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament and the staff of Mohr Siebeck, in particular to Tanja Mix for her patience and assistance.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................... VII Table of Contents ................................................................................... IX Sigla ..................................................................................................... XV

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................... 1 I. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 II. Selective Review of Literature ............................................................. 2 A. Refuge and Refugees in the Ancient World ..................................... 2 B. The Egypt-Israel Relationship ......................................................... 5 III. Purpose and Method ........................................................................ 10 A. Liminality ..................................................................................... 11 IV. Overview of Chapters ....................................................................... 15

Chapter 2: Refuge in the Ancient Near East ................................ 17 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 17 II. Refuge as a Topos in ANE Literature ................................................ 17 A. Treaties and International Relations ............................................... 17 B. Sinuhe ........................................................................................... 19 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 19 2. Primary Source ......................................................................... 19 3. Analysis .................................................................................... 20 C. Idrimi ............................................................................................ 23 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 23 2. Primary Source ......................................................................... 23 3. Analysis .................................................................................... 24 D. Urhi-Teshub .................................................................................. 27 1.Introduction ................................................................................ 27

X

Table of Contents

2. Primary Source ......................................................................... 27 3. Analysis .................................................................................... 28 E. The Tale of Two Brothers ............................................................. 32 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 32 2. Primary Sources ........................................................................ 33 3. Analysis .................................................................................... 33 F. Minor Characters ........................................................................... 35 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 35 2. Primary Source ......................................................................... 36 3. Analysis .................................................................................... 36 III. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 38

Chapter 3: Refuge in the Old Testament ....................................... 39 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 39 II. The Semantic Field of Refuge ............................................................ 39 A. Verb ............................................................................................. 39 B. Nouns ........................................................................................... 44 III. Refuge as a Topos in OT Literature ................................................. 48 A. David ............................................................................................ 48 B. Absalom ........................................................................................ 52 C. Adonijah ....................................................................................... 53 D. Minor Figures ............................................................................... 55 E. The Psalms .................................................................................... 60 IV. Moses and Joseph ............................................................................. 61 A. Joseph ........................................................................................... 61 B. Moses ........................................................................................... 63 V. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 64

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 4: Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) ..................... 65 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 65 II. The Delimitation of the Passage and Text-Critical/Methodological Observations ..................................................................................... 65 III. Translation of the Critically Reconstructed Hebrew Text ................. 67 A. Introductory Remarks ................................................................... 67 B. The Translation ............................................................................. 70 IV. Structure, Key Words, and Other Literary Features ......................... 75 A. Structure ....................................................................................... 75 B. Key Words and Other Literary Features ........................................ 78 1. Key Words ................................................................................ 78 2. Other Literary Features ............................................................. 80 V. Reading of Text Unit by Unit ............................................................. 82 A. 11:14–22, 25b The Story of Hadad ............................................... 82 1. 11:14–16 Israel attacks Edom .................................................... 82 2. 11:17–22 Hadad’s sojourn in Egypt ........................................... 84 3. 11:25b Hadad becomes king over Edom .................................... 89 B. 11:23–25a The Story of Rezon ...................................................... 90 C. 11:26–40 The Story of Jeroboam ................................................... 92 1. 11:26 Initial information ........................................................... 92 2. 11:27–28 The Rise of Jeroboam ................................................ 96 3. 11:29–30 Ahijah’s symbolic action ........................................... 97 4. 11:31–39 Prophetic oracle ......................................................... 99 5. 11:40 Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt ............................................. 100 D. 11:41–43 The Death of Solomon ................................................. 101 E. 12:1–19 Rehoboam’s aborted succession ..................................... 102 1. 12:1–3 Preparations for meeting at Shechem ........................... 103 2. 12:4–5 Jeroboam’s return to Israel .......................................... 104 3. 12:6–11 Rehoboam consults the elders and the youth .............. 106 4. 12:12–15 The Decision of Rehoboam ...................................... 108 5. 12:16–17 Reaction of Israel ..................................................... 109 6. 12:18–19 Counter-reaction of Rehoboam ................................ 111 F. 12:20–24 The Northern Kingdom ................................................ 112 1. 12:20–21 Installation of Jeroboam and Rehoboam’s reaction .. 113 2. 12:22–24 Shemaiah’s Admonition ........................................... 113

XII

Table of Contents

VI. The Historical Utilization of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 ............................ 114 VII. Conclusion .................................................................................... 116

Chapter 5: The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah ................................................................. 118 I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 118 II. MT and LXX .................................................................................... 119 A. Which Text is more original? ...................................................... 119 B. The Portrayal of Egypt as a Place of Refuge in MT and LXX Jeremiah ............................................................................. 124 III. Allusions to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah (MT and LXX) ............. 125 A. References to the Exodus from Egypt ......................................... 125 B. References to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll ...... 126 C. The Baruch Scroll ....................................................................... 130 IV. My Translation of the Critically Reconstructed Hebrew Text .......... 139 A. Structure, Key Words, and Literary Features ............................... 143 B. Reading of Text Unit by Unit ...................................................... 145 1. 46:2 ......................................................................................... 145 2. 46:3–6 ..................................................................................... 146 3. 46:7–10 ................................................................................... 147 4. 46:11–12 ................................................................................. 149 5. 46:13–19 ................................................................................. 151 6. 46:20–24 ................................................................................. 153 7. 46:25–26 ................................................................................. 157 V. The Utilization of the Book of Jeremiah for Reconstructing Egypt’s History ................................................................................ 159 VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 161

Table of Contents

XIII

Chapter 6: Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period ...................................................................... 164 I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 164 II. The Oniads as Refugees in Egypt ..................................................... 165 A. 1 Maccabees ............................................................................... 166 B. 2 Maccabees ............................................................................... 167 C. Josephus ..................................................................................... 170 D. Conclusion .................................................................................. 173 III. The Messiah’s Flight to Egypt (Matt 2:13–15, 19–21) .................... 173 A. The Translation ........................................................................... 174 B. Delimitation and Structure .......................................................... 174 C. Reading of Text Unit by Unit ...................................................... 175 1. 2:13–15: The Messiah’s Flight to Egypt .................................. 175 2. 2:19–21: The Messiah’s Return from Egypt ............................ 177 D. Conclusion .................................................................................. 179 IV. General Conclusion ........................................................................ 179

Chapter 7: Conclusion .................................................................... 181 I. Refuge and Refugees ......................................................................... 181 II. 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 .......................................................................... 183 III. The Book of Jeremiah ..................................................................... 184 IV. Egypt as a Place of Refuge for Postexilic Israel ............................. 185 V. Further Questions ............................................................................ 187 VI. A Final Remark .............................................................................. 187

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 189 Index of Sources .................................................................................. 211 Index of Authors .................................................................................. 219 Index of Subjects ................................................................................. 224

Sigla In addition to the sigla found in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly style sheet, I will use these sigla as well: ABRL ANE BRS CHANE EDB OAN TLOT

The Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Near East The Biblical Resource Series Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Oracles Against the Nations Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. Ed. by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Chapter 1

Introduction I. Introduction Egypt has fascinated both scholars and lay audiences from ancient times to the present. Although Scripture usually refers to Egypt as a place of bondage, Egypt also plays a role as a place of refuge for a number of prominent biblical individuals. Because Egypt’s role as a place of refuge has been largely overlooked, the scholarly literature, especially the many published histories of biblical Israel, frequently misconstrues Egypt’s role within Israelite history. This chapter will survey the history of refuge in the ANE and the relationship between Israel and Egypt with reference to prior scholarship. Since refuge can give the political refugee some leverage and possibly an alternative route back to power, the idea of refuge as a state of liminality with the possibility of status elevation will be examined. This chapter concludes with a statement concerning the purpose and method of this dissertation. This topic covers the time period from the Late Bronze Age to the Greco-Roman period. The Late Bronze Age has evidence for only a trickle of refugees who manage to cross boundaries successfully. Evidence exists only of high-status individuals finding refuge in foreign countries. The Iron Age begins with a similar reality, as we only hear of high-status individuals in the Old Testament finding refuge in foreign countries. A new situation presents itself towards the end of the Iron Age in the Book of Jeremiah. Rather than only royal figures seeking refuge, a prophet (Uriah) now emerges who wants refuge in Egypt (Jer 26:21). The Book of Jeremiah ends with a large band of individuals successfully seeking refuge in Egypt. Migration becomes commonplace in the Greco-Roman period. The period can even be seen as a time of mass migration. More Jews now live outside the Holy Land than in Israel.

2

Chapter 1

II. Selective Review of Literature A. Refuge and Refugees in the Ancient World The earliest major figure of ANE literature associated with refuge and flight is Sinuhe (ca. 1956–1911 BCE). His story has a number of elements that will continually surface throughout this dissertation. “The tale of Sinuhe reaches beyond the frame of ancient Egypt: the hero finds himself in a kind of ‘exile’ in foreign territories, although he left Egypt of his own accord.”1 Sinuhe becomes a high-status refugee who settled in Syria after events in Egypt led him to fear for his own safety. Flight allows highstatus refugees like Sinuhe to preserve their honor in the competitive world of ANE honor-shame society. The fact that flight ultimately appears to involve a round-trip journey in many of these instances, as the refugee uses flight as a way to preserve his status in a time of crisis, needs further investigation. The issue of refuge and refugees remained important throughout ANE history and continues to be an area of controversy today. The clearest evidence of its importance can be seen in the legislation dealing with the issue. First, the Code of Hammurabi legislates the return of low-status refugees.2 Class appears to have played the greatest role in determining the success of a fugitive’s search for refuge, according to Mario Liverani.3 Second, the Hittite and Egyptian empires use treaty provisions to ensure control over both low and high-status refugees.4 Raymond Westbrook has 1

Miroslav Bárta, Sinuhe, the Bible, and the Patriarchs (Prague: Set out, 2003) 273. J. J. Stamm, “Fremde, Flüchtlinge und ihr Schutz im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt,” in Der Flüchtling in der Weltgeschichte: Ein ungelöstes Problem der Menschheit (ed. André Mercier; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1974) 46: “Der Kodex Hammurabi enthält außerdem zwei Bestimmungen (§§ 30 und 31) über die Flucht eines Lehenspflichtigen.” 3 Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1660–1100 B.C. (Studies in Diplomacy; New York: Palgrave, 2001) 69: “In a hierarchical society in which everyone ‘belongs’ to somebody else, the fate of refugees is generally dictated by the interests of their owners. This is especially true for runaway slaves: not only are the procedures for delivery formalized but the amount of the reward to be paid is specified as well. This is a long way from any concern for moral judgment or rules of hospitality. As for ‘political’ refugees, they are used as an item of exchange between two kings, both concerned with their own strategy. The refugee is not protected by his present circumstances but by past events or future possibilities.” 4 Stamm, “Flüchtlinge,” 46: “Für die Flucht von Freien und von Sklaven ließen sich auch aus der damaligen Briefliteratur Belege beibringen, die wir aber übergehen. Dafür können wir eine andere Literaturform nicht unberücksichtigt lassen. Das sind die altorientalischen und besonders die hethitischen Staatsverträge, die regelmäßig Bestimmungen über Flüchtlinge enthalten. Bei einem Vertrag zwischen gleichgestellten Herrschern, wie es der berühmte Staatsvertrag zwischen dem Hethiterkönig Chattuili III und dem Pharao Ramses II vom Jahre 1270 v. Chr ist, verpflichten sich die Partner, die ge2

.

Introduction

3

further explored the Hittite empire’s policy regarding refuge in “Personal Exile in the Ancient near East.”5 Westbrook makes many connections between Hittite and Mittani history and some of the stories of refuge in the OT. These examples demonstrate the ongoing importance of the refugee issue in the ANE. Daniel Snell’s Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East offers the fullest treatment of this topic. Snell’s emphasis is on freedom as seen in his interest in runaway slaves6 and mass flight,7 whereas in my project I focus on individual flight and successful refugees who are almost always high-status individuals. At the same time, Snell’s project has a much wider ANE scope than mine, as can be inferred from his title. Although both Westbrook and Snell examine the OT, they do not treat it nearly as comprehensively as I do. The OT stories of flight need further focused study. The (non) historical nature of ANE flight stories has sparked much debate in the literature. Although most have recognized Sinuhe as fictitious, the story of Idrimi has occasioned more controversy. Van de Mieroop’s description of Idrimi as a “fairy tale” marks one extreme,8 while Greenstein’s contention that there “was an Idrimi, king of Alalakh, and we have a contemporary treaty between him and Pilliya, king probably of Kizzuwatna”9 another. Van de Mieroop’s work is also significant as it highlights the importance of genre questions for understanding these flight narratives, a point made for Idrimi by scholars such as Sasson10 and Snell.11 A further development of the nature of ANE flight concerns the imperial ambitions of Egypt and the role that offering refuge played in those amgenseitigen Flüchtlinge festzunehmen und an den Heimatstaat auszuliefern. Im weiteren setzen die beiden Parteien fest, daß dem in seine Heimat Ausgelieferten für seine bisherigen Delikte Straffreiheit gewährt werde.” 5 Raymond Westbrook, “Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 128 (2008), 317. 6 Daniel C. Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East (CHANE 8; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 33. 7 Ibid., 58. 8 Marc van de Mieroop, The Eastern Mediterranean in the Age of Ramesses II (Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007) 17. 9 Edward Greenstein, “Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995) 2424. He later goes on to say (ibid.): “It would be no accident, then, that the last of Idrimi’s achievements that the inscription commemorates is his restoration of the cultic rites of Alalakh . . . .” 10 Jack M. Sasson, “On Idrimi and Sarruwa, the Scribe,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on His SeventyFifth Birthday April 29, 1981 (ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 315. 11 Snell, Flight and Freedom, 108–10.

4

Chapter 1

bitions. This is a very difficult question because of the impossibility of establishing a coherent state policy for Egypt. The very question of state confounds as Egypt often refers to itself as the two lands of Upper and Lower Egypt, also further underscored in the development of the Egyptian language.12 Two recent books show the difficulties in trying to understand a policy toward refugees. As mentioned earlier, the default position seems to be represented in the Code of Hammurabi where low-status refugees are returned to their homeland. From an internal perspective, no tolerance existed for those running away from forced labor within Egypt.13 Political refugees appear to be a rare category as Egyptian law generally categorized those fleeing as slaves, serfs, and dependents.14 Finally, a category does exist for those fleeing debt.15 We see a concern and leniency within Egyptian law for flight from debt, but no leniency for flight from hard labor and no category for political flight. Another important factor concerning Egyptian imperial ambitions involves the attitude of Egyptians towards foreigners. As my study is limited to the first millennium, it is to be noted that the presence of foreigners in Egypt at this time was generally negative since the foreign presence was generally limited to foreign military. 16 The general attitude towards foreigners was negative.17 Throughout Egyptian history, we sense a strong element of superiority over the other nations. The kings of Egypt married foreign princesses, but they did not allow their daughters to be married to 12

Robert K. Ritner, The Libyan Anarchy Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 21; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009) 4: “The political division of the country under Libyan rule did allow the chancellery styles of north and south to develop in divergent ways, leading to the Demotic language and script in the former and ‘abnormal hieratic’ in the latter.” 13 Sandra Lippert, Einführung in die Altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 5; Münster: LIT, 2008) 35: “Die Flucht aus dem Frondienst wurde bestraft, möglicherweise mit lebenslanger Zwangsarbeit.” 14 Ibid., 55. 15 Ibid., 110: “Vor Schuldhaft konnte man sich durch Flucht an eine Asylstätte (meist Heiligtümer) schützen, weshalb sich Gestellungsbürgen verpflichten mussten, dies zu verhindern.” 16 Günther Vittmann, Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend (Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97; Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 2003) 239: “Daß die Präsenz der Fremden im Ägypten des 1. Jahrtausends zum überwiegenden Teil militärische Hintergründe hat – sei es daß die Fremden als herrschende Klasse auftraten (Libyer, Perser), sei es, daß sie als Kriegsgefangene oder von den Assyrern Deportierte ins Land kamen, und sei es schließlich, daß sie als Söldner, Waffenschmiede oder Händler zur Versorgung der Söldner etc. tätig waren –, ist zunächst als Faktum zu konstatieren.” 17 Ibid., 244: “Man war von der eigenen kulturellen Überlegenheit überzeugt und liebte die Fremden nicht sonderlich, aber man verfolgte sie normalerweise auch nicht.”

.

Introduction

5

foreigners.18 Consequently, in the case of Solomon marrying the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1; 11:1), this may reflect a different view. Not surprisingly, biblical sources portray Egypt quite differently than the Egyptians portray themselves. The OT further contributes to an understanding of ANE refugees and their stories. I suggest that the best way to understand refuge and refugees in the OT is through an examination of its vocabulary of flight. The OT uses verbs like , , and  in its stories of flight, verbs that do not appear as frequently in stories of diaspora and criminal asylum. Although philological studies of these words exist, the theme of flight has only rarely been treated.19 Accordingly, I will engage in a comprehensive philological treatment of this terminology throughout the OT. Among others, the stories about David, Absalom, and Adonijah use this language of flight, and an understanding of this language’s usage adds to our appreciation of their stories. A comprehensive philological examination of the vocabulary of flight will highlight the importance of the literary aspects of the OT’s flight stories. B. The Egypt-Israel Relationship This study differs considerably from many other treatments of the relationship between Egypt and Israel. Rather than try to deal with every aspect of the relationship between Egypt and Israel,20 I focus on one element of this much broader picture, as do a number of other important recent studies.21 18

Trevor Bryce, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (London: Routledge, 2003) 108–9: “Traffic in brides when Egypt was involved was very much a one-way process The pharaoh was always willing to receive foreign brides of suitable status into his own household, but never countenanced the export of Egyptian princesses to the households of his royal brothers. It was an established tradition to which there could be no exception. . . . it was a case of pharaonic hubris, of maintaining the pharaoh’s self-assumed image as the senior member of the club of royal brothers. For a foreign ruler to send one of his daughters to the Egyptian court as a bride for the pharaoh with no prospect of receiving an Egyptian princess in return was an implicit acknowledgement of the pharaoh’s superior status, at least to the Egyptian way of thinking.” 19 Ernst Jenni, “‘Fliehen’ im Akkadischen und im Hebräischen Sprachgebrauch,” Orientalia 47 (1978) 351–59. 20 For a comprehensive discussion of the Israel-Egypt relationship, see Manfred Görg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil (ErFor 290; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997). 21 See, e.g., John Huddlestun, “Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile? A Comparative Study of the River Nile in Ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1995); Paul Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment (JSOTSup 297; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); F. V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity (JSOTSup 361; Lon-

6

Chapter 1

My focus will be Egypt as a place of refuge. Numerous scholars have addressed this role; some have focused on the positive aspects of their relationship22, but most accentuate the dominant and negative motif.23 At the same time, this limited approach will allow me to develop some important themes for coming to a better understanding of that broader picture. Without further major discoveries, we may have reached the limits of what a strictly historical approach can tell us about the relationship between Egypt and Israel.24 Whereas most previous studies have used a historical framework to understand their relationship, I will pay more explicit attention to the question of genre. I believe much work remains to be done on incorporating insights from literary criticism into the overall picture of Israel’s relationship with Egypt. Studies about the relationship between Egypt and Israel have traditionally attempted to examine the relationship comprehensively. One of the pivotal books addressing this relationship is Donald Redford’s Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.25 Redford offers an almost biblically literal representation of the Israelite monarchic period, even though he acknowledges that “the author of 1–2 Kings has produced his work from the don: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); Kevin Wilson, The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine (FAT II 9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 22 M. Cogan, “The Other Egypt: A Welcome Asylum,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Fox, V. Hurowitz, et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 66; P. de Boer, “Egypt in the Old Testament: Some Aspects of an Ambivalent Assessment,” in Selected Studies in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS 27; ed. C. van Duin; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 158; R. Kessler, “The Threefold Image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible,” Scriptura 90 (2005) 883; R. E. Friedman, “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2,” in Traditions in Transformation: Festschrift Honoring Frank Moore Cross (ed. B. Halpern and D. Levenson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 189. 23 I list just a few examples as this motif is pretty dominant in many commentaries. George W. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story (CBQ Monograph Series 4; Washington: CBA, 1976) 90; J. Jackson, “Jeremiah 46: Two Oracles on Egypt,” HBT 15 (1993) 136; G. Keown, Jeremiah 26–52 (WBC 27; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1995) 283; M. Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick: Studie über einen theo-politischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch (ÖBS 21; Bern: Peter Lang, 2002) 28. 24 Marc Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995) 3: “More than fifty pages of review articles on Miller and Hayes [A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)] were published in a leading journal [concerning the 1st ed. in JSOT 39 (1987) 3–63], most of which questioned the working assumptions of the authors in their attempt to recreate the ancient Israelite past. Many reviewers wondered if a history of Israel could be written or is worth writing. . . . This is the first time that the publication of such a volume evoked such questions.” 25 Donald Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).

.

Introduction

7

vantage point of a much later age. . . .”26 Redford demonstrates keen awareness of the importance of genre at some points of his study,27 but elsewhere seems to disregard genre issues as he develops the conventional understanding of Israel’s history also seen in earlier articles by Abraham Spalinger28 and Abraham Malamat.29 More recent studies of the Israelite monarchic period by Bernd Schipper30 as well as Anson Rainey and R. Notley31 also embrace the conventional understanding. Certain contemporary scholars have come to appreciate a more variegated picture of Egypt in the OT. Some recent German scholarship has emphasized the need to view Egypt in the OT in a more positive light than simply a “house of bondage,” by noting the many times that Egypt in the OT serves as a refuge for Israel.32 Spanish scholarship also helps us to understand Egypt as a place of refuge through its studies of 1 Kings and Jeremiah.33 Accordingly, I shall now focus on important previous discussions of these two biblical books (along with 2 Maccabees) in reference to Egypt as a place of refuge. 1 Kings’ image of Egypt conflicts with the dominant biblical image of Egypt as a “house of slavery.” When trying to understand Hadad and Jero26

Ibid., 320. Ibid., 423: “the nine or so chapters that comprise the Joseph story show all the earmarks of a composition, rather than a record. . . . It shares with other Egyptian and Near Eastern stories of the same genre a number of specific characteristics. As in folktales and wisdom there is a preference for the generic ‘god’ as opposed to the name of the deity, and proper nouns are likewise avoided.” 28 Anthony Spalinger, “Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 B.C.–550 B.C.),” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 5 (1977) 228–44. 29 Abraham Malamat, “The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom,” in Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (ed. G. Anderson et al.; VTSup 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 123–45. 30 Bernd Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO 170; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 236. Schipper does offer a more careful and nuanced view of the conventional history than do other scholars in the above group. 31 Anson Rainey and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006) 259. 32 Rainer Kessler, “The Threefold Image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible,” Scriptura 90 (2005) 883. 33 Julio Trebolle Barrera, Salomon y Jeroboan: Historia de la Recension de 1 Reyes 2–12, 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis Dissertationes 3; Salamanca: Universidad Pontifica, 1980); L. Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías Como Anti-Moisés,” in De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à L’institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979) (eds. J. Doré, M. Carrez, and P. Grelot; Paris: Desclée, 1981) 245–54; J. Abrego, Jeremías y el Final del Reino: Lectura sincrónica de Jer 36–45 (Estudios del Antiguo Testamento 3; Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1983). 27

8

Chapter 1

boam’s success in finding refuge in Egypt, scholars point to the similar success attributed to Abraham and Joseph in Genesis.34 We meet the limits of a purely historical approach when we try to understand the story of Jeroboam’s taking refuge in Egypt. Edelman convincingly argues that we can better understand this story when we see Jeroboam’s fellow refugee Hadad the Edomite as a fictional “bad guy” rather than an historical figure.35 Close examination of the various LXX text-forms of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 reveals discrepancies about lesser characters and toponyms that suggest the literary nature of the story as opposed to a reproduction of concrete, historical facts.36 Most of the commentaries dealing with this material are not sufficiently sensitive to its literary nature, which leaves room for a fresh examination of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. The Book of Jeremiah’s use of Egypt as a place of refuge involves a number of different levels. Like 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24, the Book of Jeremiah features differences between the MT and the LXX, attention to which will help illuminate Egypt as a place of refuge in the book. At the literary level, we find strong indications of Jeremiah as an anti-Moses who must make the Exodus journey in reverse.37 Both the Baruch Narrative (Jeremiah 36– 45)38 and the two poems of Jeremiah 46 feature a sustained focus on Egypt as a place of refuge. Their literary allusions to Egypt, usually using Exodus motifs, offer a constant attack on Egypt as a bad place for refuge. These literary allusions contrast with the reality of Jews going to Egypt for refuge elsewhere in the book. The dominant literary framework found within the 34

Rainer Kessler, Die Ägyptenbilder der hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte (SBS 197; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002) 141: “Das kann aber nur so interpretiert werden, dass unabhängig von aller Erinnerung an Sklaverei und Exodus auch danach Ägypten noch ungefragt als das Land der Zuflucht in Frage kommt, das es auch schon für Abraham sowie Josef und seine Sippe war.” 35 Diana Edelman, “Solomon’s Adversaries Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam: A Trio of ‘Bad Guy’ Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution,” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOTSup 197; ed. S.W. Holloway and L. K. Handy; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 190: “It does not appear that the writer derived his knowledge of either Hadad or Rezon from sources dating to Solomon’s reign; both rulers seem to be fictional ‘bad guys’ created so that Solomon would suffer for his apostasy. . . . The fictitious nature of the Hadad tradition is further reinforced by the lack of archaeological evidence for the existence of the state of Edom in the late tenth century BCE.” 36 Marvin A. Sweeney, “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Jeroboam Narratives in 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms 11–14,” JSJ 38 (2007) 189; T. Willis, “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3,” CBQ 53 (1991) 43. 37 Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías Como Anti-Moisés,” 247: “Volver a Egipto es desandar el camino del éxodo, es repetir una de las viejas rebeliones en el desierto [his italics].” 38 Abrego, Jeremías y el Final del Reino, 12: “Pero existe, a juicio de los comentaristas, una unidad especial que nosotros fijamos entre los capítulos 36–45, aun conscientes de que el límite inferior varía en las posturas de los diferentes exegetas.”

.

Introduction

9

Book of Jeremiah overwhelms its positive or neutral allusions to Egypt, constantly highlighting the folly of relying on Egypt as a place of refuge. I will also focus especially on Jeremiah 46 because the idea of flight is so strong in these poems.39 I believe there remains considerable work to be done for a proper understanding of the role of Egypt within the Book of Jeremiah in terms of understanding the heightened rhetoric of Egypt as a bad place for refuge vis-à-vis the reality of many Israelites fleeing to Egypt. 2 Maccabees deals realistically with the reality of a Jewish diaspora in Egypt. No elaborate literary framework here disguises the reality of Jews, synagogues, and a temple in Egypt (2 Macc 1:1, 10; 4:21; 5:1, 8, 11; 9:29).40 We have other narratives about Jews who flee to Egypt in the writings of Josephus (Jewish War 1.1.1 § 32–33; 7.10.2 § 423–25; Antiquities 12.9.7 § 387–8; 13 3.1 § 62–4, 68; 13.3.2 § 71)41 and the story of the Holy Family in the New Testament (Matt 2:13–15, 19–21) as well as perhaps the context42 behind the Jewish characters who surface in the story of Joseph and Aseneth (13:12; 15:7; 16:16; 19:5).43 The Oniads dominate the stories of Jewish refugees in Josephus and 2 Maccabees.44 Genre does not play as important a role here as we simply have many straight forward accounts of flight to Egypt. Genre will, however, emerge again as essential for the interpretation of the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt according to Matthew.45 Given that the presence of the Oniads in Egypt and the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt have not been fully incorporated and contextualized within earlier discussions of Egypt in the OT, my study will also devote attention to this material.

39 See B. Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 109. 40 Erich Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) 107; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 69. 41 For the writings of Josephus, I use: Henry St. John Thackeray et al., trans. and eds., Josephus (9 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–65). 42 Ross S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 5: “Most recent scholarly reference works describe Aseneth as a Jewish text written sometime between 100 B.C.E. and 135 C.E., probably in Alexandria or perhaps elsewhere in Egypt, whose central concern is conversion and missionizing.” 43 C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in OTP, 2. 177–247. 44 Erich Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997) 58. 45 George Soares-Prabhu, “Jesus in Egypt: A Reflection on Mt 2:13–15. 19–21 in the Light of the Old Testament,” EstBíb 50 (1992) 227.

10

Chapter 1

III. Purpose and Method My dissertation explores Egypt as a place of refuge in the ancient world. The purpose of this study is to explore four questions: (1) How do we understand refuge as distinct from religious or criminal asylum in the OT? (2) How did Egypt and other nations function as a place of refuge in the ANE? (3) How is Egypt portrayed as a place of refuge during the United Monarchy? and (4) How is Egypt portrayed as a place of refuge in the exilic/postexilic period? I will use Trebolle Barrera’s interdisciplinary methodology of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism in order to attempt a fresh understanding of the material relevant to these questions.46 I use BHS47 for the Hebrew. My thesis employs a number of different editions of the LXX for the purpose of textual criticism.48 I likewise refer to the LXXL (or Antiochene) version of 1 Kings for text-critical purposes.49 I also consult the Syriac50 and Latin51 versions. For the New Testament passages, I utilize Novum Testamentum Graece.52

46 Trebolle Barrera, Salomon y Jeroboan, 358: “El presente trabajo ha pretendido ofrecer un ensayo de diálogo interdisciplinar entre las metodologías de la crítica textual, la critica literaria y la crítica histórica. . . . La aportación más significativa del presente trabajo radica tal vez un la utilización de esta metodología interdisciplinar.” 47 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph; Editio quarta emendata; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990). 48 For 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24, I use The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (Vol. 2, part 2; ed. Alan Brooke, Norman McLean, and Henry St. John Thackeray; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930) 249–55. For the Book of Jeremiah, I use Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (VT Graecum, Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum; Vol. 15; ed. Joseph Ziegler, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957). 49 N. Fernández Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega, II, 1–2 Reyes (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 53; Madrid: Instituto de Filología del C.S.I.C., 1992). 50 For 1 Kings, I use The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version: Kings (Part II, fascicle 4; ed. Hans Gottlieb; Leiden: Brill, 1976). For Jeremiah, I use Biblia Sacra: Juxta Versionem Simplicem Quae Dicitur Pschitta (vol. 2; rev. ed.; ed. Jacobus Voste; Beirut: Typis Typographiae Catholicae, 1951). 51 For 1 Kings, I use Biblia Sacra Iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem: Liber Malachim (vol. 6; Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1945) and for Jeremiah, Biblia Sacra Iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem: Liber Hieremiae et Lamentationes (vol. 14; Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1972). 52 Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, and Eberhard Nestle; 27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001).

.

Introduction

11

A. Liminality Liminality represents an important dimension of the situation of refugees in the ANE and the Bible. It is therefore important to explore the concept of liminality in modern anthropological study before examining the ancient evidence in detail. Although Victor Turner is most associated with the idea of liminality, it seems to emerge first in the writing of Arnold van Gennep. In Les Rites de Passage he argues that the three phases in the rite of passage are separation, liminality (marginalization), and reincorporation.53 Turner focuses on liminality and wishes “to consider some of the sociocultural properties of the ‘liminal period’ in that class of rituals which Arnold van Gennep has definitively characterized as ‘rites de passage.’”54 At the same time that Turner was working on van Gennep, Mary Douglas “developed the van Gennepian notion that what was liminal and neither here nor there was at once polluting, dangerous and powerful.”55 These final three characteristics have made Douglas’ work particularly insightful. Building on Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger,56 Turner finds that “transitional beings are particularly polluting, since they are neither one thing nor another; or may be both; or neither here nor there; or may be nowhere (in terms of any recognized cultural topography), and are the very least ‘betwixt and between’ all the recognized fixed points in space-time of structural classification. ”57 This notion of powerful figures “betwixt and between” has captivated a number of biblical scholars who applied Douglas and Turner’s ideas to the field of biblical studies. Ronald Hendel develops the points of van Gennep, Turner, and Douglas by pointing out that “crossing thresholds, whether sacral or geographical, is an act that involves danger and risk, whether physical or spiritual.”58 Another important aspect of liminali53

A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (trans. M. Vizedom and G. Caffee; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960) 21: “I propose to call the rites of separation from a previous world, preliminal rites, those executed during the transitional stage liminal (or threshold) rites, and the ceremonies of incorporation into the new world postliminal rites.” 54 V. Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967) 93. 55 Nigel Rapport and Joanna Overing, Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides; London/New York: Routledge, 2000) 229. 56 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1966) 119: “Van Gennep had more sociological insight. He saw society as a house with rooms and corridors in which passage from one to another is dangerous. Danger lies in transitional states, simply because transition is neither one state nor the next, it is indefinable.” 57 Turner, The Forest of Symbols, 97. 58 R. Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel (HSM 42; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1987) 67.

12

Chapter 1

ty is the need for the marginalized person to assess or re-assess their culture and its norms from a different perspective.59 Finally, “neophytes return to secular society with more alert faculties perhaps and enhanced knowledge of how things work, but they have to become once more subject to custom and law.”60 Van Gennep refers to this final period as reincorporation. I think if we consider both the spatial and metaphysical distance from which the person must return, one can also think of it as a return to centrality. Numerous biblical scholars have applied the idea of liminality to the subject of biblical studies over the last thirty years. Leo Perdue sees liminality as particularly important in DH’s Succession Narrative, where “Solomon is in a position that is especially ‘betwixt and between’: he has already been elevated to the position of co-regent, though he is not yet sole king of Israel. He does have royal power (cf. I Reg 149f.), but it is shared with the decrepit David.”61 David encourages greater violence towards his enemies (Shimei and Joab in 1 Kgs 2:5–8) during this liminal period than he manifested towards them during the highpoint of his reign.62 Susan Ackerman has probably written more on liminality than any other biblical scholar. She argues The biographers of the ancient Israelites (in other words, the biblical writers) likewise perceived their subjects to have lived a life on the margins, and this is especially true of the ancient Israelites as depicted in the stories that purport to present the earliest days of their existence, the stories found, say, in the Bible’s first six books (Genesis-Joshua), which portray the Israelites as, first, itinerant shepherds, then as slaves and next as peripatetic wanderers in the wilderness, before finally describing them as establishing themselves as a politically and religiously united confederation within the “promised land.”.63

59

Turner, The Forest of Symbols, 105: “During the liminal period, neophytes are alternately forced and encouraged to think about their society, their cosmos, and the powers that generate and sustain them. Liminality may be partly described as a stage of reflection. It is those ideas, sentiments, and facts that had been hitherto for the neophytes bound up in configurations and accepted unthinkingly are, as it were, resolved into their constituents.” 60 Ibid., 106. 61 L. Perdue, “Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instructions,” ZAW 93 (1981) 124. 62 Ibid., “Joab’s murder is based on the ancient tradition of blood vengeance, while Shimei’s curse was considered destructive unless counteracted by his death. Equally important is the reflection of a court ethic that realizes the necessity of severe and even callous political decisions. And we contend that the instruction here as elsewhere is meant to mould the proper behavior and attitudes befitting a wise ruler.” 63 S. Ackerman, When Heroes Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (Gender, Theory, and Religion; New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) 98.

.

Introduction

13

Ackermann holds that David was initially presented in a “very liminal way”64 as one who shifts and changes in much the same way as “liminal entities.”65 Yet, Ackermann does not see David as the paradigmatic experience of liminality; rather, the Exodus contains the most powerful presentation of the “rites of passage pattern.”66 Other scholars have also seemed to come to this conclusion independently. Thomas Dozeman understands the Exodus as separation from Egypt and reincorporation into a new social structure in Canaan.67 This time of separation can be seen as Israelites serving “as model for subsequent generations.”68 If one accepts the Exodus as paradigmatic for pilgrimage, both appear “as a separation from the realm of the profane into the realm of the holy which increases in the progression toward the shrine.”69 Hendel sees Moses as “the human agent of this rite of passage and, appropriately, he has already experienced this passage himself. In the story of his birth he is born a slave, the son of Hebrews, who gains a new status as a free person 64

Ibid., 200: “The first of the two narratives that introduce David, 1 Sam 16:1–13, presents him in a very liminal way, as he is both depicted as the lowest of the low, as a shepherd boy and the youngest of many sons (v 11), yet simultaneously described in the most exalted of terms, as the one designated by Israel’s God Yahweh to be his people’s next king (vv 12–13).” 65 Ibid., 201: “David by this account therefore represents a character who is neither fully courtier nor fully peasant, but rather one who ‘seems to shift and change,’ in much the same way that ‘liminal entities,’ according to Turner in The Ritual Process [The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. (Symbol, Myth, and Ritual Series. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977.)], ‘are neither here nor there, they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial.’” 66 Ibid., 216: “Nor, I might add, are liminal imagery and the rites-of-passage pattern as powerfully present in the 1 Samuel materials as I believe they are elsewhere in the biblical tradition, in, for example, the story of the Israelites’ exodus out of Egypt and their transformation form slaves into a free people (after, notably, forty years of wilderness tests, trials, and sacred revelations).” 67 T. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) 348: “The marginal location of the Israelite people during the wilderness journey is important for the thematic development of the second half of the book of Exodus. The separation from the social structure of slavery in Egypt propels the Israelites into the liminal space of the wilderness where they journey toward the promised land, but are not yet reincorporated into a new social structure in Canaan. V. Turner characterizes liminality as a time of ambiguity, when participants are ‘betwixtand-between’ recognized social structures, and thus momentarily free of past constraints. The liminal phase in a rite of passage, according to Turner, is a time of trial and testing where participants enter as a tabula rasa in order to undergo initiation, to experience role reversals, and to create community.” 68 M. S. Smith, and E. M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSS 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 80. 69 Ibid., 56. The shrine in Exodus would be Mt. Sinai.

14

Chapter 1

as a result of his passage into and deliverance from the Nile.”70 Hendel sees Moses and Jacob as paradigmatic heroes71 in the OT, and the narratives about them focus on liminal episodes.72 Since this is a model from the social sciences (anthropology), it is not surprising that the language of social status comes up repeatedly. Many of the biblical scholars have seen the liminal state as preparation for status elevation as was the case with Solomon and David, as well as the scribes who were learning wisdom literature.73 Contemporary social psychology has also come to look at liminality in slightly different terms as edgework.74 “Edgework involves not only activity specific skills but also a general ability to maintain control of a situation that verges on total chaos. It is this ability that edgeworkers believe most determines success or failure in negotiating the edge, and the chance to exercise this ‘survival skill’ seems to be what they value most.”75 Although Stephen Lyng writes about contemporary Americans, he stresses that “the self-determining character of edgework is specific to certain types of societies or groups in a given 70 R. Hendel, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory,” JBL 120 (2001) 617. He also makes the point that “Moses experiences and bridges the categories of slave and free man, making him an apt mediator for the transformation of his people.” 71 S. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (2nd ed.; New Voices in Biblical Studies; Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000) 10: “Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism has much to teach us about the dynamics of biblical narrative, about the symbol structures of Israelite literature and cult, and about the marginality, the in-betweenness, characterizing the biblical heroes of this study.” 72 Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch, 138–39: “The concept of ‘rites of passage’ is important here: since the hero is a liminal figure, situated on the margin of the human world and the divine world, the liminal moments in the hero’s life will be the subject of great interest. . . . The stories of the life of Jacob and the life of Moses in the Pentateuchal sources are ready illustrations of the complexity and multiformity that underlie the formation of a narrative cycle about the life of a traditional hero.” 73 Perdue, “Liminality,” 119–20: “In this situation we have then social transition underway for the ‘son’ in terms of movement from household to scribal school and entrance into an extended liminal state of (120) scribal education which is preparatory for a scribal and/or official’s career. In general, on may readily note that each of these instructions points to a situation of status elevation, a form of liminality in which the recipient of the instruction is leaving his former situation in society (student, prince, and son living at home) and is in transition to a higher status: vizier, king or scribal student.” 74 S. Lyng, “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking,” The American Journal of Sociology 95 (1990) 854: “I propose that an alternative social psychological theoretical framework be used to account for participation in high-risk behavior, one that conceptualizes the proximate causes of high-risk behavior in terms of general social psychological variables rather than idiosyncratic motives or personality characteristics.” I would like to thank David Chalcraft for bringing this work to my attention. 75 Ibid., 871.

.

Introduction

15

society.”76 I believe this concept of edgework also helps to explain the behavior of our biblical edgeworkers. Mary Douglas develops a similar idea when she writes about risk acceptability.77 These risks vary from society to society, 78 but a pattern emerges in the OT of individuals who take great risks and move into liminality.

IV. Overview of Chapters Chapter Two will be devoted to the general topic of refugees in the ANE before and Chapter Three during the OT period. In Chapter Three I will examine the semantic field of refuge and distinguish it from related concepts like exile, diaspora, and criminal asylum. I will also survey both refugees and figures who seek refuge in the ANE literature outside the OT. Finally, this chapter will focus on figures in the OT who seek refuge elsewhere than in Egypt. We will see that characters seeking refuge in and outside of the OT share certain characteristics that cause them to remain important figures within their respective cultures. Chapters Four, Five, and Six, for their part, will focus more specifically on the role of Egypt as a place of refuge in the OT and the question of genre in the materials concerning this. Chapter Four examines Hadad’s and Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt. I will address the delimitation of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 in the first section. After offering a critically reconstructed translation paying special attention to the different Greek witnesses (LXXA, LXXB, LXXL, and LXXmisc), I will look at the structure and key words of this text and offer my own outline of it. Next, I will present an exegesis of this material within the framework of my outline. My exegesis will focus more on the literary questions raised by the different genres found within this material than on historical-critical questions because I believe the recognition of genres here makes some historical-critical discussions problematic. Throughout, I will analyze the image of Egypt as a place of refuge in 1 Kgs 11:12–12:24. 76

Ibid., 879. M. Douglas, Risk Acceptability according to the Social Sciences (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985) 43: “A risky situation is one governed by known probabilities. If not enough is known about the probabilities, we are dealing with uncertainties. Risk-taking in its most obvious form is the gamble. A risk-taker prefers the small probability of a large gain and the large probability of a small loss over a certain income.” 78 Ibid., 68: “The cultural standards of what constitute appropriate and improper risks emerge as part of the assignment of responsibility. They are fundamental to social life. When asked about the risks he takes, an individual has to make his answer start from some culturally established norm of due carefulness.” 77

16

Chapter 1

Chapter Five analyzes references to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah with special attention to Jeremiah’s forced flight to Egypt as portrayed in the Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45) and the image of Egypt in Jeremiah 46. I will break down the Book of Jeremiah’s references to Egypt into three categories: references to the Exodus, references to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Narrative (chaps. 36–45), and in the Baruch Narrative. After exploring these three categories, I will examine Jeremiah 46 in detail because of the concentration of references to Egypt, its history, and its cult, and because the passage offers a perspective quite different from the other references to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 46 also merits special attention because both prose and poetry from a number of time periods and perspectives appear there. Chapter Six concerns the Oniads in Egypt and the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt. 1 and 2 Maccabees both deal with Egypt as a place of refuge, especially for the Oniads. Josephus’ writings also describe Jewish refugees in Egypt. I will study these writings for better insight into Egypt’s role as a place of refuge in the time of the Maccabees. Egypt’s history as a place of refuge likewise plays an important role in stories about the early life of Jesus, with Matt 2:13–15 presenting the Holy Family as taking refuge in Egypt. I will first give a translation of Matt 2:13–15 and 19–21. I will then offer a line-by-line commentary on these two sections, highlighting the influence of the OT Moses tradition on this NT passage.

.

Chapter 2

Refuge in the Ancient Near East I. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to delimit and explain the concept of refuge in the ANE. The second section will survey refuge as a topos in ANE literature outside the OT and examine figures who seek refuge in the ANE.

II. Refuge as a Topos in ANE Literature A. Treaties and International Relations The greatest insight into refugees comes from treaties that governed relations among the major powers of the ANE. Two classes of refugees emerge from these sources: political refugees who were nobles, and lowerclass refugees who were artisans or peasants.1 From Hittite treaties, Liverani and Westbrook2 observe that nobles generally could not be extradited, while lower-class refugees like artisans and peasants could.3 The Treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Niqmepa of Ugarit states: “[if some man or woman from among] these [civilian captives] flees [and enters] your land, [you shall not think as follows: ‘Although I] am subject to the treaty and under oath, I don’t want to know anything about this]. Let them stay [in my land].’ Niqmepa shall rather seize [them and return them to the king of Hatti].”4 These types of laws seem to be the only evidence of lower-class refugees. Since laws are generally not made to govern abstract situations, it appears safe to assume the existence of lower-class refugees. Noble refugees seem to have had great value to foreign kings as possible advisors on their homelands, bargaining chips, or status symbols, but lower-class refu1

Liverani, International Relations, 68. Raymond Westbrook, “International Law in the Amarna Age,” in Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations (ed. Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000) 31. 3 Gary M. Beckman and Harry A. Hoffner, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; SBL Writings from the Ancient World 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 66. 4 Ibid. 2

18

Chapter 2

gees were often the subject of extradition clauses in these treaties5 because they had little to offer foreign leaders.6 The situation as attested in these parity treaties also seems to be the case in vassal treaties. Raymond Westbrook offers a further clarifying nuance in this regard: “The reason for not automatically granting extradition . . . lay rather in the issue of sovereignty. The right to grant asylum was a defining feature of a sovereign state; to relinquish it was to relinquish something of one’s independence. Thus a vassal was under an obligation to extradite fugitives from the overlord’s jurisdiction, but the overlord was under no reciprocal approach.”7 Just as nobles find themselves in a stronger position than the lower class, powerful nations also demand a stronger position than weaker states. Weaker states do not receive fugitives from more powerful states. This human traffic only moves in one direction. This pattern of traffic is evident from the many other treaties and interactions in the ANE, particularly during the Amarna Period. Two competing interests pulled at the governments of this time: (1) hospitality and (2) extradition in order to maintain social control and good relations with other powerful governments.8 Hospitality often languished as Realpolitik exercised enormous control in different situations. Hittite kings such as Shuppiluliuma I (1370–42)9 could be quite receptive to Mittani refugees of high status, but when similar such refugees went to Babylonia in the same period, they were quickly executed,10 a state of affairs likely due to the fact that Babylonia was focused on its internal affairs, while Hatti had an eye on international affairs at the time. 5 Snell, Flight and Freedom, 87: “International treaties date from the third millennium, and their number grows in the second and first millennia, and a common element is the agreement to return each other’s refugees.” 6 Liverani, International Relations, 69. 7 R. Westbrook, “Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 128 (2008) 320. 8 Liverani, International Relations, 68: “the unwritten customary rule (connected with the rules of hospitality) emphasizes the duty of protecting the refugee and this is obviously inconsistent with an insistence on the right to his extradition. A written document is necessary if an agreement has been made to the contrary, as is the case with Late Bronze treaties including extradition clauses.” 9 Ibid.: “The same text [Treaty between Suppiluliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mitanni] narrates the contrasting fate of another Mitannian refugee, Aki-Teshub, who with 200 chariots had fled to Babylon. However, the Babylonian king seized the chariots and killed Aki-Teshub and his charioteers. Aki-Teshub was probably as likely a candidate for a political use as Shattiwaza [king of Mitanni, ca. 1350]; he also appears to have been more powerful. Unfortunately for him, he chose the wrong direction in which to flee. Hatti was interested in welcoming political refugees from Assyrian-backed Mittani but, at least at that time, Babylon was not. Aki-Teshub arrived in Babylon when the negotiations for the marriage of the Babylonian king with an Assyrian princess were about to start – so that his fate was only a minor consequence of the attempt by the Assyrian king to establish his influence on Babylonia.” 10 Ibid., 70.

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

19

B. Sinuhe11 1. Introduction The following is based on Lichtheim’s translation and focuses on ideas of refuge within the story. The earliest papyrus is found in Hieratic and is considered “the most accomplished piece of Middle Kingdom prose literature.”12 “Two papyri of Dynasties 12 and 13 [1985–1650] provide a fairly complete text.”13 Sinuhe served Princess Nefru, the wife of Senusret I (1956–11) in this propagandistic literary narrative with no trace of a real Sinuhe in “tomb reliefs, statuary, or stelae.”14 The story begins with the death of Amenemhat I (1985–56). Sinuhe feels ill at ease during the interregnum and decides to flee. After much success in Syria, he realizes the importance of reconciliation with his king and the necessity of a traditional burial in Egypt. 2. Primary Source But the royal sons who had been with him on this expedition had also been sent for. One of them was summoned while I was standing (there). I heard his voice, as he spoke, while I was standing in the near distance. My heart fluttered, my arms spread out, a trembling befell all my limbs. I removed myself in leaps, to seek a hiding place. I put myself between two bushes, so as to leave the road to its traveler. I set out southward. I did not plan to go to the residence. I believed there would be turmoil and did not expect to survive it. I crossed Maaty near Sycamore; I reached Isle-of-Sneferu. I spent the day there at the edge of the cultivation. . . . At dinnertime I reached “Cattle Quay.” I crossed in a barge without a rudder, by the force of the westwind. . . . I reached the “Walls of the Ruler,” which were made to repel the Asiatics and to crush the Sand-farers. I crouched in a bush for fear of being seen by the guard on duty upon the 11 For a translation of the story, see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973) 1. 222– 35. It was first published by Alan Gardiner, “Die Erzählung des Sinuhe und die Hirtengeschichte,” in Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches: Hieratische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin (Ed. Adolf Erman; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909). Some important articles on Sinuhe include: John Baines, “Interpreting Sinuhe.” JEA 68 (1982) 31–44, R. B. Parkinson, “Individual and Society in Middle Kingdom Literature,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996), and Anthony Spalinger “Orientations on Sinuhe.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 25 (1998) 311–39. 12 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1:222. 13 William Kelly Simpson and Robert Kriech Ritner, The Literature of Ancient Egypt : An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (3rd ed.; New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2003) 54. 14 Ibid.

20

Chapter 2

wall. I set out at night. . . . I raised my heart and collected myself when I heard the lowing sound of cattle and saw Asiatics. One of their leaders, who had been in Egypt, recognized me. He gave me water and boiled milk for me. What they did for me was good. . . . He said to me: “Why have you come here? Has something happened at the residence?” I said to him: “King Sehetepibre departed to the horizon, and one did not know the circumstances.” But I spoke in half truths: “When I returned from the expedition to the land of the Tjemeh, it was reported to me and my heart grew faint. It carried me away on the path of flight, though I had not been talked about; no one had spat in my face; I had not heard a reproach; my name had not been heard in the mouth of the herald. I do not know what brought me to this country; it is as if planned by a god. . . .” He set me at the head of his children. He married me to his eldest daughter. He let me choose for myself of his land, of the best that was his, on his border with another land. . . . Whichever god decreed this flight, have mercy, bring me home! Surely you will let me see the place in which my heart dwells! What is more important than that my corpse be buried in the land in which I was born. . . . Now when the majesty of King Kheherkare was told of the condition in which I was, his majesty sent word to me with royal gifts, in order to gladden the heart of this servant like that of a foreign ruler. . . . Come back to Egypt! See the residence in which you lived! Kiss the ground at the great portals, mingle with the courtiers! For today you have begun to age. You have lost a man’s strength. Think of the day of burial, the passing into reveredness. . . . Lo, this flight which the servant made – I did not plan it. It was not in my heart; I did not devise it. I do not know what removed me from my place. . . . His majesty said to one of his courtiers: “Lift him up, let him speak to me.” Then his majesty said: “Now you have come, after having roamed foreign lands. Flight has taken its toll of you. You have aged, have reached old age. . . . Every servant was at his task. Years were removed from my body. I was shaved; my hair was combed. Thus was my squalor returned to the foreign land, my dress to the Sand-farers. I was clothed in fine linen; I was anointed with fine oil. 3. Analysis Sinuhe may represent the earliest political refugee in world literature. He is a classic example of a high-status exile who finds refuge in a foreign land.

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

21

Much debate surrounded the genre of the story, 15 but most modern commentators understand it as a literary tale.16 In any case, Sinuhe offers a good illustration of a high-status exile who tries to maintain his status by incorporating into another society while he is in the liminal position, living outside Egypt in Palestine. The danger in his story appears early as a result of palace intrigue, but his flight removes him from the danger without much of the danger one expects in the transitional world. As noted in Chapter One, the concept of edgework “allows us to view high-risk behavior as involving, most fundamentally, the problem of negotiating the boundary between chaos and order.”17 Sinuhe negotiates this boundary adeptly. He flees the risk of a chaotic situation involving succession and quickly applies his unique skill of edgework to establish a boundary between order and disorder in his new home in Syria. He demonstrates the perfect balance between spontaneity and constraint. Sinuhe’s story is a simple one, set in the Middle Kingdom (2050–1650). He became aware of troubles at the Egyptian royal court that he believed could ultimately lead to his own death as attendant of the Royal Wife of King Sesotris. He took the pragmatic route and fled the situation, which made him look guiltier than he was. He achieved great prosperity in Retjenu, the West Asian (probably Syrian) land of his exile. In a story not unlike that of David and Goliath, a “strong man without equal” appeared who challenged Sinuhe to a fight and threatened to ruin him by plundering his cattle. Sinuhe took advantage of this second test to redeem himself. Instead of running away again, he defeated the challenger. Here the danger and risk of crossing thresholds appears again.18 Here, he manifests a tolerance for danger and risk that undoes the experience of shame and guilt from Egypt. This victory allowed Sinuhe to reevaluate his life,19 and he subse-

15 Anthony Spalinger, “Orientations on Sinuhe,” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 25 (1998) 311: “Whereas modern Egyptology has begun to wrench itself away from a positivistic approach wherein the backdrop of such tales looms far more great than the actual purpose of the author, it nonetheless remains the case that the present attempt to straight jacket the Story of Sinuhe into a mirror of society – whether it be Asiatic or Egyptian is not important – does harm to its aim.” 16 Simpson, Literature of Ancient Egypt, 54; Susan Hollis, The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study (2nd ed.; Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008) 193: “they appear delineated in fictional, mythical, or allegorical terms as in Sinuhe, the ‘Contendings of Horus and Seth,’ and the Westcar Papyrus.” 17 Lyng, “Edgework,” 855. 18 Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch, 67: “Crossing thresholds, whether sacral or geographical, is an act that involves danger and risk, whether physical or spiritual.” 19 Turner, The Forest of Symbols, 105.

22

Chapter 2

quently yearned for and accepted an invitation to return to his homeland.20 The tale ends happily, as Sinuhe’s return to Egypt occurs without problems. This tale demonstrates an important pattern. As we have seen, refuge and flight are often tied closely together. The sudden flight of individuals seems to suggest a temporary duration for their expatriation. This is certainly the case with Sinuhe. In spite of all his success in Retjenu, he deeply desires to return to Egypt.21 Here, flight from an adversary or an unpleasant situation seems to deepen the desire to return to one’s homeland. Sinuhe’s high Egyptian status as attendant of the Royal Wife of King Sesotris is replicated in Retjenu with another position of high status. Although he moves from incorporation in the Egyptian palace to liminality in the backwaters of Retjenu, he eventually emerges as a relatively powerful person in Retjenu, where he overcomes a “champion without equals.” Important fugitives try to maintain their status in exile as a way to regain their earlier position as quickly as possible and return home. Sinuhe is a perfect example of Raymond Westbrook’s high-status refugee: “In summary, for the privileged few who had relatives or connections abroad, personal exile offered the possibility of asylum and a tolerable expatriate existence, with the hope of return home if ever the political winds shifted.”22 The political winds did indeed shift for Sinuhe, and he returned home.

20 Ibid., 327: “As his removal from home is paralleled by his physical and metaphorical transfiguration into an Outlander, so his decision to return is painted in literal as well as figurative language. It is not merely that Sinuhe will wear Egyptian clothes again, that he will be oiled as an Egyptian, or that he has to throw off all his traces of foreignness such as the sand which he was used to. No hairy barbarian dressing in multicolored caftans will represent his Asiatic character; now he is Egyptian.” 21 John Baines, “Interpreting Sinuhe,” JEA 68 (1982) 37: “Flight from Egypt and Egyptian values is difficult to accomplish and intensely painful. An Egyptian may succeed in another type of life abroad, but his success is hollow, because the greatest triumph is nothing to a position of modest esteem in Egypt.” 22 Westbrook, “Personal Exile,” 323.

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

23

C. Idrimi23 1. Introduction The following is based on Oppenheim’s translation and focuses on flight and liminalty. The statue of King Idrimi of Alalakh seated on his throne was found in 1939 at Atchana in Syria,24 but the translation was not published until 1949. It was written in Akkadian. Idrimi was a son of the royal house of Aleppo (Haleb) who was forced to flee after an evil deed. He first fled to his mother’s family in Emar. Then he fled to the Hapiru people in Canaan, who recognized him as the son of their overlord. He lived among them for seven years. He gathered soldiers among the Hapiru and eventually gained control of Alalakh. Although the Hurrian/Mittani resisted him at first, their king (Barattarna) came to recognize him as a loyal vassal in control of Alalakh. Idrimi has been dated to 1500,25 but it was found in a temple that was destroyed nearly 300 years later in 1200.26 2. Primary Source An evil deed happened in Helab, the seat of my family, and we fled to the people of Emar, brothers of my mother, and we lived (then) in Emar. My brothers, who were older than I, stayed with me but none of them had the plans I had. I (said to) myself: “Whoever owns the seat of his family is a [. . .] (while) who does not is but a slave in the eyes of the people of Emar! (So) I took with me my horse, my chariot, and my groom, went away and crossed into the region of the Sutian warriors. I stayed with them (once) overnight in my [. . .] chariot, but the next day I moved on and went to the land of Canaan. . . . There I grew up and stayed for a long time. For seven years I lived among the Hapiru-people. . . . However, for seven years, Barattarna, the mighty king, the king of the Hurrian warriors, treated me as an enemy. In the seventh year, I sent Anuanda (as messenger) to King Barattarna, the king of the {Hurrian} warriors, and told (him) about the services of my forefathers when my fo23

For a translation of the story of Idrimi, see A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Story of Idrimi, King of Alalakh,” in ANET, 1.557–58. The editio princeps is Sidney Smith, The Statue of Idri-Mi (London: British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949). Important articles on Idrimi include Edward Greenstein and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” JNES 8 (1976) 59–96 and Jack M. Sasson “On Idrimi and Sarruwa, the Scribe” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 29, 1981 (ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 309–24. 24 Oppenheim, “Idrimi,” 1.557. 25 Snell, Flight and Freedom, 108. 26 Edward Greenstein, “Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia” in Civilizations of the Ancient near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995) 2423.

24

Chapter 2

refathers had been in their (the king’s) service and (when) what we had said was pleasing to the kings of the Hurrian warriors, and (that) they had made an alliance based on a solemn oath among themselves. The mighty king heard of our former services and of the oath that they had sworn to each other – they had read the wording of the oath to him, word by word, as well as (the list of) our services. He accepted my messenger (lit.: my greeting). I increased the gifts indicating my loyalty, which were heavy, and returned to him (his) lost household. I swore him a mighty oath as to my status as a loyal vassal. And so I became king in charge of Alalakh. . . . 3. Analysis Whereas Sinuhe is primarily known as a literary tale, Idrimi is a monumental inscription. As noted previously in Chapter One, opinions vary wildly once again on the historicity of the figure. Edward L. Greenstein represents the most historically optimistic reading of the evidence, arguing that the statue “may have been commissioned by Idrimi, but it was composed after his death. The scribe, Sharruwa, is known to have worked in the employ of Idrimi’s son and royal successor Niqmepa.”27 Marc van de Mieroop’s view is probably closer to the mark, however, when he states that it “should not be taken too literally.”28 Other critics also note the highly literary nature of this story. For example, Jack M. Sasson avers: “Because of their programmatic structure, it is likely, therefore, that, whatever their historical merits, lines 64–91 of Idrimi’s narrative are shaped by literary considerations no less than the previous passages which are manifestly folkloristic in inspiration.”29 Likewise, Snell classifies Idrimi as both a monumental and literary text and discusses its literary aspects.30 These literary aspects have much in common with features of Sinuhe’s story. Initially, Idrimi’s story starts in a rather mysterious way. In a way that is reminiscent of Sinuhe’s predicament, an evil deed occured in his native Aleppo that forced Idrimi into exile. He initially fled to his mother’s 27

Greenstein, “Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia,” 2425. van de Mieroop, Eastern Mediterranean, 17. 29 Sasson, “On Idrimi and Sarruwa, the Scribe,” 315. 30 Snell, Flight and Freedom, 108–110. Snell offers a long citation from the story of Idrimi in these pages as well as a summary. He compares the story of Idrimi to the stories of both Sinuhe and King David here. He states on p. 108: “Noteworthy are the pair of political tales from Syria [the other is the story of King David] in the middle of the second and early first millennium. About 1500 a young man, the Syrian prince Idrimi, found himself forced to flee into exile, and his laconic monumental inscription on a rather ugly statue of himself recounts his adventures, which allowed him to collect a force of warriors and eventually to recapture the capital city of his fathers, Alalakh in Syria, now in Turkey, where his inscription was found.” 28

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

25

people in Emar, but felt like a slave there. He then moved on to the Ɨpiru-people31, who made him a chief after they discovered that he was the son of an overlord. He succeeded in ruling these people and gaining the respect of the tribes around him. Finally, he became king of Alalakh, where he gained more booty and wealth, not again unlike Sinuhe. Although Idrimi never returned to his Aleppo home, he did succeed in regaining his high status. He raised an army among his foreign hosts and eventually returned to rule a country near his homeland. Commentators have noted similarities between Idrimi and Sinuhe in the stories of exile. Westbrook distinguishes the flights of Idrimi and Sinuhe from the situation of a runaway slave: “It [personal exile] is also the reserve of the free. Exile is forcible separation from one’s home. The runaway slave does not regard what he leaves behind him as his home.”32 Greenstein also argues for the distinctiveness of these stories of flight. Idrimi’s position as high-status refugee is quite rare in Mesopotamian literature: “The lengthy narrative of Idrimi’s adventures in obtaining and securing his throne is unlike any Mesopotamian text and has its closest parallels in the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe and the biblical stories of Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jephthah, David, and Nehemiah.”33 The Idrimi narrative also features other topics that are unusual in ancient literature. Like Sinuhe, Idrimi faces issues of homelessness, alienation, and humiliation. In order to overcome these difficulties, Idrimi lives a peripatetic existence, all the while planning his return to dominance.34 As in the case of Sinuhe, his comeback is a circular trajectory back to a position of importance. Both Sinuhe and Idrimi look back to the high status that they had to abandon, and they yearn to be restored to that status in the future. 31 Michael Fieger and Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Der Einzug in Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Josefsgeschichte (Das Alte Testament im Dialog 1; Bern: Peter Lang, 2007) 95: “Der ägyptische Ausdruck ‘Hapiru’ bezeichnet ursprünglich wohl einen Flüchtling, wird jedoch auch für ‘Räuber’ gebraucht.” This usage gives us a certain insight into the ambivalent position of a refugee in the ancient world. 32 Westbrook, “Personal Exile,” 317, n. 3. 33 Edward Greenstein and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Insciption of Idrimi.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 8 (1976) 64. 34 Ibid.: “this civic achievement [Idrimi’s providing safe habitations for those who have none] of Idrimi is made particularly poignant because it is preceded by a narrative in which the hero has been dislocated from his home and must travel from place to place to prepare and launch his comeback. The inhabitants of Idrimi’s realm will not be homeless, as he was for so long. Homelessness and alienation (as in the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe), as well as humiliation, are the personal ills Idrimi explicitly seeks to remedy.” I believe Greenstein is a little romantic here. Although Idrimi is certainly responsible for a civic achievement according to the narrative, the achievement results from the attempt to regain power through the loyalty of his subjects rather than to only meet the needs of the inhabitants. The treaties that Idrimi signs (see footnote 63 below) will demonstrate no compassion for others in flight.

26

Chapter 2

Our stories of high-status refugees all share this yearning for a restoration to power. Idrimi was acutely aware of his fall from grace: “Idrimi’s experience as a fugitive himself seems not to have colored his later thought or made him more sympathetic to fugitives. These two texts [Sinuhe and Idrimi] give us a rare insight into ruling class attitudes and show that class considerations in this case overcame any possible effect of experience.”35 Since Idrimi later signed a treaty36 in which he agreed to the return of runaway slaves,37 commentators believe his experiences as a refugee left him unchanged. High-status exiles represented a threat to their homeland in a completely different way than did runaway slaves.38 They usually sought to return from their liminality to previous centrality and importance, as Idrimi did by raising an army of Ɨpiru39 and menacing the kingdoms around him. We know that the Egyptians employed the Ɨpiru as mercenaries as far away as Nubia.40 Idrimi’s association with mercenaries must then have put the leaders of Mittani on edge. Although he found himself in a liminal state with the Ɨpiru, he used his association with this “third force” in order to pivot himself back to the center. Idrimi was not content to remain an underling.41 We find both Sinuhe and Idrimi selecting favora35

Snell, Flight and Freedom, 110. Gary Beckman, “International Law in the Second Millennium,” 754: “Various compositions of Hittite monarchs, particularly the ‘annals’ of several kings, and Egyptian royal inscriptions provide information on international relations: on hostile and peaceful interaction with subordinate and independent foreign polities, on trade, on the treatment of fugitives, messengers, and other foreigners. The inscription on the statue of King Idrimi of Alalakh describes the conclusion of a written peace treaty with his suzerain, the king of Mittani.” 37 Ibid., 762: “Any person who flees from Hatti, whether nobleman implicated in palace intrigue or humble artisan or peasant escaping taxes and corveé, must be extradited upon demand. Repatriated refugees must not be mistreated. It was obviously important that influential person be denied a platform from which to plot against the Great King, and the general manpower shortage characteristic of the Late Bronze Age led to a concern for maintaining a stable labor force. While the Hittite monarch in turn pledges to send fugitives back to Egypt, Hatti is not obligated to return runaways to vassals. Note the sole topic of the treaty between Alalakh and Kizzuwatna is the return of fugitives.” 38 Snell, Flight and Freedom, 86: “As in the case of the exiled Syrian prince Idrimi . . . a free exile, if he were well-connected, could raise an army among his foreign hosts and eventually return to rule in the place of those who had made his life unpleasant. Thus rulers would try to require the return of exiled free persons who were revolutionaries.” 39 Van de Mieroop, Eastern Mediterranean, 49: “Most scholars today see Habiru as a generic term indicating dislocated members from tribal and urban societies. They have been described as a ‘third force,’ neither sedentary nor properly nomadic.” 40 Ibid., 50: “The Egyptians used Habiru in Nubia.” 41 Marc van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East, Ca. 3000–323 BC (Blackwell History of the Ancient World; Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004) 142: “Unhappy at remaining an underling there, Idrimi decided to leave the city and to roam the countryside of Canaan, where he became a leading habiru warrior, i.e., a leader of seminomadic social outcasts. With his power behind him he captured the city of Alalakh and 36

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

27

ble opportunities in order to return to their positions of power. Sinuhe confronts a “champion without equal” and then returns to his high-status position in Egypt. Idrimi shows leadership by putting a “third force” to work destabilizing northern Canaan until he secures his own kingdom and concludes treaties recognizing his status once again. D. Urhi-Teshub42 1. Introduction The following is based on Th. P. J. van den Hout’s translation and focuses on flight. This is an unusual source because it is told from the perspective of the oppressor who caused Urhi-Teshub to go in flight. attuša (modern Bo÷asköy, Turkey) was discovered in 1834,43 but it was not comprehensively excavated until 1906.44 Publications from this ongoing dig started in 1921. The translation is from Hittite and comes from the “state archives discovered at the Hittite capital of Khattusha.”45 The terminus post quem for the composition of the text is Ramsses II’s treaty with the Hittites in 1259.46 The text comes from a decree instituting the cult of Ishtar in which Hattušili III justifies his usurpation of King Urhi-Teshub, the son of his brother, who was also king.47 2. Primary Source [When] my [bro]ther became [go]d – because I [co]mmanded [att]uša and (because) he had[...] me in lordship, I di[d] not [do] anything (evil) out of regard for [the love] for [m]y br[other. T]herefore, sin[ce] my brother did not have a [l]egitimate son, I took up Uritešub, son of a concubine. [I put] him into lordship over [a]tti Land and laid all of [attuša] in (his)

its surroundings. Then he contacted the Mittanian king, Parrattarna, who endorsed Idrimi’s rule of the city and made him his vassal.” 42 For a translation of the material concerning Urhi-Teshub, see Th. P. J. van den Hout, “Apology of attuili,” in COS (3 vols.; ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1997–2002) 1. 199–204. The first publication of this material appears to be Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Vorderasiatische Abteilung; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1921–). Important background for this material includes the following two texts: (1) Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) and (2) Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and Their World (SBLABS 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). 43 Collins, The Hittites, 1. 44 Ibid., 5. 45 Gregory McMahon, “Theology, Priests and Worship in Hittite Anatolia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient near East (Ed. Jack M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995) 1981. 46 van den Hout, “Apology of attuili,” 1:199. 47 Ibid.

28

Chapter 2

hand, so that he was Great King over the atti Land, while I was king of akpiš. . . . However, when Uritešub thus saw the benevolence [o]f the goddess towards me, he became envious of me, he [beg]an to harm me: he took away from me all those in my service, and (all) the desolate countries which I had resettled, those too he took away from me. He humiliated me, but at the behest of the goddess he did not take away akpiš from me. Be[cau]se I was priest to the Storm-god Nerik, he therefore did not take that (city) away from me (either). Out of regard for the love for my brother I did not react at all and during seven years I complied. He, however, sought my destruction at divine and human behest and he took away from me akpiš and Nerik. Now I no longer complied and I became hostile to him. But when I became hostile to him, I did not commit a moral offence by revolting against him within (his) house. (No,) in a manly way I declared to him: “You opposed me. You (are) Great King, whereas I (am) king of the single fortress that you left me. So come! Ištar of Šamua and the Stormgod of Nerik will judge us.” When I wrote thus to Uritešub – if someone speaks thus: “Why did you at first install him in kingship, but why do you now declare war on him in writing?” (I will answer:) “If he had in no way opposed me, would they (i.e. the gods) really have made a Great King succumb to a petty king?” Because he has now opposed me, the gods have made him succumb to me by (their) judgment. . . . To the generals whom Uritešub had dismissed to some place, Ištar appeared in a dream, while she strengthened them, the exhausted ones (saying): “All atti lands I have turned over to attušili.” There, too, I experienced the divine providence of Ištar in abundance. When she had left Uritešub no other way whatsoever, she locked him up in Šamua like a pig in a sty. The Kaškeans, meanwhile, who had been hostile to me, backed me and all attuša backed me. Out of regard for the love of my brother I did not do anything (evil). I went to Uritešub and brought him down like a prisoner. I gave him fortified cities in the land of Nuašše and there he lived. When he plotted another plot against me, and wanted to ride to Babylon – when I heard the matter, I seized him and sent him alongside the sea. They made Šippaziti cross the border as well, while I took away his property and gave it to Ištar, My Lady, I gave, while Ištar, My Lady, promoted me step by step. 3. Analysis Urhi-Teub (ruled ca. 1272–1267) sought many places of refuge in the ANE. Despite the fact that this Hittite prince was the son of a concubine,

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

29

his father, Muwatalli “clearly intended that his son should succeed him.”48 Muwatalli had expelled his queen, Danuhepa, and her son from the capital.49 He wanted a different son (Urhi-Teshub) to succeed him. UrhiTeshub succeeded his father, but his weakness was quickly exposed after the death of his father. Although he ruled for five years and made some significant policy decisions (such as moving the capital back to Hattusa and readmitting the queen to the capital), his uncle Hattusili eventually usurped the throne from him. Part of the difficulty in understanding this history is that “Urhi-Teshub adopted the throne name Mursili III, which is attested on a number of seal impressions. Outside of the seals, we are forced to view Mursili’s reign through the hostile eyes of his uncle Hattusili, who would usurp his throne in a bitter civil war a few years later. Initially, however, Hattusili, claims to have supported the succession, even taking credit for installing Urhi-Teshub in kingship. . . .”50 Hattusili’s Apology suggests both the illegitimacy of his actions and the continuing power of Urhi-Teshub.51 Urhi-Teshub’s unusual role derives from the fact that Hattusili initially exiled him to “Nuhasse, [a Syrian region south of Aleppo] where he was given fortified cities to govern.”52 This benevolent treatment may also be as a result of the unpopularity of the latter’s usurpation.53 Urhi-Teshub reacts to Hattusili’s benevolent treatment in the same way as other highstatus refugees did: he sees it as an opportunity to return from liminality to importance. He contacts the king of Babylonia, and Hattusili quickly relocates him to a secure coastal site more closely affiliated with Hatti.54 The exact details of this second exile are quite obscure; some place it on the Anatolian coast,55 others speculate that the location was Cyprus,56 while 48

Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 275. Collins, The Hittites, 56. 50 Collins, The Hittites, 56. 51 Van de Mieroop, The Eastern Mediterranean, 94: Regarding Hattusili’s Apology and Urhi-Teshub, he states: “In it he invoked the goddess Ishtar’s encouragement and argued that Urhi-Teshub’s use of sorcery had forced him to act. The need to write an Apology indicates that he could not expect passive acquiescence from the upper levels of Hittite society and that he had to convince people of the legitimacy of his case.” 52 Collins, The Hittites, 60. 53 Ibid. Concerning Hattusili’s coup, she remarks: “In actuality, the reaction of friend and foe alike appears to have been mixed. Within Hattusa [the Hittite capital] itself, as is evident from a proclamation that Hattusili made to its citizens right after his accession, there were fences to mend.” 54 Ibid. 55 Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, “The Early and Late Phases of Urhi-Tesub’s Career,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. K. Bittel; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1974) 146. 56 Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 291. 49

30

Chapter 2

still others just call it a coastal region. Urhi-Teshub’s whereabouts become even more confusing after this exile. Most scholars believe that he went to Ramesses57 II of Egypt 58 for refuge at this point, although the matter is widely debated.59 I have been unable to find irrefutable evidence of UrhiTeshub’s presence in Egypt, but Trevor Bryce claims that there “can be little doubt” that Urhi-Teshub was the subject of the letters between Ramesses II and Hattusili concerning an enemy of Hattusili.60 What is clear is Urhi-Teshub’s resistance to his liminal status. His Hittite enemies believed that he was in Egypt.61 Hattusili asked for the extradition of an unnamed enemy, but Ramesses refused.62 After Ramesses II’s treaty with the Hittites in 1259, “Kupanta-Kurunta, king of Mira, wrote to Ramesses regarding Urhi-Teshub’s situation, Ramesses simply referred him to the treaty and endorsed Hattusili’s handling of the matter.”63 Unlike Idrimi and Sinuhe, Urhi-Teshub was never able to get himself restored to power, yet he never seems to have stopped trying to return to centrality. In a later correspondence between Tudhaliyas and Tukulti-Ninurta I, they discuss Urhi-Teshub trying to contact Shalmaneser I of Assyria.64

57 There are many spellings of the Middle Egyptian. I use the Hellenized form rather than a strict transliteration from Middle Egyptian. 58 Collins, The Hittites, 60. 59 Itamar Singer, “The Urhi-Tessub Affair in the Hittite-Egyptian Correspondence,” in The Life and Times of Hattusili III and Tuthaliya: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of J. De Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden (ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout and C. H. van Zoest; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006) 32: Certain letters “seem to support Ramses’s claim that Urhi-Tessub was not to be found in Egyptian-held territory, and thus, he could not comply with his correspondent’s persistent demand.” 60 Bryce, Letters of the Great Kings, 215. 61 Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, “The Sudden Return of Urhi-Tessub to his Former Place of Banishment in Syria,” in The Life and Times of Hattusili III (ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout and C. H. van Zoest) 3: “Hattusilis III and Puduhepa had understood that their best interests were served by a sort of luxurious internment of their most dangerous enemy [Urhi-Tessub] in Egypt. . . .” 62 Collins, The Hittites, 61. 63 Ibid. 64 Houwink ten Cate, “Urhi-Tesub’s Career,” 147: “It is fairly likely his letter to Shalmaneser I – referred to in later correspondence between Tudhaliyas and TukultiNinurta I – should be viewed in a similar perspective. It seems as even [sic] after 1272 B.C. – the now customarily accepted date for Shalmaneser’s accession in Assur – UrhiTesub still hoped for a foreign intervention which might enable him to return to Hattusas or at least thought it useful to contact such a possible ally. Although the details of his later career remain obscure, the general theme is well-recognizable: he had not resigned himself to the outcome of the struggle for power between him and Hattusilis and repeatedly tried to better his personal fate and to advance his political chances” [my emphasis].

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

31

The idea of exile emerges as another important point in the Hittite struggle for power. No one would doubt Urhi-Teshub’s status as exile, but some claim that his successor, Hattusili, was also an exile65 because he was forced to rule as a governor of a Hittite territory. For example, Billie Jean Collins sees Hattusili as similar to Idrimi or Sinuhe, someone who went away only to return to power: “Other folkloristic elements pervade Hattusili’s text. His ‘exile’ as governor of the Upper Land, his period of waiting as Mursili III sat on the throne, his restoration to a leadership position (the kingship of Hatti), and his establishment of a cult to honor his divine patron are elements that can be found in many Near Eastern (Egyptian Sinuhe, Idrimi of Alalakh) and biblical (Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David) stories.”66 I highlight Collins’s statement because it concerns many figures important to this study. Although Hattusili shares important similarities with Sinuhe, Idrimi, and David, a key difference distinguishes him from all these figures: Hattusili did not flee as they did. It is not clear that he was even exiled, since serving as a governor seems like a normal role for a prince who does not have right of succession. Given that he was a prince with no claim to succession rather than a king, Hattusili’s designation as governor of an upper land of Hatti was by no means a punishment. Most importantly, he remained within Hatti. He never took recourse to flight, as refugees or exiles do. As we have already noted, both Sinuhe and Idrimi fled their countries of origin. Hattusili, by contrast, played the role expected of a prince with no claim to succession. Hattusili did not undergo a dramatic loss of power in his role as governor of the upper land, as Sinuhe and Idrimi suffered after flight from their respective homelands. So could Hattusili truly be considered an exile? Although Urhi-Teshub’s descent into exile and liminality does not commence as dramatically as those of Idrimi and Sinuhe, his flight was like theirs. Hattusili first eased him into exile by making him governor of the fortified cities around Nuhasse, a move that did not work out because Urhi-Teshub attempted to regain power. After Hattusili moved him to a coastal location, Urhi-Teshub took recourse to flight. No one knew where he was. Urhi-Teshub’s flight marks a dramatic difference from Hattusili’s experience. Urhi-Teshub, Sinuhe, and Idrimi become liminal figures with their respective flights. Unlike Hattusili, these three figures (Urhi-Teshub, Sinuhe, and Idrimi) were uprooted not only from their geographical but also their social environments.67 For these reasons, Hattusili offers a model of the differences between an exile or refugee and a political usurper. Al65

Collins, The Hittites, 146. Ibid. 67 Westbrook, “Personal Exile,” 1: “the individual expatriate was uprooted not only from his geographical but also from his social environment.” 66

32

Chapter 2

though many refugees may have wanted to usurp power, these are two distinct political roles. Hattusili obviously was unhappy with Urhi-Teshub’s ascent to power, but Hattusili never endured the dramatic reversal that the other refugees under consideration did. Urhi-Teshub may have felt himself moving into a liminal position, but this was not the result of personal failures or dramatic events. Urhi-Teshub’s fate was a normal one for someone in the ANE without claims to absolute power. Such a refugee suffers dramatic reversals and must take enormous risks in order to return to importance: Idrimi raises an army of brigands; Sinuhe takes on an undefeated champion; and Urhi-Teshub contacts various kings and ultimately escapes to a foreign land. These types of dramatic events mark the refugee’s exile in a manner that distinguishes him quite distinctly from Hattusili. E. The Tale of Two Brothers68 1. Introduction The following is based on the translation by Edward Wente. The Tale of the Two Brothers is a purely fictional story. It “may have been written simply for entertainment as a sort of fairy tale, it draws richly upon mythological and folkloristic themes.”69 Emmanuel de Rougé discovered it in 1852.70 It was written in Hieratic in a New Egyptian dialect71 and published in 1860. Lichtheim states that the papyrus “is written in a beautiful hand by the scribe Ennana who lived at the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty [c. 1069].”72 The first part of the story involves two brothers: Anubis and Bata. Anubis’ wife attempts to seduce Bata unsuccessfully. She then feigns an illness and complains that the enraged Bata beat her when he could not seduce her. I focus on their conflict and the flight of Bata after he discovers that his brother wants to kill him. The second part of the story diverges greatly from this theme as it examines the supernatural nature of Bata and 68 For a translation of the story, see Edward Wente, “The Tale of Two Brothers” in The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (ed. William Kelly Simpson and Robert Kriech Ritner; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2003) 81–90. It was first published by Samuel Birch, Select Papyri in Hieratic Character From the Collection of the British Museum, Part II (London: Woodfall and Kinder, 1860). Significant bibliography includes Susan T. Hollis, The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study (2nd ed.; Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008). 69 Edward Wente, “The Tale of Two Brothers” in The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (ed. William Kelly Simpson and Robert Kriech Ritner; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2003) 80. 70 Hollis, Tale of Two Brothers, 11. 71 Ibid. 72 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2.203.

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

33

Anubis. The two ultimately reconcile and switch roles as Bata becomes king and his older brother Anubis, who Bata appoints as prince, serves him. 2. Primary Source Then his elder brother became / like an Upper Egyptian panther, and he sharpened his spear and put it in his hand. His elder brother then stood behind the door of his stable in order to kill his younger brother as he was returning in the evening to let his cattle enter the stable. Now when the sun set, he loaded himself with all sorts of field vegetables according to his daily habit, and returned. The lead cow entered the stable and said to her herdsman, “Look, your elder brother is standing in wait for you holding his spear to kill you. You must get away from him.” He heard what he lead cow said, and / the next one entered and said the same. He looked under the door of his stable and saw his elder brother’s feet as he was standing behind the door with his spear in his hand. He set his load onto the ground and hastened to run off in flight, and his elder brother went in pursuit of him, carrying his spear. . . . Then he went off to the Valley of Cedar, and his elder brother went off to his home, his hands placed upon his head and his body smeared with dirt. Presently he reached his home, and he killed his wife, cast her to the dogs, and sat down in mourning over his younger brother. Now many days after this, his younger brother was in the Valley of Cedar with no one with him as he spent all day hunting desert game. He returned in the evening to sleep under the cedar tree on top of whose blossom his heart was. And / many days after this, he built for himself a country villa with his (own) hands in the Valley of the Cedar, filled with all sorts of good things, with the intention of establishing a household for himself. 3. Analysis The Tale of the Two Brothers is a literary tale like Sinuhe, but it reflects a different time with different concerns. John Baines asserts that “narratives in magical collections in Late Egyptian, or surviving from the late New Kingdom, incorporate myth much more fully than material of earlier periods and show a wider range of treatments. . . .”73 Whereas resolution comes to Sinuhe through meeting challenges and overcoming his fear, the plot of Two Brothers “relates quite closely to the Osiris myth. . . .”74 New 73

John Baines, “Myth and Literature” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996) 370. 74 Ibid., 373.

34

Chapter 2

Kingdom narratives like Two Brothers differ from Middle Kingdom narratives like Sinuhe because they “have a looser style, with frequent repetitions and an emphasis on the chain of events rather than the development of characters within the work or the use of literary devices that lend richness to the meaning and imagery.”75 Sinuhe’s character development is not seen in Two Brothers. The changes in Two Brothers bear a closer resemblance to a deus ex machina; character development is much more limited than Sinuhe. Sinuhe’s ingenuity appears to save him, whereas Bata’s success has a mythic76 level of reversal. Both tales stress restoration. This similarity demonstrates what an important value continuity and restoration are for the Egyptians. Bata flees Anubis rather than confront him. Even though it would appear very justified, physical confrontation is avoided at all costs. Rather, “A long and painful misunderstanding ensues – the elder brother killing his unfaithful wife and the younger (who had been falsely accused by the wife) emasculating himself and going into exile.”77 Bata emasculates himself in front of his brother, but at a safe distance on the other side of river. Anubis’ authority is challenged, but only on the moral level. The superior figure is not forced to defend himself. Bata distances himself from Anubis and his wife, but this liminal existence challenges the very core of Egyptian identity. The resolution of the tale involves “a rite of passage, the effect of which is to move an individual from one social status to another within the community, [which] consists of separation, transition, and incorporation.”78 As I have noted earlier (see ft. 20), flight from Egyptian values is presented as nearly impossible. Bata must behave in a way that allows his reincorporation into Egyptian society. As extreme as the emasculation sounds, it has precedence within Egyptian society in the story of Osiris. The Tale of the Two Brothers has often been compared to the Joseph story for good reason.79 They both deal with flight, but they also have

75

John L. Foster and Ann L. Foster, “Ancient Egyptian Literature” in Egyptology Today (ed. Richard H. Wilkinson; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 217. 76 Leonard H. Lesko, “Three Late Egyptian Stories Reconsidered” in Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker: Presented on the Occasion of His 78th Birthday, December 10, 1983 (ed. Leonard H. Lesko;. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Brown University, 1986) 99: “It moves gradually from the apparently real world, which may be mythical, to a fanciful world that seems to become real at the end of the tale.” 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., 106. 79 Hollis, Tale of Two Brothers, 109: “Like the biblical narrative, the Egyptian tale presents a rite of passage with regard to its hero. The young shepherd, separated from his comfortable life through the destructive act of an older, authoritative female figure, goes

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

35

strongly contrasting elements.80 Whereas Joseph learns how to survive and flourish in a foreign world, Bata does not find happiness in the Valley of the Cedars. Bata flees to the Valley of Cedar and his “existence in the valley must be considered as one of an exile with all its attendant implications, a life in the Otherworld, death to his old life.”81 This existence, like Sinuhe’s, does have its charms: “he built for himself a country villa with his (own) hands in the Valley of the Cedar, dilled with all sorts of good things, with the intention of establishing a household for himself.”82 Unlike Sinuhe, a deus ex machina quickly arrests this situation. Sinuhe comes to his own conclusions about return to Egypt, but the gods intervene here. Perhaps in this period leading up to the chaos of the Third Intermediate Period, refuge and flight had to be combated much more fiercely. F. Minor Characters83 1. Introduction The following is based on A. Leo Oppenheim’s translation of Sargon’s annals and focuses on the flight of two Philistine princes. The annals are “taken from stone slabs and wall inscriptions in Khorasabad [Assyrian capital at time of Sargon II]. . . .”84 The French first excavated the site in 1843–44, “P. E. Botta uncovered fourteen large rooms of the palace of Sargon II. . . .”85 The translation is from Akkadian. The annals describe significant events from various regnal years. The two Philistine princes, Chananu of Gaza and Jamani of Ashdod, are briefly listed and described among many royalty who resisted Sargon’s rule.

through a series of deaths, to be reborn into a higher stratum of society. It is a story of the early succession of kingship.” 80 Donald Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50) (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 93: “The story of Potiphar’s wife has usually been taken as a borrowing from the Two Brothers, but this seems rather unlikely. Most probably both are reflections of a common motif, emanating originally from Egyptian folklore, which became very popular all over the Levant.” 81 Hollis, Tale of Two Brothers, 131. 82 Wente, “The Tale of Two Brothers,” 85. 83 For a translation of the pertinent material, see A. Leo Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” ANET, 1.285. The first publication of this text appears to be Hugo Winckler and Ludwig Abel, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer, 1889). An updated recent edition of Sargon’s Annals has been recently published: Andreas Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994). Important background for this material is found in Bernd Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO 170; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). 84 Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” 1.284. 85 K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “Sargon II: The Annals,” in COS, 2. 293.

36

Chapter 2

2. Primary Source Iamani from Ashdod, afraid of my armed force (lit.: weapons), left his wife and children and fled to the frontier of M[ursu] which belongs to Mehuhha (i.e., Ethiopia) and hid (lit.: stayed) there like a thief. I installed an officer of mine as governor over his entire large country and its prosperous inhabitants, (thus) aggrandizing (again) the territory belonging to Ashur, the king of the gods. The terror(-inspiring) glamor of Ashur, my lord, overpowered (however) the king of Meluhha and he threw him (i.e. Iamani) in fetters on hands and feet, and sent him to me, to Assyria. I conquered and sacked the towns of Shinuhtu (and) Samaria, and all Israel (lit.: “OmriLand” Bît u-um-ri-ia). I caught, like a fish, the Greek (Ionians) who live (on islands) amidst the Western Sea. In the second year of my rule, Ilubi[di, from Hamath] . . . a large [army] he brought together at the town Qarqar and, [forgetting] the oaths [which they had sworn . . . ] the [cities of Arpad, Simirra], Damascus (Dimaš-qaki) and Samaria [revolted against me] (lacuna of a certain length) he (i.e. Hanno of Gaza) made [an agreement with him (i.e. the Pharaoh)] and he (i.e. the Pharaoh) called up Sibe his turtan to assist him (i.e. Hanno) and he (i.e. Sibe) set out against me to deliver a decisive battle. I inflicted a defeat upon them (i.e. Hanno and Sibe) upon an (oracle-) order (given) by my lord Ashur, and Sibe, like a sipa (i.e. shepherd) whose flock has been stolen, fled alone and disappeared. Hanno (however), I captured personally and brought him (with me) in fetters to my city Ashu. I destroyed Rapihu, tore down (its walls) and burned (it). I led away as prisoners 9,033 inhabitants with their numerous possessions. 3. Analysis In the Iron Age Egypt continued to be a place of exile for many political refugees. Because its own sovereignty was beyond question, Egypt was one of the few nations that could afford to offend other countries by accepting refugees. While Babylonia and Assyria went through both periods of power and instability, other empires like Hatti and Mittani completely fell apart. Egypt always managed to maintain some semblance of independence. Hence, it represented a popular and long-lived place of refuge. Egypt plays a vital role as land of refuge during the Neo-Assyrian period. Two Philistine princes, Chanunu of Gaza and Jamani of Ashdod, both used Egypt as a place of refuge when Assyrian power overran their kingdoms. Both princes involved themselves in an alliance with the northern kingdom of Israel at this time. Since no Levantine coalition could stand up to the power of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom, local powers had to adjust their policies and buy time in order to survive.

Refuge in the Ancient Near East

37

Chanunu of Gaza emerges during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (744– 727). He appears in 734 as the head of a coalition that was trying to avoid Assyrian domination.86 Like almost everyone else who faced Tiglath-pileser III, Chanunu was defeated as Tiglath-pileser III made his way through the Levant: “He [Tiglath-pileser III] and his second successor, Sargon II (ruled 721–705), restructured the Assyrian state internally, campaigned almost annually outside its borders, and started to incorporate foreign territories into Assyria. The internal restructuring focused on thwarting the power of local officials.”87 As a recalcitrant local official, Chanunu became the target of Assyria’s reprisals and fled to Egypt.88 Like those of many of our other fugitives, Chanunu’s story does not end here. He makes a remarkable recovery. Like other high-status refugees, he attempts to move from liminality back to centrality. He stayed in Egypt until Tiglath-pileser found some use for Chanunu and so he came back to Gaza as an Assyrian vassal.89 Chanunu pressed his luck and organized another rebellion when Tiglath-pileser’s successor, Sargon II, came on the scene. He did not flee this time, and met the customary Assyrian punishment: deportation.90 Unlike flight, deportation does not seem to allow for a return to centrality, at least not in one’s homeland. This process is repeated in 711 with another Philistine prince, Jamani of Ashdod.91 He also suffers at the hands of Sargon II. Whereas Chanunu fled from Tiglath-pileser III and was deported by Sargon II, Jamani fled from Sargon: “Jamani floh zunächst aufs Meer und dann nach Ägypten. In der grossen Prunkinschrift Sargons II. heißt es dazu: Als dieser Jamani das Heranrücken meines Feldzugs von ferne vernahm, floh er zur Grenze von 86 Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 153: “Leiter der Koalition war der Philisterfürst Chanunu von Gaza. Chanunu ist bereits aus der Zeit Tiglatpilesers III. bekannt, als dieser 734 gegen Philistäa zog und er als Fürst von Gaza nach Ägypten floh.” 87 Van de Mieroop, History of the ANE, 233. 88 Jenni, “‘Fliehen’ im Akkadischen und im Hebräischen,” 353: “Schon bei Tiglatpileser III. begegnet in der sog. Kleinen Inschrift I, Z. 9, die bemerkenswerte Zusammenstellung der beiden Verben: ‘ƗnƗnu aus Gaza, (der vor) meinen Waffen geflohen war (ip-par- i [du]) und sich nach Ägypten geflüchtet hatte (in-nab-tú)’.” 89 Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 190–191: “Chanunu blieb jedoch nicht in Ägypten, sondern kehrte zurück und wurde von Tiglatpileser als Vasallenfürst eingesetzt: Jener aber [floh] gleich einem Vogel aus Ägypten. [Ich brachte ihn an seinen Ort zurück] (italics in original).” 90 Ibid., 154: “So bemühte sich Chanunu um den Anschluß Judas und einiger Araberstämme. Juda blieb jedoch neutral; als Sargon II. gegen die Koalition vorging – zunächst gegen die im Norden, dann gegen die im Süden –, waren lediglich Chanunu von Gaza und ein ägyptisches Kontingent am Konflikt beteiligt. Sargon schlug sie (720) bei Raphia (etwa 25km südwestlich von Gaza) und deportierte Chanunu und die Bevölkerung.” 91 For a translation of the pertinent material, see A. Leo Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” ANET, 1.285.

38

Chapter 2

Ägypten, das im Bereich von Meluchcha [Kush] liegt. . . .”92 Jamani “hid there like a thief.”93 Spalinger asserts that this “action, which eventually led to Jamani’s deportation by the king of Kush, climaxed a series of sometimes covert, sometimes overt, hostile moves by Egypt towards Assyria.”94 This deportation demonstrates, as in the case of Urhi-Teshub, how refugees could become pawns in the battles between high-powered states. Jamani met the same fate as Chanunu, but unlike Chanunu, he did not return from his liminal position. These examples show how Egypt played an important role as a place of refuge that served to blunt the power of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom. The Bible also witnesses to the role of Egypt in support of coalitions opposed to Assyria. 2 Kgs 17:4 notes: “But the king of Assyria found Hoshea guilty of conspiracy for sending envoys to the king of Egypt at Sais, and for failure to pay the annual tribute to his Assyrian overlord.” Hosea 12:2 witnesses friendly relations between Ephraim and Egypt. The two Philistine princes and the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel, Hoshea (732– 723), seem to use Egypt as way of maintaining their power in the face of a mighty foe. Like Idrimi and Sinuhe, Chanunu manages to return to some semblance of power. High-status exiles in flight will continue to surface during the biblical period.

III. Conclusion The examples of flight in this chapter focus on royal figures from the ANE. The major figures share the characteristic of fleeing from a position of centrality and finding themselves in a liminal position. Most of these high-status refugees do not remain in their liminal situation. They all engage in risky behavior in an effort to return to centrality, but only Sinuhe successfully reincorporates himself into his society. Idrimi manages to find a different type of elevated status. In contrast, there are also stories of doomed refugees such as Urhi-Teshub and the Philistine princes. The flight stories studied here thus do not have a consistent ending. All of the figures are powerful, but the danger of their transitional status becomes very apparent.

92

Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 204. Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” 1.285. 94 Anthony Spalinger, “The Year 712 B.C. and its Implications for Egyptian History,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10 (1973) 95. 93

Chapter 3

Refuge in the Old Testament I. Introduction The purpose of the present chapter is to delimit and explain the concept of refuge in the Old Testament. In the second section, I will begin by examining the semantic field of “refuge” and distinguish it from concepts of “permanent exile,” “diaspora,” and “criminal asylum.” In the third section, I will narrow my focus to the OT and examine refuge as a topos within its literature. I will also pay careful attention to figures such as David, Absalom, Adonijah, Moses, Joseph, Hagar, Jacob, Jephthah, and Jonah, who flee hostile situations; in the OT literature, refuge and flight go together. Since later chapters are devoted to Jeroboam and Jeremiah, I will not consider these figures here. Finally, I will consider the idea of liminality that we have seen in the previous ANE and OT figures in connection with Moses and Joseph. While all these figures have an ambiguous relationship with their own cultures, they remain important figures within those cultures.

II. The Semantic Field of Refuge A. Verbs I wish to distinguish ideas of “refuge” and “flight” from ideas of “permanent exile,” “diaspora,” and “criminal asylum.” One way to understand this distinction is through an examination of the words used to describe figures in the OT who seek refuge. Although “exodus” is a recurring motif in the history of Israel,1 certain verbs such as , , and  recur in stories of flight that are not as common in stories of diaspora and criminal asylum. The verbs  and  are particularly important in this regard. These verbs are applied to the figures of David, Jeroboam, and Jeremiah. As we gain a 1

Jörn Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der Hebräischen Bibel (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 19; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005) 766: “Die Flucht aus der angestammten Umgebung ist ein wiederkehrendes Element bei Israels Vorfahren und in Israels Geschichte.”

40

Chapter 3

clearer understanding of these verbs, their nuances will become more evident. The OT uses the verb , “to flee,” in reference to Hagar (Gen 16:6), Jacob (Gen 27:43), Moses (Exod 2:15), Jotham (Judg 9:21), Jephthah (Judg 11:3), David (1 Sam 19:12), Absalom (2 Sam 13:34), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:40), Uriah (Jer 26:21), Amos (Amos 7:12), and Jonah (Jonah 1:3).2 This root is found in both Phoenician3 and Ugaritic4 with a similar meaning.5 We distinguish “flight” from the exile and the diaspora of larger groups because “it hardly refers to flight from a threatening battle or an acute danger, but rather to evasion of and escape from continuing, unpleasant, dangerous situations, e.g., tensions and tragedies within the tribe.”6 This verb, , is not used to describe people seeking criminal asylum7 ( is used) or to describe large groups going into exile; rather, individuals such as Amos are counseled to “flee” Bethel in order to avoid problems with Amaziah (Amos 7:12).8 Perhaps the case of Moses provides the most 2

Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora, 766, n. 77. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (HO 21.1.; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995) 197. The root is in KAI 12. 4 G. Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part One: [ (a/i/u-k] (trans. W. Watson; 2nd rev. ed.; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003) 236. According to M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: From Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU) (2nd enl. ed; ALASPM 8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) 55: The root is in KTU 1.19.III:48: nt br p lm.h nt p dr dr. F. Renfroe, “Lexikalische Kleinigkeiten,” UF 20 (1988) 23, n.51: “Siehe z.B. nt br p lmh in KTU 1.19.III:48, war wahrscheinlich ‘Verschwinde/Fliehe jetzt und fortan!’ bedeutet.” The same verse is also found in KTU 1.19.III:55–56. 5 Renfroe, “Lexikalische Kleinigkeiten, 23: “Die Bedeutung ‘fliehen, entkommen’ ist im Hebräischen, Arabischen und vielleicht auch im Ugaritischen anzusetzen.” B. Margalit, “Studia Ugaritica II: Studies in Krt and Aqht,” UF 8 (1976) 177: “br literally ‘depart, flee’, is well attested in Semitic, perhaps also in Ug. phrase btn br ‘slithering serpent’ (O.T. na aš baria  6 J. Gamberoni, “ bƗrach,” TDOT, 2. 250. 7 Criminal asylum is a very limited category that refers solely to a person who unintentionally kills someone and flees to one of the six cities of refuge (Joshua 20). Certainly Moses fled after the commission of a crime, and Jeroboam’s rebellion probably makes him guilty of treason, but their flights are not primarily for the purpose of seeking criminal asylum; rather, they seek safety. See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Israelite Law: State and Judiciary Law,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Mircea Eliade and Charles J. Adams; New York: Macmillan, 1987) 7. 480: “In cases of murder, the agent of execution was the ‘blood redeemer’ (go’el ha-adam), who was obligated to avenge the murdered party. He was to chase the culprit, who could escape to one of the cities of refuge, set up to be places where a person who had accidentally killed someone could go for trial.” 8 F. Andersen and D. Freedman, Amos: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 24; New York: Doubleday, 1989) 771: “He [Amaziah] is happy for Amos to keep on with that activity, as long as it is not in Bethel: ‘Flee to Judah and prophesy there!’“ 3

Refuge in the Old Testament

41

instructive understanding of the word. As the text makes clear, Moses is closely associated with the flight of the Israelites from Egypt, but the MT rarely uses  in this context (although see Exod 14:5). When the narrator uses  in other instances of the Moses story, it seems to have a different meaning than the customary “to flee,” for example Exod 36:33 (“to pass/go through the board”) and Num 24:11 (“to go home”). Nonetheless, the narrator uses  in its most typical sense when describing Moses’ flight to Midian (Exod 2:15) after he killed the Egyptian taskmaster who had abused a Hebrew slave. Although figures like Moses, David, and Jeroboam become powerful political leaders, this verb describes them when they are on the periphery before they acquire the trappings of power. This verb also connotes a difference between them and figures like Josiah, Hezekiah, and Solomon, who did not have to usurp power and whose power was never seriously questioned from within Israel. Although no flight outside Israel may be needed in a later age,  may capture a liminality not found in later in dynastic kingship. The MT often uses the verb , “to flee,” in the same sense as , but it is the more common flight verb with its 160 occurrences in the MT, whereas  has only fifty-nine occurrences.9 Unlike , “the qal stem of nûs appears frequently in the context of war and battle; it denotes the flight of an individual or an entire army from a superior or victorious foe.”10 The idea of chaotic flight after battle associated with the verb  does not involve liminal figures or clear notions of refuge; rather, individuals closely associated with the state are just trying to survive by fleeing. Yet, “nûs is not confined to military situations alone,”11 since the MT also uses this verb to describe Joseph (Gen 39:18), Jotham (Judg 9:21), David (1 Sam 19:10), Rehoboam in his conflict with the Northern tribes (1 Kgs 12:18), and Elisha (2 Kings 9). The verb also occurs twelve times in the Oracles Against the Nations of Jeremiah (see Chap. 4). Accordingly, the verb  is not as closely associated with fugitives and refuge as is , but does share this semantic field with  at times. The final Hebrew verb closely associated with flight is  , “to escape.” The verb  , “to escape,” comes from the same root and has the same meaning. We actually see 

used more frequently as a verb in the MT (ninety-four times)12, whereas “the root plappears 80 times in the OT.”13   appears as a verb twenty-seven times and has four nominal derivatives 9

BibleWorks for Windows, Version 5.0 (Big Fork, MT: Hermeneutika Bible Research Software, 2002). 10 J. Reindl, “ nûs,” TDOT, 9. 287. 11 Ibid., 9. 288. 12 G. Hasel, “ pƗla,” TDOT, 11. 556. 13 Ibid., 11. 555.

42

Chapter 3

that appear fifty-three times.14 Although this verb and root seem to have a less physical and more abstract sense in the Psalms (22:6; 33:17; 41:2; 89:49; 107:20; 116:4; 124:7[bis]), its meaning remains quite literal outside of poetry: the qal of ĺ  n s, ‘flee,’ frequently parallels the niphal of ml. The normal sequence is n s followed by ml: the former expresses the act of fleeing from conflict with others, while the latter expresses the success or failure of the flight itself with the notion of escape. David flees (n s) from Saul and succeeds in escaping or saving himself [1 Sam 19:10; cf. 1 K. 20:20] by finding a safe refuge.15

The verb appears frequently outside the context of seeking refuge, but is also closely associated with such refuge-seeking in the case of David in 1 Samuel (19:10, 11, 12, 17, 18; 22:1; 23:13; 27:1 [bis]) and in the Baruch Scroll (Jer 38:18, 23; 39:18 [bis]; 41:15; 43:9). Whereas  is almost always closely associated with flight and refuge,  has a wider semantic range, and   a still wider one. Yet, all these verbs help us understand the concept of flight and refuge better by demonstrating how each verb has its own semantic field, which makes up the wider range of meaning in English. We will now briefly examine verbs with similar meanings that are more closely associated with asylum, permanent exile, and diaspora.  originally denoted “covering” or “hiding,” but comes to mean “to take refuge.”16 In the nontheological usage of Ps 104:19, the nominal form of this root connotes a hiding place for an animal.17 The meaning becomes much more narrow within the idioms of prayer, which “are restricted to a small range of topics; they are highly stereotyped and fixed, and are only slightly adapted to the changing situation.”18 The verb never appears in narratives about seeking refuge in Egypt; the Psalmist, however, uses it frequently: “The verb occurs only in the qal. The most frequent form (attested only in the Psalms) is the 1st person singular perfect (Ps 7:2 [Eng. v. 1]; 11:1; 16:1; 25:20; 31:2[1]; 71:1; 141:8; 144:2; cf. also the equivalent 57:2[1]); other finite forms are rare.”19 The verb seems particularly appropriate for the psalms of lamentation, where its usage is more spiritual than literal. The verb appears in other books of the OT, but usually in a poetic context of either simply seeking refuge in the Lord (Ruth 2:12; Prov 14:32; Nah 1:7) or seeking refuge in the Lord rather than other nations (Isa 14:32) or gods (Deut 32:27). The one exception to this trend is Isa 30:2. Although this verse is also poetry, we find those seeking refuge in Egypt condemned 14

Ibid. Ibid., 11. 558. 16 J. Gamberoni, “  Ɨsâ,” TDOT, 5. 65. 17 Ibid., 5. 67. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 5. 65. 15

Refuge in the Old Testament

43

here. This occurrence provides the only example of a literal and nonspiritual usage of taking refuge with this verb. The verbs stand in contrast to roots associated with diaspora and permanent exile in the OT. Whereas the verbs associated with flight involve an individual controlling his or her own destiny, diaspora and permanent exile are the lot of individuals who have lost all control of their lives.  , “to depart, go into exile,” normally means “to uncover” in situations unrelated to flight (Gen 9:21; Exod 20:26; Num 22:31).   is associated with the Babylonian Exile in both 2 Kings (24:15 and 25:21) and Jeremiah (39:9; 40:1, 7; 43:3).20 All these instances concern Judahites being taken prisoner and deported. Deportation and imprisonment could be seen as the opposite of flight or escape. The persons who are described by   either give up or lose control of their destiny.21 The other verbs used to describe this process of deportation are even stronger.  is another common verb that means “to take captive, to deport.” “The semantic field of the root bh in the Semitic languages is easily located. The meaning of the verbal forms is consistently ‘make prisoners of war, lead into war captivity,’ and the derived substantival forms mean ‘prisoner of war’ or ‘captivity’. . . .”22 The MT uses this verb throughout its corpus. Compared to the mass deportations of the Assyrians and Babylonians that are referred solely with  , the MT uses the verb also in connection with the more petty conflicts recorded especially in Deuteronomistic History. 23 Thus, Laban uses  in confronting Jacob about taking his daughters as captives (Gen 31:26), and of the Amalekites’ taking two of David’s wives as captives (1 Sam 30:5). This verb clearly does not have connotations of refuge. Two other relevant verbs (perhaps bi-forms) with strong semantic similarities to each other are , “to scatter, to disperse,” and , “to scatter, to be scattered, to disperse.” Once again, God plays a large role as the subject of the actions that they refer to. In a number of passages, there is also

Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora, 122: “Wo   in Zusammenhang von militärpolitischen Aktionen der Assyrer und Babylonier gebraucht wird, ist oft eine Deportation im Blick.” 21 Claus Westermann and Rainer Albertz, “  glh to uncover,” TLOT, 1. 316: “the subj. of the verb is usually the nation that takes Israel into exile or its ruler. The notion is certainly firmly established in the prophetic announcement of judgment that the exile is Yahweh’s judgment; still, the whole weight of a concrete political event, which resists thorough theologization, characterizes the process described by glh.” 22 B. Otzen, “  Ɨb,” TDOT, 14. 286–87. 23 Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora, 152: “Im Vergleich zu  , das vorwiegend im Kontext der assyrischen und babylonischen Massendeportationen und dem daraus resultierenden Exilsdasein von Israeliten und Judäern zu finden ist, hat  daher vielfältigere Bezüge.” 20

44

Chapter 3

a sense that those who are scattered will be gathered again.24 The former verb occurs sixty-five times, the latter twenty-three times. When  appears in the hiphil and niphal, it is mostly associated with the diaspora in exile.25 Unlike the case of the above verbs associated with refuge, God appears closely connected to those who are scattered.26 Another group of related verbs with a seemingly stronger27 sense of being scattered, pushed away, or even banished is ‚ ,  and . While the latter two verbs are each used only eight times, the MT uses the first two fifty-four times and the second twenty-six times. Jeremiah is particularly fond of the first verb (8:3; 16:15; 23:2; 3, 8; 24:9; 27:10, 15; 29:14, 18; 30:17; 32:37; 40:12; 43:5; 46:28; 49:5, 36; 50:17). These verbs also move even further away from the idea of fugitives seeking refuge; rather, there is often a connotation of punishment, as can be seen in Jer 23:3 () where the reference is to God gathering the flock after God has rightfully “thrust down” the flock. We find then a clear difference between fugitives who seek a refuge and people who are either deported or scattered. God often becomes an active participant in the latter situations, but with some exceptions (Jacob and Moses), fugitives seem to act on their own initiative. B. Nouns Some of the Hebrew nouns for refuge derive from verbs meaning “to flee,” such as  and   . Nouns meaning “refuge” are quite rare in biblical stories about individuals who seek refuge. Whereas the verbs ,  , and  appear frequently in the stories of David, Jeroboam, and Jeremiah, nouns meaning refuge appear only rarely in these stories. When “refuge” appears as a Hebrew noun, it often has a spiritualized meaning. When the idea of “refuge” does not derive from a verb meaning “to flee” as in the case of  and , it seems more likely that the Hebrew noun is used in

24 Ibid., 176: “Das unter den Belegen von  / wichtige Motiv einer zerstreuten Schafherde impliziert eine Reflexion der Verantwortung des Hirten und eine Hoffnung auf ein späteres Zusammenbringen der Herde.” 25 Helmer Ringgren, “ pû ,” TDOT, 11. 509: “In the great majority of the passages using the niphal or hiphil, pw refers to the diaspora in exile (3 times in Deuteronomy, once in Isaiah, 3 times in Jeremiah, 13 times in Ezekiel [+ 3 times with reference to Egypt], and once in Nehemiah).” 26 Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora, 176: “Der Gedanke der Verantwortung J HWHs als Hirte Israels (und der Völker) steht auch im Hintergrund des Motivs von der Sammlung der Zerstreuten, das sowohl von der Anzahl als auch von der theologischen Bedeutung her unter den Belegen von / eine Sonderstellung einnimmt.” 27 Ibid., 163: “Das semantische Zentrum, um das sich alle Bedeutungen von  ‚  und  im biblischen Hebräisch gruppieren, lässt sich als ‘einen Stoß versetzen’ beschrieben.”

Refuge in the Old Testament

45

a spiritual sense. People do not flee to a literal place like Egypt, but flee to God’s protection. The place of refuge is God (2 Sam 22:23; Neh 8:10). Many of these nouns are more prominent in the psalms than in the narrative-driven material describing refuge-taking in Egypt. One of the most interesting examples in this regard is the word . This root appears six times in the OT; its most pertinent occurrence for my thesis is in Isa 30:2.28 Here no qal infinitive construct of the root appears in an oracle in which Isaiah castigates Judah for seeking refuge in Egypt rather than the Lord. “Judah seeks refuge [ ] and shelter in Egypt without asking Yahweh first, an act that can only bring shame and humiliation.” 29 This oracular statement by Yhwh is not made about Jeroboam or David. There is quite a different context here, seemingly a much more spiritualized one. Rather than an individual’s struggle to survive, “refuge” here has in view God’s protection of Judah. To go somewhere other than to God for protection is idolatry. BH uses verbs for flight to reference a more concrete and less spiritualized situation in which a particular individual is trying to survive. Another important Hebrew noun for “refuge” is  . Like , this word does not appear in narratives about flight. Its most literal meaning is a lair for wild animals (Nah 2:12; Jer 9:10), but it more typically “refers to the temple as the earthly, or to heaven as the celestial dwelling of God (Dt. 26:15; 2 Ch. 30:27; 36:15; Ps. 26:8; 68:6[5]; Jer. 25:30; Zec. 2:17[13]).”30  “exhibits a similar semantic scope: lair of wild animals . . . God’s dwelling place . . . place of refuge (Dt. 33:27). The fact that the temple and ultimately also God himself can be a ‘refuge’”31 highlights the semantic range of these two nouns. H. Preuss’s comment about the use of these nouns is particularly helpful: “Both the temple and Yahweh himself are the ‘place’ to which the petitioner flees and where he experiences refuge and protection.”32 The word “petitioner” does not accurately describe refugees like Jeroboam and David. Their flights are about trying to maintain their status. Rather than petitioners on the periphery of power, David (1 Sam 19:18; 1 Sam 21:11; 1 Sam 23:7; 1 Sam 27:4; 2 Sam 15:13–16:14) and Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11: 40) seek refuge in order to maintain their status in a 28 Gamberoni, “  Ɨsâ,” 71: “The woe oracle in Isa. 30:1–3 and the judgment oracle in Isa. 28:14–22 probably came from the time of Hezekiah. The woe oracle, spoken in the 1st person by God, is directed against political and military reliance on Egypt. The words used recall the Psalms: the leaders go to Egypt ‘to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh, and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt . . . what they get will be le ǀ  ’” 29 H. Ringgren, “ wz,” TDOT, 10. 517. 30 H. D. Preuss, “ mƗ’ôn,” TDOT, 8. 449. 31 Ibid., 450. 32 Ibid., 452.

46

Chapter 3

time of peril. Their refuge-seeking may make them temporarily less powerful, but it is always undertaken with an eye towards regaining their power.   and 

are both words commonly translated as “refuge.” The nuance carried by   involves refuge associated with asylum. It “occurs 20 times in the Bible, the occurrences being limited to later strata and to only a few chapters: Nu. 35; Josh. 20f.; 1 Ch. 6. The word always refers to the cities into which a person who has unintentionally killed another person can flee and be taken in. . . .”33 Hence, this word never appears in narratives about Egypt. Our figures are usually accused of or guilty of outright crimes rather than the involuntary manslaughter envisaged in the above texts. Moses’ flight to Midian comes closest to seeking a refuge associated with asylum, given that the reason he seeks refuge is that he has killed someone. Yet even Moses neither unintentionally kills another individual nor goes to a specific city designated for refuge.34 Moses was guilty of homicide, an act that has heavy political implications, since he was defending a Hebrew from the abuse of an Egyptian. Whereas  

is associated with asylum in every OT usage, 

shows a spiritualized sense of refuge: “Ɨsâ/ ma seh has lost the physical and psychological elements of ‘flight,’ gaining in return an exclusive reference to Yahweh in the sense of a fundamental decision for Yahweh over and above anything and anyone else, whether made once for all or actualized in the face of specific dangers and temptations.”35 The Psalmist consistently (12x) uses the word 

(14:6; 46:2; 61:4; 62:8, 9; 71:7; 73:28; 91:2, 9; 94:22; 104:18; 142:6) in this sense of a fundamental decision for God.36 The other MT nominal forms for “refuge” have stronger associations with the verbs used so frequently in narratives of flight.  comes from the verb , “to flee.” This noun lacks many of the theological connotations of the above nouns. At times, the Lord can be the source of the refuge suggested by this noun (Jer 16:19), but more typically the reference is to a general place of refuge not associated with the Lord (Jer 46:5; Ps 142:4; Job 11:20). We will examine Jeremiah 46 more carefully in a later chapter, but I want to note already here the presence of this noun in a chapter in which the verb  is used three times (Jer 46:5, 6, 21). The even rarer noun  lacks all theological connotations: “The noun menûsa denotes

R. Schmid, “   miqlƗ,” TDOT, 8. 552. Ibid., “It should be pointed out that in the Bible the term miqlƗ  is not used to refer to every kind of asylum, but rather in a limited fashion only to that involving manslaughter.” 35 Gamberoni, “  Ɨsâ,” 5. 74–75. 36 Ibid., 74: “The Ɨsâ/ ma   group is set apart from words with similar meaning through an (internal) semantic stereotyping that clearly began in the context of the Psalms.” 33 34

Refuge in the Old Testament

47

the act of fleeing, “flight.”37 The two references (Lev 26:36; Isa 52:12) refer only to flight. We meet nouns deriving from our other flight verbs much more infrequently than nouns deriving from ,  , and especially . They appear frequently in narratives about Egypt, but nouns derived from these verbs are quite rare. Nominal forms derived from  (Isa 15:5; 27:1; Job 26:13) are not particularly helpful for understanding flight or refuge. In the first example the noun is generally translated as “fugitive” rather than “refugee,” and the last two examples both describe a fleeing snake.   has just one instance that is helpful. “The masc. verbal noun mipƗ, ‘place of refuge,’ with a ma- preformative, appears in the MT only in Ps. 55:9 (Eng. v. 8).”38 Interestingly, this noun occurs directly after a verse (Ps 55:8) containing , “to flee, escape.” Jeremiah uses this verb three times (4:25; 9:9; 49:5) and Isaiah eight times (10:14, 31; 16:2, 3; 21:14, 15; 22:3; 33:3). In Psalm 55, this noun, which BH does not use theologically like other nouns, has the concrete sense of “shelter.” In these examples, nouns associated with refuge provide less help for understanding Egypt as a place of refuge compared with the corresponding verbs. As in the case of the verbs, there are also a number of other nouns pertaining to the semantic field of refuge. We will briefly examine these nouns in order to differentiate refuge from exile, captivity, and diaspora. I previously mentioned , “to take captive,” whose “root occurs about 100 times in the OT, split approximately between verb and noun forms.”39 The noun  clearly means war captive in Isa 52:2. Another important word is  (Gen 23:4; Exod 12:4; Lev 22:10; 25:6, 23, 35, 40, 45, 47 [bis]; Num 35:15; 1 Kgs 17:1; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:13). This term denotes a sojourner “who has found a lasting acceptance as an individual occupant . . . .”40 The usage of this noun serves as a good contrast to references to those who seek refuge in Egypt. Such figures almost invariably go to Egypt for a temporary period. They do not seek “lasting acceptance” in their land of refuge; rather, they seek safety there until they can return to their homeland. Thus, they do not seek permanent refuge. Another concept is  (ninety-two occurrences),41 “he/she is the stranger who has settled, who has established himself/herself for a particular period in the land and to whom a special status is granted.”42 The similarities of this term with  are readily apparent: “The social status of the tôƗb is comparable, if

Reindl, “  nûs,” 9. 290. Hasel, “ pƗla,” 11. 555. 39 Otzen, “  Ɨb,” 14. 287. 40 HALOT, “!,” 1713. 41 HALOT, “"#$” 201. 42 R. Martin-Achard, “Gur to Sojourn Ger Sojourner,” TLOT, 1. 308. 37 38

48

Chapter 3

not identical, with that of the gƝr.”43 Both these nouns reflect relatively permanent relocation rather than the temporary relocation featured in our narratives about flight to Egypt.

III. Refuge as a Topos in OT Literature A. David Although David is best known as a powerful king, many scholars also see David as a refugee. Unlike many of our other refugees, David suffered the fate of flight from turmoil not only once, but twice, prior to and at the end of his kingship. Some even view David as a prototypical refugee.44 BH verbs,  “to flee,” and  “to escape,” apply repeatedly to David. Many commentators have noted the flight motif in the Davidic stories.45 Some even claim that much of David’s story is to be seen as an “exile story.”46 Closer examination of the relevant motifs in David’s story demonstrates the importance of flight and his continual struggle with opponents as he tries to maintain his centrality throughout his life and monarchy, a struggle that we have seen operative in the lives of the other high-status exiles that I examined earlier in this chapter. David’s role as refugee becomes apparent with the repeated use of , “to flee,” in reference to him. Of BH’s forty-four uses of this term, eight concern David (1 Sam 19:12, 18; 20:1; 21:11; 22:17; 27:4; 2 Sam 15:14; and 19:10), while two more involve Abiathar, a fugitive associated with David (1 Sam 22:20 and 23:6). Regarding , it has been pointed out that “sometimes it is used of the political exile of important men (1 K. 11:17, 23, 40; 12:2; cf. Neh. 13:10). . . .”47 Its frequent use in 1 Samuel would appear to be another such instance. Another important Hebrew verb used of fugitives,  , “to escape,” is used sixty-three times, with nine instances concerning David (1 Sam 19:10, 11, 12, 17, 18; 22:1; 23:13; 27:1 [bis]); the MT also uses a very similar verb,  , “to escape,” of David at 2 Sam 15:14. “In the Saul-David cycle of 1 Samuel, David is often the subject of 43

Ibid. Stamm, “Fremde, Flüchtlinge und ihr Schutz,” 56: “Das Geschick eines solchen teilte auch David, der in seinen jüngeren Jahren vor Saul und in seinen späteren vor seinem Sohne Absalom fliehen musste.” 45 See Christopher Begg, “David’s Fourfold Escape According to Josephus,” Anton 80 (2005) 433: “1 Samuel 19 tells of four hostile initiatives undertaken against David by King Saul and the latter’s escape from these with the help of Jonathan, Michal, Samuel and ultimately Yhwh himself.” 46 Barbara Green, King Saul’s Asking (Interfaces; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003) xiv: “1 Samuel reads best as an exile story . . . .” 47 Gamberoni, “ bƗrach,” 2. 250. 44

Refuge in the Old Testament

49

ml: he repeatedly escapes to save himself from Saul’s assaults and persecutions (19:10–12, 17–18; 22:1; 23:13; 27:1).”48 This verb too is often associated with high-status exiles: “The pl nouns themselves, however, like the verbal forms, emphasize repeatedly that this remnant is a remnant that has escaped from a war, a battle, or the like. Thus the positive notion of surviving a military action is emphasized.”49 Scholars have charged that “David was a deserter. . . . David was an outlaw. . . . David was a Philistine mercenary.”50 Although David was all of these things, he “learned to live by his wits and his arms. His skill as a warrior was the single most important attribute in his rise to power.”51 It should, however, be noted that the David stories use a language that has an emphasis on Yhwh not elsewhere associated with deserters, outlaws, and mercenaries in the OT.52 1 Samuel’s stories about David portray an exile escaping Saul's attacks. They justify his unusual actions and show him in a sympathetic light53 as he receives help from Jonathan, Michal, Samuel, and Yhwh. This list of supporters serves to reinforce David’s centrality as he ventures into foreign territory. David must flee several times, including to Samuel in Ramah (1 Sam 19:18), twice to King Achish in Gath (1 Sam 21:11 and 27:4), and to Keilah in the southern Judean hills (1 Sam 23:7). He gains political strength each time that he does so. There is great irony in the scenes in which he twice goes to King Achish; these scenes “reinforce the importance of the chase with its reversal of roles.”54 Even though he is being pursued by Saul, David’s royal stature increases while Saul’s diminishes. On the one hand, David can consort with the enemy while he continues stripping Saul of his kingly honor and takes this for himself. He has perfected the role “of a peripheral figure.”55 However, Baruch Halpern would see this as outright treason, which is later modified as “consorting with the enemy” or being peripheral.56 I prefer the paradigm of refugee and liminHasel, “ pƗla,” 11.563. Ibid., 560. 50 P. Kyle McCarter, “The Apology of David,” JBL 99 (1980) 500. 51 Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 60. 52 Ibid., 499: “he is depicted as thoroughly loyal to the king, never seeking out the power that steadily comes to him, and indeed refusing at least one opportunity to secure his position by slaying Saul. . . . Finally, it is made clear that David’s rise to power was made possible, indeed inevitable, by the special favor of the god of Israel, ‘Yahweh is with him’ being, as already noted, the leitmotif of the entire composition.” 53 McKenzie, King David, 62: “David’s popularity is realistic, and there is no reason to believe that the royal family was immune to his charm.” 54 Green, King Saul’s Asking, 93. 55 Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, 112. 56 B. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (The Bible in Its World; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001) 315: “one thing can be said with rela48 49

50

Chapter 3

al57 figure: David shares many similarities with other figures who rise to power after setbacks or from low origins.58 On the other hand, David spends time in the wilderness, especially in Keilah (1 Sam 23:7) and Ziph (1 Sam 23:14), which calls to mind other great biblical characters like Moses and Joshua59 who had to make their way in the wilderness through uncharted land. David’s dependence on Yhwh only grows, and his reversal of roles with Saul becomes even more apparent given his dependence on Yhwh rather than Saul: “Accepting the words [1 Sam 23:12b: ‘And the Lord said: “They will deliver (you).”’] as the answer from God, David acted accordingly. The phrase arose and went out [1 Sam 23:13] suggests David’s immediate action. They (David and his men) wandered [1 Sam 23:13], trusting on the divine guidance for each step without knowing where to go in the long run. This is typical in the life of believers, who are sojourners in this world.”60 These experiences changed both David and Saul: “Like escaping slaves, David returned to a different role from the one he left, and his ability to do so derived from his very successful escape. It was political chance, and the religious would say divine will, that allowed David to build a power base in that alternative community.” 61 David successfully pivots from the role of peripheral or liminal figure to that of central figure. Unlike Idrimi and Sinuhe, David took flight a second time when he found himself under threat again late in life. “2 Sm 15:13–16:14 tells a poignant story of King David’s flight from Jerusalem to the Jordan in the face of his son Absalom’s revolt and of a series of five encounters which tive assurance. David’s alliance with the Philistines, and the presence of Gittites in his court and in the region of the Ayyalon Pass, David’s alliances with Nahash of Ammon and with the king of Geshur very probably at Tel Hadar in the Golan, David’s link to pastoral elements in the Negev – all these tell heavily on the side of the interpretation that David did not inherit the loyalty of Israel from the house of Saul. Israel was his principal conquest. He will have enforced his sovereignty there by terror in the villages and by rigid control in the towns.” 57 Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 211: “Within liminality a relationship that would otherwise seem condemnatory is praised.” 58 Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 20: “Thus, during his youth, after his rise in the court, David is a fugitive, The same story is told of King Idrimi of Alalakh in Syria, some centuries earlier. The idea of a bandit figure reaching the throne is not dissimilar from the story of Jephthah in Judg. 11 or the Moses myth as well. However, Idrimi claims to be of royal stock, where David does not.” 59 David T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 494: “Michal lets David go down through the window just as Rahab helped the spies escape in Josh. 2:15. . . .” In fact the MT uses the same verb, , “to go down,” in both instances. 60 Ibid., 556. 61 Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, 113.

Refuge in the Old Testament

51

David has during his flight.”62 This flight with its five encounters “prepares the reader for some part of the story to follow, the issue immediately at stake being loyalty or disloyalty to David in the struggle to come.”63 The issue of David’s centrality emerges again at the end of his reign. Just as he showed himself astute in gaining centrality while in flight from Saul, he also uses this later flight to regain his authority. Although traitors like Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:31) obviously existed, David manages his flight so that his centrality becomes apparent though his encounters during it. Once again, we find  being used here (2 Sam 15:14) in reference to an important man’s “exile.”64 This story shows a recurring pattern of David’s flight and loss of centrality as he returns to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 19. The term  is used again in 2 Sam 19:10 as the residents of Jerusalem confront the fact that the king had had to “flee” their city. The nature of David’s flight becomes apparent as the “meetings of David’s flight raised questions and concerns, inviting the audience to look ahead with some anxiety to the events to come. The meetings of David’s return offer reassurance, representing the resolution of many of the earlier concerns, such as the defection of Meribbaal and the threats of Shimei.”65 David represents the biblical character who always seemed to know both the limits of his power and how to increase it. In the honor/shame world of the OT in which honor was a commodity that participants constantly vied for,66 David was unparalleled in his ability to perceive the winds of change and flee when necessary. Yet he always makes his way back from liminality to centrality, as is evident from his many flights at the beginning of his ascent to power as well as his final flight towards the end of his reign.

62

Christopher T. Begg, “David’s Flight from Jerusalem According to Josephus,” HTS 62 (2006) 1. 63 P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984) 374–75. 64 Gamberoni, “ ,” 2.250: “Sometimes it is used of the political exile of important men (1 K. 11:17, 23, 40; 12:2; cf. Neh. 13:10). . . .” 65 McCarter, II Samuel, 423. 66 John J. Pilch, “Power,” in Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook (ed. John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993) 139–40: “It is obviously necessary that power be recognized and accepted by those whose existence is being controlled. When subordinates accept and respect the power of superiors, the superior is considered to be honorable. Thus, power is a means value which facilitates the realization of the Mediterranean core values of honor and shame. Power can be analyzed in the two formal institutions of the Mediterranean biblical world: kinship and politics.”

52

Chapter 3

B. Absalom Absalom offers a clear contrast to David. Although flight is a large part of his story as well, he looks more like Urhi-Teshub and Chanunu, princes who never did make it back to central status. Absalom suffered two major reversals in his flights, one following the murder of his brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:29), and another subsequent to his final defeat by the army of King David (2 Sam 18:9). The biblical account of the latter event does not use the language of flight; rather, here Absalom appears as the doomed prince on the model of Urhi-Teshub and Chanunu. Absalom’s flight following the murder of Amnon, by contrast, uses the language of flight repeatedly. Accordingly, we shall focus on Absalom’s flight following the murder of Amnon. Amnon’s murder grew out of Absalom’s resentment over the rape of his sister Tamar by his brother. He carefully plotted his revenge against Amnon and then took flight. As Idrimi fled to his mother’s people in Emar after some ambiguous “evil” occurred, Absalom flees to his mother’s people in Geshur after his offense (2 Sam 13:37). The evils that caused problems for Sinuhe and Idrimi seem both ambiguous and outside of their control because the evils are not attributed to them. In contrast, Absalom definitely could have refrained from doing what he did if he so desired. In this regard, Absalom’s flight shares characteristics with the flight of Moses (Exod 2:11–25). Moses killed the Egyptian overseer in a rage and so could not seek a type of refuge reserved for one who unpremeditatedly commits manslaughter. The MT uses the verb  to describe the flights of both Moses (Exod 2:15) and Absalom (2 Sam 13:34, 37, 38). The narrator designs both stories carefully and in order to elicit sympathy for Moses and Absalom. Tamar clearly is associated much more with Absalom67 than Amnon in a way that heightens the horror of Amnon’s crime.68 Neither Moses nor Absalom kill in an arbitrary manner; they both strive to vindicate the honor of a defenseless person. Particularly in Absalom's case, his act (2 Sam 13:29) can be seen as the foreshadowing of his later challenge to his father. Moses’ act foreshadows his subsequent challenge to Pharaoh, 67

Charles Conroy, Absalom, Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (AnBib 81; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978) 20: “The pericope begins by introducing Tamar, Absalom’s sister.” 68 McCarter, II Samuel, 327: “These two chapters [2 Samuel 13–14] are principally concerned with Abishalom. The opening words, where his name is the first mentioned and Tamar is identified as his sister, show this, as do the facts that the time references in the story (13:23, 28; 14:28) attach themselves to his activities and that the only significant interruption in the course of the narrative is a long parenthesis (14:25–27) testifying to his beauty and popularity. . . . More specifically, chaps. 13–14 provide the knowledge of private matters necessary, in our narrator’s opinion, for a correct understanding of the public events recounted in chaps. 15–20.”

Refuge in the Old Testament

53

but Absalom’s act also carries an implicit and justified critique of his father for not addressing the terrible injustice of Tamar’s rape (2 Sam 13:14). Pharaoh and David both appear out of touch with the problems of violence plaguing their respective lands. Absalom lost much of his central status during his exile in Geshur. He could only return from exile after much prompting and scheming by David’s general Joab (2 Sam 14:21). Even after he returned to Jerusalem, he had to wait two years before his father would grant him an audience (2 Sam 14:33). In the constant struggle for honor often operative in the ancient world, Absalom appears to resent his loss of honor and his associated loss of power. Not unlike the unhappy Idrimi in Emar, Absalom cannot be happy with his liminal status upon his return to Jerusalem. This unhappiness leads to his power grab in Hebron (2 Sam 15:10). His literal expropriation of David’s honor can be seen in the rape of his father’s ten concubines, who had remained in Jerusalem (2 Sam 16:22). In some respects, Absalom shares the characteristics of our successful refugees here. He makes it back to power and exercises it. Yet, unlike Sinuhe, Idrimi, and even his father, he is not able to maintain power for any extended length of time. His father “flees” () before him (2 Sam 15:14), but he quickly manages to use this flight to consolidate his power and restore himself to kingship. Absalom is like the doomed princes Urhi-Teshub and Chanunu, who never regain power. C. Adonijah Adonijah shares many similarities with Absalom. They are both sons of David; they are both described as handsome; they both were next in line to become king at some point; and they both had clear aspirations to reign.69 These similarities are not surprising: “In I Kgs 1–2, many motifs reoccur that were a part of the narrative until 2 Sam 20.”70 The crucial difference between these two characters is that Adonijah did not have any foreign support. Unlike Absalom, he could not retreat to Geshur when he ran into difficulties. Consequently, no verbs of flight are associated with Adonijah. Nonetheless, Adonijah does make an attempt to take refuge. After Adonijah realizes his simulated coronation has failed, he heads for the refuge provided by the horns of the altar (1 Kgs 1:50). We have no clear indication in the OT concerning the altar as a place of refuge, but this 69

Walter Dietrich, The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E. (SBL Biblical Encyclopedia Series 3; trans. Joachim Vette; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 82: “The narrator then draws an explicit ominous connection: ‘He was also a very handsome man, and [his mother bore] him next after Absalom’ (1:6). Adonijah is the next in line for the throne - and the next to lose his life.” 70 Ibid.

54

Chapter 3

story and the subsequent story about Joab (1 Kgs 2:28–34) both suggest that refuge was associated with the horns of an altar.71 The horns of the altar did provide refuge72 for Adonijah.73 He was not killed at the moment of his taking hold of the altar horns and was only executed after later scheming to destabilize Solomon’s kingship by marrying the old David’s “nurse,” Abishag (1 Kgs 2:25). The prince’s death so frightened Adonijah’s general and supporter Joab that he, too, fled to the horns of the altar for refuge (1 Kgs 2:28–34). The MT uses the verb , “to flee,” in order to describe this event. Yet, the horns of the altar provide no refuge for Joab, who is slaughtered on the spot.74 As with our other high-status refugees, both Adonijah and Joab needed a protector. Joab appears to resemble Uriah, who took refuge in Egypt, but was quickly returned to face the king’s justice in Judah. Joab could not avert the justice of King Solomon, even though the horns of the altar initially served to save Adonijah from a threatening situation. Ziony Zevit uses these two stories to develop an archaeologically-based understanding of the role that altars with horns played at the time of David and Solomon for those seeking refuge. “These casually mentioned details [about the altars] in two distinct stories are significant.”75 In these instances, altars clearly take on a role beyond what biblical law envisages (Exod 20:24–26).

71

Marvin Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007) 59: “Although no threat has been made against Adonijah, he understands his tenuous position. He now finds himself in defiance of the will of his father and his father’s successor. He takes the only course available to him: refuge at the altar. According to Num 35:9–28; Deut 19:1–13; and Josh 20, six cities of refuge were set aside throughout the land, to which one who commits unintentional manslaughter might flee for protection.” 72 Jerome F. D Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup 217; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 60 suggests: “Israelite sanctuaries were places of asylum, presumably because of a belief that the deity was present and afforded protection from one fleeing adversaries (1 Kgs 1.49–53).” Although there is probably some truth to this suggestion, I think it overlooks the fact that both Joab and Adonijah must take hold of the horns of the altar rather than just be in the sanctuary area. 73 Dietrich, Early Monarchy, 85: “Adonijah flees to the ‘horns of the altar’ and only dares let go after Solomon promise to spare his life - if only ‘nothing evil is found in him’ (1:49–53).” 74 Schmid, “   miqlƗ,” 8. 552: “This [exceptions involving sanctuary for murderers] corresponds approximately to 1 K. 1:50–53, where Adonijah flees to the altar and is subsequently released home by Solomon, though the incident admittedly does not involve the manslaughter case addressed in Ex. 21:13. In contrast, the case of Joab involves unpunished murder (Abner, Amasa; cf. 1 K. 2:5), which is why his flight to the altar does not save him.” 75 Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (New York: Continuum, 2001) 290.

Refuge in the Old Testament

55

Adonijah shows the limits of refuge in the biblical world. The Realpolitik operative with Jeroboam and Idrimi gives rise to the refugee’s need for a defender. If an exile’s preservation is not in the interest of the leader of the place where he seeks refuge, he has little hope. Adonijah initially managed to save himself by going to the horned altar, but it was not long before the leader of Solomon’s forces killed him. The altar had no power to save Joab because he both lacked Adonijah’s status of a king’s son and had committed several unpunished murders.76 Without a foreign power base, refugees have little hope of evading a hostile persecutor. D. Minor Characters A number of other figures are associated with flight in the OT. Six stand out: Moses, Joseph, Hagar, Jacob, Jephthah, and Jonah. I will deal with the first two figures in a separate section because Egypt plays a special role in their flight. The latter four figures all seek physical refuge outside of the land in which they had been living. We will now examine each of these characters in order to further our understanding of flight and refuge in the OT. Hagar’s situation is unique not only because she is the only woman to take flight in the OT, but also because she finds herself in this same situation twice. The use of the verb , “to flee,” appears only in the first such episode, in both Gen 16:6 and 16:8. What is notable about this first flight is its happy outcome. God intervenes, and Hagar is subsequently able to deal with the abusive treatment by Abram’s wife, Sarai. It is also notable that Hagar “fled in the direction of Egypt along the way of Shur, when the messenger of Yahweh found her near a well and asked where she was going.”77 Hagar’s flight, in contrast to Abraham’s journey to Egypt in the face of economic hardships,78 appears to be the first time79 that Egypt80

Schmid, “   miqlƗ,” 8. 552. Snell, Flight and Freedom, 127. 78 Genesis 12’s account of Abraham’s time in Egypt uses none of the nouns or verbs associated with “refuge”; rather, the narrator uses the verb , “to sojourn.” As I noted earlier in this chapter (see p. 12), this root has different connotations than those of “flight.” Sojourners have special status and establish themselves for a particular period in the land to which they go. They do not appear to flee their homeland and are not the equivalent of refugees. See Martin-Achard, “Gur,” 1. 308: “The gƝr, alone or in a group, has left his/her homeland as a result of political, economic, or other circumstances and seeks protection in a another community . . . . As a rule the gƝr is poor (cf. however, Lev 25:47) and is as a result numbered among the economically weak who, like widows and orphans, can lay claim to aid.” Generally, this group differs considerable from the group who are described with verbs of flight, since the gƝr are poor. 79 Jean Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 204: “We can say with some certainty that some of the oldest texts are the 76 77

56

Chapter 3

represents a place of refuge in the OT. Hagar’s second expulsion scenario (Gen 21:9–21) plays out a little differently, as the language of flight is not used here. Similar motifs of domestic conflict occur in the story of Jephthah (Judg 11:1–12:7) where flight has as much to do with domestic conflict than endangerment. Hagar is a more passive character in Gen 21:9–21 than Jephthah or our other exemplars, as Abraham expels her. Expulsion differs from flight, but I include this material because it completes the picture of Hagar and both the scenarios from Genesis 16 and 21 concern domestic conflict. What is interesting in Genesis 21 is that Hagar settles in Paran. This area is also associated with flight in the OT. “The Edomite Hadad passed through Paran while fleeing from Midian to Egypt (1 Kgs 11:19).”81 This second episode recounts Hagar’s final break with Abraham and proto-Israel. This may be part of the reason for its use of language that is not so evocative of flight. The OT also depicts two episodes of flight in the life of Jacob. In Genesis 27 and 31 Jacob shows many commonalities with other major refugees that we have studied. As with David, Jacob’s initial flight is part of a power struggle. He steals his brother Esau’s birthright and his mother advises him to flee () to her brother Laban in Haran (Gen 27:43). The language of flight with  is also used to describe this event in Gen 35:1 and 35:7. Like Idrimi and Absalom, Jacob could flee to the land of his mother’s people. Also like Moses and Absalom, Jacob commits an unethical act that necessitates his withdrawal. Many have noted the similarities Jacob also shares with Idrimi82 and even Hattusili III, the Hittite prince who schemed to overthrow his nephew Urhi-Teshub.83 Jacob shares characteristics of these men in that he does not resign himself to permanent exile after suffering a setback leading to flight. Rather, he strengthens himself through the acquisition of cattle and servants (Gen 32:6) during this exile so that he can return to a more central position. This process is more reminiscent of Idrimi’s and Sinuhe’s time in exile than Absalom’s. Jacob goes through a number of trials that test his character, rather than simply retreating to his mother’s people.

Abraham-Lot cycle (Genesis 13 and 18–19); perhaps the stay in Egypt (12:10–20) and the two versions of Hagar’s expulsion (16:1–14 and 21:8–20).” 80 David A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991) 120: “A secondary road from Egypt arrived at Beersheba by way of north-central Sinai, probably to be identified as the biblical ‘Shur Road.’” 81 Ronald Simkins, “Paran,” in EDB, 1009. 82 Edward Greenstein and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” JNES 8 (1976) 64. Concerning Idrimi’s story, they state: “We shall also indicate in our commentary the parallels with Jacob’s stay with Laban, the story of Jephthah, and others.” 83 Collins, The Hittites, 146.

Refuge in the Old Testament

57

The MT also uses the language of flight to describe Jacob’s return to the land of Canaan. The narrator employs the verb  four times (Gen 31:20, 21, 22, 27) in reference to Jacob’s departure from Haran. His second flight has a more aggressive nature than anything we have encountered yet. Whereas Jacob in Genesis 27 and our other refugees generally fled for their lives, here Jacob flees with possessions that Laban’s sons believe belong to Laban (Gen 31:1). It might be likened to Moses’ flight from Egypt with the Israelites and all their booty, for which the narrator also uses the verb  (Exod 14:5). One scholar claims: “Laban compares Jacob’s flight with the women to the carrying away of prisoners of war”84 (Gen 31:26). The important element here is a new, more aggressive aspect to Jacob’s flight. Jacob definitely wants to flee as he feels that Laban has mistreated him (Gen 31:5) and that he will be safer in Gilead (Gen 31:21). The other unique aspect of Jacob’s flight concerns the strong divine plan that is part of the flight. In other instances, flight takes places after some arbitrary indiscretion or evil, as with Sinuhe and Idrimi. Only with David does the divinity choose sides in the flight, as David’s power and authority increase while Saul’s access to God diminishes. We will also see this divine choice with Moses. Jacob has his famous dream at Bethel of the stairway to heaven (Gen 28:12) during his flight to Haran. He also has a dream telling him to flee from Haran back to Canaan (Gen 31:13). Finally, Laban receives a divine communication in which God orders him not to harm Jacob (Gen 31:29). God is very much a part of Jacob’s two flights in a way that is not uncommon. In general, flight designated by the verb  is limited in the OT to a physical, self-initiated movement, with some important exceptions, including the case of Jacob. The often-reviled85 character of Jephthah may share more in common with significant figures like Moses and David than any other of these four figures. Like the description of Jeroboam in the LXX (12:24b), Jephthah’s mother was prostitute (Judg 11:1). The narrator employs the verb  only once (Judg 11:3). Like Idrimi in Canaan and David in Philistia (1 Sam 23:5), Jephthah raised a band of men around him in Tob (Judg 11:3). Jephthah compares his difficulties in the Transjordan with Moses’ difficulties when he rehearses the difficulties of Moses (Num 20:18) in his threat to the king of Ammon (11:14–28). Both Jephthah and Moses could be seen as Otzen, “  Ɨb,” 14. 287. Michaela Bauks, Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, Religions- und Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11, 29–40 (FAT 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 11: “Dieser ebenfalls auf Jephta konzentrierte Lektüreansatz ist der Mehrheit der modernen, insbesondere den feministisch motivierten Auslegungen gemeinsam. Er zielt auf die Fremdheit und Unmoral von Jephtas Verhalten. Diese sei bereits am Erzählanfang angelegt durch die Auskunft, dass er ein Bastard sei . . . .” 84 85

58

Chapter 3

epic warriors.86 David (1 Sam 16:8), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:28), and Jephthah (Judg 11:1) are all described as men of valor ( % &). Most would probably think of Jephthah as a figure more similar to Jeroboam than David, as the majority opinion sees him a child sacrificer.87 David Marcus makes a strong argument for the minority opinion by focusing on ambiguity. 88 He argues that Jephthah never sacrificed his child, by comparing Jephthah’s vow89 (Judg 11:30–31) with Jacob’s vow (Gen 28:20–22) and Hannah’s vow (1 Sam 1:11). Jephthah’s flight develops inchoate themes of flight and refuge found earlier in Judg 9:15, 21 concerning the parable of the trees and the flight of Jotham. Unlike these other examples, Jephthah uses flight to his advantage like Idrimi and David, as he also gathers a band of men around him. “Jephthah is portrayed in this chapter as a social bandit who begins his career as an outcast.”90 He “is introduced as a sort of pre-monarchic David with Gideon/anti-Abimelech overtones.”91 Jephthah seems to end up falling somewhere between Jeroboam and David. Like both of them, “he gathered around himself a band of military ruffians, men outside of the institutional power base. The image of the hero surrounded by outcasts of society is typical of the careers of successful bandit heroes (cf. Abimelech, 9:4; the displaced Danites, 18:25; and Jeroboam, 2 Chron 13:6–7).” David becomes one of Israel’s greatest kings and Jeroboam is reviled throughout the rest of the OT. “Michaela Bauks emphasizes the ambivalence surrounding Jephthah: “Es ist gerade dieses Paradoxen von Erfolg und Grauen, Macht 86

Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) 132: “Versions in Judges 11 and Numbers 20, by contrast, cast the enemy strongly in terms of ‘us versus them,’ as befits tales of epic warriors.” 87 Michaela Bauks, “The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice in and Beyond the Biblical Context in Relation to Genesis 22 and Judges 11” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Karin Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) 86: “Jephthah is damned because there is no Deus ex machina who resolves his ambiguous situation. He remains the tragic hero.” 88 David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986) 11: “But this very ambiguity should be enough to serve as a check on the undisputed interpretation of the majority side. If anything is “clear enough” it is that, from the text as it now stands, the fate of Jephthah’s daughter cannot be determined with any finality.” 89 Ibid., 26: “The symbolic argument has strong support on two counts. The first is that fact that a literal ôlƗh is not mentioned in the fulfillment of the vow. The second is the association of the ôlƗh consecration in 1 Samuel . . . . Once again doubt remains. It should not by now be a surprise that this may in fact have been the original intent of the narrator. In the light of all the other intentional ambiguities which we have posited for this verse, the narrator may have wanted to leave it to the reader to decide whether or not literal or figurative sacrifice is meant here.” 90 Ibid, 130. 91 Alice Logan, “Rehabilitating Jephthah,” JBL 128 (2009) 673.

Refuge in the Old Testament

59

und Ohnmacht, dem sich die Protagonisten nicht zu entziehen vermögen, das sehr an die griechishe Tragödie erinnert.”92 Jephthah has been variously characterized as egocentric, impulsive, insecure, and faithless,”93 but “in the other two references to Jephthah in the Bible (1 Sam 12:11 and Heb 11:32) he receives high praise as an exemplary Israelite leader.”94 Like Hagar and Jacob, flight has a positive outcome for Jephthah. A figure emerges who will foreshadow important characteristic of refugees in the upcoming texts of the OT. The Book of Jonah represents a more typical use of the verb . The MT uses the verb three times (1:3, 10; 4:2) to describe Jonah’s activity. Jonah does just the opposite of what God asks him to do (1:2). “In the book of Jonah, barach means the earnest attempt of the prophet to evade God’s commission. . . .”95 Jonah lacks many of the traits we have come to see in exiles. First, he does not appear to have high-status. Second, he does the opposite of the Lord’s wishes and flees the Lord (Jonah 1:3). Third, he does not flee to a neighboring region, but rather to the distant country of Tarshish (Jonah 1:3), where he has little success with his flight. He may be viewed as an anti-exile. He wants to be an exile, but God will not allow this. Unlike our other refugees, he does not flee to avoid some peril; rather, he flees to avoid doing God’s will. He shares few characteristics with other biblical and extrabiblical figures who set out in flight. He is a puzzling character who sheds little light on the other figures explored in this chapter. Finally, the OT seems to associate certain lands with flight and ultimate restoration of power. Although this thesis focuses on Egypt, the role of the Transjordan in flight cannot go unmentioned. The Transjordan serves as a place of refuge and a staging ground for restoration in a similar way that Sinuhe and Idrimi experience in their time of liminality. “Only three cases occur in which the character enters (or stays) in Transjordan without the explicit intention of improving his political situation.”96 We see the Transjordan as playing a clear role in flight and restoration, and will see in my later chapters how Egypt often plays this same role.

92

Bauks, Jephtas Tochter, 169 Logan, “Rehabilitating Jephthah,” 666. 94 Ibid., 665. 95 Gamberoni, “ bƗrach,” 2. 251. 96 Jeremy M. Hutton, The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 396; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009) 3. 93

60

Chapter 3

E. The Psalms Refuge is a very important concept in the Psalms. In fact, Jerome Creach maintains that “the psalter is organized around the idea of ‘refuge.’”97 Without a doubt, refuge is a significant concept in the Psalms, but the idea of refuge differs in some respects. Generally, we have seen refuge associated with two verbs, both meaning “to flee.” These verbs appear only nine times in the Psalms:  (59:17; 68:2; 104:7; 114:3, 5; 142:5) and  (3:1; 57:1; 139:7). The more common verb of refuge in the psalms is , which appears thirty-seven98 times there.99 What makes this verb distinctive is the spiritual nature of refuge with which it is associated as opposed to the much more concrete notion of actual physical flight associated with  and . Specifically, “Ɨsâ/ ma seh has lost the physical and psychological elements of ‘flight,’ gaining in return an exclusive reference to Yahweh in the sense of a fundamental decision for Yahweh over and above anything and anyone else, whether made once for all or actualized in the face of specific dangers and temptations.”100 Our previous study of flight has revealed its predominantly physical character. When we look at individuals like Idrimi, Sinuhe, David, and Adonijah, they are clearly going to a refuge, a physical place in which they feel safer. The idea of refuge featured in the psalms, by contrast, is quite abstract. This difference becomes clear when similar material from the psalms and DH is examined. “The Ɨsâ/ ma seh group is set apart from words with similar meaning. . . .”101 This shift is most apparent in Psalm 18 because of “the fact of the unified parallel transmission of the entire psalm in 2 Samuel 22. . . .”102 Gamberoni elaborates here: “In 2 S 22:3, for example, not far from the verb ’eeseh and in a series of several metaphors in which God is addressed as a protection and refuge, we find menûsî as an element not occurring in Ps. 18:2f.(1f.), which is otherwise identical.”103 This observa97

Creach, Yahweh as Refuge, 18. These occurrences are: 2:12; 5:12; 7:2; 11:1; 14:6; 16:1; 17:7; 18:3, 31; 25:20; 31:2, 20; 34:9, 23; 36:8; 37:40; 46:2; 57:2 (bis); 61:4, 5; 62:8, 9; 64:11; 71:1, 7; 73:28; 91:2, 4, 9; 94:22; 104:18; 118:8, 9; 141:8; 142:6; 144:2. 99 Pirmin Hugger, Jahwe meine Zuflucht: Gestalt und Theologie des 91. Psalms (Münsterschwarzacher Studien 13; Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1971) 61: “Dem theologischen Begriff der ‘Zuflucht’ liegt also eiliges, angstvolles ‘Hinfliehen zu etwas’ zugrunde; aus einer menschlichen Urerfahrung abgeleitet – man flieht aus der Gefahrenzone weg zu etwas Starkem hin, das Schutz bietet – wird Ği aufgenommen im Bereich des theologischen und kultischen Sprechens: Gott ist die Zuflucht schlechthin.” 100 Gamberoni, “  Ɨsâ,” 5. 74–75. 101 Ibid., 5. 74. 102 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1988) 256. 103 Gamberoni, “ Ɨsâ,” 5. 74. 98



Refuge in the Old Testament

61

tion is important because menûsî is derived from , a verb used elsewhere in a very concrete sense. The language of the psalms thus becomes quite abstract. Creach makes the point that “these terms [Ɨsâ/maseh] lost some of their distinctiveness in the late psalmody and in the early interpretation of psalms so that, for example, Ɨsâ came to signify an inner sense of dependence much like Ɨa.”104 This finding exemplifies the abstract nature of the Psalms, which does not help us come to a better understanding of flight in the OT.

IV. Moses and Joseph I devote a special section of this chapter to Moses and to Joseph, son of Jacob, because Egypt figures so largely in their stories. Although flight is not nearly as prominent in their stories as in those of David, Jeroboam, or Jeremiah, contemporary images of Egypt in the OT largely are influenced by the canonical shape of the OT and the prominence of the Joseph and Moses stories. Joseph’s experience in Egypt is largely positive, while Moses’ experience there is largely negative. They both appear as exiles, and the narrator uses verbs of flight to describe both. Like our other fugitives, they have profound experiences of liminality, but they also make their way back to centrality in spite of enormous difficulties. As with David and Jacob, God directs their way and is very much a part of their return to centrality. They are both responsible for guiding Israel through perilous parts of its history that could well have ended with annihilation. A. Joseph Joseph’s story continues to be one of the most famous stories in world literature. It was re-explored in a novel by Thomas Mann and in a musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Joseph becomes an exile because his brothers sell him into slavery, and he is brought to Egypt. Egypt eventually becomes a refuge for him, but not without many difficulties, including time in jail. Although Joseph did not have enormous power in the land of Canaan, the MT describes him as the favorite of his powerful father (Gen 37:3). His great reversal of fortune placed him in a liminal position of which he had no prior experience, far more drastic than the reversal his father, Jacob, or any of our other high-status exiles suffer. “As a slave he is at the disposition of those in power; he is accused of a crime and is not even given a 104

Creach, Yahweh as Refuge, 23. On p. 32, he makes the further important point: “BƗ a is important because of its close relationship with Ɨsâ as well as the frequency of its occurrence in the Psalter (52 times). Although bƗ a  can mean simply ‘believe’ (i.e. Ps 78:22), in most cases the word has the connotation of inner security and trust.”

62

Chapter 3

hearing. He has neither right nor legal counsel. He has only one resource to help him – the God of his father is with him.”105 Joseph’s actual experience of flight is quite different from those of other biblical exiles. The MT uses the verb , “to flee,” four times in Genesis 39 (39:12, 13, 15, 18) to describe not flight from a county, but in his encounter with Potiphar’s wife in which he rejects her sexual advances and makes a hasty retreat. “Joseph’s position [as a slave] prevents him from in a way raising his hand against the mistress and so he has no option but to flee from the house. It is wretched and dishonorable to have to flee from a woman, but there is no other way out; she is his master’s wife.”106 This flight precipitates Joseph’s deepest crisis in the biblical novella.107 As if Joseph were not already in a very liminal position, his flight from a woman accusing him of attempted rape only further diminishes his status. Yet, we see Joseph trying to move back to centrality as he becomes chief jailer (Gen 39:22) and solicits Pharaoh’s attention (Gen 40:14). His actions call to mind other high-status exiles. God gives Joseph enormous and unprecedented help in this return to centrality as he eventually becomes Egypt’s viceroy. Joseph’s ultimately positive experience108 in Egypt allows him to save the people of Israel from famine. This experience lays the foundation for the biblical motif of Egypt as a place of refuge. “Joseph explains three times (the repetition shows a crucial focus in the structure of the speech on this point, not evidence for literary expansions) that God, not the brothers, sent him to Egypt.”109 Without Egypt, Israel could not have survived. “We should take the canonical shape of the Hebrew Bible seriously. Before the exodus discourse begins, Egypt is already presented as a land where hungry patriarchs can survive (Genesis 12:10–12; Joseph Story). It is a land of good governance that tolerated foreign shepherds to live within her boundaries. The oppression only begins when ‘a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8). In a canonical reading, Egypt

105 Claus Westermann, Genesis 37–50: A Commentary (trans. John Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986) 69. 106 Ibid., 66. 107 George W. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 279–80: “And the narration accomplishes a transition from the dialogue between the woman and Joseph to a new stage of crisis.” 108 Fieger, Der Einzug in Ägypten, 8: “Bemerkenswert ist die auffallend positive Einstellung gegenüber Ägypten, die als exzeptionell in der Bibel angesehen werden kann.” 109 Coats, From Canaan to Egypt, 90. Coats will later go on to characterize Israel’s journey to Egypt as in a manner a “descent into Sheol” (p. 92). I would reject that characterization as is obvious from my following analysis.

Refuge in the Old Testament

63

does not oppress Israel, but two pharaohs do.”110 Egypt becomes one of the natural places of refuge for Israelites,111 especially for those without contacts in other countries, such as Jacob and Absalom had. Subsequently, we see Jeroboam and Hadad successfully use Egypt as a place of refuge as they move from liminality to centrality again. Uriah (Jer 26:20) also attempts to make Egypt a refuge, but his efforts fail. Unlike these other exemplars, Joseph flees from a domestic, threatening situation and never returns to his homeland. Joseph’s flight is quite unique in comparison to the other stories, but we see that Egypt ultimately affords him a successful refuge and a return to centrality. B. Moses Moses offers a very different perspective on Egypt: a house of slavery and a place of suffering. Moses has more normal experiences of flight, but his two recourses to flight are from rather than to Egypt. Verbs of flight are used with Moses three times:  (Exod 4:3) and  (Exod 2:15 and 14:5). Exodus’ use of  is rather unusual and does not particularly help us to understand the phenomenon of flight. It concerns Moses’ running away from his own staff when God turns it into a snake. By contrast, the book’s uses of  characterize two classical instances of flight. Exodus 2:15 recounts Moses’ flight from Egypt to Midian after he kills an Egyptian who was mistreating an Israelite. This flight is quite similar to those of many other powerful refugees in the ANE. Moses had grown up in the royal house of Egypt as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod 2:10). Like Idrimi, Urhi-Teshub, or Absalom, he was not accustomed to a liminal status or situation, but this was a role that he had to assume. Moses asserts himself during his exile in Midian by acting as a patron of Reuel’s daughters (Exod 2:17) and marries Zipporah, the daughter of a priest. He moves in the direction of centrality as he marries into a local priestly family. Ultimately, Moses becomes part of a much larger divine plan. In an even more radical manner than Joseph or Jacob, God appears to Moses and commissions him to return to Egypt. Like Sinuhe or Jacob, Moses has adapted to his environment during his time of exile and returns to Egypt (Exod 4:19) in a stronger position. Moses’ second flight is the famous exodus of the OT. The MT uses  in Exod 14:5 in order to describe the departure of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. Here, they have no intention of ever returning to Egypt. Their 110 Rainer Kessler, “The Threefold Image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible,” Scriptura 90 (2005) 883. 111 Fieger, Der Einzug in Ägypten, 49: “Auch das Alte Testament kennt viele Asiaten in Ägypten, die in unterschiedlichsten sozialen Schichten – von Sklaven über Flüchtlinge bis zu politisch Verfolgten und Gefangenen – zu finden waren.”

64

Chapter 3

intended refuge will be the proverbial land flowing with milk and honey (Exod 3:9, 17; 13:5). This flight can be compared to Jacob’s because it increases Moses’ centrality as he flees with an enormous amount of booty, doing so at God’s direction.112

V. Conclusion We have seen many different examples of flight in this chapter. The major figures, from David to Moses all share the characteristic of fleeing from a position of incorporation and finding themselves in a liminal position. Unlike low-status refugees, these high-status refugees do not remain in a liminal position. Some of these stories, namely those of David and Jacob, tell of a successful return to centrality. We also have stories of doomed refugees like Absalom and Adonijah. The flight stories studied here thus do not have a consistent ending. We have also seen that the idea of refuge is quite different in these stories than in the Psalms. Refuge becomes a more abstract, spiritual idea of relying on God alone in the Psalms, whereas refuge appears as a concrete reality, involving literal flight in all the above stories.

112

Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSS 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 151: Smith points out the importance of the patriarchal stories for understanding Moses: “The patriarchal stories anticipate the themes and motifs of the Moses narratives concluding in the covenant on the mountain. The travels of Abraham to Egypt and to the holy mountain foreshadow Moses and the people in Egypt and Horeb (Sinai).” I would argue that a similar phenomenon exists in the stories of Jacob.

Chapter 4

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) I. Introduction Until recently most commentators have approached 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 with their historical concerns. Scholars have used this material to construct histories of Israel and to describe ancient Palestine and Egypt with less concern for the question of genre. The first section of this chapter addresses the delimitation of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. The second section presents the relevant textual evidence in offering a translation of the above passage and making text-critical observations, paying close attention to both the MT and the various witnesses to the LXX. The third section examines the structure and key words of this text as well as offers my own outline of it. The fourth section presents an exegesis of this material within the framework of my outline with particular attention to the literary questions raised by the different genres found within the material. The fifth section uses the findings of the exegetical section to examine the historical utilization of this passage by scholars. My conclusion will reflect on the problems involved in using this material to construct a history of Israel. Throughout, I will continually attend to the image of Egypt as a place of refuge in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24.

II. The Delimitation of the Passage and Text-Critical/Methodological Observations 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 has many connections to Egypt and its status as a place of refuge. The beginning of 1 Kings 11, vv. 1–13, concerns Solomon and his wayward behavior. These verses mark a transition from a section exclusively concerned with Solomon to the leaders who will follow Solomon. Solomon’s sins are beyond the scope of this dissertation, but the flight of his enemies is not. A new section starts within chap. 11 at v. 14. From this point on, the chapter features the enemies of Solomon. Two of his enemies, Hadad the Edomite (1 Kgs 11:14) and Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:26), flee to Egypt, while Rezon is able to find refuge closer to his homeland of Zobah lying to the east of Israel. 1 Kings 11 also includes an interesting prophetic

66

Chapter 4

tale (11:29–39) that shows why Solomon found Jeroboam such a threatening figure (1 Kgs 11:40). 1 Kings 11 concludes with the death of Solomon. His death initiates a struggle for power, which leads to the return of Jeroboam from Egypt. I will examine the first twenty-four verses of 1 Kings 12 because they deal with the direct consequences of Jeroboam’s return. The end of chap. 12, vv. 25–33, recounts Jeroboam’s heterodox religious practices. Since my main concern is Egypt and flight thither, I will not deal with this unit, which has a different focus. I pay special attention to the LXX of 11:14– 12:24, but will not exegetically examine the LXX plus, 12:24a–z, because, like most commentators, I see these verses as a Midrashic elaboration of materials in chaps. 11, 12, and 14 of the MT.1 The literary unit 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 contains such an abundance of themes important for this study that this other material would only distract from the focus of this chapter. Diverse approaches to this material are evident among those scholars who concern themselves with its text-critical issues. Some scholars analyze only the Hebrew text.2 This method leads to a disregard of the unit’s textual difficulties. The various Greek text-forms of the passage alert the reader to many questions posed by the Hebrew text. I adopt S. J. DeVries’ position: This [DeVries’s translation] results from the author’s willingness to give perhaps more than the usual amount of consideration to variant readings in ancient languages other than the Hebrew. He rejects any foregone favoritism, whether preference for the MT or for the LXX. Each individual passage is scrutinized for what the most important textual witnesses have to say, and is then interpreted.3

DeVries’ approach identifies considerable evidence for the importance of the LXX in the passage. This approach is also in line with contemporary biblical scholarship that upholds the text-critical importance of the LXX.4 While the approach does not resolve all the problems in the material, it does yield a fuller picture of that material. Finally, I will use a synchronic method. I believe the diachronic method has generated some confusion regarding 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. There is tre1

See Talshir Zipora, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6; Jerusalem: Simor, 1993) 280. 2 Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 85. 3 Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco, TX: Word, 1985) liii. 4 Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.; Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997) 223: “It is indeed a fact that the readings of MT are, on the whole, preferable to those found in other texts, but this statistical information should not influence decisions in individual instances, because the exceptions to this general rule are not predictable.”

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

67

mendous difficulty in just trying to understand the plot of the story as presented by the different versions. By paying attention to literary features, we will see the predominance of literary concerns within this section. We do not find annalistic material here; rather, we find stories about important individuals, employing different genres available to the narrators. A synchronic approach to this material looks to plot development and literary structure that help to indicate the methods and purpose of the narrative. Boer asserts: “The value of these ‘literary’ studies in general lies in their emphasis on the text as a unit worthy of consideration in its own right. . .”5 I will avoid getting involved in the many difficulties posed by the hypotheses of redaction-critical analysis.6 Critics struggle to detect redactional levels in this section because the purported interpolations have been carried out so well. Rather than recording the historical circumstances of the various events, we find the narrator often making important theological points. When we then likewise observe the different versions of the LXX, we see new perspectives emerging there.

III. Translation of the Critically Reconstructed Hebrew Text7 A. Introductory Remarks All commentators acknowledge that scribes produced the LXX and MT centuries after the occurrence of the reported events. Great controversy has surrounded the importance of the various versions. While Trebolle makes important arguments for the primacy of the proto-Lucianic Antiochene manuscripts in our segment,8 Sweeney makes more compelling arguments 5

Roland Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 107. Diachronic discussions of 1 Kings can be found in the commentaries of John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); Cogan, 1 Kings; DeVries, 1 Kings. I largely bracket these diachronic issues in order to focus on synchronic issues. 7 I will use the evidence of MT, LXXB (Vaticanus) from A. Brooke et al., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Volume II, Part II, and LXXL (Lucianic/Antiochene version) from N. Fernández Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega, II, 1–2 Reyes for my translation as well. I take the MT to be the most original text, but it is not without problems. The various witnesses of the LXX highlight the fluidity of the text. At times their Vorlagen offer the best reading. I evaluate each verse on its own merits rather than simply following either the MT or one of the witnesses of the LXX. 8 J. C. Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Book of Kings,” BIOSCS 15 (1982) 30: “The kaige revision in the MS tradition replaced the OG text in the sections 1 Kgs 1–2:11 and 1 Kgs 22–2 Kgs and may have left traces in the non-kaige section in some MSS. In those sections then, the only path capable of leading us back to 6

68

Chapter 4

for the overall primacy of the MT based in part upon the presence of “Shemaiah the Elamite” in the Alternative Story (12:24o) 9 and the tendentious reference to Jeroboam’s presence in Israel in LXXB (Codex Vaticanus) at 3 Rgns 11:43 and in the LXXL (the Lucianic or Antiochene Text) at 3 Rgns 11:42.10 Sweeney makes the important point that the Codex Alexandrinus manuscript (LXXA)11 agrees with the MT in 11:43 and does not place Jeroboam in Israel immediately upon his hearing the news of Solomon’s death. Some commentators12 view LXXA as an attempted whitewash of Jeroboam because it lacks Ahijah’s negative encounter with Jeroboam’s

the primitive from of the Greek version is that which retraces the pre-Lucianic substratum of the Antiochene MSS.” 9 Sweeney, “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions,” 189: “the designation of Shemaiah as ‘the Elamite’ raises questions. Indeed, interpreters are at a loss to explain why he should be identified as an Elamite. The matter is resolved, however, when one notes that several LXX manuscripts, including Vaticanus 1209, the fourth c. C.E. manuscript on which editions of the LXX are based, identify him as     , ‘Shemaiah the Nehelemite,’ in Jer 29:24–32m where he is identified as a false prophet. Although the    would have been the original designation in Greek,

   would have emerged as scribes recognized that     is the historically problematic figure from Jeremiah 29.” 10 M. A. Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007) 169: “The two LXX narratives [3 Reigns and 3 Rgns 12:24p–u] present differing accounts. Both emphatically state in 3 Rgns 11:43 and 12:24d–f that Jeroboam had returned to his home city of Sarira immediately upon hearing the news of Solomon’s death. Third Reigns 12:20, however, states that Jeroboam joined the assembly only after the northern tribes had successfully revolted against Rehoboam and then heard that he had returned from Egypt. Such a notice suggests a distant role as an instigator prior to his flight to Egypt that only resumed upon his return to the assembly.” Jeroboam’s presence in Israel prior to the assembly (as LXXB and LXXL, but not LXXA, 11:43 state) marks him as the possible instigator of the proceedings in Shechem much more clearly than the summary of events in MT 12:2 and 12:20 would suggest. 11 Concerning LXXA, see Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 187: “It is clearly impossible, and more so than ever today, to express a judgment in such general terms as to designate it with [A.] Ceriani and (to a lesser extent) [C. H.] Cornill as Hesychian, or even to speak of it as closely following the Hexaplaric version. This is an oversimplification of a complex textual problem, for no manuscript admits of description in such wide terms. Hexaplaric influence is certainly to be seen, as in the Books of Joshua, Ruth, Esther, and to a much greater extent in Samuel and Kings.” 12 D. W. Gooding, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power: A Rejoinder,” JBL 91 (1972) 29: “I suggested the peculiarities of the LXX’s first account [Codex Alexandrinus] of Jeroboam’s rise to power, 1 Kgs 11:43–12:24, might be understood as arising from a desire to whitewash Jeroboam’s character, and that the LXX’s second account [Vaticanus] of his rise to power, 1 Kgs 12:24a–z, was clearly an attempt to blacken his character as much as possible.”

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

69

wife as found in MT 1 Kgs 14:1–20. Other Greek manuscripts, LXXmisc13, go even further towards improving Jeroboam’s image by not including a part at the beginning of the story where he lifts up his hand against the king (1 Kgs 11:26).14 The role of Egypt as a place of refuge manifests itself in all these witnesses, but they also show differently nuanced attitudes towards Egypt. In what follows, I will focus on the story as we have it in the MT. Although I will use the various LXX manuscripts, I will, nonetheless, follow the progression of the story according to the MT. Both the MT and LXX depict Egypt as a place of refuge at this time period (Solomon’s reign). Egypt in 1 Kings 11–12 gives refuge to persons described as rebels. The MT and LXX speak similarly about Hadad, but the LXX witnesses display variations as to his actual name. Jeroboam’s depiction causes still more confusion. The LXX presents a much fuller and more negative portrayal of Jeroboam in the Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic/Antiochene text as opposed to Codex Alexandrinus, which lacks the Alternative Story.15 The portrayal of Egypt as a place of refuge for rebels is negative throughout most witnesses of the LXX and MT, but Egypt becomes a still more negative place in the midrashic accounts found in the Alternative Story (12:24 a–z). Two glaring differences emerge from a comparison of the structure of the MT and certain witnesses of the LXX (Vaticanus and Lucianic): the differing versions of Jeroboam’s return (3) and the Alternative Story (LXXV 1 Kgs 24a–z). LXXL has Jeroboam return in 11:42, while in LXXB he returns in 11:43. The differences between the LXX and MT in this regard evidence a slightly more prejudiced perspective towards Jeroboam by the witnesses of the LXX. The LXX further exhibits this perspective in 12:3 where it does not have Jeroboam being “sent and called” as he is in the MT, especially when we compare Jeroboam with Hadad, who is portrayed as asking to go home (1 Kgs 11:21). LXXBL views Jeroboam as the ringleader here because it places him in Israel directly after the death of Solomon, whereas the MT does not mention him until after Rehoboam went to Shechem (1 Kgs 12:2), which prompted the assembly to call for Jeroboam’s return (1 Kgs 12:3). LXXBL go much further than LXXA because its Alternative Story explains in great detail the sedition of Jeroboam. When one focuses on these differences in plot, greater clarity 13 T. Willis, “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3,” CBQ 53 (1991) 38. Willis tells us that Gmisc is “a group of MSS usually overlooked by text critics, which I label ‘G misc.’ In this passage this group consists of MSS N d e f h m p q s t v w y z.” 14 Ibid., 43. “One would expect Gmisc to agree with the reading in the MT, but it does not; it omits the expansions, agreeing with LXXB against the MT. Once again, Gmisc reflects an earlier form of the text than does the MT.” 15 Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 155–56.

70

Chapter 4

emerges as we try to understand Egypt as a place of refuge. If we accept Gooding’s claim that both LXX accounts reflect an interpretive approach,16 we see a tension emerge in the portrayal of Egypt. LXXA shows Egypt as a place of refuge in the mode of the Joseph story. Egypt can play a positive role in the formation of Israelite leaders here. In LXXBL Egypt plays a more neutral role. Finally, the Alternative Story names a pharaoh who takes in Jeroboam and treats him in a similar fashion to Hadad (LXXBL 12:24e–f). Significant differences then exist within these witnesses’ portrayals of Egypt. The spectrum ranges from motifs reminiscent of the oppression in Moses’ time to echoes of the opportunities of Joseph’s time. Egypt can be “the broken reed which pierces the hand of anyone who leans upon it” (Isa 36:6b//2 Kgs 18:21b) or the refuge that it was in the time of Abraham and Joseph.17 A. The Translation 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:17

The Lord raised an adversary against Solomon: Hadad18 the Edomite; he was from the offspring of the king in Edom19. And it happened that while David was utterly destroying Edom, 20 Joab the leader of the army went up to bury the dead. He struck down every male in Edom. For six months, Joab and all Israel dwelled there until all the males were destroyed. Then Hadad21 fled. He and the Edomite men from the servants of his father went to Egypt. Hadad was a little boy.

16 D. W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” VT 17 (1967) 189: “The present writer would hold that we have in these versions [3 Rgns 11:26–12:24; 3 Rgns 12:24a–z; MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24], not three independent historical sources, and not even three more or less independent textual traditions in the strict sense of the term, but rather the original story [MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24] plus two Rabbinic, homiletic variations on it [3 Rgns 11:26–12:24; 3 Rgns 12:24a–z].” While I would not go so far as to say these elements are “Rabbinic,” I do believe they are interpretive. 17 R. Kessler, Die Ägyptenbilder der hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte (SBS 197; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002) 141. 18 LXXB and LXXL have “Hader.” 19 LXXL continues with information not found in the MT or LXX B about other adversaries of Solomon: “and Esrom son of Eliadae, from Raamath, and Adadezer king of Suba his lord; and men gathered to him, and he was leader of the insurgency, and he seized Damascus. He resided in it and ruled over Damascus. They were adversaries against Israel all the days of Solomon.” 20 LXXB and LXXL are in agreement for this part of this verse. The MT only tells us that David was in Edom '()*($ %+ ,& -, “And it happened that David was in Edom.” The MT may be trying to ameliorate the picture of David here. Hence, I follow LXXB and LXXL in my translation, which is more consistent with MT 11:24. 21 LXXB and LXXL continue to read “Hader.”

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) 11:18

11:19 11:20

11:21

11:22 11:2327 11:24 11:25 11:26

71

They arose from Midian22 and came to Paran. They took men with them from Paran and came to Egypt, to pharaoh king of Egypt. He gave to him a house and ordered food for him.23 Hadad found a lot of favor in the eyes of pharaoh. He gave him a woman, the sister of his wife, Tahpenes24 the queen mother. The sister of Tahpanes bore to him Genubath, 25 his son. Tahpanes weaned him within the house of pharaoh. Genubath was in the house of pharaoh among the sons of pharaoh. Hadad heard in Egypt that David lay with his fathers, and that Joab, the leader of the army, had died. Hadad said to pharaoh: “Send me away so that I may go to my land.” And pharaoh said to him: “What are you lacking with me that you are seeking to go to your land?” He said to him: “Nothing, but please send me.”26 And God raised up an adversary to him, 28 Rezon, the son of Eliada, who fled from his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah. And he gathered men about him and he was leader of a band after the slaughter of David.29 He went to Damascus and dwelt in it. He ruled over Damascus.30 He was an adversary against Israel all the days of Solomon, doing evil like Hadad. He loathed Israel and reigned over Aram.31 Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephraimite from Zeredah, the name of whose mother was Zeruah, a widow, was a servant of Solomon. He raised his hand against the king.32

22

LXXB states that they come from the “city” of “Madiam”; LXXL lacks the qualification of “Madiam” as a city. 23 LXXL goes on to mention pharaoh giving him land as well. 24 There is a lot of confusion about this person. Her name is quite different in the Greek versions, i.e. “Thekemina.” One finds no mention of the “queen mother” (or whatever the MT’s ./"- may signify) in the Greek versions. 25 In contrast to the case of “Tahpanes” (see previous note), the MT, LXX B and LXXL all agree upon the consonants of the name “Genubath.” 26 At the end of this verse (11:22) in LXXB and the beginning of the next verse in LXXL (11:23), the text reads:          , “Hader returned to his land.” 27 This verse appears as 11:14 in the Greek witnesses, which appear to want to introduce the two “adversaries” (Hadad and Rezon) of Solomon together. 28 It is interesting that there is no antecedent here. It seems unlikely that this was the original position of the verse. It may have originally had a preceding reference to Solomon. 29 LXXB and LXXL lack “after the slaughter of David.” The fact this detail is embarrassing for David may speak for its authenticity. The detail about David’s slaughter may also be a reason for juxtaposing the accounts of Rezon and Hadad – both Zobah (2 Sam 8:5) and Edom (2 Sam 8:13), the homelands of the two figures, suffered massacres at David’s hands. See footnote 20. 30 11:24 is quite different in LXXL, and we do not have this verse in LXX B. LXXL is almost the same as LXXB 11:26, which is the same idea as in the first sentence of my translation based primarily on the MT of 11:26. 31 The end of this verse is very problematic when one compares MT with LXXB and L LXX , which do not make a comparison between Hadad and Rezon here.

72

Chapter 4

11:27 11:28 11:29

11:30 11:31

11:32 11:33

32

This is the situation that he raised his hand against the king. Solomon built the Millo and closed up the breach in the city of David, his father.33 Jeroboam was a mighty warrior, and when Solomon saw that the young man was industrious, he appointed him over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph. At that time, Jeroboam went out from Jerusalem. The prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road, and he was dressed in a new garment. The two were alone in the field.34 And Ahijah seized his new garment and he tore it into twelve pieces. He said to Jeroboam: “Take for yourself ten because thus the Lord, the God of Israel said: ‘Behold, I am tearing the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and I will give to you ten tribes. He will have one 35 tribe on account of my servant David and on account of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel. Because he has abandoned me and worshipped36 Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh, the god of Moab, and Milcom, the god of the Ammonites,

LXXBL lack the name of Jeroboam’s mother. Willis (“The Text of 1 Kings,” 43–44) states: “In 1 Kgs 11:26 the MT and Hexaplaric witnesses contain two pieces of information which are not reflected in LXX. The first is the name of Jeroboam’s mother; the second is the clause, ‘and he lifted (his) hand against the king.’ Both of these appear to be expansions in the text, while LXXB represents an earlier form of the text (which is commonly the case in this section of Kings).” I believe Willis raises good points, but there are solid reasons why the more negative LXX would want to delete both of the above items. The information about Jeroboam’s mother puts him in the company of other kings rather than rebels. In spite of Gmisc, I therefore include the MT’s allusion to “lifting the hand” in my translation because it is the lectio difficilior, since these opening verses (1 Kgs 11:26–29a) would be more consistently positive without this negative reference to “lifting the hand.” The story makes a lot more sense without the immediate condemnation of Jeroboam, because he behaves reasonably well in the MT until 12:25. Gmisc presents Jeroboam as the sympathetic figure he is for some contemporary scholars who see links between him and Moses. The LXX mentions “lifting the hand” in 11:27, but its contextualization here seems to reduce some of the prejudice against Jeroboam. 33 LXXL is different: “And it happened at that time, Jeroboam came out from Jerusalem and he saw the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite on the way and he stood away from the road and Ahijah put on new clothing, each of them on the road” (see 11:29). 34 There is some confusion about where the two men actually are: on a plain in LXX B vs. the road in LXXL. LXXB seems closer to the MT where they are in a field, whereas LXXL seems to make more sense in the context, although following its reading would violate the lectio difficilior rule. 35 Both LXXB and LXXL speak of two tribes. We expect the two tribes of Benjamin and Judah because of the twelve tribe tradition found in, e.g., Gen 49:28 (0.12 '34 (#5.0% #6 $(#7* 89: “All these are the twelve tribes of Israel”), but MT 1 Kgs 11:32 speaks of only one tribe. Therefore, the lectio difficilior is that of the MT. The MT has an internal logic to it, since it mentions only one city (Jerusalem). Thus, one tribe remains for the one city of David, Jerusalem. See footnote 40. 36 LXXL uses  instead of LXXB’s  for the hishtaphel of , “to worship,” in the MT.

73

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

11:34 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38

11:39 11:40 11:41 11:42 11:43

they37 have not walked in my ways, doing the right in my eyes 38 like David, his father. I will not take all of the kingdom from his hands,39 but I will make him a ruler all the days of his life because of David my servant, whom I chose.40 I have taken the kingdom from the hand of his son and will give to you the ten tribes. I will give one 41 tribe to his son so that my servant David always has a lamp 42 before me in Jerusalem, the city in which I chose to place my name. I will take you, and you will rule over everything that your soul desires. You will be king over Israel. It will be if you listen 43 to everything that I have commanded you, and you walk in my ways and do right in my eyes by keeping the statutes and commandments just as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build for you a trust worthy house, just as I did for David. I will humble the offspring of David on account of this, but not forever.’”44 Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam, and Jeroboam arose and fled to Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. The remainder of the acts of Solomon and everything that he did and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the Acts45 of Solomon? And the time that Solomon ruled in Jerusalem over all Israel46 was forty years. And Solomon lay with his fathers. He was buried in the city of David his father, and Rehoboam his son ruled instead of him. 47

Both LXXB and LXXL use the singular here, , “he [Solomon] was walking.” The MT uses the plural: :4 9, “they walked.” I follow the MT because it is the lectio difficilior, given its lack of smoothness vis-à-vis the LXX. 38 The MT is expansive, with extra material on statutes and judgments: ;. 09? /(9 %@.8 5A9  6BCD- (“doing right in my eyes, and my statutes and my judgments, like David his father”). LXXBL state:                       (“he was not walking in my ways, doing what is right before me as David, his father”). MT’s phrase “and my statutes and my judgments” constitutes its plus. 39 The middle of the verse is quite different in LXXB:        !

" “I will certainly resist . . . .” LXXB appears to reflect a Hebrew Vorlage with an infinitive absolute. 40 I am following LXXB here since the MT and LXXL are again expansive with more references to laws and ordinances. See n. 36. 41 Both LXXB and LXXL have two tribes. See footnote 34 of this chapter. 42 The Greek diverges here considerably. LXX B has  “establishment,” LXXL # “house.” 43 LXXBL have $"% “to keep, guard” here instead of “to listen.” 44 This verse is not found in LXXB, but LXXL has an equivalent: “And I will give you Israel and I will afflict the seed of David on account of this, but not all of the days.” 45 LXXL has “days” here. 46 LXXB lacks this reference to Israel; LXXL has it. 47 LXXB adds at the end of this verse: “And it happens that Jeroboam, son of Nebat, heard of it and he was still in Egypt where he fled from Solomon and he dwelt in Egypt. And he straight-away came into his own city in the land of Sarira on the mount of Ephraim.” LXXL adds this material at the end of 11:42. See footnote 48 of this chapter. 37

74

Chapter 4

12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:7

12:8 12:9 12:10

12:11 12:12 12:13 12:14

48

Rehoboam48 went to Shechem because all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. And it happened when Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who was still in Egypt, where he had fled from Solomon, heard it, Jeroboam returned to Israel.49 They sent and called him. Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and said to Rehoboam:50 “Your father caused our yoke to be heavy.51 Now, you, lighten the hard service of your father and the heavy yoke that he placed over us, and we will serve you.” And he52 said to them: “Go away for three days and return to me.” And the people53 left. And King Rehoboam54 consulted the elders who stood before Solomon his father while he was alive, saying: “How do you advise to answer this people?” They said55 to him: “If you are a servant today to this people and you serve them and answer them and speak to them good words, they will be your servants forever.” He disregarded the advice of the elders who advised him, and he was advised by the young men who had grown up with him and stood before him. And he said to them: “What do you advise that we answer this people who said 56 to me, ‘Lighten the yoke that your father has placed upon us’?” The young men who grew up with him said: “Thus will you say to this people who spoke to you, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, and you will lighten it for us.’ Thus you will say to them: ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. Now my father placed upon you a heavy burden, but I will add unto your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, and I will discipline you with scorpions.’” Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam57 on the third day just as the king said: “Return to me on the third day.” The king answered the people severely and disregarded58 the advice of the elders who counseled him. He spoke to them according to the advice of the young men: “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add unto your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, and I will discipline you with scorpions.”

Both LXXB and LXXL already refer to Rehoboam as “King Rehoboam” here. This verse is absent in both LXXB and LXXL at this juncture, but has an equivalent in LXXB 11:43 and LXXL 11:42. LXXA is the same as the MT here as well. See footnote 46. 50 Both LXXB and LXXL have: “The people said to King Rehoboam.” 51 LXXB has &  “to burden,” LXXL   “to harden.” 52 LXXL refers to him as “the king.” 53 LXXBL do not explicitly say “the people” departed, reading simply “they departed.” 54 “Rehoboam” is not specified in LXXBL. 55 While the kethib has this verb in the singular, both LXXB and LXXL as well as the qere read the plural. 56 MT’s infinitive construct ( ( , “saying”) is translated into Greek by different verbs: LXXB has   , LXXL ', just as they do in the next verse. 57 Unlike the MT, both LXXB and LXXL call him King Rehoboam. The LXX does not mention Jeroboam. 58 Both LXXB and LXXL explicitly name “Rehoboam” as the subject of the verb “disregarded.” 49

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) 12:15

12:16

12:17 12:18

12:19 12:20

12:21

12:22 12:23 12:24

75

The king did not listen to the people because it was a turn of affairs from the Lord so that he could establish the words which the Lord spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam son of Nebat. All of Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, and the people answered the king: “What share do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; look59 now to your own house, David.” And Israel went to their own tents. And Rehoboam reigned over the Israelites who lived in the cities of Judah.60 King Rehoboam sent Adoram, 61 who was the taskmaster. All of Israel stoned him, and he died. King Rehoboam hurried to take his chariot to flee to Jerusa lem. Israel rebelled against the house of David until this day. And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned,62 they sent and called him to the assembly and caused him to rule over all Israel. There was none after the house of David except for the tribe of Judah63 alone. Rehoboam came to Jerusalem and gathered all the house of Judah and tribe of Benjamin, one hundred and eighty thousand 64 chosen men to fight against the house of Israel in order to return the kingdom of Israel to Rehoboam, son of Solomon. The word of God65 came to Shemaiah, a man of God: “Speak66 to Rehoboam son of Solomon, king of Judah, and all the house of Judah and Benjamin and all the rest of the people. ‘Thus, the Lord said: “Do not go up and do not fight with your brothers, the Israelites. Return each man to his home because this word is from me.”’” They listened to the word of the Lord and they returned according to the word of the Lord.

IV. Structure, Key Words, and Other Literary Features A. Structure I have generally chosen to structure this discussion according to the order of the story as found in the MT. Thus, I pay special attention to how the Masoretes organize this material. I follow all their major textual breaks and the vast majority of their minor breaks. Hence, I conclude this section Both LXXB and LXXL have &, “to feed.” This verse is absent in LXXB, while LXXL has: “And the Judahites and the Israelites who lived in the cities of Judah were ruled over by Rehoboam.” 61 LXXL has Adoniram, LXXB Aram. 62 LXXL specifies that he came “from Egypt.” 63 Both LXXB and LXXL have “and Benjamin” here. 64 Both LXXB and LXXL have 120,000 men. 65 LXXBL have  instead of the expected . From a text-critical perspective, we see how “Lord” was more and more frequently replacing “God.” 66 LXXB has  , “speak,” LXXL  “speak.” I regard the latter reading as a mixed form, an aorist root with a present imperative ending. 59 60

76

Chapter 4

at 1 Kgs 12:24, where the Masoretes indicate a major break. The different witnesses of the LXX have a slightly different structure, with both LXXB and LXXL giving an extra section on Jeroboam (LXX 12:24a–z) following 12:24. The Masoretes start a new major textual unit on a new line.67 There are two instances where a unit ends in this way in our passage (11:14– 12:24): 11:43 and 12:24. The Masoretes characterize smaller sections by the letters  or .68 We have such breaks at the end of 11:25, 11:28, 11:39; 12:17, 12:19, and 12:21. Breaks indicated by spaces amounting to nine letters69 also occur in our unit, appearing after 11:13, 11:22, 11:26, 11:40; 12:5, 12:7, 12:11, and 12:15. I generally differentiate the smaller sections in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 according to these breaks, especially in the case of the break after 12:21. These breaks lead to the following outline: 11:14–22 11:23–25 11:26 11:27–28 11:29–39 11:40 11:41–43 12:1–5 12:6–7 12:8–11 12:12–15 12:16–17 12:18–19 12:20–21 12:22–24

(9 letter break) : : ( ) (9 letter break) : : ( ) : ( ) (9 letter break) : : ( ) (9 letter break) : (9 letter break) : (9 letter break) : (9 letter break) : : ( ) : ( ) : ( ) : ( )

The Story of Hadad The Story of Rezon Initial Information about Jeroboam The Rise of Jeroboam Ahijah’s symbolic action and prophetic oracle Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt The Death of Solomon Shechem preparations and the people’s appeal to Rehoboam Rehoboam consults elders Rehoboam consults younger advisers The Decision of Rehoboam Reaction of Israel Counter-reaction of Rehoboam Installation of Jeroboam as king and Rehoboam’s response Shemaiah’s Warning

Further elaborating on the MT divisions, I break down 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 as follows: 11:14–22, 25b 14–16 17–22 25b

The Story of Hadad Israel attacks Edom Hadad’s sojourn in Egypt Hadad becomes king over Edom

11:23–25a

The Story of Rezon

11:26–40 26 27–28 29–30

The Story of Jeroboam Initial information The Rise of Jeroboam Ahijah’s symbolic action

67

E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001) 50. 68 Ibid., 51. 69 Ibid., 50.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) 31–39 40

Prophetic oracle Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt

11:41–43

The Death of Solomon

12:1–19

Rehoboam’s aborted succession Preparation for meeting at Shechem Jeroboam’s and the people’s appeal to Rehoboam Rehoboam consults his older and younger advisers The decision of Rehoboam Reaction of Israel Counter-reaction of Rehoboam

1–3 4–5 6–11 12–15 16–17 18–19 12:20–24 20–21 22–24

77

The Establishment of the Northern Kingdom Installation of Jeroboam as king and Rehoboam’s response Shemaiah’s Warning and its outcome

Although I have made a fresh outline, it owes much to the work of Burke O. Long. His outline70 shows a particular sensitivity to the literary features of this material that many other commentators lack. Consequently, most outlines concur on the story’s larger literary units involving Hadad, Rezon, Jeroboam, and Rehoboam within 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. I have already noted that DeVries pays close attention to the variant texts, but he also laboriously outlines each of the passages of 1 Kings.71 Unlike Long and DeVries, I confine myself to larger sections instead of differentiating among verses and even half-verses. Thus, while Long breaks Hadad’s story into three units and eight discrete sub-units, I avoid distinguishing such sub-units in my outline. We both break up the material concerning Hadad on the basis of the geographic shifts in the story. Like DeVries,72 I begin the second unit (1 Kgs 11:17–22) with the actual geographic shift to Egypt (11:17 – Hadad flees to Egypt) rather than with the preliminaries to this shift. Long has a unit speaking about Hadad’s return to Egypt entitled “The return to Edom (from Egypt),”73 but the entire unit takes place in Egypt. This section would then still seem to concern Hadad’s life in Egypt and his interaction with Egyptians; accordingly, it is kept with the preceding Egyptian material. My outline concerning Rezon and Jeroboam is quite similar to Long’s; he simply has more sub-sections than I do. Specifically, we agree about the major units concerning Jeroboam: introduction, initial information (he terms it “Background”74), the oracle, and Jeroboam’s flight (he speaks of 70

Burke O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984) 125–26. 71 DeVries, 1 Kings, 147–48. 72 Ibid. 73 Long, 1 Kings, 125. 74 Ibid., 127.

78

Chapter 4

“Consequences: Solomon and Jeroboam (enmity)”). Long structures his outline about Rehoboam around his dealings with the people of Israel and his advisors.75 By contrast, I follow the action of the narrative and divide the material according to what is happening, instead of focusing simply on Rehoboam. As the main principle of my outline, this criterion of action over characters accounts for most of my differences with Long. I also have more sub-units than do the Masoretes in the stories of Hadad and Jeroboam so as to highlight different scenarios for the action. Overall, however, I pay closer attention to the breaks in the MT than do Long and many other commentators. Thus whereas Long starts his final section with 12:21 in order to maintain the focus on Rehoboam, I follow the Masoretes by beginning my final section with 12:20. The establishment of the Northern Kingdom defines this unit, whereas Rehoboam’s interaction with Shemaiah serves as its denouement, reinforcing the establishment theme. Other commentators like Walsh and Cotter ignore the Masoretes’ break at 12:24 and include 12:25 as part of this unit.76 Although I base my outline on the action of the narrative, it generally follows the work of the Masoretes in the delimitation of the units. B. Key Words and Other Literary Features 1. Key Words Most scholars recognize a number of (mostly five or six) distinct stories within 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. Scholars understand the organization of this material differently, but some convergence of views is evident. 1 Kgs 11:14–40 illustrates three different threats to Solomon’s power.77 While the connections between Hadad and Rezon appear closer compared with Jeroboam, it remains noteworthy that the author uses the same vocabulary to describe all three. Gina Hens-Piazza identifies two of these as external threats (Hadad and Rezon) and one as internal (Jeroboam).78 The stories of Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam share some vocabulary items. 1 Kings 11 uses the verb ' (11:14, 23, and 40) to describe how these rebels “arose” and started on their course towards independence. All three men had to “flee” (: 11:17, 23, 40) from their homelands after a certain period of time.

75

Ibid., 133–34. J. T. Walsh and D. W. Cotter, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996) 169. 77 Cogan, 1 Kings, 334, 337. 78 Gina Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006) 113. 76

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

79

Although these three men share much in common, the narrator also seeks to differentiate these characters that 1 Kings 11 introduces in rapid succession. One difference between Jeroboam and the other two men involves the designations given to them. The narrator describes both Rezon and Hadad as Solomon’s 0 (“adversary”), but does not use this term for Jeroboam. Another curious difference manifests itself in that it is “Yhwh” (1 Kgs 11:14) who raises the adversary Hadad, but “Elohim” (1 Kgs 11:23) who raises the adversary Rezon. This distinction may be due to Hadad’s stronger typological similarities to Moses as opposed to Rezon.79 The description of Jeroboam is more ambiguous. On the one hand, the MT describes him as Solomon’s servant (11:26) rather then Solomon’s adversary. On the other hand, God is not explicitly said to raise him up and his initial presentation includes a reference to his status as a rebel (MT 11:26). Like a number of heroic figures in the OT, he starts from less than ideal circumstances, given that his mother is a widow. Chapter 11 concludes with the Deuteronomistic notice on the death of Solomon. Chapter 12 includes stories about the rejection of Rehoboam and the emergence of an independent Israel. It also continues the language of “flight” (12:2 and 18). The terminology becomes more nuanced here. Whereas the description of Jeroboam continues to use  (1 Kgs 12:2), when Rehoboam “flees” (1 Kgs 12:18), the narrator shifts to the seemingly synonymous word . Yet, the idea of flight appears to be the concept that holds together this section of Kings. The word  dominates chap. 12 in the same way that “flight” and “arise” mark chap. 11. While flight is still important here, the writer uses  nine times in these twenty-four verses (12:5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24 [bis]). In particular, the writer twice uses this verb in vv. 5 and 12 in reference to the people who are sent away by Rehoboam and told to “return” three days later. In its other occurrences, the term is utilized of the return of Jeroboam to Israel (v. 20), the attempted restoration of the United Kingdom (v. 21), and of troops returning to their homes (bis in v. 24). This verb functions appropriately in narratives about flight. Five different verbs (!

 $ [3x],   [3x],   ,  ,) are used in the LXX to convey the range of meanings found in . One imagines that most refugees long to return home. Return from exile or restoration emerges as one of the central themes of the OT. In the Pentateuch (Gen 48:21) and in Psalm 136 Israel praises God for allowing them to return from Egypt. In Psalm 137:1 Israel is in mourning because they are no 79

Sweeney, I & II Kings, 157: “The use of motifs from the Exodus and Joseph tradition make a point about Hadad and Solomon – that is, Hadad appears as a second Moses and Solomon appears as Pharaoh in a reversal of roles that raises critical questions about Solomon and his rule.”

80

Chapter 4

longer in the Promised Land, and in the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek 36:27) God desires the people’s return from Babylon. Ezra (2:1; 6:21) also suggests a great desire on the part of the exiles to return from Babylon. “Return” offers the necessary correlative to “flight,” and so allows the narrative to move forward in a way that meets audience expectations. A final important key word in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 is  , where it has an unusual semantic range. This passage uses this word six times. In one instance it appears as an infinitive absolute with a finite verb (11:22), so there are really five independent instances. Three times it refers to someone’s either being “sent for” (Jeroboam in 12:3 and 12:20) or “sent out” (Adoram is sent to his death in 12:18). The term seems to mean the opposite of  in the two instances where Hadad urges Pharaoh to allow him to return in 11:21–22. There is a similar usage in Exodus where Moses urges Pharaoh to allow him and the Israelites to leave Egypt (Exod 5:1). While the verb does not have the exact same meaning when used of Jeroboam (12:3 and 12:20), it is interesting that the writer uses it in reference to Jeroboam at a moment closely connected with his departure from Egypt. Rainer Albertz claims: “there is good evidence for the thesis that Jeroboam’s revolt was found under the religious banner of the Exodus tradition and that the Exodus story found its oldest shape in this revolt.”80 John Collins’ conclusion that “there seems to me to be no reliable evidence of panIsraelite celebration of the Exodus prior to the time of Jeroboam”81 explains why the literary echoes of Moses resound so strongly here. 2. Other Literary Features Another characteristic of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 is its mix of narrative history interspersed with prophetic stories. This text serves as a microcosm of the two Books of Kings in this regard. Whereas Elijah and Elisha dominate the subsequent prophetic stories in the Books of Kings, Ahijah and Shemaiah play a similar role in this stage of monarchic history. The writer seems to use them in order to highlight the ethical lapses of the contemporary kings. Although neither Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:26 – he rebels against the king) nor Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:8 – he forsakes the advice of the elders) ultimately lives up to the ideals that the prophets advocate, Rehoboam and his men 80

Rainer Albertz, “Exodus: Liberation History against Charter Myth,” in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999 (ed. by Jan W. van Henten and Anton Houtepen; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001) 141–42. 81 John Collins, “The Development of the Exodus Tradition,” in Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999 (ed. by Jan W. van Henten and Anton Houtepen; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001) 150.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

81

take Shemaiah’s warning seriously by calling off the campaign, whereas Jeroboam fails to live up to the statutes and commandments (1 Kgs 11:38) and does not fulfill the opportunity presented him by Ahijah. The story about Rehoboam’s aborted accession (12:1–19) differs considerably from the other stories of the segment. Its narrative is staged somewhat like a play. It contains considerable dialogue, and the narrator describes the course of the action in a way reminiscent of stage directions. While some see the narrative as a drama involving two legislative bodies,82 others view it as a wisdom tale written in praise of Solomon’s trusted advisors.83 What distinguishes this story from its context is in any case the amount of dialogue ascribed to the different characters. Unlike Ahijah’s earlier lengthy monologic oracle (1 Kgs 11:31–39), this story features a number of characters engaging in short, sharp exchanges. It thus offers true dialogue rather than a series of monologues as in the section’s other stories. Jeroboam shares character traits with many other OT figures. “The expression wayyƝšeb be appears frequently in contexts speaking of a flight into exile, forming part of a fixed narrative structure.”84 This expression is used of Jeroboam in MT 12:2. The MT also uses this expression of Moses (Exod 2:14–15), Jotham (Judg 9:21), Jephthah (Judg 11:3), David (1 Sam 23:14–15), Absalom (2 Sam 13:37–38), and Uriah (Jer 26:21).85 These terminological similarities as well as the traits shared by these characters suggest a typological explanation for much of the story of Jeroboam. Marc Brettler asserts: “The more elements in a text that can be interpreted typologically, the more certain we are that the text is typological.”86 The information supplied by 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24 concerning Jeroboam recalls a number of characters in the earlier history of Israel.87 For example, Jeroboam receives a treatment similar to that given to Aaron in Exodus. J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes point out: “Both Aaron and Jeroboam are said to have constructed a golden calf . . . both proclaimed that the god worshiped was the one who had brought Israel up out of the land Egypt. . . and both had two sons with essentially the same names – Nadab and Abihu/Abijah . . . .”88 82

A. Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (CHANE 7; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 248. 83 Cogan, 1 Kings, 351. 84 Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash,” 14. 85 Ibid. 86 Brettler, Creation of History, 57. 87 M. A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 26. 88 J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) 265.

82

Chapter 4

Jeroboam also shares a number of characteristics with Saul. Mention of the northern locale of Bethel (1 Sam 10:3 and 1 Kgs 12:29) unequivocally connects both figures. Both characters are in competition with royal rivals from the South: David in the case of Saul, and Solomon and Rehoboam in the case of Jeroboam. Both Jeroboam and Saul are condemned for heterodox religious practices (1 Samuel 28 and 1 Kgs 12:25–33) – even though these condemnations probably reflect a later, more Deuteronomistic religious sensibility. Both the House of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:14) and the House of Saul (2 Sam 21:1–9) suffer dynastic punishment.89 As with Jehu (2 Kgs 9:4–10), a prophet commissions Jeroboam for his role (1 Kgs 11:31–39). Like Ahab (1 Kgs 16:30), Jeroboam ultimately became the object of bitter denunciations by a prophet (1 Kgs 14:7–16). The typological elements in the story of Jeroboam connect him then to the portrayals of many key figures of Israel’s history.

V. Reading of Text Unit by Unit A. 11:14–22, 25b The Story of Hadad 1. 11:14–16 Israel attacks Edom Many scholars believe that the conflict mentioned in this passage relates to 2 Sam 8:13–14.90 Although that passage fits the chronology of 1 Kgs 11:14–22, this pericope is concerned more with the personal history of Hadad than with providing precise chronological information. Genesis 36:35 is another passage that some scholars use to elucidate this material because it offers an Edomite king list mentioning a “Hadad, son of Bedad.” Scholars like Simon DeVries push the historicity of this story too far when they claim that Gen 36:35 bolsters their argument for an Edomite record91 – which many believe does not have any textual evidence92 – in the tenth century. Given the paucity of evidence in the extrabiblical historical re89 J. Schipper, “Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Dynastic or Transgenerational Punishment,” in Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (ed. Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010) 99: “As noted earlier, in relation to Saul’s house, dynastic punishment appears explicitly in 2 Sam 21:1–9.” 90 DeVries, 1 Kings, 148; Cogan, 1 Kings, 331. 91 DeVries, 1 Kings, 150. 92 J. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 67: “As we have no extant Edomite texts to lighten our darkness, we are left dependent on two important, if limited resources. The first is archaeological evidence, and the second is the existence of a few possible allusions to southern Transjordan in the Egyptian records.”

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

83

cord, most scholars would probably agree that genealogical lists from Genesis do not constitute the best source to support claims about Edomite kingship in the tenth century, as proposed by DeVries.93 The text seems to be lacking in historical plausibility. A more literary approach to the battle in this text suggests Hadad as a counterpart to other biblical figures with Egyptian connections and not with an obscure Edomite king. It does not appear that this story was drawn from Edomite annals as suggested by John Gray. 94 Instead, Long argues that “the fondness of the flight-and-prosperity-in-Egypt motif to Israelite storytellers (see Joseph and Moses) is enough to explain this as a fully Israelite creation.”95 This literary approach may not account for all the Edomite details that scholars such as Mordecai Cogan and DeVries find compelling, but it does demonstrate the importance of shared motifs with Joseph and Moses. Rather than solely reflecting a historian poring over annals, 1 Kgs 11:14–22’s literary motifs suggest a story more concerned with a punishment of Solomon’s wayward ways than with an elucidation of Edomite king lists. Another literary aspect of this story derives from the protagonist’s very name, “Hadad.” This name operates at a literary level: “Hadad is likely a hypocoristicon in which only the divine name is retained, an uncommon circumstance, since it is the theophoric element that is usually omitted. The storm god Hadad was revered throughout the ancient Near East. . . .”96 Biblical figures with the name “Hadad” generally are associated more with Aram than Edom. Specifically, in most other instances in the OT (Gen 36:35 excepted) figures called “Hadad” are connected with the Arameans (1 Kgs 15:18; 20:1; 2 Kgs 6:24; Amos 1:4; Jer 49:27). In 1 Kgs 11:17 the LXX misspells it as . While André Lemaire accordingly has suggested that it makes more sense for Hadad to be from Aram than Edom,97 this 93

DeVries, 1 Kings, 150. Gray, I & II Kings, 280. 95 Long, 1 Kings, 126–27. 96 Cogan, 1 Kings, 330–31. E. Lipínski, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 362: “It is surprising that their name consists only of the theophorous element, but we find the very same situation in the tradition recorded by Nicholas of Damascus who speaks of ten successive kings of Damascus called A, i.e. Hadad.” 97 A. Lemaire, “Hadad l’Edomite ou Hadad l’Araméen?” BN 43 (1988) 17: “Dès lors, si on corrige ‘Edom’ en ‘Aram’ en 1 Rois 11, 14–17 et considère Hadad comme un araméen et non comme un édomite, on obtient, semble-t-il, une tradition littèraire beaucoup plus cohérente et plus vraisemblable historiquement. Hadad était vraisemblablement l’un des fils ou descendants d’Hadadézer, roi de Zobah (mentionné d’ailleurs au v. 23); ce dernier avait été vaincu par David lors des batailles de Madaba et de Hélam en Transjordanie (2 Samuel 8,3–8; 10,6–19; 1 Chronique 19,6–19), Joab s’étant particulièrement illustré dans cette campagne contre les Araméens.” 94

84

Chapter 4

does not address the literary design of the story. Edom came to be a fierce rival of Israel during the time of Mesha (2 Kgs 3:4–5), and that the “Edomites moved into the Negeb of Judah in the late 7th century is quite clear”98 as well as the fact that there was “Edomite support of and participation in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians.”99 All these events probably occurred during the writing and editing of 1 Kings and probably could explain the literary importance of connecting Hadad with Edom. Hadad’s origins may concern modern, historicallyminded scholars, but they may not concern the ancient narrator in this instance. As we proceed through this segment, we will see many more such literary phenomena. 2. 11:17–22 Hadad’s sojourn in Egypt The previous section notes Hadad’s similarity to other OT figures associated with Egypt. Hadad’s clearest connection with many other biblical characters is his refugee status. A. Graeme Auld comments: “It was the needless barbarism of one of David’s officers on a burial detail which was now rebounding in resentment against David’s son. Egypt, for Hadad as well as for Jacob and Joseph, was a place of refuge and even of personal advancement.”100 Hadad joins the long line of biblical figures that go down to Egypt in times of trouble. Hadad’s story has other clear parallels with biblical figures who find refuge in Egypt, as Walter Brueggemann points out: “The slaughter here [by Joab] sounds much like the earlier notation on Pharaoh (Exod 1:22) and the subsequent devastation of Herod (Matt 2:16). Hadad barely escaped the killing by Joab, fled to Egypt, and there became, by marriage, a member of the royal household.”101 In spite of their recognizing allusions to other biblical stories, neither of these scholars notes the generic aspects of this story. By contrast, this generic aspect emerges clearly in Hens-Piazza’s literary methodology. In particular, she highlights the traits that Hadad shares with Joseph and Moses: “Like a replay of previous tales, Pharaoh looked favorably upon the youth, providing a house, land, provisions, and even a member of the royal family for him as a wife.”102 These generic aspects are also evident to scholars like Cogan, who is otherwise more prone to treat this material in historical terms: “The foreign child was raised at court as one of Pharaoh’s own, not 98

Bruce Cresson, “Edom,” in EDB, 373. Ibid. 100 A. G. Auld, Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) 81. 101 W. Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 8; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 145. 102 Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 112. 99

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

85

unlike the young Moses.”103 The generic aspect of this story also appears in the narrator’s choice of not relating the names of pharaohs in this section, although the name Shishak (see 11:40) is related in a later section. The narrator of Kings also mentions only two sites on Hadad’s long journey to Egypt: Midian and Paran. The Pentateuch mentions both these sites frequently (Midian [Gen 25:4; Exod 2:15; Num 25:15]; Paran [Gen 21:21; Num 10:12; Deut 33:2]). While the OT mentions Paran less frequently than Midian, both sites are named in at least four different books of the Pentateuch and many other books of the OT. More details about Hadad emerge in this scene, but he remains elusive. In sum, comparison of Hadad to Joseph and Jacob104 suggests a biblical figure who has been invested with an array of typological features. One historically problematic item becomes the central component in this short passage. Hadad’s purported marriage with Pharaoh’s kin is a matter greatly at variance with the Egyptian historical record, but makes sense within the wider biblical context. Earlier biblical figures had married into the Egyptian royal court. The OT has Pharaoh complain that he never would have taken Sara as his wife if he knew that she was married to Abram (Gen 12:19). Solomon himself marries Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs 9:16). These marriages make sense within the biblical context, but raise questions in terms of the ANE material on Egyptian royal marital policy. Leaving aside the debate over whether Edom was even a significant polity at this time105 Edom, Hadad’s homeland, surely lacked the prestige needed

103

Cogan, 1 Kings, 331. Auld, Kings without Privilege, 81. 105 Piotr Bienkowski, “The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan,” in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3; ed. Diana Edelman; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 43: “If there is Iron I in Edom, there is no real evidence for its dates. Iron II in Edom cannot at present be dated prior to the 7th century BC, although an earlier date cannot be discounted.” Thomas E. Levy, et. al., “Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronologies: Edomite State Formation, the Bible and Recent Archaeological Research in Southern Jordan,” in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (ed. Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham; London\Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005) 157: “The recent excavation at Khirbat en-Nahas show conclusively that Iron Age social complexity, and perhaps the emergence of the kingdom of Edom known from biblical texts began some 200–300 years earlier than previously assumed.” Eveline van der Steen and Piotr Bienkowski, “Radiocarbon Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas: A Methodological Critique,” Antiquity 80 (2006) 2: “At each step, Levy et al. are attempting to push the dates as early as possible, on average about a hundred years or so earlier than the calibrated radiocarbon evidence allows for. They do not specify what additional sources they have used to reach these results, and the present authors are unaware of any reliable evidence that would allow such results.” 104

86

Chapter 4

to have its prince marry a family member of a ruler of an ancient superpower. Egypt was weakened during Solomon’s reign by inner turmoil,106 but still carried considerable clout.107 In the Late Bronze Age, a time for which we have much better records than the Third Intermediate Period (1069–747 BCE), Egypt never allowed its royal daughters to be married to rulers of other countries. Many of the royal daughters of other ANE superpowers are married to royal Egyptians, but women never leave Egypt to become part of the harem of these other countries’ leaders.108 Although the situation presented in our biblical text may reflect a time several centuries later than the Late Bronze Age evidence, things would not have changed so much that an Edomite might marry a pharaoh’s daughter. Conversely, Hadad’s marriage calls to mind elements of the Joseph story,109 thus making the literary character of Hadad’s story all the more evident. The account of the Hadad marriage story shows several generic characters: 106

Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 120: “So ist es nicht verwunderlich, daß sich außenpolitische Aktivitäten erst für das Ende der fast zwanzigjährigen Herrschaft Scheschonqs I. [biblical Shishak of 1 Kgs 11:40] nachweisen lassen, und zwar neben solchen im Bereich des Handels auch auf politischer Ebene. Nach ägyptologischer Chronologie fand die hier gemeinte Unternehmung, der Palästinafeldzug, vermutlich im Frühjahr oder Sommer 926 statt, d. h. relativ kurz (ca. 2 Jahre) vor dem Tod Scheschonqs I.” 107 Israel Finkelstein, “The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity,” ZDPV 118 (2002) 129: “The campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine in the 10th century BCE was a ground-breaking event in the history of the country even though it failed to bring about the renewal of Egyptian imperial rule in the region. The territorio-political systems which emerged in the country after the campaign were utterly different from those which characterized the Iron I. From this point of view it is justified to see the Shoshenq campaign as a meaningful (though not the only) datum which closes the Iron I and ushers in the Iron II.” 108 T. Bryce, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (London/New York: Routledge, 2003) 108–9: “For a foreign ruler to send one of his daughters to the Egyptian court as a bride for the pharaoh with no prospect of receiving an Egyptian princess in return was an implicit acknowledgement of the pharaoh’s superior status, at least to the Egyptian way of thinking. And it appears that foreign kings were prepared to go along with this, since the ban on princess export from Egypt applied equally to them all. . . .” 109 Sweeney, I & II Kings, 159: “Once Hadad is in Egypt, the narrative adopts motifs from the Joseph story. Hadad found favor in the eyes of Pharaoh in a manner analogous to Joseph (Gen 41:37–45). Hadad’s marriage to Pharaoh’s sister recalls Joseph’s marriage to Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera. . . . Like Joseph’s sons, Hadad’s son is halfEgyptian.” The narrator of the Alternative Story reverses the positive motifs of the Joseph story by having the evil Jeroboam marry Ano the Egyptian (LXX 1 Kgs 12:24e). Jeroboam only truly becomes an evil character in the MT after he constructs shrines at Dan and Bethel in 1 Kgs 12:29. The narrator of the Alternative Story in LXXB has constructed this story in order to denigrate Jeroboam from a much earlier point.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

87

The name of the sister of the woman called Tahpenes could be the transliteration of Egyptian t hm.t nsw, “the wife of the king,” so that the name is not really a personal name. The name of the son is also attested in Old North Arabic, and he is educated together with princes at the royal court (v. 20 [1 Kings 11]). These details detract from the original aim of the narrative, but they seem to serve the purpose of describing the special status of Hadad as an adversary of Solomon.110

Although Volkmar Fritz makes a good point about the story’s generic names, he seems to confuse Tahpenes with the woman Hadad actually marries – the sister of Queen “Tahpenes” (11:19), a detail that makes the story even more generic, as “Tahpenes” is a standardized title equivalent to “Pharaoh,” “Cleopatra,” or “Ptolemy.” 111 The different variants in the biblical texts raise questions about whether she is to be seen as an actual historical personage or rather a generic figure. The Greek versions give her a different name, Thekemina. Further problematic is the fact that the biblical narrator provides no evidence of Tahpanes’ exact status. Since a pharaoh usually had many wives, her exact status would represent important information. These features suggest then that the story of Hadad’s marriage operates at a literary rather than historical level. Hadad’s conversation with Pharaoh echoes previous such conversations on the part of Joseph and Moses. A pharaoh addresses both of these men (Gen 41:17 and Exod 12:31, respectively), but both times it is an anonymous pharaoh who speaks, as in our story about Hadad. Pharaoh’s exchanges with Joseph in Genesis 41 are more detailed and positive than Hadad’s exchange. While the situation involving Moses and Pharaoh is more negative (Exod 5:1–15; 7:8–13; 12:31–32), it also features fantastic elements such as Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians turning a staff into a snake (Exod 7:8– 13) that are not part of the Hadad story. A third such exchange, which is more accurately a monologue, between Abram and Pharaoh (Gen 12:17– 20) may be the best parallel to the Hadad-Pharaoh exchange. All four of these biblical exchanges are of questionable historicity. Historically, Pharaoh enjoyed a status close to a living god112 and did not routinely speak with people outside the Egyptian hierarchy. 113 All the above biblical ex110 Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary (trans. Anselm Hagedorn; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 133. 111 Ibid.: “Tahpenes could be the transliteration of Egyptian t hm.t nsw, ‘the wife of the king,’ so that the name is not really a personal name.” 112 Antonio Loprieno, “The ‘King’s Novel’,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; Probleme der Ägyptologie 10; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 282: “The first important feature which emerges from a variety of direct or indirect statements on the king is that, in the Egyptian world view, he is assigned an ontological status distinct from gods (ntr.w), dead and other ‘transitional’ beings (.w), and people (rmt.w).” 113 See the attitude expressed in EA 164, a correspondence between Aziru of Amurru and an Egyptian courtier named Tutu: “To Tutu, my lord, my father: Message of Aziru,

88

Chapter 4

changes make for a good story,114 but are implausible in terms of Egyptian culture. Pharaoh’s subordinates performed the diplomatic and administrative work implied by these exchanges.115 Egypt was so concerned about purity and the contamination caused by foreigners that the actual occurrence of any of the above exchanges is difficult to imagine as historical occurrences. Hadad’s dialogue with Pharaoh thus has plenty of precedent within the Bible, but virtually none within Egyptian history itself. Their reported dialogue thus highlights the need for a literary methodology in understanding the story of Hadad and the portrayal of Egypt within this story. The Hadad story offers the most positive portrayal of Egypt within 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. The story’s many motifs call to mind Israelites’ previous your servant. I fall at the feet of my Lord . . . . May the king, my lord, heed my words. My lord, I am afraid of the king, my lord, and of Tutu. Here are my gods and my messenger.” William L. Moran, trans. and ed., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) 251–52. 114 Loprieno, “The ‘King’s Novel’,” 287: “The Königsnovelle as a narrative which claims to report a concrete episode from the king’s life provides an ideal setting for a politically motivated use of history, i.e., broadly speaking for the emergence of ‘historiography.’” The Königsnovelle can appear in many different genres such as monuments, historical papyri, and mythical stories. A mythical element overrides all these genres, and we must remember that element as we try to understand any dialogue between a pharaoh and someone else. For a more recent and nuanced understanding of the Königsnovelle, see Beate Hofmann, Die Königsnovelle: “Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk” (Ägypten und Altes Testament 62; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz in Kommission, 2004) 40–41: “ Während der Motivvergleich – basierend auf [Siegfried] Hermann’s Definition – fast ausschließlich die Grundlage jeder weiteren Identifizierung von Texten als Königsnovelle bildete . . . interpretiert Loprieno davon gänzlich abgehoben die Königsnovelle als eine spezielle Königserzählung, in der die Person des Königs die menschliche und göttliche Dimension vereine. Diese Auslegung allerdings löst m.E. jegliche Grenzen auf, die in gewisser Weise auch die Definition von Hermann vorgibt und entfernt sich deshalb eher davon, die Definition der Königsnovelle auf eine breitere Basis zu stellen.” 115 See John C. Darnell and Richard Jasnow, “On the Moabite Inscriptions of Ramesses II at Luxor Temple,” JNES 52 (1992) 263–64 where they cite two examples of Pharoahs (Ramesses III with Libyans and Ramesses II with Moabites) interacting with foreigners. “Therein [Morturary Temple of Ramesses III in Karnak] Ramesses III addresses a message to a prince, who is then to relay it to a Libyan chieftain. The king tells the defeated enemy the result of his opposition to Egypt. The prince obediently repeats the monarch’s words, in a shortened form.” The same thing happens with the Moabites where Ramesses II’s address follows the crown prince: “Speak with the [chief] of the foreigners – cause that he understand his evil deed.” The important point about both these episodes is that Pharaoh never even directly addresses the foreign leaders, never mind has a conversation with them. In light of our material on the Königsnovelle, we must remember that both these dialogues are depicted in temple iconography. Writing on the wall of a temple is no more historically accurate historical information than the depiction of biblical figures on stained glass in a medieval church.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

89

positive experiences in Egypt. Even the almost wholly negative story of Moses in Egypt has some positive moments that the motifs of this story recall. Just as Pharaoh’s daughter rescues the baby Moses from death and raises him within the safe confines of the palace, Egypt comes to the aid of the boy Hadad (1 Kgs 11:17) after a mass killing. With its similarities to the Joseph story, 116 the Hadad story cautions against construing Egypt’s image in the Bible as a monolithically negative one on the basis of the Moses account. Rather, ambiguity and tension are to be recognized in the biblical depiction of Egypt.117 On a literary level, Egypt can connote wisdom and enlightened leadership as it does in the Joseph story. Positive allusions to Egypt are also found in the later biblical book of Sirach (24:25; 39:22; 47:14). Many places of refuge exist in the Bible, but narrators choose Egypt to convey a complex image of a place in which Israel’s experience was sometimes positive, but yet at times marred by chaos and evil. 3. 11:25b Hadad becomes king over Edom This half verse offers a negative summary concerning Hadad’s return to Edom. It appears somewhat at cross-purposes with the rest of the material concerning him. The previous material on Hadad portrayed him somewhat sympathetically. He fled a massacre and now desires to leave the comforts of Pharaoh’s court to return to his homeland. In this, he resembles Moses, who fled to Midian (Exod 2:15) after having enjoyed the privileges of the Egyptian royal court (Exod 2:10). The MT describes Hadad as generically doing “evil” () here in v. 25b, its last mention of him. The ambiguity in chap. 11 about Hadad may reflect the OT’s overall ambiguity about the Edomites. John Bartlett tells us: “Num. 20.14–21 reflects an attitude of political hostility towards Edom, and Deut. 2.1–8 and 23.7 suggest a more positive approach to Edom, based on the Deuteronomistic view of the geographical extent of Israel’s inheritance.”118 This Deuteronomistic view may also be reflected in 1 Kings 11. Although Hadad seems to loathe Israel, who would not have hated Israel after the massacre that the text describes David perpetrating against Edom? Hadad remains an ambiguous character. Hadad plays an important literary role in this story about the end of Solomon’s reign. He shares the characteristics of a number of Israel’s great leaders who were tested by difficult times and fled to Egypt. He may be an 116

Sweeney, I & II Kings, 157. Kessler, Die Ägyptenbilder der hebräischen Bibel, 142: “ Dennoch wäre es falsch, im Umkehrschluss zu folgen, das positive Ägyptenbild der Josefsgeschichte neutralisiere das Negative der Exodustexte, hebe es vielleicht sogar auf. Die narrative Zuordnung beider Erzählungen ist nur dann richtig verstanden, wenn man die Spannung im Bild Ägyptens bestehen lässt. M. E. lässt sich dies an den Texten selbst auch zeigen.” 118 Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 93. 117

90

Chapter 4

adversary to Israel, but he is a divinely appointed adversary, who also stands up to Pharaoh: “Though a foreigner, Hadad’s determination before a resistant pharaoh to forego the safe sanctuary of Egypt suggests a man of integrity.”119 Hadad serves to prepare us for another exile to Egypt who will also leave a mixed legacy: Jeroboam. Hadad perhaps leaves its audience with the question: If the narrator portrays him positively at times, can Jeroboam also be a positive figure on occasion? B. 11:23–25a The Story of Rezon Rezon emerges as a much different character than Hadad. There is no reference to a royal line in his case; he clearly is a rebel, usurping power from a weakened king. The narrator tells us that Rezon gathered a band of men and became king in Damascus. Like Hadad, he is a hard figure to situate in the historical record. Paul Dion holds that the “hegemony of Damascus hardly predates the early ninth century. There is no reliable evidence for its Aramaean character until the early tenth century, when it fell to the Aramaean chieftain Rezon.”120 Edward Lipínski believes that the biblical name is a result of metathesis and that the Ezron episode “was a later insertion, explainable by the original link of the Hadad story with Aram. . . .”121 Part of the difficulty arises from the very name “Rezon.” Thus both Cogan and Lipínski hold that Rezon’s name appears to be generic: “The name means ‘ruler, potentate’ (cf. Judg 5:3; Isa 40:23; Prov 8:15; 31:4) and is attested with the same meaning in Phoenician (KAI 26: A III 2). On this basis, Benjamin Mazar proposed taking “Rezon” as a royal title, his personal name being “Hezion” (preserved in 1 Kgs 15:18).”122 Most scholars have not accepted Mazar’s suggestion. Wayne Pitard, for example, dismisses the Hezion (1 Kgs 15:18) – Rezon equation. He does this noting that the proposal is based on LXXB,123 which frequently distorts names: “the manuscript evidence for names in the Greek versions suggests that LXX renditions are highly variable and unreliable and therefore must be used very carefully in the case of a rare name, perhaps only as supplementary evi119

Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 112. P. Dion, “Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995) 1284. 121 Lipínski, The Aramaeans, 369: “whose name was changed in the Hebrew Bible into rΩzǀn, “prince”, apparently by metathesis (I Kings 11, 23).” 122 Cogan, 1 Kings, 333. 123 LXXB has “Hezion” in 1 Kgs 15:18 where it reads ( &  , “Hezion, king of Syria”; LXXL has ( & & , “Hazib, king of Syria.” Clearly, there is a significant orthographic difference, but I think it is important to note that a good Greek word for “king” is included in both of the Greek witnesses. Thus, I disagree with Mazar’s suggestion that “Rezon” be seen as a royal title. 120

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

91

dence.”124 “Rezon” appears in the LXXB as ) at 1 Kgs 11:14, but in the Lucianic text as  , while LXXA refers to him as ( . Thus, the primary sources for Rezon display considerable variation in the very spelling of his name. Whereas Hadad shows many similarities with biblical Israelites in Egypt, Rezon evidences similarities with David and Judges like Gideon and Abimelech: “Notwithstanding his outward refusal, Gideon [Judg 9:2] did de facto retain certain important privileges usually belonging to the ruler, relying no doubt on the support of his band of warriors, which represented a sort of private retinue. Such a troop was several times instrumental in seizing the reins of government, as in the case of Abimelech, of David at Hebron and Rezon son of Eliada at Damascus (1 Kings 11:23ff.).”125 Although the biblical writer is parsimonious about the details of Rezon’s life, Abraham Malamat speculates that “Rezon was perhaps at first encouraged in his separatist designs by Israel.”126 Such speculation obscures what the biblical writer may be trying to express. The Rezon story operates more plausibly on a theological than a historic level, and should not be used to generate detailed hypotheses about the early Israelite monarchy. Like Hadad, Rezon is an agent appointed to carry out God’s punishment, thus closely paralleling David and his acquisition of power.127 These two aspects, Rezon as God’s agent and Rezon as a “type” of David, may underlie the pericope. The former feature is theological, while the latter is literary and theological. The yield of this passage for a better understanding of the early history of the monarchy is limited. Conversely, this story, or more properly “report,”128 constructs an image of the adversaries God raised against Solomon. Hadad is like Moses, while Rezon is like David.129 Another striking parallel between the Hadad and Rezon accounts concerns David’s slaughter of the Arameans (1 Kgs 11:24 MT). LXXBL lacks this detail, which provides a further salient similarity between Hadad and Rezon: both have brutal assaults on their people to avenge. God has perso124

W. T. Pitard, Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 102. 125 Malamat, History of Biblical Israel, 123. 126 Ibid., 214. 127 Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 112–13. 128 Long, 1 Kings, 126: A “report” “typically reflects no interest in narrative development”; this is in contrast to a “story.” 129 Walsh, 1 Kings, 140: “The effect of this heaping up of parallels is to recall that both Moses’ and David’s careers were divinely directed, and thereby to intensify considerably the impact of the claim that ‘God raised up’ Hadad and Rezon. The same Yahweh who raised up Moses as Israel’s savior, the same God who raised up David to be Israel’s ideal king, now raises up adversaries to oppose Solomon.”

92

Chapter 4

nally raised up both these men for the same specific purpose. Focusing on the story of Rezon, as it is told, and remaining sensitive to the literary features of this story, we find a character fueled by the same motives as Hadad, as well as one who bears a striking resemblance to many other biblical usurpers like David and Jeroboam. Like the previous story of Hadad, Rezon’s story also has a generic quality. The biblical writer offers us a “general” story, in which “all the other details remain vague and simply end in the enthronement.”130 The Rezon story suggests that a number of places of refuge existed in the ANE for Israelites. The narrator sandwiches Rezon, who goes to Damascus, between two individuals who flee to Egypt. Elsewhere, Jephthah is shown fleeing to the land of Tob (Judg 11:3), David to the land of Philistia (1 Sam 27:1–4), and Absalom to Geshur (2 Sam 13:38). Egypt, however, has connotations that these other locales lack. The rich and multidimensional history of Israel in Egypt evokes associations that these other sites do not convey. Egypt as a place of refuge operates on a literary level in a way that other biblical places of refuge cannot. Those other localities may have made more logical places to go for refuge, but they hardly capture the imagination as Egypt does. Accordingly, Egypt not only serves as a place of refuge; it also endows the characters who seek refuge there with layers of meaning that go well beyond their refugee status. Egypt as a place of refuge may serve in certain instances such as the case of Jeroboam to connect biblical refugees who go there with the wisdom of Joseph and the leadership of Moses. C. 11:26–40 The Story of Jeroboam 1. 11:26 Initial information The narrator’s initial information about Jeroboam immediately groups him with the story’s two previous characters: Hadad and Rezon.131 While the story relates more about Jeroboam’s rebellion later, the narrator begins by portraying Jeroboam as one who “raised his hand against the king” in v. 27132 The context for this notice will be supplied later, but as happens so 130

Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 134. G. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. Volume 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993) 165: “Like the rebellions of Hadad and Rezon, the rise of Jeroboam is divinely ordained and heaps punishment upon Solomon.” 132 P. Ash, “Jeroboam I and the Deuteronomistic Historian’s Ideology of the Founder.” CBQ 60 (1998) 17: “It is held almost universally (often implicitly) that Jeroboam was the Deuteronomist’s Unheilsherrscher because of his cultic reforms (1 Kgs 12:26– 32), but analysis of 1 and 2 Kings shows that Jeroboam became the Unheilsherrscher because of the Deuteronomist’s ‘ideology of the founder,’ that is, his ideological notion 131

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

93

frequently throughout the Deuteronomistic History, the biblical writer immediately presents Jeroboam in the worst possible terms.133 Jeroboam not only has parallels among the leaders of other peoples (Hadad and Rezon), he also has his counterparts among other Israelite insurgents. The expression E   ', (used of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:26; cf. 11:27) does not appear elsewhere in the MT. Still, Cogan notes: “Its semantic equivalent nƗĞƗ’ yad appears in the Davidic narratives in descriptions of the uprisings of Absalom (2 Sam 18:28) and Sheba (20:21).”134 Although Absalom’s rebellion is better known, Sheba’s rebellion against David “was potentially more dangerous than that of Absalom, perhaps because of long-standing regional tension between the northern and southern tribes.”135 Jeroboam’s rebellion echoes Sheba’s insurgency. The text identifies Jeroboam as an Ephraimite;136 he, too, is a northern/Israelite (2 Sam 20:2a) rebel,137 like Sheba. 2 Samuel 20 does not say anything about the motivations of Sheba other than its reference to a general northern resentment against the South (see 2 Sam 20:1–2a). Sheba’s resentments seem similar to those of Jeroboam, as they both rebel against a king from the South (2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kgs 11:26). As with Jeroboam, Sheba’s tribal affiliation is Benjaminite. Neither Jeroboam nor Sheba is locked into David’s family and internecine drama the way Absalom is. We have very little information about Sheba, but the little we do hear suggests a set of resentments on his part similar to Jeroboam’s.

that the fate of a kingdom or dynasty was determined by the behavior of its founder.” E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., “The Sins of Jeroboam: A Redactional Assessment.” CBQ 49 (1987) 212–13: “According to the presentation of the deuteronomistic historian, the sins committed by Jeroboam I of Israel at the establishment of his kingdom were directly responsible for the destruction of the northern monarchy (2 Kgs 17:20–23; cf. 1 Kgs 14:14–16). Indeed, in the evaluations of the Israelite rulers given by this author/redactor, the historical demise of the kingdom of Israel was itself due to the theologically narrated ‘fact’ that its people and rulers had continued to follow in these sins of Jeroboam.” 133 M. Leuchter, “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” JBL 125 (2006) 51: “No other king is so strenuously distanced from the principles of the prophetic tradition, the theological standards of Israelite covenantal identity, or the inherent grace of the Davidic house.” 134 Cogan, 1 Kings, 338. 135 K. L. Eades, “Sheba,” in EDB, 1198. 136 Leuchter, “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” 60–61. Leuchter wishes to ignore the LXX and leave intact (, “Ephratah,” a Judean village mentioned in Psa 132:6. Accordingly, “the presentation of Jeroboam as a Judean native should not be hindered. . . .” 137 W. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I (SBLMS 47; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993) 31: “It is sufficient to note the evidence of its Northern origin in its focus on two Israelite characters Jeroboam the Ephraimite and Ahijah the Shilonite, in its interest in the prophetic designation of a king for the Israelite State, and in its perspective that the separation of Israel from Judah is a divinely legitimated secession rather than a rebellion against Judah.”

94

Chapter 4

The differences between Jeroboam and Sheba emerge in some of the minor characteristics that Jeroboam shares with other biblical characters. Jeroboam’s status as son of a widow138 marks him as different from the vast majority of leaders in the OT, but it also lends further ambiguity to Jeroboam’s portrayal. In contrast to Sheba, whose father is mentioned in 2 Sam 20:1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 21, 22, the narrator only mentions Jeroboam’s mother (1 Kgs 11:26), Zeruah, who is a widow. Her inclusion points to the prominence of Jeroboam since it evokes the special status of the mother of the king within Israel and Judah. Zeruah’s unusual status as a widow calls to mind three prominent OT widows: Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:3–4), Ruth (Ruth 1:4–5), and Tamar (Gen 38:24). The widow Tamar’s son Perez is portrayed as a key ancestor of David;139 thus, the kingly line has room for sons of widows. The widow Ruth ultimately becomes the great-grandmother of David. Although the LXX’s supplemental version of Jeroboam’s story is controverted, its treatment of Jeroboam’s mother merits examination. The LXX writer describes Jeroboam’s mother as a “prostitute” (12:24b).140 While a later writer might be denigrating Jeroboam through such a qualification of his mother here, the MT could be “cleaning up” the mother by making her a widow.141 Another key woman in the Heilsgeschichte of Israel brought to mind by the LXX’s description of Jeroboam’s mother is Rahab the prostitute (Josh 2:1). Even Solomon’s mother bore her first child to David under irregular circumstances (2 Sam 12:18). These three women (Bathsheba, Ruth, and Tamar) make clear that, according to the OT, children of irregular circumstances can play a significant role in the history of Israel. The narrator’s mention of Jeroboam’s mother is worthy of note because royal mothers are very important in the books of Kings. The narrator of Kings mentions the mothers of kings with great care: “So far two royal mothers have been named in 1 Kings, Solomon’s [1 Kgs 1:11] and Adonijah’s [1 Kgs 1:5], both in the context of their son’s potential for becoming king. Later . . . whenever a king succeeds to the throne of David, his moth-

138

Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 113. Alan J. Hauser, “Tamar,” in EDB, 1273. 140 Sweeney, “Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions,” 171: “This [the placement of Jeroboam’s condemnation within LXX B] suggests that he is not condemned for his cultic abuses in the LXXA[Codex Alexandrinus]/LXXB versions, but for his efforts to revolt against Solomon and his relationship with the Egyptian royal house. Such a shift [vis-à-vis MT’s presentation] has important ramifications for the interpretation of these narratives.” 141 Ibid., 175: “Overall, Jeroboam is not a culpable figure in the MT narrative; his actions are prompted by YHWH as a means to punish Solomon for his actions.” 139

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

95

er’s name will be given.”142 Also noteworthy are the similarities between David, whom Saul persecutes (1 Sam 19:1), and Jeroboam, whom Solomon persecutes (1 Kgs 11:40). Prominent prophets, Samuel and Ahijah respectively, also counsel both David and Jeroboam with respect to their initiatives regarding the ruling king.143 Jeroboam will become a byword for apostasy, but his origins suggest a more ambivalent character.144 The narrator introduces two other notable elements in the initial information he provides about Jeroboam: his Ephraimite origins and his role as Solomon’s “servant.” “That some of Israel’s key leaders such as Joshua and Samuel came from Ephraim establishes a precedent for the role that Jeroboam is about to play.”145 Although the initial information given about Jeroboam tries to cast him in a negative light, v. 26 has to be read in connection with 1 Kgs 11:27–39, which is more ambiguous about him. Serious consideration must also be given to the reading of Gmisc, in which he is not initially described as a rebel.146 Commentators see the Jeroboam narrative in starkly different terms. While Fretheim sees the narrative as positive,147 J. Alberto Soggin148 and Volkmar Fritz149 view it as negative. Yet, God ul142

Walsh, 1 Kings, 142. Ibid. 144 G. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies Volume 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 170–71: “I maintain that the Deuteronomist has a stake in presenting a positive view of Jeroboam and his rise to power. Although he will later vilify Jeroboam, the Deuteronomist does not impugn the character of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 11:26–12:20. On the contrary. 1 Kgs 11:26–12:20 presents Jeroboam as YHWH’s designated king to govern the incipient kingdom of Israel. This new monarch, Dtr 1 contends, was awarded the same God-given opportunities to succeed as David enjoyed before him.” 145 Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 113. 146 Willis, “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3,” 43–44: “In 1 Kgs 11:26 the MT and Hexaplaric witnesses contain two pieces of information which are not reflected in LXX. The first is the name of Jeroboam’s mother; the second is the clause, ‘and he lifted (his) hand against the king.’ Both of these appear to be expansions in the text, while LXXB represents an earlier form of the text (which is commonly the case in this section of Kings). One would expect Gmisc to agree with the reading in the MT, but it does not; it omits the expansions, agreeing with LXXB against the MT. Once again, Gmisc reflects an earlier form of the text than does the MT.” 147 T. E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) 67: “This basically positive narrative regarding Jeroboam’s rise to power clarifies the dynamics to be associated with the divine announcement in 11:11–13 (see especially ‘your servant’ in v. 11).” 148 J. A. Soggin, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993) 205: Jeroboam’s destiny “can only be disastrous.” 149 Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 134: “The whole piece is therefore a fictitious report with the aim to stigmatize the first king of the northern kingdom as an unfaithful servant even 143

96

Chapter 4

timately establishes Jeroboam, as David was previously established. The story thus helps establish the precedent that “God will always allow a new beginning.”150 Jeroboam’s role as “Solomon’s servant” in 11:26 recalls God’s announcement to Solomon in 1 Kgs 11:11b: “I will certainly tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant.” Jeroboam’s opening designation as a “servant,” in spite of how he will be described later, thus is suggestive of his divinely designated role as Solomon’s replacement. 2. 11:27–28 The Rise of Jeroboam These two verses offer the most flattering portrait of Jeroboam in the OT. The narrator has carefully constructed the story: “By announcing Jeroboam’s revolt (v. 26) before supplying the circumstances which brought Jeroboam to prominence (v. 27–28), the author has Solomon unwittingly elevate the man who we know will be his undoing. This irony underlines the providential nature of Jeroboam’s rise to power even though God, as yet, has not entered the story.”151 Verse 26 lowers expectations of Jeroboam by describing him as a rebel, but vv. 27–28 also distinguish him. 1 Kings 11:1–13 downgrades Solomon, since God there threatens to deprive Solomon’s son of the kingdom. I previously noted that Jeroboam’s status as a rebel aligns him with Rezon and Hadad, but vv. 26–27 also show a significant difference between him and them. God “raised up” (') adversaries against Solomon in Edom and Aram, but Jeroboam “raises up” (') his own hand against the king. As suggested above, rather than depicting an evil figure, the narrator presents Jeroboam here as an ambiguous personage who seems to act without a divine mandate. This choice of vocabulary once again demonstrates the ambiguity of the story. God does not play the same role in the Jeroboam episode as in the two previous ones; Jeroboam, not God, takes the initiative at this point: “By establishing a pattern of description and then breaking the pattern, the author signals that a new phase of his history is beginning.”152 These verses are ones of genuine promise. While Soggin believes Jeroboam’s destiny “can only be disastrous,”153 Jeroboam’s ultimate fate does not seem to be represented as preordained. We must bracket, for the moment, later biblical verses that have made “Jeroboam, infamous as the arch-apostate to whom every subsequent king of Israel is com-

before his accession to the throne. The narrative has to be seen as a piece of Judean propaganda.” 150 Walsh, 1 Kings, 149. 151 R. L. Cohn, “Literary Technique in the Jeroboam Narrative,” ZAW 97 (1985) 26. 152 Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 26. 153 Soggin, Introduction, 205.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

97

pared.”154 Although v. 26 evidences possible Deuteronomistic bias, vv. 27– 28 do not present such a bias. The Ahijah material following these two verses also features a positive, hopeful vision of Jeroboam’s future. The narrator characterizes Jeroboam as a capable and trustworthy man in these verses. We also receive a plausible explanation for his rebellion as he had been given responsibility by Solomon (11:28) and commissioned by the prophet Ahijah (11:31). The MT describes him as a  . This same phrase is used to describe Gideon (Judg 6:12), Jephthah (Judg 11:1), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), Kish (the father of Saul, 1 Sam 9:1), and Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1). The Chronicler uses it as a more generic designation for distinguished personages (1 Chr 12:29; 1 Chr 28:1; 2 Chr 13:3). The MT always appears to use the phrase in a positive sense, even though a so-designated character like Jephthah shows himself to be deeply flawed. A number of commentators understand the meaning of   to have economic connotations.155 Out of twenty MT instances, only one has a clear economic connotation. According to 2 Kgs 15:20, “Menahem brought forth the money from Israel, from the mighty warriors ( % 3&"%) to give to the king of Assyria, fifty shekels from each man. The king of Assyria turned back, and did not remain there in the land.” The primary meaning of the designation is rather that Jeroboam is a man of valor, one whom Solomon appoints (3>;;) over a forced labor contingent.156 Jeroboam has earned the trust of Solomon. These two verses apparently conclude on a promising note before the sudden appearance of Ahijah. 3. 11:29–30 Ahijah’s symbolic action Commentators offer many explanations for the sudden appearance of a prophet in the middle of a historical narrative here in 11:29ff. However, in the immediate context, it does not seem so surprising. The ten preceding verses contain stories about Hadad, Rezon, and perhaps two different views on Jeroboam. The new section that began in 11:14 represents a sharp break from 1 Kings’s more celebratory material on Solomon. The narrator weaves together a number of different sources. More literary-minded crit154

Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 25. Gray, I & II Kings, 294: “Jeroboam, though a young man in the service of Solomon, had succeeded to the property of his father, who had died early, since his mother is designated as a widow. As a man of property he had obligations in war, and as such he is designated gibbǀr ayil.” See also Cogan, 1 Kings, 339: “Hebrew gibbôr ayil, here as in 1 Kgs 1:42, appears in its basic meaning ‘man of valor,’ ‘of great energy’ ( NEB, NJB), and cf. 2 Kgs 5:1, the valorous Aramean commander Naaman. The developed sense of ‘men of high economic status’ appears in 2 Kgs 15:20.” 156 Interestingly, another émigré to Egypt, Joseph, uses this same hiphil form of the verb  when telling Pharaoh how to divide up the land (Gen 41:34). 155

98

Chapter 4

ics have few problems with this approach, but other scholars evidence bafflement at the “‘digression,’ ‘insertion,’ or ‘disturbance.’”157 Fritz, for example, claims that the Ahijah prophecy replaces a portion of the Jeroboam narrative “as its whole middle part is missing.”158 These hypotheses are logical and may even be true, but they remain hypothetical. In his literary analysis, Robert Cohn shows the “clear evidence of conscious artistry in the very splicing of the annalistic and prophetic, a splicing which sets human behavior against divine purpose in the complex unfolding of history.”159 We shall focus on trying to understand the text following Cohn, who focuses on the power of the attested text rather than some putative earlier text. The material preceding Ahijah’s actual oracle features a symbolic action. Two elements are important for his symbolic action: the new garment and the tearing. Both of these elements help us understand this action as a symbolic one, with many precedents in the OT. Before Ahijah’s actual speech, we have a symbolic action: tearing the new garment. The whole unit, 1 Kgs 11:29–39, might be classified as a Bericht der symbolische Handlung160 with parallels in Isa 8:1–4; Jer 13:1–11; and Ezek 4:1–8. The tearing constitutes the action component of the Bericht, also tying this story to the preceding announcement of doom for Solomon. In 1 Kgs 11:11 the Lord emphatically (by means of an infinite absolute) tells Solomon that he will “tear” () the kingdom from him and give it to his servant. Ahijah performs the corresponding symbolic action in 1 Kgs 11:30, where the narrator even uses the same verb () in order to emphasize the point. In contrast to Saul’s tearing Samuel’s garment (1 Sam 15:27–28), Ahijah’s action is no accident. The second important aspect of this Bericht is the new robe. Ahijah’s new robe is very important for his symbolic action: “Note the new devices used by Elisha: the ‘new flask’ in 2 Kgs 2:20 and the floating ax head in the 6:1–7.”161 Gray notes as well a “new cart for the ark (1 Sam 6:7), new ropes and bow strings of Delilah (Judg 16:7–11).”162 The element of newness appears to be an important part of Ahijah’s symbolic act that connects it to other symbolic acts. Ahijah appears to ordain Jeroboam as king here; Elisha will have a similar role in Jehu’s coup.163

157

Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 27. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 134. DeVries, 1 Kings, 150: “. . . we never learn what Jeroboam did next, for Dtr has substituted the Ahijah story and his own comments for what stood in the original account.” 159 Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 23–24. 160 Long, 1 Kings, 262. 161 Cogan, 1 Kings, 339. 162 Gray, I & II Kings, 295. 163 Ibid., 294. 158

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

99

This Bericht section thus displays the literary artistry of the narrator by connecting Ahijah’s actions with the larger plot of the story. 4. 11:31–39 Prophetic oracle An oracle explaining the act in question is another key component of the Bericht form.164 Ahijah’s oracle in 11:31–39 starts developing the themes of the larger literary unit in its first verse. The verb “tear” () appears in this verse, as does the noun “hand” (). Ahijah announces that God will “tear” the kingdom from Solomon. The Lord had already told Solomon he would perform this action in v. 11; Ahijah performed the action in a symbolic manner in v. 30, and now the Lord informs Jeroboam through Ahijah that he will tear apart Solomon’s kingdom. In v. 26 Jeroboam raises his “hand” against Solomon; now in v. 31 the Lord tears the kingdom from Solomon’s “hand.”165 This verse operates on a literary level, connecting the oracle to the previous verses. Rather than constituting a disruption, the oracle builds on themes previously developed. Although the oracle develops these earlier themes, a number of critics have noted its inconsistencies. Roland Boer’s “table below illustrates this inconsistency through repetition of the mitigation and of the continually revised punishment: 11:31b: announcement of punishment 11:32: mitigation of punishment 11:33: sin – reason for punishment 11:34: mitigation of punishment 11:35: announcement of revised punishment 11:36: mitigation of revised punishment 11:39: punishment and mitigation”166

The narrator of this oracle appears to be trying to strike a balance between a cynicism grounded in the obvious problems of the history of kingship in Israel and the hope implied in the beginning and ending of the oracle. It bears emphasizing that “the future possibility that God’s word gives to Jeroboam in v. 38 is real; it has not been ‘closed off by prophetic foreknowledge.’”167 The inconsistency of the oracle seems then to reflect the fragility of history. Jeroboam appears as a reformer at the beginning of his reign, but history remembers him as an apostate. The oscillations regarding Solomon’s punishment in the oracle mirror the inconsistency of the rebel’s 164

Long, 1 Kings, 129. Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 32. The term “hand” seems quite prominent in this initial passage (1 Kgs 11:26–12:24) concerning Jeroboam: 11:26, 27, 31, 34, 35; 12:15; cf. 11:12; 13:4 (bis), 6 (bis). 166 Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam, 134. 167 Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 69. 165

100

Chapter 4

character. The rebel Jeroboam begins as a charismatic leader with much hope, but the OT primarily remembers him as an apostate who could not even live according to the covenant. The final important topic in our oracle is kingship. This theme connects Jeroboam with Rezon and Hadad, whom the narrator also describes as royalty.168 The literary aspect of this story emphasizes the theological rather than historical importance of Jeroboam as king. Ambiguity, in fact, exists as to Jeroboam’s future office as described in the oracle. Although the narrator uses the term “king” (E ) in v. 37, we find “ruler” ((0) in v. 34. The narrator also uses language that draws parallels between David and Jeroboam: “Jeroboam is promised a ‘sure house,’ exactly the phrasing of Abigail to David in 1 Samuel 25:28, and the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:16. Jeroboam is summoned to be the new David, the carrier of Yahweh’s best promises. This is a direct, staggering, precise, displacement of one dynasty by the authorization of another, a deeply subversive act (see 1 Samuel 16:1–13 for a parallel).”169 Ahijah’s oracle highlights then both the fragility of a kingship not anchored in one family or capital, and the responsibility incumbent on a king. 5. 11:40 Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt Based on several elements, most commentators differentiate the material in v. 40 concerning Jeroboam from the rest of the story. Whereas v. 26 begins Jeroboam’s story differently than those of Hadad and Rezon, v. 40 offers a similar ending to theirs: all three men leave their homelands when faced with adversity. In contrast to Rezon and Hadad, Jeroboam’s “arising” does not occur at the beginning of this story, rather his “arising” (') occurs only at the end of the story in v. 40. The narrator chooses to use a different verb for Jeroboam’s “raising” (') his hand against Solomon in v. 26. The other two figures “arose” in rebellion, but Jeroboam “arises” in order to save his life. Apart from the initial description of Jeroboam in vv. 26–27, nothing in the narrative leads one to suppose that Solomon would have had reason to become suspicious of Jeroboam, since his meeting with Ahijah is private. The Joseph Story offers a proximate analogy because both Jeroboam and Joseph wind up in Egypt. Jeroboam ultimately finds refuge with Pharaoh, just as Joseph ultimately found refuge with Pharaoh. While there are differences, Egypt serves as a place of refuge for both Jeroboam and Joseph. More importantly, it offers refuge for charismatic leaders in both instances. The positive role of Egypt as a place of refuge for Jeroboam be168 See respectively 11:24 and 11:14, although here the narrator designates Hadad as coming from a royal family rather than as a king. 169 Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 147.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

101

comes evident if one puts aside Jeroboam’s later cultic offenses. Fretheim notes that vv. 26 and 40 conflict with “this [1 Kgs 11:26–40] basically positive narrative regarding Jeroboam’s rise to power”170 because these verses represent the only negative events in the “basically positive narrative.” Verse 40 would be a surprising conclusion to the Jeroboam story if it did not immediately follow those of Hadad and Rezon. Although the opening verse of the story is negative, this is the only element in the story that prepares us for Jeroboam’s flight at its conclusion. Gary Knoppers argues: “The pericope needs to be seen in its larger setting, which recounts the sins of Solomon and the ensuing division of the kingdom. Within this larger narrative, 1 Kgs 11:29–38 exhibits a coherent structure and plays an important role in providing an interpretive key to subsequent events.”171 Thus, the opening and closing verses appear at odds with the rest of the story. D. 11:41–43 The Death of Solomon These three verses mark a sharp change from the preceding stories. Rather than hearing about rebels, we return to a seemingly official narrative about King Solomon. Boer argues that such regnal formulae reflect a royal ideology: “There is still some space for the king: everything that is mentioned in the formulae – time of reign, age, name of father and mother, length and place of reign, theological assessment, other activities and sources, ruling, warring, death, burial and successor – clusters around the king as center.”172 The narrator of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 heaps criticism upon the various kings at most junctures, but no such criticism is found here. “The regnal formulae assume the validity of kingship and its continuity in the face of significant obstacles and even of divine disapproval.”173 The different strata in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 demonstrate the wide range of perspectives on kingship.174 As in 1 Kgs 11:26–40, it is not unusual to find statements in tension with the prevailing view on a character. Although the differences between the MT and LXX should not be overstated, they yield different images of Egypt as a place of refuge in this in170

Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 67. Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 196. 172 Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam, 148. 173 Ibid., 137. 174 Soggin, Introduction, 205: “These texts [1 Kgs 11:20–40; 12:21–24; 14:1–8] show what we might call the ambiguous attitude of the various strata of Dtr towards the northern kingdom. On the one hand they have Jeroboam designated through an oracle and see the new state under divine protection; on the other hand they recognize Jeroboam as a sinner, because of the crime of the separation, but especially because of his religious policy . . . .” 171

102

Chapter 4

stance. In LXXB 1 Kgs 11:43 and LXXL 1 Kgs 11:42, Jeroboam arrives back in Israel in time for the all-important assembly that divides the United Monarchy. While ambiguity exists in the MT as to when he actually arrives in Israel, it certainly is not until after Rehoboam goes Shechem in order to be made king (MT 12:1). LXXBL places his arrival back in Israel before this process. LXXBL also has the Alternative Story, which both negatively portrays Jeroboam and his mother and gives him an Egyptian wife reminiscent of Solomon (Ano in 12:24k). LXX shows a clear bias against Egypt. This appears to be the work of later scribes, as it is the LXX’s midrashic elements that exhibit the most bias. Evidence of this anti-Egyptian bias can also be found in late books like the Book of Wisdom. This alternative story is only found in Greek, as is the Book of Wisdom. Egypt’s portrayal as a purely negative place of refuge may be a late phenomenon. Although Jews appear to have been treated well in Alexandria initially,175 they progressively incurred worse treatment over the years.176 E. 12:1–19 Rehoboam’s aborted succession Scholars over the last century have interpreted the story of Rehoboam’s aborted succession in 1 Kgs 12:1–19 in various ways. Most have seen this account as “an early historical narrative which bears the clear stamp of reliability and a historical sense corresponding to the really important political situation described.”177 Scholars have mined this account for proof of a bicameral legislature in early Israel178 and parallels with other ANE councils of elders.179 In their treatment of the story, both Gray and Malamat reconstruct Israelite history using Greek and Roman models rather than Moab or Edom. They look to massive empires and far wealthier nations than biblical Israel. They also do not take into account the theologicallydriven nature of the stories in Kings180 or their literary character. The be175

Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) 87: “Many Jewish immigrants found now homes in the Ptolemaic capital, and although there are no early Ptolemaic papyri from Alexandria, Jewish names have been found in the earliest graveyards of the newly founded city.” 176 John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 118: “Jews would now (37–41 CE) be confined to only one of the five sections of Alexandria and so, in effect, to a ghetto.” 177 Gray, I & II Kings, 299. 178 Malamat, History of Biblical Israel, 245. 179 Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox Pub., 2005) 116. 180 Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 241: “This is not to suggest that the Genesis–2 Kings History, which up to this point has presented us with an idealized and theologically driven vision of Israel’s past, now suddenly becomes a fully

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

103

ginning of chapter 12 features poetic aspects, for example, the repetition of Rehoboam’s hyperbolic threat, as well as parallels with stories using other historical settings (see, e.g., 2 Sam 17:14, where Absalom opts for the fatal advice of Hushai ather than the sound advice of Ahithophel).181 Such elements suggest that the succession account in 1 Kings 12 operates primarily at a literary level. The scholarly consensus about this account has vanished. Long boldly states: “This unit is not a ‘historical work,’ but a story with typical marks of folkloristic or popular narration.”182 A number of scholars have seen wisdom motifs in 12:1–19. This passage may serve as an appendix to the life of Solomon, which picks up on all the wisdom motifs highlighted in 1 Kings 3–10. Cogan, for example, sees this account as “a ‘wisdom’ tale written in praise of Solomon’s trusted advisers.”183 Boer holds “that the ‘realism’ of 1 Kgs 12:1–14 is achieved not so much by a realistic description of human exchange, but rather by means of a set of literary conventions, specifically wisdom conventions that value human initiative.”184 The literary aspects of this story serve to suggest that while this story may contain historical elements in broad strokes (such as the schism between North and South), it cannot be mined for historical detail. 1. 12:1–3 Preparations for meeting at Shechem Textual problems bedevil this introduction to the story. As a result, a wide array of views exists among the critics. No easy solution to the story’s textual problems exists, as can be seen from the lack of scholarly consensus. Many critics argue for using the LXX, “which is twice as near the time of the ‘original’ as is the earliest manuscript of our printed Hebrew Bible.”185 Nonetheless, it still appears the LXX represents an early correction of the Vorlage of the MT in this passage. The appeal to a “superior” LXX here does not explain why material would have been added into the Hebrew that causes so many problems. I consistently follow the MT here (as I indicate in footnotes 45–47 of this chapter) because it offers a less harmonious and thus likely more authentic reading than the LXX. The LXX, for example, trustworthy source of historical information. On the contrary, this last segment of the long narrative that began with creation in Genesis 1 is perhaps the most theologically driven part of all.” 181 Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 157. 182 Long, 1 Kings, 136. 183 Cogan, 1 Kings, 351. 184 Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam, 156. 185 R. North, “Jeroboam’s Tragic Social Justice Epic,” in Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscelánea de Estudios Bíblicos y Hebráicos (ed. L. Verdes and E. Hernández; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Benito Arias Montano de Estudios Hebráicos, Sefardies y Oriente Próximo, 1975) 202.

104

Chapter 4

smoothes over the problem of Jeroboam’s return to Israel and highlights the figure of Rehoboam by calling him “King Rehoboam.” The Hebrew remains the lectio difficilior for this segment. The story itself shows that Jeroboam is not a significant part of the story. The story has two essential characters: Rehoboam and the people.186 For Long, this story evidences “sandwich” or “ring” style, in which “two scenes featuring Rehoboam and the people of the north (II.A, vv. 3b–5; II.C, vv. 12–16a) enclose a dramatic center: the king’s consultations with his advisers (II.B, vv. 6–11).”187 Although Walsh also finds a chiastic structure within this story,188 for him the artistic completeness, repetition, high drama, and folkloristic features are more important for understanding its purpose. It both entertains and advances the theological agenda of its compilers. The story diminishes Rehoboam and elevates his opponents. The structure of the story serves to highlight the differences between Rehoboam and the people; it also differentiates Rehoboam from Solomon and Jeroboam. Even if Jeroboam has more of a place in the story following ch. 11 of the LXX, the LXX fails to mention him as an active participant in the proceeding of 12:1–19, whereas the MT does mention him. He only speaks to Rehoboam along with the people in MT 12:3 and 12:12. In this sense, he stands in sharp contrast with Rehoboam, who manipulates the various parties in the story through his speeches to them. The MT’s treatment of Egypt remains neutral here. The people of the Northern Kingdom do not call Jeroboam home until v. 3. According to the plot of the story, Jeroboam did not rush home upon the death of Solomon. He only returned after being summoned in v. 3. The narrator does not portray Egypt as an incubator for rebels. Both Jeroboam and Hadad seem to leave Egypt when it suits themselves rather than when it suits Egypt’s national interests. While other parts of the OT present Egypt as a source of instability and chaos, Egypt’s role here can be seen at least as neutral and perhaps even as positive. Both Jeroboam and Hadad share motifs that are redolent of Joseph and his positive experience in Egypt. In Egypt, Hadad and Jeroboam find refuge from the violence and injustice in their homelands. 2. 12:4–5 Jeroboam’s return to Israel These two verses address a number of important issues within both the Book of Kings as a whole and the larger narrative unit, 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. The idea of “service” has surfaced a number of times previously within the 186

Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam, 152. Long, 1 Kings, 134. 188 Walsh, 1 Kings, 160. 187

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

105

literary unit under examination, particularly in connection with Solomon’s “servant” Jeroboam in 11:26. In 11:11, the Lord promises to give the kingdom to Solomon’s “servant.” 1 Kings 12:4 further develops the theme of service. Service is a key theme throughout the OT, especially in reference to wrongful and right service. In Exodus, the Lord releases Israel from its unjust service in Egypt for rightful service of the Lord in the Promised Land.189 There is a similar outcry against unjust service here. The MT, in this instance, shows the irony: “Meanwhile, Jeroboam heard about this occasion and returned from Egypt. Moses-like, he was called upon to lead a delegation to Rehoboam to request relief from the crown’s forced labor policies, language reminiscent of Israel’s life in Egypt (see Exod. 1:14; 2:23).”190 The people’s appeal to Rehoboam to make their service tolerable resonates with some of the most important biblical themes. These verses also tie into our passage’s stance towards Solomon. While there is little negativity regarding Solomon in the regnal formula that concluded chap. 11, the people now comment pejoratively on his legacy here. “What we suspected in the Solomonic era has now been confirmed. The greatness of Rehoboam’s father and all his accomplishments was at the expense of the lives of countless laborers and their families.”191 Ambiguity is a hallmark of this larger passage (11:14–12:24), as indicated by its attitude towards Jeroboam and Solomon. The various redactors of this unit have allowed many voices to speak in these verses, thus offering a range of views about Jeroboam’s rebellion. Whereas the narrator initially characterizes him negatively in 11:26 and then more ambiguously in 11:27–28, these verses may allow the inference that Jeroboam’s actions reflected popular underlying resentments. Two literary aspects characterize these verses. Cogan notes that “three days” is a “common literary phrase meant to indicate ‘short period of time’; cf., e.g. 3:18; 2 Kgs 20:5, 8; Gen 22:4; 34:25; Esth 5:1.”192 This short period of time serves to increase the dramatic impact of the piece. The narrator also uses repetition in order to highlight certain details. Such repetition serves to slow the story down and increase its drama. The other aspect conducive to a dramatic story concerns Rehoboam’s dilemma: “The 189

J. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 22–23: “Artlessly, an opposition has been set up between service to YHWH and service to Pharaoh. Two masters, two lords, are in contention for the service of Israel in these first chapters of Exodus. . . . The mountain of God is a beacon to the slaves of Egypt, a symbol of a new kind of master and a radically different relationship of people to state. Sinai is not the final goal of the Exodus, but lying between Egypt and Canaan, it does represent YHWH’s unchallengeable mastery over both.” 190 Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 138. 191 Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 122. 192 Cogan, 1 Kings, 347.

106

Chapter 4

demand of the North is not an easy one for the new king, for an agreement to a ‘light yoke’ will require great budget cutbacks, a curtailment of Solomon’s showy accomplishments.”193 3. 12:6–11 Rehoboam consults the elders and the youth This episode has attracted enormous attention over the years. Many try to use it in order to understand the governance of early monarchical Israel. Such utilization of this material highlights a central difficulty in its use, namely, its problematic historicity. I agree with Long, Noth, Gray, and Würthwein that it is important to identify the genre used here as “story.”194 An instructive parallel in this regard is the Joseph story.195 No one uses the latter story historically in order to try to understand the governance of Egypt. A lowly immigrant could never rise to be Pharaoh’s viceroy in one generation. Egyptian history offers no examples of this phenomenon. Furthermore, the Egyptian concern with purity did not allow anyone but people of the highest status near Pharaoh. One of the goals of the Joseph story is not then to describe the governance of Egypt, but to offer the Israelites wisdom teaching196 for their survival and adaptation in a foreign setting.197 Joseph is described as a wise man twice (41:33, 39) and wisdom 193

Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 155. Long, 1 Kings, 136: “This unit is clearly a STORY, and has been so designated by many. Its folkloristic artistry suggests that Debus’s designation “folktale” is essentially correct in its flavor. This unit is not a “historical work”, but a story with typical marks of folkloristic or popular narration.” 195 G. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 266: “its distinctive character points to a context within royal wisdom tradition, the product of reflection about characteristics for a wise administrator of power. . . . The digression presents a wise administrator as a man whose characteristics can edify a future generation.” 196 John Gammie, “From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses of the Sages Amid the Varying Forms of Wisdom,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 483: “The type of wisdom, however, is clearly a minor one in the Hebrew Bible, but unmistakably present, for example, in the novella (didactic tale) of Joseph (Genesis 37–50). . . .” Although I agree with Gammie, I should note that no consensus is found in the field. R. Gordon, “A House Divided: Wisdom in Old Testament Narrative Traditions,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (ed. John Day et. al.; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 95: “If we take the supposed wisdom affinity of the Joseph narrative, for example, we shall find that D. B. Redford and J. L. Crenshaw dismiss the wisdom connection as unsustainable, though G. W. Coats manages to salvage a wisdom-influenced core in Gen. xxxix–xli which he thinks may have originated in the Solomonic period, or even in Egyptian court circles prior to the reign of Solomon.” Gordon sides with Crenshaw. 197 L. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 360: In regard to the Joseph Story and other 194

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

107

comes up a third time in that chapter (41:8).198 Likewise, the verses in 1 Kings 12 seem to be more focused on the traits of a good leader than Israel’s actual governance. These verses have wisdom elements that focus on how we can tell the difference between a good leader and a bad leader. These verses subtly contrast Rehoboam’s dealings with the young men and the elders.199 When Rehoboam addresses the elders, he speaks to them in an impersonal manner, asking in v. 6: “How do you advise to answer this people?” He leaves himself out of the equation in this awkwardly formulated question. In his question to the young men in v. 9, he asks rather “What do you advise that we answer this people . . . ?” The narrator depicts Rehoboam displaying clear partiality, where he is depicted explicitly associating himself with the concerns and desires of the party of younger men. The answers of the two parties likewise reveal the concerns of the narrator. Ideas of “service” () emerge in the response of the elders in v. 7. They equate service with the role of the king. If the king acts in a just, servantlike manner, the service and devotion of the people will naturally follow in a healthy and proper way. In contrast to the sage advice of the elders, the young men do not mention service at all. They simply resort to vulgarities without offering proper advice. He aligns himself closely with the young men, in particular in his use of the first person plural in v. 9. The young men know that high taxes benefit them, while cutbacks will hurt them. The narrator has crafted a dialogue that contrasts the service advocated by the elders with the greed and vulgarity voiced by the young men. Rehoboam’s saying here in v. 10 “draws upon a universal concern with relationships between the generations.”200 Will Rehoboam be like his father? Furthermore, “the mashal on a basic level is a veritable cosmogonic similar stories such as Daniel: “The genre of these tales approximates the Joseph Story in Gen. 37, 39–50. As didactic wisdom or court tales, these legends were shaped to present to students of wisdom and disciples of the sages the ideal wise person who, in spite of intense persecution, remained pious and righteous and was given the gift to interpret dreams that speak of the future. These sages in turn were to inspire their extended communities to continue their loyalty to Judaism, knowing that the righteous and faithful would enjoy the same fate.” 198 Ibid., 83: “The rhetoric of wisdom contains not only a variety of forms specific to wisdom, themes incorporated in the wisdom tradition, and rhetorical features of sapiential poetry, but also key words and their synonyms that aided the meaning by giving the tradition a common vocabulary. These key sapiential words included ‘way’ (derek), ‘wisdom’ (okmâ), ‘teach/learn’, (lƗmad), ‘listen’ (šƗma ), ‘speak’ (dƗbar), and ‘understand/ know’(yƗda ).” In the Jospeh Story (derek) appears five times, ‘listen’ (šƗma ) appears nineteen times, ‘speak’ (dƗbar) appears forty-six times, and ‘understand- /know’(yƗda ) appears three times. 199 Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 123. 200 S. Niditch, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 79.

108

Chapter 4

comment on the nature of the world that points to a tension in human existence between reality and expectations, between the status quo and change.”201 These concepts are very much in play here as the Israelites try to determine what kind of ruler they have in Rehoboam, and what they can expect from him. Wisdom is found here, not in the young and powerful, but in the elderly. Greed leads to bloodshed. The story’s repetitions–along with its variations–serve to highlight the great contrast between the two groups of advisors. 4. 12:12–15 The Decision of Rehoboam We now witness Rehoboam’s momentous decision in favor of maintaining the harsh policies of his father against the North. Although Rehoboam takes this decision, these verses conclude with a sense of divine inevitability. The reference to Ahijah in v. 15 “specifically connects the foretold rise of Jeroboam to kingship with the obstinacy of Rehoboam before Israel.”202 Boer argues that v. 15 signals a dual causality in the fall of the united monarchy: God and the stupidity of Rehoboam.203 The story serves to fulfill the oracle of Ahijah. In vv. 13–14, we see that the “narrator is concerned to lay a good deal of the blame upon Rehoboam.”204 The repetition in v. 14 (which essentially repeats 12:11) in particular shows Rehoboam’s role: “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add unto your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, and I will discipline you with scorpions.” The young men utter their vulgarity a second time, as Rehoboam now repeats their words after the heat of the moment has passed. He takes no time to reflect. The foreordained decision spoken of in v. 15 does little to cast Rehoboam in a better light, given his own stupidity and vulgarity. Some historians try to exonerate Rehoboam based on the historical circumstances,205 but the story is a repudiation of Rehoboam. When we carefully examine the biblical data concerning Rehoboam, we learn he is not as young as the present story might lead us to believe. All three versions tell us that he was forty-one (1 Kgs 14:21) at the moment of his accession. Both LXXB and LXXL, which are more hostile to Jeroboam, offer conflicting evidence about Rehoboam. These versions differ over his age, telling 201

Ibid., 80. Ibid., 124. 203 Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam, 167. 204 Ibid., 156. 205 B. Halpern, “Sectionalism and the Schism,” JBL 93 (1974) 528: “The slogans and catchwords of the Shechemite assembly, its issues and its answers were far from unfamiliar in Israel. Sheba ben Bichri, after the Absalom uprising, had also called “what portion have we (Israel) in David” (2 Sam 20:1–2; cf. 1 Kgs 12:16–20). And the cry was resumed in Shechem.” 202

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

109

us also that he was sixteen at his accession in their Alternative Story (12:24a).206 Rather than being a victim of historical circumstances or just an immature young man of sixteen who lacks wisdom, the MT presents Rehoboam as a forty-one-year-old man who is envious, lacking in discretion and insight. When we remember the wisdom aspect of this story, Rehoboam is shown ending up lacking even the most important skill of his father: a listening heart. Solomon’s most positive attribute manifested itself in his asking God not for riches, but for a listening heart (1 Kgs 3:12). Here Rehoboam manifests the exact opposite trait. In his defining moment, he sides with the thoughtless bravado of the young men rather than with the sage old men. As noted above, he does not truly wish to know what the young men thought, as he frames the question, which he puts to them differently than his question to the elders. He may have even intimidated the young men into offering the response that he desired.207 Verse 15 focuses the whole drama as it narrows the event down to two characters: Rehoboam and the people. Rehoboam’s refusal to listen to the people involves great irony: “How far we are from a King Solomon, whose only request of Yahweh was for ‘a listening mind to judge your people, to discern between good and evil’ (3:9)!”208 Although the narrator still refers to Rehoboam as the king, v. 15 concludes with a reference to Jeroboam’s rise to kingship as foretold by Ahijah. At this point, Jeroboam still remains free of the impieties that will stain him irrevocably in the rest of the biblical narrative. The end of this verse (12:15) marks the transition “from the hand of Solomon” to Jeroboam foretold by the prophet Ahijah in 1 Kgs 11:31. 5. 12:16–17 Reaction of Israel Israel’s rejection of Rehoboam suggests that leadership in the North has been handed over to someone considered more worthy.209 His rejection highlights the ambiguity of this story, which lacks a clear heroic figure. The dispute truly lies between the people and Rehoboam. They have successfully cast off his rule. While these verses display the Northerners’ zeal for freedom, they also show their underlying resentment toward Judah and the united monarchy. As the initial description of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:26 suggests, the “Israelite actions constitute a ‘rebellion’ – which is more than Yahweh has sanctioned.”210 This rebellion is echoed in the people’s cry in 1 Kgs 12:16: “What share do we have in David? We have no inheritance in 206

Sweeney, “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions,” 184. Hens-Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 123. 208 Walsh, 1 Kings, 169. 209 Soggin, Introduction, 204. 210 Walsh, 1 Kings, 166. 207

110

Chapter 4

the son of Jesse, look now to your own house, David.” Montgomery and Gehman describe this statement as “a national anthem.”211 This anthem of v. 16 hearkens back to the same anthem used by the rebel Sheba in 2 Sam 20:1, “which suggests that there was an undercurrent of opposition to the house of David not allayed either by David or Solomon.”212 This common anthem also suggests that Jeroboam and Sheba share a common background. The former’s revolt is not unique within the history of Israel and must be viewed at least partially through a literary perspective. The other important literary aspect prominently featured in v. 16 is its use of poetic verse. Verse was also present earlier in the story (see 12:11– 12),213 but I wish to focus on it here. Verse offers another indication as to the genre of this material. One would not expect to find verse in official annals. They offer color and excitement to the story, but as Cohn further contends, by “switching from prose to verse, the author underlines the significance of the exchange.”214 The use of verse increases the suspense of the story, further highlighting the strong rhetorical elements of this literary creation rather than the more sedate annalistic parts found in other areas of 1 Kings. If we look for general trends and correlations rather than historical details, these verses suggest the underlying problems of the United Monarchy, in the course of which the same cry is addressed to both David and his grandson. Gösta Ahlström offers this analysis: Israel had artificially and forcefully been part of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom. After Eshbaal’s death, Israel had no other choice than to accept the usurper David, but after the uproar under Sheba, Israel had been treated as subdued vassal. That backfired under Rehoboam. The kingdom of the Davidic house was not originally according to the will of the Israelite people, neither was it their creation. In other words, Israel wanted its freedom and it got it back under Jeroboam.215

Sheba and Jeroboam point up the difficulty of the union between Israel and Judah. Israel 216 had better and more natural resources than Judah217 and

211

Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 250. Gray, I & II Kings, 306. 213 Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 250. 214 Cohn, “Literary Technique,” 29. 215 G. Ahlström, History of Ancient Palestine (ed. Diana Edelman; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 547. 216 L. Herr, “Emerging Nations,” BA 60 (1997) 137: “The procurement of food was not normally a major problem for Israel. Generally, the farther north one goes in the southern Levant, the more rain falls. . . . Moreover, the broad valleys of Jezreel and Dothan could easily support agricultural surpluses which were then exchanged for traded goods, either within Israel or without.” 212

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

111

shows archaeologically-attested signs218 of greater economic development in the first half of the Iron Age. The story speaks to those phenomena as it depicts the need for forced labor (11:28) and a struggle over limited resources (12:4).219 6. 12:18–19 Counter-reaction of Rehoboam The final part of the story features a futile reaction by Rehoboam. He attempts to make good on his threats, but the Israelites violently and definitively reject Rehoboam. This story provides a dramatic lesson on the need for both leadership and the masses to work together. This lesson cannot be pushed too far in historical terms, however, because, as commentators suggest, all the elements of the story do not add up. In particular, Adoram’s220 and Rehoboam’s221 presence in Shechem at this juncture seem unlikely. The biggest textual problem within these verses is the name '( (MT 1 Kgs 12:18). The LXX offers different forms of the name: LXXB has Aram, and LXXL has Adoniram. Most commentators equate him with a figure from Solomon’s time named '( (1 Kgs 4:6), who was also in charge of the forced labor. Distinguishing the two figures222 would eliminate the unlikely reconstruction of a man who had served under David (2 Sam 20:24) and Solomon (1 Kgs 4:6) still carrying out this arduous work in the time of Rehoboam.223 Adoram plays a more important role in this story as a literary rather than as a historical figure. Adoram’s role in the story also indicates something important about the character of Rehoboam. Walsh argues that in the story’s nuanced Hebrew, Rehoboam “does not 217 Ibid., 142: “The organization of population centers in Judah was similar to that of Israel, but at a reduced density and with less prosperity due to the drier and harsher climactic conditions.” 218 Ibid., 137: in re Ahab: “most researchers reasonably identify these [see 1 Kgs 22:39 and archaeological evidence of buildings at Hazor, Jezreel, and Megiddo] new structures with his [Ahab’s] reign, making him the greatest builder in ancient Israel’s history.” 219 Sweeney, I & II Kings, 11: “1–2 Kings portrays the emergence of the northern kingdom as the result of dissatisfaction with the rule of Solomon, both by the tribes of Israel, who regard him as an oppressive monarch, and by YHWH, who regards him as an apostate monarch.” 220 Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 141: “The mention of Adoram in v. 18 shows the lack of historical reliability: according to 2 Sam 20:24 he already belonged to the officials of David and was then the overseer of the forced labor under Solomon (1 Kgs 4:6). In view of the long reign of Solomon it is hardly likely that Adoram continued to occupy this office under Rehoboam. . . .” See footnote 202. 221 Cogan, 1 Kings, 350: “It is unlikely that Rehoboam had accompanied Adoram on the renewed mission to the North. . . .” 222 Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 251. 223 Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 141.

112

Chapter 4

flee after Adoram has been killed . . . but while the riot is going on. . . . In other words, Rehoboam abandons his envoy to his fate in order to save his own skin.”224 The story shows Rehoboam not only as a greedy and vulgar figure, but also a cowardly one. Although in this story Rehoboam had both God and the people against him, he also displays many personal character flaws, which the narrator strives to highlight. For example Halpern states: “While historians have excoriated Solomon’s son for what appears from the biblical account to have been an objectless, petulant display of brutality, Rehoboam, in the last analysis, had nowhere to turn. Fate, it seems, was dealing seconds to stack the hand in Egypt’s favor.”225 The overarching theological agenda present in the books of Deuteronomistic History226 suggests Rehoboam would, in fact, always have a place to turn. In this story he turns to the greed and vulgarity of the young rather than to the wisdom and prudence of the elderly, just as he turns to force at the end of the story. F. 12:20–24 The Northern Kingdom After presenting Rehoboam at his worst, the story ends up offering a quite different view of him. Its concluding verses serve as “an apologia for this same king’s failure to move decisively to counteract these [calamitous] effects [of his senseless obstinacy].”227 A new prophet, Shemaiah, now emerges within the story. The conclusion to our narrative unit continues to use a more rhetorical style rather than a straightforward, annalistic style.228 One odd detail about this passage is how little comment it provokes from scholars. These five verses elicit little more than a paragraph from most commentators, whereas Hadad and Rezon draw far more interest. This material’s portrayal of an obedient Rehoboam clearly adds some nuance compared with what precedes.229 Rehoboam does not listen to the wise elders in the previous story; now, however, he immediately heeds the prophet Shemaiah. A nuanced picture of Rehoboam emerges from the story understood in its entirety. 224 Walsh, 1 Kings, 166: “The Hebrew verb form [ 4? ] implies that Rehoboam’s mounting his chariot is simultaneous with Adoram’s stoning.” 225 Halpern, “Sectionalism and the Schism,” 532. 226 Sweeney, I & II Kings, 1: “They [the books of Deuteronomistic History] are especially concerned to explain why the people of Israel and Judah were attacked and exiled from their land in order to provide a firm theological foundation for returning to the land and rebuilding their life there in the aftermath of the exile.” 227 DeVries, 1 Kings, 156. 228 Long, 1 Kings, 138. 229 Ibid.: “vv. 21–24 may take up an originally separate tradition. One may see its end in the shift to a more straightforward chronistic style with entirely different subject matter in v. 25.”

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

113

1. 12:20–21 Installation of Jeroboam and Rehoboam’s reaction Jeroboam now reenters the story in an impressive manner. The previous story (12:1–19) concerned the people and Rehoboam. Now the Northerners appoint Jeroboam as their leader. The prophet Ahijah foretold his ascendancy in chap. 11, and the people formalize this initiative in v. 20. While this story is primarily about Rehoboam, the narrator describes both kings in a positive manner at this point. The cowardly Rehoboam reappears with a massive army. The goal of this story “seems to have been to exculpate Rehoboam for not having brought Israel back under the House of David.”230 The more positive portrait of Rehoboam may reflect the literary orientation of these verses whose narrator does not want to condemn the king. Overall, 1 Kgs 12:20–24, as I noted above, evokes very little commentary, but most scholars believe that the narrator has unduly inflated the numbers of Rehoboam’s army. 231 The story further suffers in the eyes of scholars because it stands so close to 2 Chr 11:1–4. Some commentators who disregard genre issues in the other components of our literary unit are strikingly sensitive to them here. Gray, for example, argues for the historical veracity of 1 Kgs 12:1–19.232 Yet, he believes that “vv. 21–24 come from the hand of one living at a later time, when local differences had been forgotten, and to whom civil war in Israel was intolerable.”233 All of 1 Kgs 12:1–24 arguably fits this description, rather than just vv. 21–24. 2. 12:22–24 Shemaiah’s Admonition Shemaiah appears as a figure similar to Ahijah. They both intervene at tense moments in the narrative. Whereas Ahijah speaks to Jeroboam before his decision to flee to Egypt, Shemaiah speaks to Rehoboam before his decision to go to war. Both prophets offer their respective leaders opportunities for renewal and restoration. The narrator starts off branding Jeroboam a rebel (1 Kgs 11:26), but Ahijah performs a symbolic act in giving him ten of the twelve pieces of his robe and conditionally offers him leadership. Shemaiah prompts a transformation of the cowardly Rehoboam into a king who adheres to the word of God. That word of God proves the most powerful actor in this section. Although Ahijah’s oracle far exceeds Shemaiah’s in length, their two oracles 230

Cogan, 1 Kings, 354. DeVries, 1 Kings, 156. 232 Gray, I & II Kings, 299: “The account of the actual disruption of Solomon’s kingdom (vv. 1–19) is transmitted in an early historical narrative which bears the clear stamp of reliability and a historical sense corresponding to the really important political situation described.” 233 Ibid., 285. 231

114

Chapter 4

have an equal efficacy. “The lack of narrative detail highlights the divine word. Even here, the narrator pays no attention to the circumstances of its reception beyond the formulaic ‘the word of God came to Shemaiah’ (v. 22a). As readers, we simply overhear a private word from God to prophet. Everything leads up to this word-moment, and quickly leads away from it.”234 The narrator now restores Rehoboam’s reputation to some extent.235 This reversal in the story’s characterization of Rehoboam does not elicit much scholarly commentary, but it does serve as a powerful qualification of the earlier story in chap. 12. It also coheres with the treatment of Rehoboam elsewhere in the Book of Kings (1 Kgs 14:21, 29–31),236 where he is not a purely evil character.

VI. The Historical Utilization of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 mentions eight different kings, but Jeroboam emerges as the central figure of this passage. Of the group, Hadad and Rezon show the potentially rebellious ways of powerful men in ancient Palestine who became leaders. Hadadezer, Shishak, and Rehoboam represent the established kingdoms of Zobah, Egypt, and Judah respectively. While Jeroboam became a rival of Rehoboam, Jeroboam is a much more familiar biblical figure whom the OT mentions in twice as many verses as it does Rehoboam. Yet, Jeroboam’s reign over Israel represents a difficult period of history to understand. Scholars seem to be moving more and more to the position recently articulated by Mark Smith: “defending the historicity of biblical events purporting to date to the tenth century has become a more difficult proposition.”237 This difficulty becomes quite evident from a careful examination of the literary unit (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24) pertaining to Jeroboam. The unit seems less interested in recounting historical events than in 234

Long, 1 Kings, 138. Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 139. 236 Accordingly there seems to be two fundamentally different perspectives on Rehoboam within 1 Kings, namely, a southern and more positive perspective in 12:21–24 and a more negative northern perspective in 12:1–20. Sweeney, I & II Kings, 30 argues for a northern perspective that conflates David and Rehoboam: “David fails to discipline his sons, even when they rape a sister, murder a brother, and revolt against the father’s rule. Such fatherly neglect is consistent with the portrayal of Rehoboam, who relies on the advice of the ‘boys’ with whom he grew up in making decisions that ensure the dissolution of his empire.” Much of the tension in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 seems to arise from the clash of southern and northern perspectives preserved in these stories about Jeroboam and Rehoboam. 237 Mark Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) xxvi. 235

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

115

using sharpened rhetoric to make important theological points, which sustain the overarching theme in 1–2 Kings, namely, articulating the reason for the Babylonian Exile. Although Egypt served as a place of refuge in earlier times for Hittite rebels among others, Egypt’s political weakness during the Third Intermediate Period (1070–664 BC) may have reduced its usefulness as a refuge during the period treated in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. Shoshenq I (943?–922) inaugurated the 22nd Dynasty after the factionalized chaos of the 21st Dynasty (1070–943) in which high priests and local warlords sparred for leadership roles. By contrast, clear evidence exists for Egypt’s status as a place of refuge another two centuries later during the reign of Sargon II (721–705).238 Events of that later time could then have influenced our stories about Hadad and Jeroboam, especially given the many theories about the influence of the Northern Kingdom’s fall on the editing of Kings. Schipper believes there could be a historical core to Hadad’s flight, but this is difficult to demonstrate and later flights to Egypt during the time of Jeremiah may have influenced its narration by DH.239 There is little positive evidence for Egypt’s functioning as a place of refuge in the tenth century. Comparable historical issues surround places like Edom in the tenth century. The stories in 1 Kings 11–12 make clear the problems of using this material for purposes of historical reconstruction concerning Edom. Scholars such as Piotr Bienkowski240 question whether the region actually had the political organization in the tenth century that these chapters suggest. When we read the material from a literary perspective, it becomes apparent that the lesser characters may only have been included in the story for literary and/or theological reasons. The stories of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 use literary devices that militate against our recovering verifiable historical events from them. Careful attention to the literary genres used highlights

238

Note also Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 186, n. 451: “In den assyrischen Königsinschriften wird von zwei Stadtfürsten berichtet, die nach Ägypten geflohen sind: Chanunu von Gaza und Jamani von Aschdod.” 239 Ibid.: “Über die Flucht des ‘edomitischen’ Prinzen Hadad berichtet ein umfangreicher Text (1 Kön 11, 14–25), der ägyptische und atl. Motive aufgenommen und zu einer kunstvollen Erzählung ausgebaut hat. Diese Erzählung könnte in ihrem Kern zwar durchaus auf ein historisches Ereignis zurückgehen, jedoch wurde dieser historische Kern, die Flucht eines (edomitischen?) Prinzen nach Ägypten, nachträglich stark erzählerisch ausgeschmückt.” 240 P. Bienkowski, “The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan,” in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (ed. D. Edelman; Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 61.

116

Chapter 4

their importance within this material and calls into question the use of these stories for reconstructing history.

VII. Conclusion While 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 has served as a significant source of information in many scholarly histories of Israel, this chapter has questioned how carefully commentators have paid attention to the genres used in the unit. No scholarly consensus exists about the historicity of these stories about figures like Hadad and Rezon or the status of Edom in the tenth century. Hadad offers a good model for understanding Jeroboam’s taking refuge in Egypt. Although Egypt served as a refuge for thousands of years, the description of it here is often generic. Many biblical figures go to Egypt like Hadad, and they are typologically similar to him. They, too, travel through the desert, interact with a nameless pharaoh, and enjoy great material benefits during their sojourn there. Abraham, Joseph, and Moses share some of these characteristics. Hadad’s story has a quality to it that we also find in the alternative story of Jeroboam in the LXX. Both of these stories feature marriages that invite historical skepticism, just like the putative conversations of earlier biblical characters with Pharaoh. Hadad and Rezon offer more realistic models for the social upheaval in the tenth century B.C. They also witness to our limited understanding of kingship in this epoch. Although Shishak and Hadad are both royal figures, they are remarkably different. These figures may be more important for the theological points they make than in helping to reconstruct tenth-century history. The narratives of Jeroboam and Rehoboam demonstrate important rhetorical elements. The figures of prophets, rebels, and wicked kings in these stories feature in many other similar biblical stories in chronological periods before and after the tenth century. Most of the material in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24, which concerns Jeroboam and Rehoboam, has a primarily symbolic character. A number of previous commentators have tried to use this material to reconstruct historical situations, but in so doing they often do not comment on their important rhetorical features. Rather than attending to the presence of a wisdom tale or a symbolic action account here, they focus on the historical content of the stories. The rhetorical features of these stories speak to a theological agenda that must be ascertained before their historical implications can be pursued. A question that cannot be answered is the extent to which this material tries to target a later audience or describe an earlier period.

Rebels and Kings (1 Kgs 11:14–12:24)

117

The portrayal of Egypt both in the MT and LXX of 1Kgs 11:14–12:24 remains mixed. Hadad and Jeroboam are both rebels and adversaries of Solomon, but each receives an ambiguous portrayal by the narrator. Hadad fled to Egypt after a terrible massacre and journeyed home like Moses in spite of the many advantages of Egypt. Jeroboam faces Solomon’s hostility after receiving divine approval through the prophet Ahijah. Egypt harbors both these individuals in difficulties. Hadad suffers through a massacre, and Jeroboam faces the fury of Solomon after Ahijah’s prophecy. The MT appears to show a mixed attitude towards Egypt in citing these elements. Egypt harbors rebels, but these rebels were raised up by God. LXXB and LXXL portray Egypt in a far more negative light as they even have Jeroboam return to Israel at an earlier point, seemingly to stir up trouble. The MT, by comparison, shows many indications of Egypt’s positive role as a place of refuge in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24.

Chapter 5

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah I. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Book of Jeremiah’s portrayal of Egypt as a place of refuge. Compared with the ambivalent attitude towards Egypt as a place of refuge in 1 Kings 11–12, Jeremiah displays a decidedly more negative attitude. As with 1 Kings 11–12, the relation of MT and LXX Jeremiah has led to much scholarly debate. I first address this general question and then examine the degree to which the LXX’s references to Egypt differ from those of the MT. In this connection, I will briefly note all the mentions of the word “Egypt” in both the MT and LXX and divide these into three categories: references to the past event of the Exodus, references to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll (36– 45), and the Baruch Scroll.1 After exploring these three categories, I will examine Jeremiah 46 in detail because of the concentration of references to Egypt, its history, and its cult found there. Indeed, it has a perspective quite different from the book’s other references to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll.2 Jeremiah 46 also merits special attention because both prose and poetry from a number of time periods and perspec1 R. Kessler, “The Threefold Image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible,” 883: “After the exodus events, the story proudly presents Solomon taking pharaoh’s daughter as his wife (1 Kings 3:1). Jeroboam again flees to Egypt where he gets protection by pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 11:40) . . . . The political discourse is always neatly separated from the exodus discourse. The real contemporary Egyptians of the Kushite and Saite dynasties are never compared with their oppressive precursors. The Egypt of the past, i.e. the Egypt of the exodus discourse, has no influence on the assessment of contemporary Egypt.” My division of the material also acknowledges the differences between political discourse dealing with Egypt as a place of refuge, and exodus discourse. 2 R. Kessler, Die Ägyptenbilder der hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte (SBS 197; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002) 48–49: “Die wenigen Sätze zum außenpolitischen Ägyptendiskurs in Jer 2 stehen ganz in der Tradition dessen, was schon Hosea und Jesaja zu diesem Diskurs beigetragen hatten. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Tatsache, dass jeweils das eigentliche Interesse gar nicht Ägypten selbst, sondern Israel bzw. Juda und seinen Bündnissen mit dem Nilland gilt. Diese Perspektive ändert sich völlig in den zwei [46:2–12 and 46:14–26] ausführlichen Ägyptensprüchen [emphasis mine], die an der Spitze der Sammlung der jeremianischen Völkerworte . . . stehen.”

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

119

tives appear there. I evaluate all this material from a synchronic perspective.3 Finally, I will explore how historians have treated the Egyptian material in the Book of Jeremiah and offer some concluding remarks.

II. MT and LXX Many dissertations,4 monographs,5 and important articles6 have addressed the controversy surrounding the differences between the LXX and MT of Jeremiah and have come to varying conclusions. Although the LXX is uniquely important for Jeremiah, the more recent literature also points to the importance of the MT.7 In this section, I will examine two specific questions about the relationship of the MT and LXX Jeremiah: Does the MT or LXX provide a better witness overall for the original text of Jeremiah? And how relevant are the differences between LXX and MT Jeremiah to the book’s Egyptian references? A. Which Text is more original? Scholars are divided on the question of whether the MT or LXX provides a better witness to the original text of the Book of Jeremiah. Both the greater brevity of LXX Jeremiah and the differing order of its chapters (MT Jeremiah 46–51 is LXX Jeremiah 26–31, while the arrangement of the individual oracles within these chapters differs as well) highlight the unique tex-

3

Good diachronic discussions of the Book of Jeremiah include: S. Herrmann, Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch (ErFor 271; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990); R. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTG 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); J. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999) 92–121; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) cxxxiii–clxxiv; W. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986) 1–10. 4 J. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). 5 L. Stulman, The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah, with English Translation (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985). 6 G. Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” Bib 78 (1997) 307–28; J. Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” HS 46 (2005) 301–20. 7 Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” 328; Soderlund, The Greek Text, 12.

120

Chapter 5

tual challenges of the Book of Jeremiah.8 Some, however, contend that the differences between the two witnesses are not particularly important. Carroll, for example, recognizes the differences between the two and argues for the primacy of the LXX, but also avers that the differences are not of a substantive nature.9 Carroll’s remarks will guide us as we examine the controversy concerning the differences between the LXX and the MT. The LXX must be taken into account and will offer a corrective element at times, but apart from its additional material the longer MT does not significantly differ from the shorter LXX. Most of the divergences revolve around the following points: the LXX’s tendency to use shorter and briefer epithets for the deity10; the occurrence of seven doublets within the MT not found in the LXX (“6.13–15=8.10–12; 11.20=20.12; 16.14–15=23.7–8; 23.5–6=33.14–16; 23.19–20=30.23–24; 30.10–11=46.27–28; 49.19– 21=50.44–46”11)12; the pluses in the MT (e.g., 2:1–2a; 7:1–2a; 16:1; 21:2; 22:25; 27:8; 28:5; 35:5)13; and the overall brevity of the LXX, which in the Book of Jeremiah is a seventh shorter than the MT.14 We will now examine these features in more detail in order to better understand the MT/LXX relationship in Jeremiah. Most scholars have argued for the priority of the LXX over the last thirty years.15 The most important ground for their doing so appears to be the

8

E. Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie,” RB 79 (1972) 189: “La Septante du livre de Jérémie présente pour les biblistes un intérêt tout particulier. Les notables divergences que la séparent du texte massorétique entraînent d’importantes conséquences dans le domaine de la critique textuelle aussi bien que dans celui de la critique littéraire. Les deux principales différences entre TM et LXX sont les suivantes: 1. Le texte de la LXX est beaucoup plus court que celui du TM . . . . 2. La succession des versets et des chapitres dans la LXX diffère souvent de celle du TM.” 9 Carroll, Jeremiah, 23: “The accumulation of so many small qualifiers and expansions contributes substantially to the larger Hebrew edition of Jeremiah without seriously altering its significance.” 10 Janzen, Text of Jeremiah, 127. 11 Carroll, Jeremiah, 26. 12 Macchi, Jean-Daniel, “Les Doublets dans le Livre de Jérémie,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception (ed. Adrian Curtis and Thomas Römer; BETL 128; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1997) 120. Macchi also finds these doublets. 13 H.-J.Stipp, Jeremia im Parteienstreit: Studien zur Textentwicklung von Jer 26, 36– 43 und 45 als Beitrag zur Geschichte Jeremias, seines Buches und Judäischer Parteien im 6. Jahrhundert (BBB 82; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992) 39: “Die masoretischen Überschüsse (JerMT+) werden als seperate Gruppe behandelt, weil sie bakanntlich zu einem hohen Anteil formelhafte Floskeln betreffen, wie sie in den dtr (Prosareden) (DtrJer) üblich sind.” 14 Carroll, Jeremiah, 22. 15 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 58: “The existence of a short Hebrew text of Jeremiah in the second century B.C. has given rise to the theory – now widely held – that the LXX

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

121

significantly shorter character of the LXX. Statistical studies demonstrate that “3097 words of Jer-MT are unrepresented in Jer-LXX, i.e. approximately 1/7 of the MT text.”16 As Carroll explains, the particular significance of the shorter LXX Jeremiah lies in the fact that “the LXX elsewhere normally has an expanded account of the MT, so its comparative brevity here is remarkable and noteworthy.” 17 The brevity of LXX Jeremiah thus constitutes the strongest argument for its priority over the MT, since traditional textual criticism uses the lectio brevior rule to establish the preferred witness. A longer text also suggests that scribes have augmented their Vorlage as part of a specific program. Like the hypothetical Deuteronomistic editor of Jeremiah, the MT editor could be creating a network of meaning for the particular community for whom he produced his version of the book. Stulman, for example, has posited that the MT was produced for Jews returning from Egypt to Israel.18 I have just listed a few of the many explanations offered for the differences between the LXX and MT Jeremiah. Rather than relying on speculative theories, McKane offers the best resolution to the problem by focusing on the limited nature of the differences between LXX and MT: “a comparison of MT and Sept. reveals how the Hebrew text has developed and shows that we are not encountering a systematic, comprehensive scheme of editing, but exegetical additions of small scope, operating within limited areas of text.”19 Janzen describes these changes as follows: “The text of M has undergone much secondary expansion. Names are filled out frequently to their full form, and titles and epithets are added to them, while pronoun objects and subjects of verbs are made explicit.”20 Both critics use different methodologies to make the same point: the LXX represents a more original text-form, which the MT expands on a relatively minor scale with fuller epithets and formulas. A number of commentators in recent years have, however, attacked the widely held belief in the priority of the LXX over the MT in the case of Jeremiah. These critics challenge the majority position on a number of grounds. Sven Soderlund made the first comprehensive critique of the translator or translators did not produce an abridgment, but rather translated a Hebrew text of comparable length. . . .” 16 Soderlund, Greek Text of Jeremiah, 11 who cites Y.-J. Min, “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origin” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977), 159. 17 Carroll, Jeremiah, 23. 18 L. Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (The Biblical Seminar 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 171. 19 McKane, Jeremiah, lxxxi. 20 Janzen, Text of Jeremiah, 127.

122

Chapter 5

Tov/Janzen position on the priority of LXX Jeremiah that is now widely held. Ziegler’s critical edition of LXX Jeremiah21 has greatly influenced Soderlund.22 Soderlund argues that “the net effect of Ziegler’s decisions is usually to bring the LXX text more in line with the MT.”23 Soderlund’s claim would topple the critical consensus that the LXX reflects the earliest and best version of the Book of Jeremiah that we have available. Scholars would have to reexamine the longer MT in order to better understand the book, and general text-critical principle like lectior brevior rule would also have to be examined again. Although Soderlund is correct about the importance of this critical edition, it is not clear that Ziegler’s text-critical decisions bring the LXX more into line with the MT. Soderlund makes many important arguments about the problems of overgeneralization in his monograph, but ultimately seems to base himself mostly on a careful examination of Jeremiah 29.24 Soderlund’s analysis of one chapter of Jeremiah alone cannot overturn the Janzen/Tov consensus. Georg Fischer also argues against the priority of the LXX. Many scholars hold for its priority partly on the basis of the Qumran text of 4Q71 (=Jer 9:21–10:21), which is in accord with the shorter LXX Jeremiah visà-vis MT Jeremiah. Fischer, however, rejects Janzen and Tov’s view that the Qumran text 4Q71 (Tov’s 4QJerb) offers good evidence for a more original Vorlage than the MT. Fischer believes that 4Q71 offers no clarity as to its Vorlage.25 He also rejects the principle of lectio brevior in its application to the Book of Jeremiah, as does Lundbom.26 Fischer argues that 21

J. Ziegler, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (rev. ed.; Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). 22 Soderlund, Greek Text of Jeremiah, 9: “the quality of Ziegler’s work on Jer-LXX is very impressive and represents a monumental step forward in the textual analysis of this book.” 23 Ibid., 151. 24 Ibid., 236: “Each variant has to be examined on its own merits. Sometimes this examination yields a preference for the LXX, sometimes for the MT, sometimes it is impossible to decide between them. Repeated appeals to expansion from parallel and related contexts oversimplify the nature of the relationship between the two texts. The data considered in this section [Jeremiah 29] does not readily admit to such broad generalization.” 25 Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” 306: “4Q71 gibt in den Zeilen 5–7 Teile aus Jer 10,4.9.11 wieder. Es handelt sich um 10–12 Buchstaben am linken Rand des Manuskriptes. Indirekt kann erschlossen werden, daß – gleichmäßige Beschriftung vorausgesetzt – dieses Fragment in Ausmaß und Anordnung eher G entspricht, weil Zeile 6 bei Annahme von H die doppelte Zeilenlänge ergäbe (über 300 Spatien). Doch ist der Befund nicht eindeutig.” 26 Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” 301: Janzen “supported the consensus view that MT is by and large an expansionist text. The present article challenges this view, arguing that the LXX translated from a seriously flawed Hebrew text of Jeremiah, one containing more than 300 arguable cases of haplography, ac-

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

123

4Q71 is not a good witness for the original text of Jer 10:4, 9, 11 because its witness is counterbalanced by another document (4Q70 = Jer 8:12– 22:16) that seems to be more in agreement with the MT than the LXX.27 Lundbom also notes that many other ancient witnesses are not in agreement with 4Q71.28 Tov, on the contrary, argues that 4Q71 should not be dismissed, given the evidence of other documents found at Qumran: With the discovery of 4QJer b and 4QJerd, which, though fragmentary, reflect the two main recensional characteristics of G*, this question has been solved, especially in studies by Janzen and Tov. It seems very likely that G was translated from a Hebrew text which was very close to these two Qumran texts.29

Most recent scholars accept Tov’s and Janzen’s arguments here rather than Fischer’s.30 Tov has further argued that 4QJer70 is a second, expanded edition of 4QJer71/4QJerb.31 A final argument against the priority of the LXX derives from the authority of the rabbis. Lundbom claims that the shorter (LXX) text was rejected by the rabbis.32 This argument appears to be one from silence. How do we know that the rabbis had a shorter text before them that they “rejected”? Earlier, in fact, Lundbom tells us that the shorter text “was loca-

counting for 64% of its word loss. The article also presents evidence to show that Biblica Hebraica failed to cite many LXX omissions, and was unjustly biased in favor of the shorter LXX readings. The longer MT of Jeremiah is far and away the better text, comparable to LXX Samuel, which is also longer and better.” 27 Fischer, “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches,” 308: “Noch weniger ist daraus zu folgern, dass dieser – ausgenommen – hebräischen Vorlage für G Priorität zukomme. 4Q71 vermag nicht die ihm aufgeladene Beweislast für den Vorzug von G zu tragen.” 28 Lundbom, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” 307: “The LXX is the only ancient witness other than 4QJer b to the shorter Jeremiah text. The other versions, for example, Origen’s Hexapla, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Lucian, Targum Jonathan, Syriac, and Vulgate, consistently support MT.” 29 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001) 320. 30 See, e.g., Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) 7–8: “Because their [4Q71 and 4Q71a] brevity involves relatively dispensable types of material that are often found throughout the MT but tend to be absent from LXX, the reasonable conclusion is that the MT has preserved a longer form of the Hebrew text than that attested by the LXX.” 31 E. Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. Pierre Bogaert; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1981) 167: “The reconstructed short Vorlage of the LXX is described here as edition I of the book, and the expanded text of MT as a later form of that book (edition II).” 32 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 62: “It should also be remembered that the short Jeremiah text at some point was rejected by the Rabbis in favor of the longer proto-MT.” Lundbom does not cite any specific rabbinic texts in support of this statement.

124

Chapter 5

lized in Egypt where the translation was made.”33 Although some evidence for the shorter text was also found at Qumran, we cannot assume that it was generally available throughout Palestine because Qumran was not representative of the rest of Judaism in Palestine. No evidence exists of the LXX’s influence outside Qumran in Palestine. It is safer to assume the rabbis did not have access to a shorter text than to assume that they did have such access and rejected it. There simply is no evidence that they rejected it—other than the argument from silence. Although the exegetical differences between them are relatively small in scope, the LXX’s general brevity and shorter epithets make it a preferable witness compared with MT Jeremiah. Most scholarship has upheld the priority of the briefer LXX text, but this shorter text does not have crucial differences from the longer text. The claims for the LXX’s priority have recently been questioned again, but most continue to maintain that priority. These are important arguments for understanding the formation-history of the Book of Jeremiah, but it does not greatly impact the topics that I explore in this chapter. B. The Portrayal of Egypt as a Place of Refuge in MT and LXX Jeremiah The differences between the MT and LXX Jeremiah are not significant in their portrayal of Egypt as a place of refuge. In the infrequent cases where there are different images of Egypt in the two witnesses, it needs to be asked in each such case: Which is the more original? To take one example, the LXX offers more specificity than the MT in naming the Egyptian bull god Apis in Jer 46:15, but this could well be due to a later redactor. I will examine this particular issue in more detail in the section on Jeremiah 46. The key difference between the MT and LXX Jeremiah is, as noted above, their respective placements of the OANs and the order of the oracles in that complex. This placement imparts different canonical shapes to the book, but it does not result in a different portrait of Egypt. The reader will be less surprised by the fate of Uriah in LXX Jeremiah 33 than in MT Jeremiah 26 because the canonical shape of the LXX contains the negative oracles about Egypt before the mention of Uriah in LXX Jeremiah 33, rather than close to the end of the book in MT Jeremiah 46. LXX Jeremiah 33 does not ultimately present a different portrayal of Egypt, but the MT does have a different order. Since the differences are not significant for my material, I will focus on the MT, while also making reference to the LXX on those (few) occasions where its portrayal of Egypt does differ.

33

Ibid., 58.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

125

III. Allusions to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah (MT and LXX) The MT has sixty-two references to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah, while the LXX has fifty-two. In this section, I will list the LXX references with their chapter and verse numbers in parentheses after the MT references when there is a difference between them in this regard. I divide these references into three groups: references to the Exodus, references to contemporary Egypt outside of the Baruch Scroll, and references in the Baruch Scroll. Michael Maier divides the references in a somewhat different manner, but he nonetheless reaches a similar result. He divides the material into references about the Exodus, the flight to Egypt (the Baruch Scroll), and the punishment of Egypt.34 I use more neutral language in reference to this group of texts in order to account for the Uriah episode, the material in Jeremiah 2, and the “Daughter Egypt” language in Jeremiah 46 since it is important to recognize the ambivalence in these references rather than emphasize exclusively the negative characteristic of Egypt’s punishment. While Maier and I are thus largely in agreement, I wish to demonstrate, here as well, the difficulty with making monolithic judgments about Egypt in this material. A. References to the Exodus from Egypt Eleven of the sixty-two MT references to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah allude to the Exodus: 2:6; 7:22; 7:25; 11:4; 11:7 (not in LXX); 16:14; 23:7; 31:32 (LXX 38:32); 32:20 (39:20); 32:21 (39:21); and 34:13 (41:13). These allusions are positive in nature with regard to God’s helping Israel overcome its ancient adversary, Egypt. Jeremiah’s allusions to the exodus remind Israel to place its trust in the Lord. The narrator never depicts Egypt as a place of refuge in these allusions. The idea underlying these allusions is rather that Egypt was a place of bondage. Seeking to return to Egypt only calls to mind the temptation that plagued Israel in the desert at the beginning of its history. 35 “The womb of Israel’s birth (Egypt) now becomes the abode of death.”36 The Book of Jeremiah presents many parties pondering Egypt as a place of refuge. The allusions listed above perhaps 34 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 28: “Das Lexem 'F erscheint mehrfach innerhalb von Formeln und geprägten Wendungen, die sich z. T. auch in anderen atl. Literaturwerken finden, z. T. für das Jeremiabuch typisch sind. Diese phraseologischen Ausdrücke erweisen sich als charakteristisch für bestimmte Kontexte, in denen der Ägypten-Topos eine je unterschiedliche Funktion erfüllt. Sie finden sich in Texten, die über den Exodus, über die Flucht von Judäern nach Ägypten und über die Bestrafung Ägyptens handeln.” 35 Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías Como Anti-Moisés,” 247. 36 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 93 (author’s italics).

126

Chapter 5

help to clarify why Egypt can never play such a role for Israel in the eyes of Jeremiah: “Jeremiah at the end, like Moses at the beginning, had labored mightily to preserve another option for his people.”37 In contrast to 1 Kings 11–12 or Genesis, little ambivalence in the depiction of Egypt is to be found in the above references, where Joseph and Jeroboam are never mentioned.38 These references occur before an actual flight to Egypt emerges as a possibility in the Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45 [LXX 44–51]). They serve to establish a paradigm for understanding Egypt when questions of going there arise later in the book. The rhetoric of Jeremiah serves to condemn Egypt as place of refuge; it is only a place of bondage. The LXX, for its part, has all of the above references to Egypt with the exception of MT Jer 11:7. This verse largely reiterates 11:4, which is the same in the LXX and MT. The LXX does not have 11:7 and lacks most of v. 8 as well. Although verses 4 and 7 are certainly not doublets, they are semantically very similar, which might explain the latter’s absence in the LXX. B. References to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll I divide this group of references into two sets. The first category consists of four references to contemporary Egypt, either describing someone who went into exile there or had some type of experience there: 24:8; 26:21 (33:21); and 26:22 (bis; = 33:22). The second group consists of fifteen references to Egypt in oracles against Egypt or similar Oracles Against the Nations (OAN)-type material: 2:18; 2:36; 9:25; 25:19 (32:19); 46:2 (bis; = 26:2 bis); 46:8 (26:8); 46:11 (26:11); 46:13 (26:13); 46:14 (> 26:14); 46:17 (26:17); 46:19 (26:19); 46:20 (26:20); 46:24 (26:24); and 46:25 (26:25). These two groups of references indicate the reason why individuals desire to flee to Egypt, as well as the rhetoric that Jeremiah employs against Egypt. The first group of references acknowledges the reality of Egypt as a place of refuge. Herbert Donner describes Egypt as “das klassische Zufluchtland aller in Palästina verfolgten.”39 Jeremiah concludes his famous discourse on the good and bad figs (Jeremiah 24) by naming the geograph37

W. Brueggemann, To Build, to Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26–52 (ITC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 188. 38 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 37: “Der literarisch und theologisch primäre Ort des Ägypten-Topos ist demnach die Exodustradition. In ihr bezeichnet er den Herrschaftsbereich, aus dem Israel von JHWH herausgeholt wurde, um durch die Wüste (v.6b) in das den Vätern verheißene Land hineingeführt zu werden (v.7).” Maier’s references in this quotation are to Jeremiah 2. 39 H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 2: Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba (GAT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) 239.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

127

ical location of the bad figs. Initially, he talks of those exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon as the good figs. Then, lest there be any confusion, he affirms at the end of Jer 24:8 that “those who are inhabiting the land of Egypt” ('%.F  G($& '>H-) belong to the group of bad figs. This verse indicates that there is no legitimate place of refuge from exile for Jeremiah; it marks the first time Egypt appears as a possible place of residence for Judeans, but Jeremiah dismisses that possibility.40 Jeremiah seems to want the people to accept their fate of exile in Babyon, rather than to seek refuge elsewhere. The subsequent story of Uriah the prophet (Jer 26:20–23) appears to reinforce the image of Egypt as an improper proper place of refuge. Uriah appears as a completely legitimate prophet, unlike prophets such as Hananiah (28:1ff.), who mislead the people and are adversaries of Jeremiah. In contrast, “Uriah prophesied the same things against this city and land as Jeremiah did” (MT Jer 26:20 [33:20]). King Jehoiakim and his supporters sought to kill Uriah on account of his prophecy, but Uriah fled to Egypt, like Jeroboam and Hadad before him. Yet, this is a significant report as a prophet appears in Egypt just as the royal figures of Hadad and Jeroboam had before him. This may foreshadow the larger migrations to come at the end of Jeremiah’s life as well as the eventual Jewish Diaspora in Egypt. Uriah met a much different fate than these royal figures–perhaps because a mere prophet did not have much value to Egypt. A prophet would certainly lack the status of royal figures like Jeroboam and Hadad. Whatever the case may be, the king’s ambassador retrieved Uriah, who was executed upon his return to Judah.41 This story occurs at a noteworthy point within the Book of Jeremiah. In the MT, Jeremiah 26 constitutes the beginning of the second scroll,42 while

40 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 152: “Wenn Ägypten in Jer 24,8 zum ersten Mal als Aufenthaltsort von Judäern erwähnt (und im gleichen Augenblick radikal verworfen) wird, ist damit ein Problemkreis eröffnet, der erst in Jer 44 seinen vorläufigen Abschluss findet.” 41 de Boer, “Egypt in the Old Testament: Some Aspects of an Ambivalent Assessment,” 158: “Indirect evidence of Egyptian support for the policy of Jerusalem’s kings can be found in the harsh and critical words spoken by Isaiah and Jeremiah.” 42 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 18: “The present shape of the text [the MT], therefore, bears witness to a God who ‘shatters and overthrows’ only to ‘[re]build and plant’. Chapter 1–25, the ‘first scroll’ and part one of the drama, claim that Judah’s ‘sacred canopy’ – its temple and cultus, covenant, land claims, election tradition and royal ideology – cannot save the community from relocation and redefinition. All Judah’s most intimate friends now testify against her. Chapter 26–52, the ‘second scroll’ and part two of the drama, assert that although the old world is dying, the losses do not signify the end but pave the way for profound reconfigurations of hope and new life. Thus, the second scroll articulates a new piety and conceptual terrain beyond the collapse of the old, well-

128

Chapter 5

in the LXX it occurs after the OAN as Jer 33:20–23. Uriah’s plight may foreshadow the story told in the Baruch Scroll. In summary, in contrast to the Book of Kings, there is little ambivalence about Egypt as a place of refuge in the Book of Jeremiah. In Kings, Egypt offers a legitimate place of refuge for Hadad and Jeroboam, where they remained unmolested. Even in the depiction of those who ultimately go to Egypt for refuge in 2 Kgs 25:26, there is no clear anti-Egyptian animus. Rather, the Book of Kings contrasts them with the people living without fear in Babylon.43 While Jeremiah refers to those Judeans left in the land and in Egypt as bad figs (Jer 24:8), the Book of Kings does not use the same pejorative rhetoric of these persons. MT Jeremiah 26 sets the tone for the second scroll of the book, a tone that contrasts with the Book of Kings’ more neutral attitude toward those who go to Egypt. Jeremiah’s second group of references to contemporary Egypt outside the Baruch Scroll reflects a much different genre. Whereas the material about Uriah reports an historical event, many of the references to Egypt found in 2:18; 2:36; 9:25; 25:19 (32:19); 46:2 (bis; = 26:2 bis); 46:8 (26:8); 46:11 (26:11); 46:13 (26:13); 46:14 (> LXX); 46:17 (26:17); 46:19 (26:19); 46:20 (26:20); 46:24 (26:24); and 46:25 (> LXX) occur within prophetic oracular materials. We find similarities between certain texts of Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Micah, and Isaiah and the OAN of Jeremiah.44 These parallels “demand a more complicated account of the editing of the Jeremiah tradition and suggest a common pool of poems used interchangeably to construct parts of different books.”45 While I will examine the references to Egypt in Jeremiah 46 in detail in a later section of this chapter, the other passages cited above help to illuminate those references and so I will briefly comment on them here. Jeremiah 2:18 and 36 pair Egypt with Assyria as common sources of problems for Israel. Jeremiah 2 probably emanates from the early years of Jeremiah, before Babylon became the prevailing Mesopotamian threat.46 Jeremiah 2:18 introduces a note in Jeremiah’s established social and symbolic universe; transformations that in some respects pave the way for the emergence of classical Judaism and Christianity.” 43 See C. Begg, “The Interpretation of the Gedaliah Episode (2 Kgs 25, 22–26) in Context,” Anton 62 (1987) 11: “I suggest now that the whole segment 2 Kgs 25, 22–30 reflects the concern of the compiler of the ‘Enneateuch’ to have the entire work end with an emphatic affirmation of Babylonian good-will towards the Judeans to which they should respond in kind by ‘serving the king of Babel’ just as Gedaliah had urged (2 Kgs 25, 24).” 44 Carroll, Jeremiah, 26. 45 Ibid. 46 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 49: “Zum ersten Mal tritt Ägypten damit als feindliche Macht und als akuter politischer Gefahrenherd auf. Auf dem Hintergrund von v.4–9 [Jeremiah 2] ergibt sich daraus eine eindeutige Lehre: Wenn Israel

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

129

poetry that will recur frequently: do not go to Egypt. Jeremiah 2:16 speaks about problems in two Egyptian cities (Memphis and Tahpanhes), which motivate the negative exhortation in Jer 2:18. As in the oracles in Ezekiel 29–32 and many other books of the OT, there is nothing positive about Egypt here. Jeremiah 2:36 warns that Egypt and Assyria will put Israel to shame. The verse serves as an “overture” for the rest of the book, with its affirmation that Egypt will be a source of shame for Israel.47 Not only will Egypt be a source of shame; it also represents an unparalleled source of evil in the eyes of Jeremiah, vis-à-vis the alternative of Assyria, which is not denigrated in the same way.48 The above references are similar to the OAN because here, too, foreign nations represent a threat to Israel, whom God can use to shame Israel. This material is also rather generic; Ethiopia and Babylon might easily replace Egypt and Assyria in a different context. The other two occurrences (9:25 and 25:19) in the above group of references outside Jeremiah 46 also have connections with the OAN genre. In fact, they compare with the OAN tradition in that they both cite Egypt together with a number of other nations. Although some understand Jer 9:25 to mean that the narrator groups Egypt with Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and the desert dwellers based on the allusion to the circumcised in v. 24,49 this verse according to Richard Steiner asserts that Israel lacks a spiritual circumcision, whereas Egypt and the other nations lack a complete circumcision.50 In Jeremiah 25, the narrator enumerates all the nations who will drink from Yhwh’s cup of wrath: Judah, Egypt (Jer 25:19), the Philistines, the Phoenicians, Edom, Moab, Ammon, the desert dwellers, Persians, and Babylonians, as well as many city-states. These two references and the preceding ones in Jeremiah 2 anticipate the OAN at the end of MT Jereseinen Auszug und dessen theo-politische Implikationen vergisst, bleibt Ägypten nicht nur eine indifferente heilsgeschichtliche Reminiszenz. Unter veränderten Bedingungen wird es vielmehr erneut zu einem hochbrisanten, gefährlichen Politikum.” 47 Ibid., 234: “In der Ouvertüre zum Ägypten-Thema hatte das Jeremiabuch zum ersten Mal den Blick auf eine mögliche Zukunft nach dem Scheitern der pro-ägyptischen Ambitionen gelenkt und sie [the future] als eine Abwanderung aus Ägypten beschrieben ((F  (

' ...  'F

', 2,36f).” 48 Ibid., 37: “Der Weg Ägyptens ('F

E, v.18) bezeichnet dabei nicht nur die politische Alternative zum ‘Weg Assurs’, er symbolisiert darüber hinaus eine umfassende theo-politische Option, die das Jeremiabuch für unvereinbar mit der alleinigen Verehrung JHWH’s hält.” Maier’s reference is to Jer 2:18. 49 Richard Steiner, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere,” JBL 118 (1999) 500: “Rashi took   

as a reference to those who were circumcised physically but not spiritually.” 50 Ibid., 501: “All of them are circumcised and, nonetheless, have a foreskin. In the case of the Egyptians, etc. the physical foreskin is not completely removed. In the case of the Jews, it is the spiritual foreskin surrounding their hearts (cf. Jer 4:4) that is the problem.”

130

Chapter 5

miah. Rather than representing something notable or unique, Egypt in these references is just one among Israel’s many enemies. The LXX shares all the above references with the MT except for two in Jeremiah 46: vv. 14 and 25. I attribute little significance to these minuses because the overall subject of Jeremiah 46 is Egypt. In sum, the LXX and MT display the same attitude in their respective references to contemporary Egypt. After having examined the Exodus allusions and contemporaneous allusions to Egypt, I now turn to the Jeremiah segment that represents the more extended treatment of contemporary Egypt in the book: the Baruch Scroll. C. The Baruch Scroll The Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45)51 provides an extended narrative about the fall of Jerusalem and the Judeans’ subsequent exile. Scholars have named it the Baruch Scroll because the “prose is widely - but not universally - attributed to Jeremiah’s friend and colleague Baruch, who at the end adds a personal word about his own suffering.”52 Jeremiah 36 first introduces us to Baruch as Jeremiah’s scribe; this chapter and Jeremiah 45 serve as bookends, affirming Baruch’s role as narrator and witness of the events described and thereby delimiting the Baruch Scroll. 53 The segment represents a sharp departure from the material found in Jeremiah 30–35.54 Robert Carroll comments: “Spinoza’s observation cannot be gainsaid. Apart from 37–44 there is little concern with order, be it sequential or chronological, in the editing of the book of Jeremiah.”55 Whereas Jeremiah 30–35 features themes attested in many of the prophetic books, the Baruch Scroll is the only place in the Latter Prophets that focuses on Egypt as a place of refuge. The Scroll is no longer viewed as straightforward histo-

51

Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 84. J. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21C; New York: Doubleday, 2004) 50. On the same page, Lundbom goes on to add: “This prose is assigned to Baruch also because of the wealth of detail it contains: personal names, place-names, and precise locations, to say nothing of reported conversations and dates attached to various events.” 53 Abrego, Jeremías y el Final del Reino, 12. 54 Herrmann, Jeremia, 38: “Vielmehr werden in Kap. 26–45 fast ausschließlich Prosaerzählungen überliefert, in deren Mittelpunkt Jeremia steht, deren Autor er aber nicht selbst sein kann. Eine Unterbrechung erfolgt lediglich in Kap. 30–35, wo Texte verschiedenen Inhalts aufgenommen sind, die vornehmlich auf positive Entwicklungen hinweisen möchten und bedingt als ‘Heilserwartungen’ betrachtet werden können; eine eindeutig selbständige Sammlung bilden die Kap. 30 und 31.” 55 Carroll, Jeremiah, 57. 52

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

131

ry,56 given that Israel’s story in the Baruch Scroll conveniently ends where it originated: in Egypt.57 Carroll reminds us: The Bible is very unlike such rational discourses [of Plato]. It frequently uses metaphors and images, wordplays and oracles, and constantly so in Jeremiah; but few of these are ever expanded or explained in such rational terms that the modern reader can grasp them without ambiguity. It is simply not possible to free the biblical stories from such ambiguity, and nowhere is this more clearly the case than in the narrated actions of the book of Jeremiah.58

Reading the Baruch Scroll as a straightforward historical narrative does not do justice to the subtle literary devices within these chapters. The Scroll moves forward in a chronologically linear manner, but the narrator structures this history through the use of inclusios, key words, and recurring themes.59 The Baruch Scroll constitutes a carefully structured literary work drawing in historical memory. Baruch appears at four stages in the Book of Jeremiah: chaps. 32, 36, 43, and 45, of which the last three concern us here. As noted above, the character of Baruch serves as an inclusion, framing the Baruch Scroll: “his presence as a character within the text is in the service of a specific ideology, which may stand in tension with the historical Jeremiah but which pervades the canonical book of Jeremiah.”60 Baruch appears in the Book of Jeremiah as the scribe who copies down Jeremiah’s words and ultimately accompanies him into exile in Egypt. The Baruch Scroll recounts a dispute as to whether the survivors should stay in Judea or flee to Egypt. “In its earlier form [37–39], the issue is whether to submit willingly to Babylon or to stand in resistance in Jerusalem (38:17–18). The 56

E. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 18: “And once again, as with narratives in chapters xxvi–xxxvi, we shall see . . . that the primary purpose of chapters xxxvii–xliv is theological and didactic and that as such they owe their origin not to the literary activity of an individual, whether Baruch or some other ‘biographer’, but to a circle of traditions.” 57 Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 93: “Beginnings and endings converge again in biting irony as the surviving community of Judah, against the advice of Jeremiah, migrates to Egypt (Jer. 42–44). While various ideological claims are no doubt at work in the narrative, the text nonetheless presents the end of Israel’s story where it originated, back in Egypt.” 58 Carroll, Jeremiah, 63. 59 Referring to the view that both Baruch and later editors expanded the Book of Jeremiah Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 4: “Viewed in this manner, the book as we have it is the result of a purely or predominantly literary activity; it owes its present form as well as much of the material in it to the scribal and literary activity of Baruch and other authors and editors.” 60 W. Brueggemann, “The Baruch Connection: Reflections on Jeremiah 43:1–7,” JBL 113 (1994) 408.

132

Chapter 5

second, later form of the same dispute [40–43] . . . represents a fall-back position after it had become clear that Jerusalem would be taken, that is, after resistance in Jerusalem had become futile.”61 The Baruch Scroll recounts the events in order to carefully craft a story,62 which tells of the fall of Jerusalem and the departure of a group of Judeans for Egypt. That narrative highlights Israel’s ongoing faithlessness in its rejection of God’s word. In Jer 36:23 the king destroys the scroll of Jeremiah. In Jer 44:26 God condemns Israel, depriving it of its right to use God’s name due to its idolatry. Jeremiah 44 shares many similarities with the Temple Sermons of Jeremiah 7 and 26, but the idolatry issue becomes even more urgent – and perhaps inevitable – when idolatry takes place in the foreign land of Egypt.63 The narrator also develops Israel’s double rejection of God in Jeremiah 36 and 44 as an inclusio.64 The Baruch Scroll offers the reader a clear and definitive account of the suffering of the Judeans and the problem with their going to Egypt for refuge. The Baruch Scroll pictures the refugees in Egypt in different terms than does 2 Kgs 25:26. Whereas the depiction in 2 Kings lacks pejorative rhetoric, the Baruch Scroll describes Egypt as a place of refuge in overwhelmingly negative terms. McKane claims that the historical Jeremiah’s guidance did not include a threat that they would be obliterated by sword, famine and pestilence if they went to Egypt. This is the creation of the supplementation or redaction. The message was rather that if they chose Egypt, they would choose oblivion and would cut themselves off finally from Yahweh’s community.65

Whether or not this is the case, Egypt is portrayed as a place of despair for Israel in the Scroll. Their respective depictions of Egypt constitute the central difference between the relevant texts of Kings and Jeremiah. The tension between the two accounts suggests that the Book of Jeremiah has 61

Ibid. Abrego, Jeremías y el Final del Reino, 62: “Para estructurar nuestro (Jeremiah 37– 45) texto tenemos los siguientes indicios lingüísticos: a) En primer lugar consideramos suficientemente explicada en los capítulos precedentes la unidad del cap. 36. b) El sintagma ‘Palabra que recibió Jeremías. . .’ establece dos grandes divisiones en 40,1 y 44,1. Nos invita en un primer momento a dividir así: (36) 37–39 /40–43/ 44–45. c) Otro sintagma que viene a decir los mismo, pero que se presenta menos solemnemente por comenzar con conjunción copulativa, establece divisiones menores.” We find examples of Abrego’s category “c” above mentioned at: 36:27; 39:15; and 43:8. The first and third examples begin with 6-;; the second example begins with 4  -%* ($-. 63 Ibid., 133: “Ahora no se trata de calificar, sino de resaltar el sentido de la historia: estando en Egipto recibió la alianza; cuando Judá vuelve a Egipto, desobedece y rompe la alianza; allí perderá el Nombre. Palabra contra palabra. La historia dará la señal (v 30).” 64 Ibid., 139: “Por lo tanto, Jer 44 realiza una función de resumen de Jer 37–43 y, además, una teologización de lo sucedido: la culpa es del pecado del pueblo.” 65 McKane, Jeremiah, cliii. 62

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

133

heightened the rhetoric on the matter for a reason. Jeremiah’s heightened rhetoric may be needed because of the OT’s variegated picture of Egypt: 66 Jeremiah was countering a long tradition of recourse67 to Egypt as a place of refuge. The historical kernel of Egypt’s service as a place of refuge for the survivors of Jerusalem’s destruction is common to both Jeremiah and Kings, but an explanation of their divergent portrayals of Egypt is called for. Jeremiah may reflect a viewpoint68 that ultimately was edited out of the end of Kings. Deuteronomy 17:16 makes a strong claim against Egypt as well as an injunction against ever going back to Egypt. This DH influence seems to be very present within the Book of Jeremiah, 69 but its influence is muted in Kings. Begg argues that “2 Kgs 20.19–25.30 reflects the stance of a single author writing shortly after 560 at a moment when Babylonian domination still seemed unassailable and when ‘serving the king of Babylon’ appeared to offer the only possibility for tolerable Jewish life.”70 Hence, the narrative of Jer 43:4–7 might easily have been reduced by the Exilic Deuteronomist71 to the brief notice of 2 Kgs 25:26, as Friedman 66 Cogan, “The Other Egypt: A Welcome Asylum,” 66: “But from a later period, an even more striking volte-face in the biblical attitude toward Egypt is found in the law concerning nations who were to be excluded from the Israelite community in Deut 23:4– 9 . . . ‘do not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land. Children born to them in the third generation may be admitted to the congregation of the Lord.’” 67 de Boer, “Egypt in the Old Testament,” 159: “I shall conclude this section about Egypt offering refuge and help with two lines taken from the Book of Ezekiel. . . . The second is from ch. xxix, a prophecy against Pharaoh and against all Egypt – in Ezekiel’s view, Egypt’s future will be disastrous –: ‘It shall never again be the reliance (mb ) of the house of Israel’ (v. 16). The wording of this text reflects the appreciation of Egypt felt until the very end of Judah’s existence.” 68 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 204: “Er bezeichnet nicht mehr nur die Alternative zu Babylon. Als Inbegriff eines politischen und religiösen Autonomiestrebens tritt er vielmehr in Gegensatz zur theonomen Begründung Israels. In letzter Konsequenz wird ‘Ägypten’ damit zum Gegenspieler JHWH’s selbst, nicht nur als äusseres staatliches Machtzentrum, sondern als stets präsente innere Versuchung des Gottesvolkes, sich dem Anspruch seines wahren Herren zu entziehen.” 69 Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 103–4: “The standpoint which has been adopted throughout [Nicholson’s book] and which some attempt has been made to substantiate is that this [the Book of Jeremiah] material represents the literary expression and deposit of a tradition which developed and took shape at the hands of the Deuteronomists, and which presents an interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry and preaching on the basis of theological concerns and interests which were of vital importance for them and those to whom they addressed themselves.” 70 C. Begg, “The Significance of Jehoiachin’s Release: A New Proposal,” JSOT 36 (1986) 54. 71 W. Thiel, Die Deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45: Mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redaktion des Buches Jeremia (WMANT 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 64: “In den Bericht selbst scheint D auch

134

Chapter 5

suggests.72 Kings represents a compromise document in which different voices and evaluations of Egypt are heard, whereas the Book of Jeremiah has an unambiguously negative voice. This conundrum forces us to consider the figures of Joseph and Moses again. The Book of Jeremiah mentions Moses only once (15:1) and never mentions Joseph. Joseph’s positive experiences in Egypt have no apparent influence on the book whose persistently bleak view of Egypt is almost unrelenting. The Book of Jeremiah is sympathetic to Moses’ experiences in Egypt, but not to Jeroboam’s experiences in Egypt. This leads to some contradictions as commentators have noted similarities between Jeroboam and Moses. 73 While the Deuteronomist would try to avoid any analogies between his bête noire, Jeroboam, and Moses, both find a safe haven in Egypt.74 Although there are some similarities between Moses and Jeroboam,75 Jeremiah’s journey and reaction to Egypt corresponds more to Moses’ rather than to Jeroboam’s Egyptian involvement. Although the narrator mentions Moses only once,76 numerous commentators have noted how the stories of Jeremiah and Moses interact with each other. Luis Aloneingegriffen zu haben. V. 6 ist verdächtig, ein redaktioneller Einsatz zu sein. Der Vers ist nicht viel mehr als eine fromme Wiederholung der Erklärung von V. 5 mit Wendungen, die D auch sonst gebraucht.” 72 R. E. Friedman, “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2,” 189. 73 Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion, 1. 43: “The sequence in Ex.2.11ff. displays striking parallels to the revolt of Jeroboam and probably comes from the northern kingdom of this period.” 74 Collins, “Development of the Exodus Tradition,” 147: “The Judean historian generally tries to discredit the northern leader [Jeroboam], and would not have created any analogies between him and Moses, which might cast him in a favorable light, or sought to portray him as maintaining the Exodus tradition, which is also foundational in the Deuteronomic theology. But the analogies with Moses go some way to explaining Jeroboam’s choice of the Exodus as his charter myth.” 75 R. Miller II, “The Roles of Moses in the Pentateuch,” in Moses: A History of Reception, 2nd–15th Century (Commentaria Series; ed. Jane Beal; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming) 11–12: “Alternatively, when young Moses kills the Egyptian officer, only later to campaign against Pharaoh himself, we see the murder of an overseer by a potential overseer leading to rebellion against the sovereign by a subject people. Similarly, in 1 Kings 12, the rebellion of overseer Jeroboam against the sovereign Solomon is followed by the murder of the potential overseer Adoram by Jeroboam’s subject people of Israel. Solomon, like the ‘Pharaoh who knew not Joseph,’ had afflicted the people with forced labor (unlike the benevolent predecessor, either David or Joseph’s Pharaoh). Jeroboam, furthermore, had fled to Egypt from Solomon, just as Moses had fled from Egypt. Each left their host to return to their people, the embassy of each to the king was rejected because both Pharaoh and Rehoboam’s hearts were hardened. Scholars have long seen ‘the Moses tradition was at home primarily in the north.’” 76 Miller, “The Roles of Moses in the Pentateuch,” 1: “In the pre-exilic prophets, he [Moses] appears only in Jer 15:1.”

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

135

so Schökel notes, for example, that much to his chagrin, Jeremiah made the same journey as Moses, but in the opposite direction.77 “If Jrm [Jeremiah] had felt called upon to be the prophet like Moses, his shift in perception of Yahweh’s will at this time [605] in his career shifted his own selfunderstanding: he was now to be an anti-Moses figure.”78 Both Jeremiah and Moses struggle with their calls (Jer 1:6 and Exod 4:10),79 but Jeremiah becomes an anti-Moses figure under compulsion by the Judean remnant.80 The specter of Moses comes to dominate the Book of Jeremiah in the Baruch Scroll. Like Moses, Jeremiah suggests that the future and hope of Israel lies to the east, in this case in Babylon (Jer 29:7), rather than Canaan. Jeremiah 23:7–8 and 16:14–15 serve as examples of Jeremiah’s relativizing Israel’s Exodus experience even while elevating Israel’s experience in Babylon.81 Jeremiah is dragged westward throughout the Baruch Scroll and eventually finds himself kidnapped and brought to Egypt; hence, Jeremiah is an anti-Moses who travels in the opposite direction of Moses’ journey from bondage and finds himself in the house of bondage: Egypt. His kidnappers, like Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:40), disobey the strict warning of Deut 17:16 about ever returning to Egypt.82 Jeremiah’s personal history ends in the land where Moses’ started. The Baruch Scroll narrates Jeremiah’s “exodus” from Judah. The narrator mentions Egypt thirty-one times in this section. The Baruch Scroll operates in a manner similar to the story of Uriah in Jeremiah 26, since both narratives feature characters who flee to Egypt for refuge. All other MT references to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah with the exception of 24:8; 26:21; and 26:22 (bis) either pertain to the genre of the OAN or represent Exodus motifs. Both the Baruch Scroll and the Story of Uriah, by contrast, view Egypt in terms of contemporary history. Although Egypt is not divorced from its past, the thirty-one references to 'F in the Baruch Scroll (MT Jeremiah 36–45) view Egypt more broadly than do other biblical 77

Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías como Anti-Moisés,” 245: “Jeremías recorre un itinerario inverso al de Moisés. Al recorrerlo, pasa por etapas semejantes; lo que cambia es la dirección. El que va y el que viene pueden encontrarse en algún punto del camino.” 78 Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 30. 79 Ibid., 2. 38. 80 M. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990) 26: “Levenson (1984: 226) sees in the conjunction of fire and the divine word in 20:9 an allusion to the commission of Moses: in contrast to Moses, ‘Jeremiah who has eaten the word (Jer 15:16) and tried to proclaim it (20:8), finds himself ‘exhausted’ (nilêtî, v. 9).’ From this perspective, Jeremiah is a type, or more precisely an anti-type, to Moses.” 81 Alonso Schökel, “Jeremías como Anti-Moisés,” 246: “No niega el artículo de fe fundamental, lo relativiza. Es como si la liberación conservase su valor, pero el nombre de Egipto fuera relegado.” 82 Ibid.

136

Chapter 5

books’ OANs or Exodus motifs. There the narrator discusses Egypt in terms of contemporary history without a purely negative bias. Be this as it may, the Baruch Scroll still shows many Exodus motifs as well as the general condemnation foreign nations receive in the book. At the same time, the Baruch Scroll is not monolithic in its portrayal of Egypt. About half of its references to Egypt are reminiscent of ways Exodus or OANs might condemn Egypt. The other half concerns the fall of Jerusalem and the survivors’ eventual flight to Egypt. These latter references are: 37:5 (44:5); 37:7 (44:7); 41:17 (48:17); 42:14 (49:14); 42:15 (49:15); 42:16 (bis) (49:16 – bis); 42:17 (49:17); 42:18 (49:18); 42:19 (49:19); 43:2 (50:2); 43:7 (50:7); 44:1 (51:1); 44:15 (51:15); and 44:30 (51:30). All of these references figure within a description of the events that drive the narrative of the Baruch Scroll. The two allusions in Jeremiah 37 occur immediately after King Zedekiah comes to power. The Egyptian army attempts to play a role on the world stage here, just as it did at the time of the death of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:29). Egypt reappears in Jeremiah 41, but this time it serves as a place of (hoped-for) refuge for the army leaders in their fear of the Chaldeans after the assassination of Gedaliah.83 Jeremiah warns them not to go to Egypt (42:14), but they are stubborn and refuse to listen to the advice they have solicited from him (42:1). Although all the references to Jeremiah in chap. 42 have a geographical dimension, they also echo texts like Deut 17:16 and 28:68 that warn Israel never to return to Egypt.84 Maier equates this desire to return to Egypt in Jeremiah 42 with Israel’s wanting to return to Egypt during its time in the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land (Exod 14:12; 16:3; Num 11:5).85 The Judean remnant eventually does go to Egypt and settles there in Jeremiah 43. Jeremiah lives among them and warns them of the problems of living in Egypt (44:1). The remnant now residing in Egypt responds negatively to

83

Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 195: “Dieser (Jeremiah’s theological ideal) anspruchsvollen Geschichtstheologie können die Truppenführer nicht folgen. Zum einen entspricht sie nicht ihrem machtpolitischen Kalkül, in dem die Kooperation mit Ägypten zentral ist.” 84 G. Wanke, Jeremia 25,15–52,34 (ZBAT 20.2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003) 372–73: “Die Erzählung endet mit dem abschließenden Hinweis darauf, daß sich die Gruppe nach Ägypten auf den Weg macht und dies als Ungehorsam gegenüber Jahwes Wort zu bewerten ist.” 85 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 201–02: “Dort [in the Pentateuch] verleiten die Mühen der Wüstenwanderung die Israeliten dazu, das Bild Ägyptens rückblickend zu verklären und so die Sinnhaftigkeit ihres Aufbruchs in Frage zu stellen (Ex 14,12; 16,3; Num 11,5). Hier idealisieren die Truppenführer das Land des Exodus, um ihren umstrittenen Schritt, der Heimat den Rücken zu kehren, zu rechtfertigen.”

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

137

Jeremiah (44:16).86 Jeremiah 44 closes with a specific mention of Hophra, king of Egypt (44:30). As I noted earlier, these references to Egypt help drive the narrative. We find all these references in both the MT and LXX texts. The MT Baruch Scroll has no doublets and the many expansions found in other parts of MT Jeremiah are not as readily apparent here. The depiction of Egypt in the LXX and MT is thus identical in the Baruch Scroll, given their shared references concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the eventual flight to Egypt. The other references to Egypt in the Baruch Scroll are suggestive of familiar characterizations of Egypt elsewhere. These references are: 43:11 (50:11); 43:12 (bis; = 50:12); 43:13 (bis); 44:8 (51:8); 44:12 (bis; = 51:12); 44:13 (51:13); 44:14 (51:14); 44:24 (> LXX); 44:26 (bis; = 51:26 bis); 44:27 (51:27); and 44:28 (bis; = 51:28). In Jeremiah 43, the prophet arrives in Egypt with the army leaders. In vv. 9–10 he performs the symbolic action87 of sinking large stones in the palace courtyard at Tahpanhes. The symbolism of this action would recall Joshua, who set up stones at Gilgal after crossing into the Promised Land (Josh 4:9).88 Jeremiah thus assumes the role of both Moses and Joshua in his performance of the antiExodus. Then he announces in vv. 11–13 that Nebuchadrezzar will set fire to and assault the obelisks, temples, and gods of Egypt. This speech, with its focus on fire as a source of destruction, is reminiscent of other prophetic threats against Egypt. In Ezekiel 30 YHWH also promises to unleash the sword against Egypt (v. 4) and set fire to the land of Egypt (vv. 8, 16). Jeremiah’s emphasis here on Egypt’s obelisks, temples, and gods distinguishes his words from other OT authors. Rather than focusing on Egypt’s obelisks, temples, and gods, the OT commonly focuses on the nation of Egypt and the Nile.89 In both Isaiah 19 and Ezekiel 29, the oracles promise a reversal of fortune for Egypt. The usually predictable river will dry up, 86 Wanke, Jeremia 25,15–52,34, 373: “Jeremias Erfolglosigkeit schlägt sich schließlich in seinem Geschick nieder. Er verschwindet sang- und klanglos mit den Flüchtenden in Ägypten.” 87 Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 301. 88 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 208: “Die erste Station der Reise im fremden Land ist Tachpanhes, die ägyptische Grenzfestung im östlichen Nil-Delta. Wie Josua beim Einzug Israels in das Land in Gilgal Steine zur steten Erinnerung errichtete (Jos 4), so vergräbt Jeremia nach der Rückkehr nach Ägypten Steine im Vorhof des Pharaonenpalastes. Damit erhebt er Tachpanhes symbolisch zum Gegenort Gilgals, in der ‘theologischen Topographie’ Israels wird es zur Metapher des Anti-Exodus.” 89 J. Huddlestun, “‘Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile?’ Some Egyptian Texts on the Inundation and a Prophetic Trope,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. Bartlett, A. Beck, P. Raabe, C. Franke; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995) 346: “Precisely what the biblical authors/redactors knew and how they obtained or had access to such knowledge are questions requiring more attention in the literature.”

138

Chapter 5

become foul, and fail to nourish crops (Isa 19:5–8), or God will take total control of the Nile and kill all the fish (Ezek 29:1–5). Both these events are reminiscent of God’s earlier attack on Egypt through Moses in which the river turns to blood (Exod 7:20–21) or teems with frogs (Exod 7:29). Therefore, Jeremiah 43 resembles Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Exodus in its treatment of Egypt, but also includes specific details not found in these other oracles and narratives. The references to Egypt in Jeremiah 44 are somewhat generic in nature. The speech in Jeremiah 44 could have been given almost anywhere. The speech shares many characteristics with the Temple Sermons of Jeremiah 7 and 26; see, for example, their common mention of idolatry, which is focused on the queen of heaven (7:18 and 44:17, 18, 19, and 25). Jeremiah raised the specter of the Shiloh Temple in 7:12, 14 and 26:6, 9 for those who somehow feel God’s temple will protect them from foreign invasion. This threat would have no meaning in Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem. Now Jeremiah declares that even the name of the Lord will be taken from the remnant in Egypt due to their idolatrous acts there (44:26). The major problem in Egypt is not that the survivors worship Egyptian gods, but that they continue the same acts condemned in the Temple Sermons of Jeremiah 7 and 26, in particular the worship of the queen of heaven. Jeremiah 44 utilizes certain themes of Jeremiah 7 and 26, but tailors them to the situation of the remnant in Egypt. The main theme of the Scroll’s references to Egypt is that Israel cannot escape its punishment by going to Egypt. Jeremiah 42 makes this announcement, and Jeremiah 44 brings it to fulfillment. Jeremiah 44:12 warns that Egypt cannot be a place of refuge for Israel. This warning echoes throughout the remainder of the chapter. 44:13 declares that the remnant cannot escape and will be punished. Familiar biblical characterizations of Egypt are present in this verse that attacks the '%;F *# I(), “gods of Egypt.” Exodus 12:12 uses the same expression in describing Yhwh’s attack on the gods of Egypt.90 Jeremiah 44:27–28 makes the startling claim that God looks on the remnant in order to do them evil rather than good. Here, Jeremiah represents God as hunting down the remnant in Egypt in order to destroy them. The emphatic point of Jeremiah 44 is that Egypt cannot serve as a secure place of refuge for Judean survivors. The LXX exhibits a similar tone to the MT here, but fails to explicitly mention Egypt four times where the MT does so, namely, in 43:12; 44:12, 24, and 28. None of these minuses in the LXX results in a different meaning from the MT; however, generally, the MT makes matters more explicit, as in MT Jer 43:12 where the MT condemns the “gods of Egypt,” while the LXX Jer 50:12 reference only refers to the “gods.” Again, LXX Jer 51:12 90

Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 268.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

139

mentions Egypt only once, whereas MT Jer 44:12 adds the specification that the remnant chose to come to Egypt. The repetitious naming of Egypt contributes to the heightened rhetoric of Jeremiah without fundamentally changing the meaning of these passages. Both MT Jer 44:24 and 28 can be viewed as expansionistic, but the MT shows a sharper rhetoric than the LXX. The poetry of the OANs directly follows the Baruch Scroll in the MT and contemporary English translations. For this reason, I have chosen to follow the canonical shape of the Book of Jeremiah with which most readers are familiar and to deal with Jeremiah 46 as the book’s final image of Egypt as a place of refuge. The two poems that constitute the bulk of the chapter offer a unique and distinctive perspective on Egypt.91 Although certain references within these poems are to contemporary history, the genre of OANs draws upon a reservoir of images found in older prophets such as Isaiah92 and that continued to be used in Ezekiel. Since these poems portray Egypt with a specificity and detail unparalleled in the OT and have been used by historians to understand Israel’s relationship with Egypt, I believe Jeremiah 46 merits a critical and freshly reconstructed translation.

IV. My Translation of the Critically Reconstructed Hebrew Text 46:2

For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt who was by the Euphrates in Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. 93

Description of Preparations and Battle 46:3 46:4

91

Prepare shield and buckler; approach for battle. Harness94 your horses and mount, horsemen; station yourselves with your helmets; polish95 your spears and put on your armor.

Kessler, Die Ägyptenbilder, 49. Carroll, Jeremiah, 26. 93 Like many commentators, I drop MT’s .- J $ $, which appears expansionistic here and is absent in the LXX. 94 The LXX has “saddle” here. 95 Many commentators would emend this verb to , “to draw a sword,” following the LXX, but the MT makes better sense. The reference is to preparation for war, rather than actual military activity. Given McKane’s (Jeremiah, 1115) observation that the battle has not yet begun, there is no need for emendation. 92

140

Chapter 5

46:596

46:6

They are filled with terror. They are drawn back. Their warriors are beaten and have fled for refuge.97 They do not turn. Terror is all around, says the Lord. Let the swift not flee. And the warrior not escape. In the north by the river98 Euphrates, they stumbled and fell.

Egypt Goes to Battle, but is Surprised by the Foe 46:7 46:8

46:9

46:10

96

Who is this that rises like a river?99 His waters billow like rivers. Egypt will rise like a river100 and the water will billow like a river. And he said: “Let me rise so that I cover the land, let me destroy the inhabitants in it.101 Go horses, drive madly chariots. Let the warriors go forth. Cush and Put,102 grab your shields. Men of Lud, seize and draw the bow.” That is the day to the Lord our God:103

The MT and LXX diverge here. The LXX lacks the MT’s opening line of this verse:

;+  K  (., “Why have I seen them.” I follow the LXX. Holladay (Jeremiah 2. 315)

makes the point: “there is no other first person singular reference in the poem.” 97 Keown (Jeremiah 26–52, 283) emends the text to an infinitive absolute here. I believe this change is unnecessary as the MT may be read as a cognate accusative: .  , “they have fled for refuge.” 98 The LXX lacks this term. 99 The MT has “Nile” here, but I follow the LXX, which lacks the specification, since the MT tends to add such specific details, as can be seen in its mention of Necho in 46:2 and many other examples. 100 Using the same reasoning as in the previous footnote, I omit the MT’s “Nile.” 101 The MT states:  / #H-  .(C, “Let me destroy a city and the inhabitants in it,” while the LXX lacks “city.” Since no cities are mentioned in this stanza or previously in the poem, I follow the LXX. 102 The LXX has Ethiopia and Libya here. Although Ethiopia (LXX) and Cush (MT) can be used interchangeably in the OT, as they both seem to generally refer to the region south of Egypt in contrast to the current political entities of Ethiopia and Sudan respectively, the identity of Put is far from certain. Put could be a place in Libya, although the MT usually refers to Libya with a variant of the term ' (2 Chr 12:3; Dan 11:43); see W. Marlowe (“Put,” in EDB, 1101). Put may refer to a distinct Libyan tribe. Since we find Cush and Put as a pair in other places in the MT (Gen 10:6; Ezek 30:5; 38:5), I believe we should preserve this pair here as well. Ezekiel 27:10 also mentions Put, but is unclear as to its location. Put appears to be a tribal territory within Libya at times and perhaps synonymous with Libya at other times.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

141

a day of vengeance, to avenge his foes. The sword will devour and be sated, because there is a sacrifice to the Lord, God of Hosts in the land of the north at the river Euphrates. Description of Defeat 46:11

46:12

46:13

Go up to Gilead and take balm, O virgin daughter Egypt. You will multiply remedies in vain. There is no healing for you. The nations hear your voice,104 your outcry fills the land. For warrior has stumbled against warrior. Both fall together. The word that the Lord spoke 105 to Jeremiah106 about Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, coming to attack the land of Egypt.

Egypt in Defeat and Retreat 46:14

46:15 46:16

46:17

Proclaim in Migdol and declare in Memphis. 107 Say: “Station yourself and prepare yourself. For the sword will devour around you.” Why has your bull108 been swept away? He did not stand because the Lord thrust him down. He stumbled109 repeatedly and fell. They said to one another: “Arise and return to our people and to the land of our birth, away from the sword of oppression.”110 Call111 the name 112 of pharaoh:

103

MT Jeremiah frequently uses “Lord of Hosts,” as it does here. I follow the LXX, which has a less theological and formulaic rendering: “Lord our God.” 104 I follow the more common Hebrew word for “voice” underlying the LXX here ($  , “your voice”) rather than the rarer word J3  “your shame,” of the MT. Although “your shame” would be the lectior difficilior, I find it to be too removed from the context. “Your voice” makes better sense contextually. 105 LXX adds  *, “by the hand of . . . .” 106 The MT consistently adds (L., “the prophet,” to the name of Jeremiah. 107 The MT includes two more toponyms: '%;F , “Egypt,” and +- , “Migdol.” 108 The LXX has +, “Apis,” which may be a later interpretation. The LXX never uses the word again. Although no counterpart to the word “Apis” exists in the MT, many commentators break up the MT’s verb M%, “it has been swept away,” into M, “Apis,” and , “it flees,” The form M is not attested elsewhere in the MT. 109 I follow the commentators who revocalize #8 as : in light of the LXX. 110 Although the LXX renders this expression *  , “Greek sword,” Holladay argues (Jeremiah 2. 329): “Clearly, taking the expression as a construct phrase is preferable.”

142

46:18

46:19

Chapter 5 The noisy one whose time went by.113 “As I live,” says the114 Lord God,115 “He will come like Tabor in the hills, like Carmel by the sea.” Make your goods ready for exile, O resident daughter Egypt! For Memphis will become a waste. It will be ruined; there will be no inhabitant.

Egypt in Ruins and Exile 46:20 46:21

46:22

46:23

46:24

Egypt is like a beautiful heifer, a gadfly from the north came upon her.116 Even the mercenaries in her midst are like fattened calves, for they also turn and flee together. They do not stand, for disaster has come upon them, the time of vengeance. The sound of her goes like a snake, for they go in force.117 They come to her with axes, as those who hew trees. They cut down her forest, says the Lord, though it is impenetrable.118 Because they are more numerous than locusts, they are without number. Daughter Egypt is disgraced. She is handed over to the people of the north.

111 I follow the majority of commentators who revocalize (- , making the form imperative. 112 I revocalize ' to '#. 113 The LXX is secondary here in giving Pharaoh the proper name ,*, “Necho.” 114 The MT adds J $K$ , “the king.” The LXX does not have an equivalent to this element, which seems typical of the MT’s formulaic and theological expansions. 115 The MT characteristically expands this appellation to “the Lord God of Hosts.” I follow the LXX’s shorter title. 116 I follow the LXX here because the MT’s conclusion to this verse: ( (& “it came, it came,” is incongruent with the rest of the poem that lacks this kind of repetition. The LXX concludes with # )   , “it came upon her.” I believe the MT’s second word ( , “it came,” was mistaken for  , “upon her.” 117 Oddly, the LXX has  '%, “in sand” here. 118 Holladay (Jeremiah 2. 324) points out a problem with this line: “The text of M 3 3 ( IC 8 cannot be right, since it is not a full colon, having only one ‘unit’ [M. P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 315]. . . .” LXX is odd here as well: -    % -   , “for their number cannot be conjectured.”



The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

143

Punishment of Egypt 46:25119 “Behold, I am visiting punishment on Amun of Thebes,120 and upon pharaoh, and upon Egypt, and upon her gods, and upon pharaoh and those who trust in him. 46:26121 I will give them into the hand of those seeking their lives, into the hand of Ne buchadrezzar, king of Babylon, and his servants. Afterward, it will be settled as in former times, says the Lord.”

A. Structure, Key Words, and Literary Features Great difficulty arises in trying to discern the structure of Jeremiah 46. Generally, commentators agree that there are two oracles in this chapter, in vv. 3–12 and 14–24. We also find prose sentences introducing these oracles (vv. 1–2), as well as some prose serving to explain the oracles (vv. 25–26). Many commentators divide the oracles into stanzas, but disagreement surrounds the delimitation of such stanzas. The problem becomes even more acute, given the difficulties involved in defining a stanza or poem in Hebrew. In his commentary, Lundbom understands Jer 46:3–12 as consisting not of three stanzas as do Weiser,122 Huwyler,123 Rudolph,124 and Snaith,125 or of six like Christensen126 or seven with Watson,127 but rather of four individual poems.128 The problems of Hebrew poetry have be-

The MT begins this verse with a characteristic expansionary formula: .-  ( (#.0% # I(), ( F “The Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel said.” I omit these words be119

cause they are not in the LXX and are typical of the MT’s expansionary tendencies. 120 Although the LXX does not mention Thebes, it follows “Amun” with these words:

   , “her son.” The use of the feminine pronoun causes this phrase to make no sense. I agree with Keown’s [Jeremiah 26–52, 285] suggestion that ( , “Thebes” could have been a source of confusion for the ancient translators. He suggests that we read ( as &, “her son,” according to the LXX. The Vulgate shows confusion as well, with Alexandria rather than Thebes appearing as the toponym. Thebes was clearly an unfamiliar toponym to the ancient translators, since it appears in neither the LXX nor the Vulgate. 121 This verse does not appear in the LXX. 122 A. Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 25, 15–52, 34 (7th ed.; ATD 21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 382–83. 123 Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 78. 124 W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968) 269. 125 J. Snaith, “Literary Criticism and Historical Investigation in Jeremiah Chapter XLVI,” JSS 16 (1971) 23. 126 D. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations (HDR 3; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 217. 127 W. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (corrected ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005) 379–82. 128 Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 185.

144

Chapter 5

deviled OT studies for centuries; the commentaries on Jeremiah 46 reflect this conundrum. The Masoretic breaks offer little help in delimiting the poetry of Jeremiah 46. The Masoretes characterize smaller sections by means of the letters  or .129  occurs at the end of the first poem in v. 12 and  towards the middle of the second poem at the end of v. 19. The major Masoretic breaks indicated by spaces amounting to nine letters130 are not found in the poetic portions of Jeremiah 46. There is no Masoretic break at the end of the second poem; rather the Masoretic break comes at the end of the prose explanation of the poem in v. 26. The Masoretic break does help to distinguish between the units in the second poem, but those breaks are of no help for the more troublesome first poem. Although we can describe the two oracles as poetry, there are no formal tags or meter indicating stanzas such as exist in English poetry.131 Rather than meter, syntactic constraints arguably govern each line of poetry.132 With some exceptions, I use M. P. O’Connor’s classification of such constraints to divide up the verse of the Jeremiah 46 oracle into lines of poetry, 133 which Holladay also follows.134 A number of key words or expressions bind the two poems together. Perhaps the most important of these is 'F

, which is found in vv. 11, 19, and 24. This expression signals the subject of the poems and links them. Like many critics, W. G. E. Watson notes that three words hold the first poem itself together:  , “go up” (vv. 4b, 7a, 8a, 8c, 9a, 11a, 11e), , “warrior” (vv. 5d, 6b, 9c, 12c [bis]), and (, “earth, country” (vv.

129

E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001) 51: “In the late-medieval Masoretic manuscripts the sections were indicated according to the terminology of the Masoretes by the letters () or (  ) written in the spaces themselves.” 130 Ibid., 50. 131 McKane, Jeremiah, lxxxiv: “The exegetical exploration of supposed larger, cumulative, literary entities will not repay the labour. A stringing together of units by means of stitch-words or similar devices has regularly been noticed in the body of the commentary. . . . It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that these short units of poetry are always seamless, that they have perfect formal proportions and are invariably wellrounded sayings whose parts hang together convincingly and whose compactness is never suspect. They are frequently not free from formal ambiguities and admixtures, from syntactical brokenness and unevenness. Often they will not satisfy the criteria which are employed in form-critical definitions of types of prophetic literature.” 132 P. Dion, Hebrew Poetics (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1992) 5. 133 O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 87: “Constraints. 1. On clause predicators. No line contains more than three. 2. On constituents. No line contains fewer than one or more than four. 3. On units. No line contains fewer than two or more than five.” 134 Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 324.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

145

8c, 10f, 12b).135 Keown points out that  , “to stand” in vv. 15 and 21, as well as (, “to come” (vv. 18d, 21e, 22c) hold the second poem together.136 Also important is the word , “to flee,” in vv. 5, 6, 21. Both 'F

 and  serve to provide an overall theme for both the poems and the chapter as a whole. The idea of flight is an overarching theme that is present in every subunit of the two poems. Huwyler detects this theme in vv. 6, 10, 12,137 16, and 21.138 Each sub-unit of the first poem concludes with a flight in my division of the poem. Huwyler also notes that flight is an important theme in both thought units of the second poem.139 I distinguish the stanzas of the second poem according to sub-units. Huwyler detects a structural pattern here as well,140 which comports with my division according to sub-units. B. Reading of Text Unit by Unit My focus here remains the general theme of my thesis: Egypt as place of refuge. Accordingly, my comments are focused on themes related to Egypt and refuge. “Refuge” here also involves the theme of flight, which, as just pointed out, plays a large role in this chapter. 1. 46:2 This verse appears to be written in prose. It serves as an introduction to the poem. The poem (vv. 3–12) otherwise lacks the specificity of this introductory verse, so one may regard this introductory verse as the product of a later editor. The MT mentions “Carchemish” only two other times (Isa 10:9 and 2 Chr 35:20) and spells it differently ( ::) than here ( ::). This verse also mentions Egypt twice. These are not allusions to the Exodus, nor are they negative; rather, the verse orients the reader to the subject of the poem. The poem does not mention Egypt again until the eighth

135

Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 379–83. Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 287. 137 Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 98: “Deutlich ist, daß die drei Verse 6.10.12 aufeinander bezogen sind und miteinander das Rückgrat des Textes bilden, indem sie das Geschilderte explizieren und konkretisieren; fehlen sie, geht der ausdrückliche historische Bezug (V. 6b.10b) verloren.” 138 Ibid., 109–10: “In beiden Strophen wird auch die Flucht ausländischer Gruppen aus Ägypten hervorgehoben (V. 16.21), und zur Flucht des Stiergottes bzw. zum Fall des Starken (V. 15) paßt diejenige der Mastkälber (V. 21).” 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid., 108: “Die erste, V. 14–19, zeichnet sich dadurch aus, daß Ägypten direkt angesprochen ist (V. 14.15.19, V. 16.17 nach LXX), während in der zweiten Strophe, V. 20–24, ausschließlich in der dritten Person auf Ägypten Bezug genommen wird.” 136

146

Chapter 5

verse, but already this double mention leaves no doubt as to the subject of the poem. 2. 46:3–6 Although a wide diversity of opinion exists concerning this opening stanza, it seems to be a straight forward description of a battle. Lundbom argues that “the speaker is first and foremost Yahweh, who could be imitating the soldiers or the commanders.”141 It is difficult to determine the genre of this poem. Rather than assume it represents a genuine prediction of a Babylonian invasion of Egypt, it seems better to leave the question open, as many commentators do.142 Taken at face value, the poem offers a clear description of a battle on the banks of the Euphrates involving Egypt and her allies. The superscription, which suggests a battle between Egypt and Babylonia, provides the most plausible historical setting for the unit.143 Rather than an allusion to a holy war involving Yahweh, this seems to be a battle known from other sources.144 No direct references to Egypt occur in this opening stanza, but the poet mocks Egypt implicitly. The language is not unlike that of the Song of Moses (Exod 15:1b–18), where many bodies lie dead at the edge of the water. Egypt lives by the blessing of water, but here water undoes Egypt, as it did in Exodus 15. The theme of flight pervades this opening stanza. As Jeroboam and Hadad fled to Egypt in terror, here the Egyptian soldiers try to flee. Like the prophet Uriah’s flight in Jeremiah 26, Egypt’s flight proves unsuccessful. Indeed, a general theme in the Book of Jeremiah is the futility of flight. Flight here seems to be a reaction of defeated soldiers, as it is of the Judahites in the Baruch Scroll, where contrary to Jeremiah’s plea, they insist on fleeing to Egypt. Most scholars believe the oracle was written around the year 605, with its primary audience being Judahites living in Jerusalem.145 The oracle thus presupposes the futility of flight found throughout the book, given the events that preceded and followed the battle of Carche141

Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 190. McKane, Jeremiah, 1112. 143 Jackson, “Jeremiah 46,” 136: “It will be the contention of this paper that historical accuracy is not the intention of the OANs, and therefore that whatever data can be gleaned from them will not satisfy a modern historian. Their purpose is quite other, and they are to be viewed as pieces of theological propaganda which use specific historical references in order to make their point clear, but do not rely on the factuality of such ‘evidence’ for their success.” 144 McKane, Jeremiah, 1111: “The information that the battle between Pharaoh Necho and Nebuchadrezzar took place at Carchemish is confirmed by Babylonian evidence and the date 605, though not given in the Babylonian chronicle of events is seen to be correct. . . .” 145 Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 195. 142

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

147

mish. McKane comments: “The retreat from Carchemish which is set in motion will not issue in escape and safety. It will be disorderedly and confused (

 ) and will end in slaughter (   :).”146 Since the poem probably originally stood in the middle of the book (as it still does in the LXX [Jeremiah 26]), this oracle serves to warn the Judahites about the danger of disobeying the will of God by flight. Flight in Jeremiah is disorderly, disastrous, and opposed to the will of God. 3. 46:7–10 This sub-unit mentions Egypt once, together with Egypt’s allies, Cush, Put, and Lud. This section has many allusions to Egypt, but much debate surrounds how “Egypt” should be understood here. Do the allusions to billowing waters in vv. 7–8 refer to the defeat of Pharaoh Necho? Or, do they operate on a more mythological level, and/or as references to the Exodus? Pharaoh Necho does not seem to be alluded to here because the stanza operates at the mythological level.147 The MT confuses the issue by mentioning him in the prose superscription of Jer 46:2, but the poem itself does not mention him. The poem’s graphic imagery148 concerning Egypt is consistent with what is found in the rest of the Book of Jeremiah. The poet does not present Egypt as a place of happy refuge; rather, Egypt is an enemy of the Lord. The importance of the allusions to chaos in these verses must not be overlooked. Unlike Keown,149 I do not think the image of the rising waters should be connected to Pharaoh Necho and his hubris.150 The mention of Necho in MT Jer 46:2 appears to be a late addition. McKane goes too far 146

McKane, Jeremiah, 1114. J. Schreiner, Jeremia II: 25,15–52,34 (NEchtB 9; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984) 237: “Jahwe trat auf den Plan. Er kämpfte gegen den Pharao (vgl. das Lied über das Schwert des Herrn Jes 34, 5–8) wie in einem ‘Heiligen Kriege’, in dem er für sein Volk eintrat.” 148 Mark S. Smith, “The Heart and Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology,” JBL 117 (1998) 435: “the emotions expressed in the Psalms may be viewed as serving to address an ongoing situation and to help people move toward action. This emotional communication is a religious and ritualized reaction to situations of disaster.” Throughout this article, the Psalms and other biblical books (p. 432) are used to arrive at an understanding of emotional expressions. 149 Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 291: “The symbolism of the rising Nile is continued as an expression of Pharaoh’s hubris. In the oracles against the nations, the sin of overweening pride, along with idolatry and aggression, is condemned consistently.” 150 Huddlestun, “Rises like the Nile,” 346: “My point here is to stress the limitation inherent to both bodies of evidence, biblical and Egyptological, when utilized for comparative purposes, and the frequent lack of methodological rigor when one approaches the biblical text from an Egyptological perspective.” 147

148

Chapter 5

in accenting the positive nature of the Nile.151 His view goes against the sense of the poem. While the predictable inundation of the Nile gave life and hope to ancient Egypt, the poem is not describing a positive event; rather, the poet portrays the billowing waters of 46:9 as destructive. By comparison, Holladay’s question is helpful: “But given the context, is there an ironic reminder here of the waters that ‘covered’ the Egyptian chariots at the exodus (Exod 14:28; 15:5, 10)?”152 Both the first and second stanza of the poem utilizes language reminiscent of the Exodus. They lack the specific details associated with historical events, employing rather the generic language of mythological events. Watery chaos is depicted in the Psalms (74:14; 104:26) and Isa 17:12–14. This poem seems to draw on a similar tradition. The poet shows how God will deal with enemies on the Day of the Lord.153 Unlike the original uses of the Day of the Lord (Amos 5: 18, 20), Yair Hoffman categorizes this verse as “used in a noneschatological context.”154 The poet pictures Egypt and its foreign contingents as age-old enemies of Israel. Marc Vervenne describes the origins of this enmity155 and sees the Day of the Lord theology present in the Sea Narrative of Exod 13:17–14:21.156 Similar groupings of enemies appear elsewhere: Nah 3:9; 151

McKane, Jeremiah, 1116: “The inundation of the Nile was not tempestuous nor attended with destructive possibilities. It was a regular, predictable, beneficent fructification of the lands on either side of the river. Hence the thought of a mythological allusion to chaos (Carroll) should not be pressed.” 152 Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 321. 153 Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Day of the Lord,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Katharine Sakenfeld; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007) 46: “The origins of ‘The day of the Lord,’ is unclear, although it goes back at least as far as the prophet Amos’s ‘day of Yahweh’ (yom YHWH) (Amos 5:18, 20). It typically refers to a dramatic intervention of God in history, a judgment that will condemn God’s enemies and save God’s people.” 154 Y. Hoffmann, “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature,” ZAW 93 (1981) 48. 155 M. Vervenne, “Violent Imagery in the Hebrew Bible: Satanic Verses or Anti-Metaphors?,” in Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels: Festschrift für Peter Weimar zur Vollendung Seines 60. Lebensjahres (AOAT 294; ed. Klaus Kiesow and Thomas Meurer: Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003) 540: “Biblical traditions apparently report quite overtly on Israel’s violent actions against their enemies. In addition, it is obvious that YHWH is fully compromised in the violent behavior of Israel. Human and divine violence is narrated with a lot of imagination and fantasy, and its ‘mechanisms; are exposed, as it were. . . . Simultaneously, violence is the object of lively ridicule: Israel is an army at rest (14, 13–14), the Egyptians display their military force but are fighting as Don Quichotes against their windmills (14, 24–25), YHWH brings down the arrogance of the “super power’ and makes a final end to violence (14,27–28,31).” 156 M. Vervenne, “The Sea Narrative Revisited,” Bib 75 (1994) 83.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

149

Gen 10:6; and Ezek 30:5. Focusing on possible historical allusions in this poem may diminish proper recognition of its mythological aspect. Keown views the poem as Jeremiah’s response to the untimely death of Josiah.157 McKane, for example, sees the poem as a riposte to Pharaoh Necho,158 but the poem itself never mentions him. As Brevard Childs warns: “The theological function of the book of Jeremiah is not adequately treated by using it as a referential source for historical reconstruction, whether or not one’s approach is liberal (Hyatt) or conservative (Bright).”159 Carroll sums up the stanza best: “The surging of the Nile becomes a figure of the Egyptian army’s pursuit of conquest and power and at the same time alludes to the destructive forces released by the waters of chaos which threaten to engulf the civilized world. Egypt is chaos and its war aims are a hubristic endeavour to cover the earth and destroy.” 160 Egypt was a force of chaos that threatened Israel long before and after Necho, a message that the Book of Jeremiah repeatedly articulates. 4. Jer 46:11–12 This stanza features both clear and subtle allusions to Egypt. Commentators generally understand '%.F *&  & “virgin daughter Egypt,” in v. 11a as a term of mockery. 161 “Taunt songs, mocking, irony and satire seem to be the principal tools of the OANs.”162 Fretheim further claims that the “oracles against Egypt are remarkable in their repeated reference to the Egyptians as God’s daughter. . . . It is theologically significant that Israel is not the only people who are considered to be the children of God.”163 Although Isa 19:24 (“On that day, Israel will be a third with Egypt and Assyria: a blessing in the midst of the land”) corroborates Fretheim’s general statement, the Book of Jeremiah itself displays great distaste for Egypt. The Book of Jeremiah never shows Isaiah’s sympathy for Egypt. Fretheim misinterprets the genre of OANs when he claims: “There is no demonizing of Egypt in these oracles, as might be expected from those who held an ‘anti-Egypt’ stance in the years before the fall of Egypt.”164 In fact, most commentators believe that this oracle does the exact opposite of what Fre157

Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 292. McKane, Jeremiah, 1118. 159 B. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 354. 160 Carroll, Jeremiah, 764. 161 Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 204: “There is an added irony in the prophet’s use of bƟtǎlat, ‘virgin’. . . .” 162 Jackson, “Jeremiah 46,” 138. 163 T. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 15; Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Pub., 2002) 583. 164 Ibid., 581. 158

150

Chapter 5

theim claims. Maier, for example, holds that Jeremiah presents Egypt as having two faces: a masculine face of might and armies, and a feminine face (“virgin daughter Egypt”) of despair and misery.165 In v. 10 “the Day of the Lord” comes to Egypt, just as it came to the northern kingdom of Israel and will come to Jerusalem. It is ironic that Egypt has to go to Gilead for balm in v. 11. Egypt was recognized as both the pharmacy and physician of its world. Pharaohs would send their physicians to the various courts of their friends and allies abroad.166 Lundbom correctly detects the irony in the medical situation cited here because: “There is now added indignity in that Egyptian knowledge of medicine was much celebrated in antiquity, e.g., Homer (Odyssey iv 228–32); also Herodotus (ii 84).”167 Egypt has fallen greatly; the nation renowned for doctoring and healing in so much of the ANE can no longer heal itself. The language of v. 11 reaches for the mythological, and appears somewhat hyperbolic. The poem demonstrates the great power of God. We know that things were not so bad for Egypt after its defeat at Carchemish. Babylon would do further harm to Egypt,168 but it never fully controlled Egypt, as the Persians did.169 This poem focuses on a theological rather than a political situation. Verse 12 features great irony in its reference to the collapse of the mighty Egyptian army. This army dominated Israel in the early years of Jeremiah’s ministry. 2 Kings 23:29 depicts the Egyptians nonchalantly dispatching Josiah at Megiddo. As in the Book of Exodus, God now reverses the fortunes of the mighty Egyptian army. Rather than explain this reversal in explicit detail, the Book of Jeremiah uses the language of poetry to capture it. McKane sees the medical and military metaphors as inextricably linked: “Verse 12a continues the medical metaphor, whereas 12b supplies an interpretation of incurable disease, namely, irretrievable mili165

Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 300. See T. Bryce, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (London/New York: Routledge, 2003) 121: “It was probably only as a last resort that Hattusili wrote to Ramesses about the matter [the infertility of Hattusili’s sister]. His sister Massanauzzi had failed to bear children, and was now well and truly beyond the normal offspring-producing years. . . . After all, Egypt was renowned for its medical expertise [my emphasis], and this expertise could perhaps be called upon to effect the miracle Hattusili [King of the Hittites] was seeking, hence his letter to pharaoh.” Here we have an example of Egypt portrayed as a physician for its neighbors. 167 Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 204. 168 A. Lloyd, “The Late Period (664–332 BC),” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (ed. I. Shaw; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 381–82. 169 D. Brewer and E. Teeter, Egypt and the Egyptians (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 209. 166

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

151

tary defeat.”170 Was Egypt’s defeat this horrific in reality? The poet never seems to specify what battle is being described here. Perhaps the actual battle matters less. Once again, the poet emphasizes a theological reality; namely, God is greater than any army. Armies rise and fall, and the Book of Jeremiah tries to highlight the foolhardiness of placing trust in any political entity. 5. Jer 46:13–19 I use the Masoretic breaks as my primary criterion for delimiting this subunit. This stanza casts Egypt in the position of a hopeless victim of a mighty adversary from the North. Verse 13 serves as a prose prologue to the stanza. It is less informative, however, than the prose introduction to Jer 46:3–12. Nebuchadrezzer acts as the protagonist according to v. 13, but the length of his long reign (605–562) makes it difficult to determine a precise date for this poem and the event to which it refers. Many commentators would agree with Lundbom, who situates this oracle subsequent to the battle of Carchemish.171 While McKane argues that a new superscription in v. 13 would serve no purpose if the setting were the same as for the preceding poem,172 Keown’s observation is probably the most helpful: “Neither the redactional introduction (v 13) nor the internal data permit one to determine the historical context for the second oracle concerning Egypt (46:13– 24).”173 This poem lacks the mention of the Euphrates found in v. 6, while the actual superscription (v. 13) lacks a reference to a specific battle (“Carchemish”) such as one meets in v. 2. The MT begins the poem with four toponyms: Egypt, Migdol, Memphis, and Tahpanhes. Tov has pointed out the MT’s tendency towards expansion here.174 The LXX has only the middle two toponyms, whereas the MT seems to be influenced by the immediate context where the same four references occur in Jer 44:1.175 The explicit reference to Egypt here does not make a great deal of sense to me since the two cities mentioned along with it were themselves Egyptian, Migdol being a border town,176 and Memphis 170

McKane, Jeremiah, 1120. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 215; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 691. 172 McKane, Jeremiah, 1125. 173 Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 287. 174 Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle,” 193. 175 J. Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations,” CBQ 54 (1992) 444. 176 Margaret Bunson, ed., Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (rev. ed.; New York: Facts on File, 2002) 243: “This [Migdol] was a site in the Sinai, near Tcharu, where the Egyptians maintained a fortified tower with massive walls. When the Persian ruler Cambyses (c. 525–522 B.C.E.) attacked Egypt, he destroyed the site, which was later rebuilt.” 171

152

Chapter 5

the capital of Upper Egypt. It is a little difficult to explain why a later superscription (v. 13) would mention Egypt, given that the name appears so soon afterwards as it does in MT Jer 46:14, though not in the LXX of the same verse (LXX Jer 26:14). This explicit reference in the MT seems to operate in the same way as MT Jer 44:24 and 28 discussed above, which serve to sharpen the rhetoric of the MT as opposed to the LXX. The LXX also lacks a parallel to MT’s “Tahpanhes,” another border town mentioned in Ezek 30:18; Jer 2:16; and 43:7.177 All these references to Egypt highlight Jeremiah’s announcement that the areas in question will undergo grave damage. The references to Migdol and Memphis also point to the lack of security found in places that may have been considered refuges. The capital of Upper Egypt, Memphis, may also have been a haven for refugee political figures like Jeroboam and Hadad.178 All these references to Egypt show how the contemporary situation has altered previous generations’ perceptions on Egypt. I have chosen to exclude the reference to Apis179 in LXX Jer 26:15 from my translation. All commentators refer to the Apis, and most work it into their translations. I believe LXX’s mention of Apis presupposes knowledge of the Egyptian cult that is not present anywhere else in the Book of Jeremiah. It makes sense that a later Greek translator would add this detail, given the knowledge that the Greek administrations of Ptolemy and his many successors gained of Egypt. One may compare the Greek translators of LXX Joshua, who added geographical details.180 Since the MT poem 177

Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 208. See John Taylor, “The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 BC),” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (ed. Ian Shaw; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 335. He writes that foreign leaders such as the Kushites (ca. 747–656) were attracted to Memphis because of its historical standing: “To this end, Memphis was promoted to become the Kushites’ preferred residence in Egypt.” Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 348: Concerning Memphis, Redford only tells us: “Kush invaded Egypt. Memphis was easily seized , Bocchoris captured and executed, and Sudanese rule imposed throughout Upper and Lower Egypt.” 179 Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003) 170–72: “Apis was the most important of the bull deities of Egypt and can be traced back to the beginning of the Dynastic Period [c. 3100 BCE]. . . . when the Apis bull reached its 25th year it was killed with great ceremony. It was then embalmed and buried in a great granite sarcophagus – some weighing as much as 70 tons – in the vast subterranean galleries of the Serapeum at Saqqara. The funeral ceremonies were extensive and it was said that in the Late Period, at the height of its worship, Egypt mourned for the deceased Apis as for the death of Pharaoh himself.” 180 Cornelis den Hertog, “The Geographical Shape of the Unconquered Land in Joshua 13:2–5 MT and LXX,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort (ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos; VTSup 124; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009) 52: The Greek translator was familiar with a Persian period 178

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

153

does not display knowledge of Thebes, it is hard to believe that it would know of Apis either. Hebrew does not have a word for “Apis,” although many commentators speculate that the term can be reconstructed from the final two letters of the MT verb M;% in Jer 46:15. While most commentators adopt the reading of the LXX,181 I agree with Rudolph, who pays careful attention to the MT.182 While the word “Apis” exists in Aramaic,183 the MT, which does not use the word, makes “perfectly good sense.”184 On this understanding, there is only limited knowledge of Egypt within the poem, comparable to the generic knowledge of Egypt as a place of refuge found in 1 Kings 11–12. The Book of Jeremiah knows a few more cities in Egypt than does Kings, but the poem does not display an experiential knowledge of Egypt, like the Baruch Scroll. Rather than alluding to Apis, this verse concerns a battle between God and an idol. The final major area of scholarly uncertainty in this stanza concerns v. 17. This verse holds pharaoh up to ridicule. Thompson believes a clever pun exists in this verse involving Pharaoh Hophra (589–570). He tells us: “Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), who boasted greatly of what he would do but in the critical hours was unable to carry it out, is branded with an uncomplimentary name which was probably a pun on his own name: the Hebrew verb he, ‘let pass,’ is similar to the Egyptian name Apries, w’-ibr.”185 Thompson does not give any source for the alleged reputation of this particular Pharaoh as a braggart. McKane and other commentators discount the suggested wordplay.186 As I have noted, knowledge of Egypt still seems generic here. Hophra probably was not pharaoh when the oracle was written. 6. Jer 46:20–24 Three images of Egypt dominate this last stanza: Egypt as a heifer, as a retreating snake, and as a deforested land. Themes of disaster and flight (v. 21) continue to emerge in this stanza, as in Jeremiah 46’s portrayal of Egypt. This stanza focuses on the ultimate reversal of fortune. Not only is Egypt no longer a place of refuge, but the inhabitants of Egypt must themgeographical picture in which much of the Philistine territory was administered by Phoenicians. Perhaps this understanding and corrupt texts led to some confusion. 181 Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 112. 182 Rudolph, Jeremia, 270. He translates the line according to the MT, rather than assuming a reference to Apis in the verse: “Warum ist dein Starker niedergestreckt? Er könnte sich nicht halten, weil Jahwe ihn stieß.” 183 Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 284. 184 Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 210. 185 Thompson, Jeremiah, 692. 186 McKane, Jeremiah, 1129.

154

Chapter 5

selves seek refuge in other places. They are now being handed over to their adversaries (v. 24). These images of Egypt resound with ambiguity because they are confusing and multilayered. They do not necessarily provide detailed information concerning Egypt, but rather may be written for an audience with a limited knowledge of Egypt. The heifer image in v. 20 seems particularly confusing. Most commentators want to connect the image to LXX’s “Apis” in v. 15.187 They feel that the heifer is an extension of the Apis bull that could not stand up to the Lord. This suggestion seems quite far-fetched for four reasons. First, and most importantly, the MT does not mention Apis.188 Second, commentators likewise ignore the important issue of gender. Apis was a bull, rather than a cow or heifer. The MT does not seem to be ridiculing mighty Apis through this image of the beautiful [female] heifer being tormented by the gadfly from the north, but ridicule and mockery could be the point of the later LXX text. Once the Greek translator inserted the reference to Apis, a different dynamic may have become operative in these verses, but only much later. Third, Egypt also had an important goddess that was a cow rather than a bull: Hathor. Hathor “is usually shown as a cow” and is “probably the most universal Egyptian goddess.”189 Any writer familiar with the worship of Apis centered in the north of Egypt would also have to have been familiar with the more universally venerated Hathor. Fourth, the Egyptians believed Apis was born to a virgin cow, hence a heifer. This virgin cow was a manifestation of Isis.190 Isis is another goddess whose “influence was amazingly widespread.”191 For these reasons, if the “heifer” of Jer 46:20 refers to an Egyptian god, it would be either Hathor or Isis. Since the poet in fact names no goddess, this fact appears to be further evidence for the lateness of the Apis reading in the LXX text. The stanza’s bovine imagery continues into v. 21. Here, the poet compares the once-mighty army of pharaoh to harmless calves. This army is now composed of foreign mercenaries. The verse relates why Egypt was such a popular place of refuge in connection with the poem’s description of these mercenaries: even mercenaries became like “fattened calves” in Egypt. The easy life there left the most hardened of men as soft as calves. Its imagery of flight makes this verse even more interesting. Most images 187

Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 293; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 331. See footnote 101 in this chapter. 189 E. Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trans. J. Baines; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982) 277. 190 Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses, 170. 191 Ibid., 149: “The cult of Isis rivaled those of traditional Greek and Roman gods, and its importance and persistence is seen in the fact that her worship continued at Philae until the 6th century AD – long after most of Egypt and the wider Roman world had been converted to Christianity.” 188

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

155

of flight, in both the Book of Jeremiah and the OT overall, involve people fleeing to Egypt. Here there is a reversal of roles. Egypt has become a desolate place that can no longer even protect its own interests and has inhabitants who must flee to other locales for refuge.192 This image reinforces the consistent message of the Book of Jeremiah: Egypt cannot possibly provide a reliable place of refuge. The people of Judah must place their trust in God rather than Egypt. This theological principle becomes a matter of practical necessity in this verse that depicts Egypt’s own desperate straits. The snake imagery in v. 22 raises almost as many questions as it answers. Commentators like Snaith believe the snake actually represents the hostility of Egypt’s Babylonian enemy. 193 McKane pointedly discounts this position,194 and most commentators see the snake as a reference to Egypt itself. Carroll’s understanding of the snake imagery seems more nuanced: “The snake image again reflects the Egyptian use of serpents as symbols of the gods and insignia of royalty.”195 An added dimension to the imagery, not reflected in the commentaries, derives from the overall popularity of snake imagery in Iron Age IIB Judah. Snake imagery is one of the dominant motifs on the 120 documented pieces known to us from Iron Age IIB in Judah.196 Archaeologists have found such snake imagery alongside falcons, lions, and cartouches on southern Palestinian bone seals. This imagery “suggests a strong fascination with Egyptian symbols of royalty and loyalty.”197 Egyptian imagery had been present in Judah for a long time, and Egyptian snake imagery dates specifically198 to the time of Jeremiah as the material on Josiah in the following quote implies: “the royal stamp with the scarab could be dated to the time of Hezekiah (725–697) and those with the winged sun disk [a snake with wings] belonged to the time of Josiah (640–609). More recent discoveries, especially at Lachish, have shown that both types were in use at the same time and that they both date

192

Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 215: “Josephus (Ant. x 181–82) reports that Judahites living in Egypt were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon sometime after 582 B.C. Egyptians were probably exiled to Babylon at the same time. From the Bt Murašû archive we know that in the sixth century B.C. Egyptians, together with Jews and other ethnic minorities, were living in Nippur and other Babylonian cities. . . .” 193 Snaith, “Literary Criticism in Jeremiah XLVI,” 22. 194 McKane, Jeremiah, 1133. 195 Carroll, Jeremiah, 770. 196 O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. T. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 265. 197 Ibid., 270. 198 Ibid., 272: “Toward the end of Iron Age IIB, the winged uraeus that had appeared in the Northern Kingdom of Israel shows up now in Judah as well.”

156

Chapter 5

to the time of Hezekiah. . . .”199 The snake representing Egypt here would fit the audience’s experience of a retreating snake that many readers would have known from rural life.200 Only secondarily does it imply the idea of pharaoh with a uraeus on his crown.201 How many contemporaries of Jeremiah would have been exposed to images of pharaoh with a uraeus or cobra on his crown? Although the uraeus is present on seals found in Israel, the image of the uraeus on a crown is not present on the Judean seals. The snake may thus be a more multivalent symbol than many commentators recognize. I believe that the primary meaning of the snake is in accord with the connotations of other images from nature (gadfly, heifer, calf, tree, and locust) rather than primarily signifying political overtones. The poem ends with the image of Egypt as a deforested land. This image has evoked different responses from commentators. The two extremes are an understanding of such deforestation as representing either a nation uprooted or a brutal metaphor for rape. I agree with the majority of commentators who opt for the former reference. Keown notes that the same metaphor is operative in Isa 10:33–34 and Jer 22:7,202 which depict a forest being cut down by attackers. The poem in Jeremiah 46 seems to use the same metaphor. Holladay correctly suggests: “One must conclude that ‘her forest’ in the present passage represents the pride of Egypt, perhaps her public buildings in which wood is used, and perhaps the multitude of her army as well.”203 Commentators go too far when they try to read rape into this metaphor. Carroll, for example, connects the invading army that deforests the land with the “all too real practice of occupying armies raping the women of conquered territories.”204 Carroll tries to connect v. 23 and v. 24 in this manner, but v. 24 lacks language suggestive of rape. The root for “shame” in v. 24, , is frequently used without reference to sexual activity; see, for example, Jer 20:11 and 1 Sam 20:30. Nonsexual mockery of 'F

 is found in vv. 11, 19, and 24, toward the end of three different stanzas and serves as an epithet that holds the two poems of Jeremiah 46 together.

199

Ibid., 274. Thompson, Jeremiah, 693. 201 I. Shaw and P. Nicholson, eds., “Cobra,” in British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1995) 67: “As ruler of the two lands, the [Egyptian] king included the cobra (iaret) and the vulture among his title and insignia . . . .” 202 Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 294. 203 Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 332. 204 Carroll, Jeremiah, 771. 200

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

157

7. Jer 46:25–26 Most commentators believe these last two verses are both explanatory and expansionistic. Although the Vulgate lacks the Egyptian god “Amun” in 46:25, both MT Jer 46:25 and the parallel LXX Jer 26:25 do mention him. The Hexaplaric recensions of the LXX and the Vulgate have v. 26, but it is absent from all the earlier witnesses of the LXX. Nonetheless, the idea of restoration for Egypt is present in this sub-unit: “Afterwards, it will be settled as in former times (46:26b). This resonates with the OAN genre and is found in other parts of the OT (Isa 19:22; Ezek 29:14). Both these verses help complete our understanding of Egypt and of the important principle of restoration at work in v. 26. The mention of “Thebes” in v. 25 rounds off the picture of Egypt within Jeremiah 46. The rest of the chapter limits itself to Lower Egypt, but this later part of Jeremiah 46 widens the perspective to encompass all Egypt. At this stage, the editors of Jeremiah 46 must have been more familiar with Egypt and realized that a description of Egypt without Thebes would seem incomplete. At that later date, editors may also have had access to other parts of the OT, such as Nah 3:8 and Ezek 30:14–16, which mention Thebes. Regardless of the reason, any adequate depiction of Egypt would have to mention Thebes because “the temple of Karnak, and Thebes in general, continued to be preeminent in this period.”205 This prose material itself is further evidence that the poem may have been written at a relatively early date. An early date for this poem would explain why it does not mention Thebes. This prose addition may serve to fill in the gaps of the chapter’s poetry. The other important Egypt reference in v. 25 is to Amun. This reference to Amun shows a greater knowledge of Egypt and its deities than one finds elsewhere in the poem. Erik Hornung notes: “From 2000 to 1360 B.C. he is preeminent among deities, and combines in a single figure all the characteristics of the creator and sustainer of the world.”206 Amun was a much greater figure than Apis in much the same way that Thebes was a much greater city than Memphis. Only one other possible mention of Amun occurs in the MT, namely in Nah 3:8. Whereas no major English translations recognize a reference to Amun in this verse, the NAB renders  ( (L , “No-Amon,” in contrast to most other translations that simply refer to Thebes. The references to Amun and Thebes in v. 25 may provide evidence of Judean refugees living in Egypt. This could be evidence from the settlement in Elephantine. The earlier poem was as a result with additional references to Egyptian phenomena. 205 206

Holladay, Jeremiah 2. 333. Hornung, Conceptions of God, 274.

158

Chapter 5

Other possible further evidence of refugees living in Egypt can be found in v. 26’s more positive view of Egypt. Carroll has noted how this verse “reflects a more positive view of Egypt than is to be found elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah. . . .”207 This positive character may be attributed to two factors: refugees living in Egypt and the nature of the genre. Carroll notes that Judean communities had started to live in Egypt during the sixth century.208 The presence of Judeans living in Egypt also appears to be presupposed by the new level of detail found in v. 25 about Thebes and Amun. While v. 25 continues to insist on the Book of Jeremiah’s characteristic theme of the importance of placing trust in God rather than pharaoh, the OAN genre overall holds out hope for the nations. The same tendency is evident in the OAN of the Book of Jeremiah, which speaks of a change in the lot of Moab (48:47), Ammon (49:6), and Elam (49:39).209 The restoration language of the OAN for Egypt is even stronger in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Keown views the nature of the restoration a little differently: “The promise of restoration for Egypt must still be seen in a broader context: the similar passages in Isa 19:18–25 and Ezek 29:13–16. In the latter passage Egypt was to be restored and exiles returned, but the new Egypt was to be so small and weak that never again could she be a reliance for the people of Israel.”210 The text does refer to Egypt’s restoration in Jer 46:26b: “Afterward, it will be settled as in former times, says the Lord.” However, I see a distinction in how the two prophets deal with Egypt,211 with Isaiah212 being more positive than Ezekiel. The central point is that OANs often 207

Carroll, Jeremiah, 772. Ibid. 209 Keown, Jeremiah 36–52, 294. 210 Ibid. 211 Ezekiel refers to a restoration of Egypt in Ezek 29:14: Egypt will simply be at God’s disposition and unable to dominate the nations (Ezek 29:13–16). Isaiah also promises a healed Egypt (19:22), which will turn to the Lord and be at God’s disposition (Isa 19:18–25). 212 H. Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: A Commentary (trans. T. Trapp; 3 vols.; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 2. 265. Wildberger indicates that the thought [of the restoration of Egypt] is closer to Isa 40–66 than First Isaiah or Hellenistic Judaism: “Some commentators forgo any attempt at dating or they satisfy themselves with vague statements calling these verses ‘post-Isainic’ or ‘postexilic.’ Some assume that these units of material might have come from students of Isaiah or from a circle of those who were familiar with Isaiah’s message, or at least that it might be possible to date them to the late preexilic era. But the most common solution has been to point, with greater or lesser confidence, to the postexilic epoch as most likely for the time of composition for 19:16–25, with most scholars thinking that they ought not be dated to the early postexilic era either.” R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 170: states: “We should regard a post-exilic origin as assured, and it is unlikely that there is much in the present book of Isaiah that originates from as late as the Hellenistic age.” 208

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

159

conclude with mention of a restoration and a hope for even Israel’s most inveterate enemies.

V. The Utilization of the Book of Jeremiah for Reconstructing Egypt’s History Historians have turned to the Book of Jeremiah for understanding the Jewish presence in Egypt. Whereas 1 Kings 11–12 offers little information about Egypt that can be independently verified, the Book of Jeremiah describes a period that historians understand better. It is also a period when both Judah and Egypt suffered mass deportations.213 We also have extrabiblical attestation of Egypt as a place of refuge about a century before the fall of Jerusalem. As I discussed in chap. 2, Schipper cites the case of the Prince of Ashdod, Jamani, who fled Assyrian forces and went to Egypt in 712/711.214 In a way analogous to what happens with Uriah in Jeremiah 26, the pharaoh ultimately delivers him to the Assyrian forces. Schipper then goes on to describe the cases of Uriah and the group of pro-Egyptian army leaders (Jeremiah 41–44) as other examples of flight to Egypt.215 He handles this material very well and appropriately limits his usage of the Book of Jeremiah to these chapters. However, historians misuse the Book of Jeremiah when they start to use other parts of it in similar fashion. Two of the standard histories, Ahlström’s History of Ancient Palestine and Miller’s and Hayes’ History of Ancient Israel and Judah, use material from Jeremiah in this questionable fashion. We just noted that Schipper limits himself to Jeremiah 26 and 41–44. Both of these sections consist of material written in prose. The Baruch Scroll (36–45) stands out as that part of the Book of Jeremiah that proceeds in a mostly linear manner. The historian needs to be careful in using Jeremiah 46 for purposes of historical reconstruction. Ahlström confidently asserts: “Jer. 46.1–12 mentions other mercenaries and also what an impact the battle of Carchemish had on people in Judah. The text is an oracle against Egypt after its defeat at Carchemish.”216 The difficulty here is that only part of Jer 46:1–12 is an oracle, which does not itself mention Carchemish. Ahlström goes on to 213

Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, 294. Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 278; Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 165: “Der Fall des Fürsten der Philisterstadt Aschdod, Jamani, hat im AT nur einen indirekten Niederschlag gefunden. Er flieht nach Ägypten, nachdem sein anti-assyrischer Aufstand, dem sich auch Juda angeschlossen hatte, aufgrund einer militärischen Intervention Sargon II. zusammengebrochen war (711 v. Chr).” 215 Maier, Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick, 281. 216 Ahlström, History of Ancient Palestine, 761. 214

160

Chapter 5

detect evidence of a civil war between Hophra and Ahmose II in Jer 44:30.217 Since the OT shows no familiarity with the figure of Ahmose II, Ahlström seems to be reading him into this verse. The OAN genre causes difficulties for historians who try to use it in order to elucidate a historical epoch. Many of the OAN in the Book of Jeremiah are dependent on earlier prophetic literature, although few doubt the authenticity of Jer 46:3–12.218 Miller and Hayes observe: “The only direct, firsthand information [about Egypt], except for the material in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 43–44; 46), comes from the legal documents and letters of the Elephantine archives.”219 Here again, reliable and more historically problematic data are being mixed. Most scholars believe that Jeremiah 46 was written before Jeremiah went to Egypt. Certain of its prose elements may reflect firsthand knowledge of Egypt, but the bulk of the chapter pertains to the OAN genre. A separate issue concerns how to understand the person of Jeremiah in respect to other figures associated with Egypt. As I have noted earlier, “virtually all commentators have noted, Jeremiah is equated with Moses (Jer 1,9; see also 15,1), the founder of a powerful Levite line, and is presented as the final link in a long chain of Mosaic prophets.”220 Although some have recently challenged the similarities,221 the Deuteronomic influence on Jeremiah seems hard to deny.222 Commentators have shown that

217 Ibid., 801. Jeremiah 44:30 states: “Thus says the LORD: See! I will hand over Pharaoh Hophra, king of Egypt, to his enemies, to those who seek his life, just as I handed over Zedekiah, king of Judah, to his enemy and mortal foe, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.” 218 Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 20–21. 219 Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 496. 220 M. Leuchter, ““The Prophets” and “The Levites” in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony,” ZAW 121 (2009) 37. 221 M. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response (Hebrew Bible Monographs 6: Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006) 16–17: “Jeremiah behaves quite differently from those prophets and their forbear, Moses. Well-noted parallels between the Mosaic and Jeremianic call narratives (such as the word phenomenology of Deut. 18.18//Jer. 1.9), the standards of prophetic legitimacy (Deut. 18.20), the parenetic form of address, and so on, can no longer be cited on their own as evidence of a redactor’s shaping of the Jeremiah tradition according to Deuteronomic concepts.” 222 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1985) 374: “Not only does the deuteronomist emphasize that all true prophets are ‘like’ Moses (see Deut. 18:15), but the revisors of prophetic traditions were concerned to make the same point. Seen thus, the commission scene of Jeremiah is not just a deuteronomic stylization of an old tradition, but a deliberate attempt to legitimate the mission of this prophet who receives God’s words into his mouth as required by the old prototype (E , Jer. 1:9; cf. Deut. 18:18).”

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

161

Moses and Jeroboam share a number of characteristics,223 which may be foreshadowed by Hadad, who preceded Jeroboam in the narrative.224 The figure of Moses allows some perspective on the important parallels between Jeremiah and Jeroboam. Although the OT frequently demonizes Jeroboam, Sweeney’s view is helpful: “Overall, Jeroboam is not a culpable figure in the MT narrative; his actions are prompted by YHWH as a means to punish Solomon for his actions.”225 When we focus on this first impression of Jeroboam from 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24 and consider the connection the two figures have with Egypt, I believe we see two figures who reject the Jerusalem establishment. Mark Leuchter maintains: “At the heart of the developing Jeremianic corpus is the basic notion that the unique nature of the Jerusalemite culture, in terms of its royalistic and cultic foci, is defunct.”226 Jeroboam rejects it through his loyalty to the North; Jeremiah rejects it through his loyalty to Yahweh, which leads to a rejection of the Jerusalem elite’s flight to Egypt. Both figures are centered outside the Jerusalem elite and evoke a Moses who never knew Jerusalem. One of Jeremiah’s crucial symbolic gestures is to buy a field in Anathoth (Jer 32:9) during the siege of Jerusalem, thus underscoring his place of birth. While Jeremiah’s flight to Egypt is forced, it is the notion of flight that is more important than the motivations. We will later see that Jesus’s flight to Egypt is meant to correspond with Moses’s situation as well, even though Moses generally flees in the opposite direction. Accordingly, Jeremiah can be further understood through his connection with Jeroboam. They share a collected history of flight, time in Egypt, and rejection of the Jerusalem establishment.

VI. Conclusion In this chapter, I have tried to demonstrate the importance of Egypt as a place of refuge in the Book of Jeremiah. Only Genesis and Exodus mention Egypt more often than does the Book of Jeremiah, with Exodus rarely giving Egypt the positive connotations it has in Genesis. In contrast to the ambiguity surrounding Egypt as a place of refuge in the Book of Kings, Jeremiah constantly contrasts those who trust in God with those who seek refuge in Egypt. Though we find a similar scenario at the end of the Book of Kings and the Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45), Jeremiah presents con223

Collins, “Exodus Tradition,” 147. Sweeney, I & II Kings, 157. 225 Sweeney, “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions,” 175. See my discussion in Chapter Three. 226 Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll, 181. 224

162

Chapter 5

sistently negative portrayals of Egypt as a place of refuge throughout his book, whereas Kings can be quite ambivalent in its portrayal of Egypt as a place of refuge. Many commentators note the differences between the MT and LXX of Jeremiah. Although a number of recent scholars have attempted to rehabilitate the textual priority of the MT, most still agree that the LXX Jeremiah provides access to a more original Vorlage. The differences between the two witnesses do not affect the issues concerning Egypt as refuge. The MT often has glosses as well as formulaic and theological expansions that are not substantive in most cases. The brevity of the LXX, which is a seventh shorter than the MT, seems to be due mostly to its use of shorter forms of epithets and formulas rather than an omission of important materials found in the MT. With a few exceptions, the narrative and the poems have the same basic content in the two text-forms. This has proven to be the case in particular for the references to Egypt in the LXX and MT. All the Exodus references are the same in the two text-forms, with the exception of MT Jer 11:7, which is missing in the LXX and only reiterates a point that both texts make in Jer 11:4. The LXX contains all the references to contemporary Egypt found in the MT, with two exceptions (MT Jer 46:14, 25) in the reference-rich poems about Egypt in MT Jeremiah 46 (LXX Jeremiah 26). Four references of the MT Baruch Scroll are missing in the LXX (MT Jer 43:12; 44:12, 24, 28), but these are not important as they are either making something implicit in the LXX explicit or are expansionistic. Differences between the two text-forms of Jeremiah 46 usually involve a word, phrases, or a doublet; therefore, I have worked from the Hebrew text for my translation, although I do use the LXX in order to identify the MT’s probable pluses. I have distinguished three types of allusions to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah: (1) allusions to the Exodus; (2) allusions to contemporary Egypt, usually as a location; and (3) narrative about Egypt in the Baruch Scroll. My first and third categories characterize Egypt in a negative manner. They either implicitly attack Egypt by recalling the Exodus tradition or explicitly depict Egypt as a country that cannot serve as a place of refuge because God will destroy it. The second category of Egypt references remains more neutral and descriptive, citing Egypt as a place of refuge for Israelite and non-Israelites alike. Overall, the negative impression left by the first and last categories effectively overwhelms the neutrality of the second category. The reading of Jeremiah 46 here demonstrates the complicated nature of its allusions to Egypt. Although it provides some firsthand knowledge of Egypt, the poetry generally displays only a generic knowledge of Egypt. It is the redactional prose that reflects more specific knowledge of Egypt.

The Understanding of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah

163

There is a breadth of knowledge about Egypt in chap. 46 that the book’s earlier chapters do not display. Allusions to Egypt’s cult and new Egyptian toponyms surface in chap. 46, and we find more specificity about Egypt in this chapter, most of which may have been written before Jeremiah went to Egypt. The events recorded in the Baruch Scroll offer a clear narrative about Egypt. These events involve a flight into Egypt that has parallels in sources from other cultures. Both Jeremiah and his editor’s theological presuppositions generate an almost entirely negative view of Egypt as a place of refuge, compared with what was found in these other sources inside and outside the OT. As a whole, the Book of Jeremiah serves to demonstrate the folly of placing trust in Egypt and pharaoh rather than God. The Book of Jeremiah does offer insight into Egyptian phenomena, but its primary aim is to characterize Egypt theologically as a place that cannot offer secure refuge for Israel.

Chapter 6

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period I. Introduction Jeremiah’s reluctant journey to Egypt inaugurated the start of many journeys to Egypt after the fall of Jerusalem. We have significant inscriptional evidence of Jewish settlers at Elephantine,1 but they do not appear to have been refugees. My focus in this chapter is on persons portrayed as refugees in Egypt in the postexilic period. This limited Jewish presence in Egypt increased exponentially in the second century B.C.E. As Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids continued their campaigns against each other, the resulting tension led to great turmoil within Jerusalem. While refugees headed in many directions, Egypt, and especially Alexandria, became a center for Jewish refugees. 1 and 2 Maccabees both deal with Egypt as a place of refuge, and 2 Maccabees was probably written for a Jewish audience in Egypt. Josephus’ writings also describe Jewish refugees in Egypt. Egypt’s history as a place of refuge likewise plays an important role in stories about the early life of Jesus. Matthew 2:13–15 presents the Holy Family as taking refuge in Egypt. This complex passage involves two dominant Egyptian motifs, as Jesus finds both a haven in Egypt like Joseph, but eventually repeats the exodus journey of Moses to the Promised Land (Matt 2:19–23). Leontopolis and its temple offer evidence for Jewish refugees in Egypt. We only have evidence from Josephus and very limited archaeological re-

1

Bezalel Porten, “Elephantine and the Bible,” in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity: Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 53: “The Sachau papyri make it clear that the [Elephantine] community was a military garrison with a full-fledged temple and that it maintained contact with officials in both Jerusalem and Samaria (TAD A4.7–9).” Porten further argues in “The Diaspora: The Jews in Egypt,” in CHJ, 379 that Elephantine was a place of refuge. He believes Jewish priests fled Manasseh’s paganization campaigns and settled in Elephantine: “This [Manasseh’s] paganization did not go unopposed (2 Kings 21:10ff.), and it is possible that alienated priests fled to Elephantine and there established a new temple.” There is no particular evidence for this reconstruction.

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

165

mains concerning this temple,2 but scholars generally accept Josephus’ story, preferring the version in Antiquities to that in the Jewish War.3 Jewish refugees may be responsible for the story of Joseph and Aseneth;4 however, I will not treat this story here as it does not directly concern Jewish refugees in Egypt. 3 Maccabees5 is another romanticized story involving Jews in Egypt full of fantastic elements. Although it deals with the threat of Jews in Egypt being massacred, the details shed little light on Egypt as a place of refuge.6 Many references to Jewish life in Egypt are found in the documents from Elephantine and Joseph and Aseneth, but my focus here is on only two groups of Jewish refugees, i.e. the Oniads and the Holy Family.

II. The Oniads as Refugees in Egypt 1 and 2 Maccabees offer many allusions to Egypt as a place of refuge for Jews. Both of these books offer us information on the subject that can also be found in later sources, though not in earlier ones. The books overlap at times, but they also complement each other and serve as a corrective to other important sources like Josephus. Josephus adds numerous details to the information found in 1 and 2 Maccabees, but his writings are not always as reliable as 1 and 2 Maccabees. Given my concern of Egypt as a 2 Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, “Yehudiyeh (Tell el-); Leontopolis,” in Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (rev. and updated ed.; New York: Continuum, 2001) 548: “The temple of Onias was built to the northeast of the Hyksos camp, within a strong stone wall strengthened by a brick revetment on its inner side. It was approached by a very long stairway on the east, which led up from the outside, through the wall and the court, to the temple, of which little has remained.” 3 Erich Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) 107. He states concerning Josephus’ testimony on the temple at Leontopolis: “But the testimony, tainted or confused as it may be, corresponds to the rest of our evidence.” Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 69, avers: “There is no doubt that a Jewish temple was built in Egypt, at Leontopolis in the Heliopolitan nome, by a priest named Onias. Virtually all the details of the story, however, are unclear.” 4 C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in OTP, 2. 177–247. 5 H. Anderson, “3 Maccabees,” in OTP, 2. 509–29. 6 Ibid., 513: “We possess all too little information about the historical circumstances of the Jews in Egypt during the Ptolemaic period, and 3 Maccabees is to be sure of broad historical value. Nevertheless, the writer is not an historian whose first interest is to record accurately what happened or to preserve the memory of past events simply for their own sake. He is, rather, a man of orthodox Jewish religious sentiment who employs the medium of historical narration, albeit a narration which he has greatly romanticized, in order, on the one hand, to commend them to outsiders as a ‘special people’ and to defend and justify their mode and quality of life, their religious sensitivities, and their continuing religious observances.”

166

Chapter 6

place of refuge, 2 Maccabees is of more relevance than 1 Maccabees for my thesis. A. 1 Maccabees 1 Maccabees mentions Egypt (1:16, 17, 18, 19 (bis), 20; 2:53; 3:32; 10:51, 57; 11:1, 13, 59) more frequently than does 2 Maccabees (1:1, 10; 4:21; 5:1, 8, 11; 9:29), but many of its references do not concern refuge in Egypt.7 Of relevance is, however, 1 Macc 15:16 with its mention of a letter that the Roman consul, Lucius, sent to King Ptolemy. Although 1 Maccabees 15 does not mention Egypt directly, it does concern Jewish refugees in Egypt since the letter was sent to King Ptolemy of Egypt. As Lucius was Roman consul in 142,8 most scholars agree that the Ptolemy in question is Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (146–116). What makes this letter so interesting for my thesis is that it concerns the treatment of Jewish fugitives. The Roman consul states: “If, then, any troublemakers from their country [Judea] take refuge with you, hand them over to Simon the high priest, so that he may punish them according to their law” (1 Macc 15:21). Jonathan Goldstein believes that the letter could be directed against, among others, “the Oniad party in Egypt,”9 while Doran states that the “request that Rome’s allies hand over ‘fugitives’ is similar to the requirement of Antiochus III by the treaty of Apamea to deliver up to Rome’s allies any of their deserters. Augustus later gave the same privilege to Herod.”10 1 Maccabees 15:21 helps to understand some of the treatment of fugitives in Egypt in earlier parts of the OT. Although we are not told of any treaty between Egypt and Israel, some kind of implicit understanding between the two nations was likely operative in the repatriation of Uriah the prophet cited in Jer 26:23. Egypt and Judah may not have had formal treaties, but they likely used the precedents established by the major powers of the day to govern their own relations.

7

1 Maccabees 1 concerns Antiochus IV’s attempt to conquer Egypt. 2:53 is an allusion to the patriarch Joseph’s time in Egypt. The allusions in 1 Maccabees 10–11 all deal with Ptolemy VI, except for 11:59, which deals with Antiochus IV again. 8 Robert Doran, “The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in NIB, 4. 169: “The only consul named Lucius between 142 and 137 BCE was Lucius Caecilius Metellus Calvus, consul of 142 BCE.” I would also like to acknowledge and thank Prof. Doran for his personal assistance in coming to an understanding of this material. 9 Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 497. 10 Doran, “First Maccabees,” 4. 170.

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

167

B. 2 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 1 immediately alerts us to the clear Egyptian context of this book, although unanimity does not exist on its provenance.11 The book’s first verse commences with a greeting by the Jews in Jerusalem to the Jewish refugees in Egypt (2 Macc 1:1). The first of the two letters in 2 Maccabees 1 (1:1–1:10a) encourages the Jewish community to celebrate the newly instituted festival of Hanukkah (2 Macc 1:9). Hanukkah, the commemoration of the rededication of the Second Temple, is understood according to the model of “2 Chr 7:8–9, the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, celebrated in conjunction with Booths. . . .”12 Hence, the first letter urges the Egyptian Jews to “celebrate the feast of Booths in the month of Chislev” (2 Macc 1:9). Goldstein sees this first letter as a strong attack on the temple at Leontopolis: “In vss. 2–6 the senders comfort the Jews of Egypt in their time of trouble and tactfully call upon them to repent of their sin (of having a schismatic temple at Leontopolis).”13 Goldstein’s opinion on the matter is so emphatic that the above verses need to be cited for closer examination: 2

May God bless you and remember his covenant with his faithful servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 3 May he give to all of you a heart to worship him and to do his will readily and generously. 4 May he open your heart to his law and his commandments and grant you peace. 5 May he hear your prayers, and be reconciled to you, and never forsake you in time of adversity. 6 Even now we are praying for you here. ( NAB)

While the fact might seem obvious, Leontopolis is never mentioned in these verses – or anywhere else in the OT. Goldstein seems to read too much into these verses.14 Goldstein also claims that “the Jews of Jerusalem 11 Jan W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 50: “It is obvious that 2 Maccabees is of Judean origin. This becomes apparent through the examination of various texts, most notably from the content of the history of liberation and the headings of the festal letter (1:1, 10).” I would think that the book’s use of Jason of Cyrene’s material as well as the fact that many other pseudepigrapha and biblical books such as Wisdom and the translation of Ben Sira were produced in Egypt would argue against this claim. (See Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 73: “2 Maccabees is an abridgement from the late second century of the five-volume history of Jason of Cyrene, which was probably composed not long after the Maccabean revolt.”) 12 Robert Doran, “The Second Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in NIB, 4. 190. 13 Jonathan Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 138. 14 See Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS 12; Washington, D.C.: CBA, 1981) 11: “I see no evidence of polemic against the temple at Leontopolis. The attempts of Bunge [J. Bunge, “Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch. Quellenkritische, literarische, chronologische und historische

168

Chapter 6

could accuse their brothers in Egypt of sin for continuing to tolerate and use, contrary to Deut 12:4–14, the Jewish temple of Onias IV at Leontopolis.”15 Leontopolis, however, was located in a remote section of Egypt that was not of significance to anyone outside the small community at the site.16 The Jews of Egypt also continued to make their offerings17 for the support of the Jerusalem Temple.18 Leontopolis never seems to have displaced the Jerusalem Temple as a cultic focal point for the vast majority of Egyptian Jews. On the other hand, Goldstein correctly stresses the political difficulties facing Egyptian Jews alluded to in 2 Macc 1:5.19 2 Maccabees’ second letter (1:10b–2:18) starts in a similar fashion with greetings from Jerusalem and Judea to the Jews in Egypt (2 Macc 1:10). This second letter also encourages the Egyptian Jews to celebrate Hannukah (2 Macc 1:18) and goes into more detail about the nature of the holy day. Goldstein finds further evidence of rancorous debate between the Leontopolis and Jerusalem Temple in this letter. Specifically, he posits that that Oniads must have done more to promote the Leontopolis Temple than Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrisch-palästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr.” (PhD diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, 1971)] and others to find a purpose for the writing of 2 Maccabees in such a polemic presupposes a debate that does not exist.” 15 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 24. 16 Erich Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997) 58: “the notion that Onias built his temple as retaliation against the foes who had brought about his exile seems peculiarly senseless. . . . one wonders how much value a Jewish temple in the remote district of Heliopolis, far from the Ptolemaic capital of Alexandria, would have for rulers whose power was in jeopardy. Josephus’ hypothesis about motivation has no greater credibility than his reconstruction of events or his confused chronology.” 17 Philo, Spec. 1.76–78: “The revenues of the temple are derived not only from landed estates but also from other and far greater sources which time will never destroy. For as long as the human race endures, and it will endure for ever, the revenues of the temple also will remain secure co-eternal with the whole universe. For it is ordained that everyone, beginning at his twentieth year, should make an annual contribution of first-fruits. . . . In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holy money where people regularly come and give their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carry the sacred tribute envoys selected on their merits, from every city those of the highest repute, under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travel safely.” 18 Elias Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) 239: “Gentile governments as a rule, however, disapproved of religious innovations as likely to lead to political disturbances. Thus the traditional authority of Zion was upheld by the Macedonian sovereigns and orthodoxy dominated the Jewish communities of the dispersion - a state of affairs that in turn helped to preserve a more or less uniform standard of religious behavior among the faithful.” 19 Ibid.: “The Jews of Egypt in 124 faced trouble, as Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II gained the upper hand in his dynastic war with his sister Cleopatra II, who had received Jewish support.”

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

169

Josephus indicates in Antiquities 13 3.1 § 64, 68; 13.3.2 § 71.20 Goldstein’s claims here involved conjectures that can neither be validated nor falsified. Onias will come up later in 2 Maccabees, but reading him into the book’s opening letters seems to be pressing the evidence. 2 Maccabees 5 mentions Egypt three times. Two of its citations (5:1 and 5:11) concern reports of Antiochus IV’s second invasion of Egypt “in the spring/summer of 168 . . . .”21 More importantly for my thesis, Egypt again emerges as a place of refuge here, albeit for a short time. Jason, the usurper who displaced the revered high priest Onias III, was hoisted on his own petard. Having himself suffered the same fate, he had to flee in order to survive. We hear of him traveling from country22 to country before he finally arrives in Egypt.23 Verse 8 tells us: “At length he met a miserable end. Called to account before Aretas, king of the Arabs, he fled from city to city, hunted by all men, hated as a transgressor of the laws, abhorred as the butcher of his country and his countrymen. After being driven into Egypt. . . .” Jason’s stay in Egypt is short, with 2 Macc 5:9 depicting him going on to Sparta in order to find a safer haven and eventually dying there. The status of this refugee high priest appears quite similar to that of other refugees at earlier times. He did not stay in Egypt long enough to suffer the same fate as had Uriah the prophet, according to Jer 26:23. 2 Maccabees 9:29 is the final reference to Egypt within the book. Although it does not directly concern the Oniads, it demonstrates the role Egypt played for troubled leaders such as Philip: “His (Antiochus IV) foster brother Philip brought the body [of Antiochus IV] home; but fearing Antiochus’ son [Antiochus V], he later withdrew into Egypt, to Ptolemy Philometor.” Egypt plays its now customary role as a place of refuge in the 20 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 160: “The author of Epistle 2 is neither modest nor cautious in countering the claims of the Oniads. He boldly asserts (2:17) that by the time of the purification of the temple in 164 God has already restored to Israel the ‘heritage’ of the Promised Land (cf. 2:4), so as to make the centralization of sacrificial worship at one sole sanctuary again obligatory (Deut 12:9–14).” Contrary to what Goldstein implies here, sacrificial worship would never have been seen as biblically sanctioned at other sanctuaries in this time period. We have no record of Jewish sacrificial worship being carried out outside the Jerusalem Temple in the Second Temple Period that I am aware of. 2 Maccabees 2:17 seems to be a simple statement of faith, rather than a broadside aimed at the Oniads: “It is God who has saved all his people and has restored to all of them their heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the sacred rites.” ( NAB) 21 Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 250. 22 Doran, “Second Maccabees,” 227: “The author indulges in a series of contrasts to show how God brings just desserts upon sinners.” 23 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 256: “Ptolemaic Egypt was a natural refuge for Jason, a rebel against the Seleucid kingdom. He probably fled to Egypt before Antiochus invaded it in 168.”

170

Chapter 6

OT here. In this case, the rather obscure Philip the Phrygian24 seeks refuge in Egypt out of fear of Antiochus V after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. 2 Maccabees may be the most neutral book on Egypt in the OT. Its interpreters appear to work from two extremes. On the one hand, we have seen how Goldstein frequently reads a harsh polemic against the temple in Leontopolis into 2 Maccabees. Yet, Leontopolis is never mentioned in it. On the other hand, Eric Gruen asserts: “The favorable portrait [of the Oniads, in general] conveyed in II Maccabees did not monopolize subsequent opinion. A less flattering depiction of the temple founder surfaced in later years. It found its way into Josephus’ analysis, which assigned somewhat disreputable motives for Onias’ departure from Palestine and his religious shrine in Egypt. . . . ”25 Yet, 2 Maccabees never speaks of a temple founder or a temple at Leontopolis. If we believe Josephus in Jewish War (but not Antiquities!), Onias III was the temple founder at Leontopolis, but the OT never mentions Leontopolis. Josephus is the sole source on the matter. C. Josephus We need to understand the role of the Leontopolis temple within Egyptian Judaism in order to better understand Egypt as a place of refuge. We would not even know about Leontopolis if not for Josephus’ writings.26 His account is not without problems. Josephus conflates Onias III and Onias IV in the Jewish War. 2 Maccabees 4:34 clearly states that Andronicus, one of Antiochus IV’s nobles, assassinated Onias III at the behest of Menelaus, the recently-appointed High Priest. However, in the Jewish War Josephus states: Onias, son of Simon, and one of the chief priests at Jerusalem, fleeing from Antiochus, king of Syria, then at war with the Jews, came to Alexandria, and being graciously re24 Christopher Matthews, “Philip,” in EDB, 1047: “Philip the Phrygian, governor of Jerusalem under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, on whose death he was appointed regent over Antiochus V . . . .” 25 Gruen, “Onias’Temple,” 67. 26 Fausto Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; SPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 83–84: “Besides the occasional references in Josephus, a papyrus and an inscription also refer to family history of the Oniads in Egypt. . . . In 1865 W. Brunet de Presle published in Paris a papyrus discovered some years earlier by J. A. Letronne in the Sarapieion near Memphis, which Latronne had already studied.” The papyrus alluded to by Parente requires a radical reconstruction to yield the reading: [).] []. Letronne could not see the omicron, but an interpreter (U. Wilcken) in 1913 could. Parente describes the reading as “pure conjecture.”

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

171

ceived by Ptolemy, owing to that monarch’s hatred of Antiochus, told him that he would make the Jewish nation his ally if he would accede to his proposal. The king having promised to do what was in his power, he asked permission to build a temple somewhere in Egypt and to worship God after the manner of his fathers; for he added, the Jews would thus be still more embittered against Antiochus, who had sacked their temple at Jerusalem, and more amicably disposed towards himself, and many would flock to him for the sake of religious toleration.27

I agree with Gruen that 2 Maccabees is a more reliable source, as it stands closer to the events described and seems less less biased towards the priesthood than Josephus, as a priest himself, would have been. 28 Josephus imputes the negative motive of wanting to destabilize internal Palestinian politics to Onias III in the Jewish War, but reverses this portrayal in Antiquities, where Onias III “expresses the aim of a central and uniform worship, to supersede the diverse, questionable, and mutually antagonistic Jewish communities – and also to form a solid core of backing for the Ptolemiac regime.”29 Although Millar posits that Onias IV moved to Egypt because he had no prospects of becoming high priest in Palestine,30 this line of thinking may reflect Josephus’ bias against the Oniads and Egypt rather than the view of 2 Maccabees, which was written much closer to Onias’ own time. In both the Jewish War and Antiquities, Josephus initially introduces Onias III in positive terms, but when he reintroduces him in later books, a more negative picture emerges. Antiquities is commonly seen as a “cleaning up” of the Jewish War.31 Josephus deals with Onias III in both Books One and Seven of the Jewish War and Books Twelve and Thirteen of Antiquities. The Jewish War offers two different portraits of Onias. At the beginning of the Jewish War, 32 we read:

27

Josephus J.W. 7.10.2 § 423–25. Gruen, “Onias’ Temple,” 66: “II Maccabees was composed in the latter part of the 2nd century, at a time when the Hasmoneans controlled the High Priesthood in the homeland and heirs of the Oniads held sway in Leontopolis. The message delivered by II Maccabees articulates a harmony of purpose. The two branches had a common commitment to Jewish unity.” 29 Ibid., 57. 30 Fergus Millar, “Judaism in the Diaspora: Gentiles and Judaism,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–135 A.D.) (3 vols.; rev. ed.; ed. Emil Schürer, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) 3.1.145. 31 Shaye Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 51: “The natural conclusion is that Josephus based AJ 13–14 primarily on BJ, but also on his original source(s) and, perhaps, on new sources too. Who or what these sources were is not our concern.” 32 Josephus J.W. 1.1.1 § 32–33. 28

172

Chapter 6

[Antiochus Epiphanes IV] gave his soldiers unrestricted license to pillage, and himself plundered the temple and interrupted, for a period of three years and six months, the regular course of daily sacrifices. (33) The high priest Onias, made his escape ($ ) to Ptolemy [my italics] and, obtaining from him a site in the nome of Heliopolis, built a small town on the model of Jerusalem and a temple resembling ours.

On the surface, this passage appears to offer a fairly positive portrayal of Onias. He acts in response to the outrageous behavior of Antiochus and his Tobiad surrogates. More importantly for my thesis, we see Jews taking refuge in Egypt and being received in a positive manner there. I previously cited J.W. 7.10.2 § 423–25 where Josephus calls Onias’ motives into question. This passage leads Parente to posit: “One can therefore conjecture that at least two traditions exist, one positive, the other negative, in which Onias III is considered the founder of Leontopolis.”33 Another important aspect of this passage is that Josephus simply refers to Onias, not Onias III or Onias IV. It is apparent that 2 Maccabees is the better source and Josephus incorrectly conflates Onias III and Onias IV in the above passage from the Jewish War.34 In Antiquities, he correctly distinguished Onias, who is murdered, and his son, who found the temple in Leontopolis (A.J. 13.3.1 § 62–63). The tradition in Book Seven in Jewish War contradicts not only that in Book One, but also the portrait of Onias in 2 Maccabees. Book One in Jewish War and 2 Maccabees align better with Antiquities than Book Seven of the Jewish War. In Book Twelve of Antiquities we read: (387) Then Onias, the son of the high priest, who, as we said before, had been left a mere child when his father died, seeing that the king had slain his uncle Menelaus and had given the high priesthood to Alcimus, although he was not of the family of high priests, because he had been persuaded by Lysias to transfer the office from this house to another, fled ($) to Ptolemy, the king of Egypt. (388) And being treated with honour by him

33 Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 76. Parente is negative about the historicity of 2 Maccabees and believes Onias III and Onias IV are correctly conflated by Josephus in the Jewish War. 34 Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1966) 276: “The principal contradiction is that, according to the account in his War (I, 33; VII, 423), the Temple was founded by Onias III, the High Priest of Jerusalem, who allegedly fled to Egypt during the persecution by Antiochus, whereas according to the account in Antiquities (XIII, 62ff.; XII, 387), this was the work, not of Onias III, but of his son Onias IV.” See also Gideon Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Early Judaism and Its Literature 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 20: “When Onias III was treacherously murdered in Antioch, ca. 171 BCE, he left behind a son, Onias IV, who must have been quite young at the time. This Onias eventually made his way to Egypt, with a large group of followers, and permanently settled there.”

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

173

and his wife Cleopatra, he received a place in the nome of Heliopolis, where he built a temple similar to that in Jerusalem.35

This narrative about Onias accords with the picture in 2 Maccabees. Josephus offers a divergent picture later, as he does in the Jewish War, but I want to again note the clear reference to flight to Egypt and the favorable reception of the Jews upon their arrival in Egypt in the above passage. The divergences in Josephus’ portrayal of Onias raise the question of whether one should trust Josephus or 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees presents a positive picture of the Oniads. The only reason to doubt 2 Maccabees comes from certain passages in Josephus, but Josephus does not offer an accurate portrait of the Oniads as he conflates Onias III and Onias IV. D. Conclusion 2 Maccabees serves as the most reliable source for understanding the Oniads as refugees in Egypt. The treaty of 1 Macc 15:16 attests to the reality of Jewish refugees in Egypt, but offers no concrete details about the Oniads. 2 Maccabees 4:34 fills this gap, as it testifies to the murder of Onias III by Andronicus in Syria. Egypt is obviously a place of refuge in 2 Maccabees, as the book has two letters that the Jerusalem Jews sent to the Egyptian Jews. 2 Maccabees 5:9 and 9:29 also concern non-Oniad, deposed Jewish leaders who turn to Egypt as a place of refuge. We would never know of the significance of the Leontopolis temple without Josephus, but he clouds the picture with his conflation of Onias III and Onias IV as well as his tendentious depiction of the Oniads.

III. The Messiah’s Flight to Egypt (Matt 2:13–15, 19–21) I include the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt in this chapter as it recalls many of the characteristics of the flight narratives in the OT that we have studied. This story displays the ongoing importance of the idea of Egypt as a place of refuge. We also see the importance of the OT, especially for Matthew, for understanding both Jesus and Jesus’ world.36 The connections between this passage and the OT have been noted by many scholars: “Just as Israel migrated to Egypt to escape famine, so the Messiah and his family flee to Egypt to escape Herod (2:13–15). Just as God called his son, 35

Josephus A.J. 12.9.7 § 387–88. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 1. 282: “The importance of the OT for Matthew could hardly be made more evident. One gets the impression that, in his mind, every significant detail of the Messiah’s life and ministry could be found – foretold or foreshadowed – in the OT.” 36

174

Chapter 6

Israel, out of Egypt, so God calls his son, the Messiah, out of Egypt (2:15).”37 I will present a translation of the Greek text of the passage and a verse-by-verse commentary of the passage. A. The Translation 2:13

2:14 2:15 2:19 2:20 2:21

And when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said: “Arise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt and remain there until I tell you. Herod is about to seek the child to destroy him.” And when he arose, he took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. And he was there until the death of Herod so that the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt, I have called my son.” And when Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in Egypt. And he said: “Arise, take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they have died, the ones seeking the life of the child.” And he arose and took the child and his mother, and went into the land of Israel.

B. Delimitation and Structure I have divided the above verses, strictly on the basis of their references to Egypt, into two sections: 2:13–15 and 2:19–21. I exclude Mt 2:16–18, which focuses on Herod’s massacre of the infants as the fulfillment of an oracle from Jeremiah. I stop at v. 21 because the family leaves Egypt there. Julio Trebolle Barrera also sees a structure and integrity within these verses of Matthew that deal with Egypt:38 “The first and third sections have parallel wording (v. 13a, b//vv. 19, 20a; v. 14//v. 21). In the two sections the angel’s command and the description of its execution by Joseph are almost identical.”39 The LXX of Exod 2:11–22 and 4:19–20 also has influenced these two sections,40 although scholars argue as to exactly how Matthew draws on these texts.41

37

Frank Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007) 37. 38 J. Trebolle Barrera, “El Relato de la Huida y Regreso de Egipto (Mt 2, 13–15a. 19– 21): Estructura y Composición,” EstBíb 50 (1992) 251: “El relato de la huida y regreso de Egipto (Mt 2,13–15a. 19–21) presenta una estructura bimembre. El texto de los vv. 13–15a ofrece una correspondencia perfecta con el de los vv. 19–21.” 39 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary (trans. James Crouch; rev. ed.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 117. 40 Trebolle Barrera, “La Huida y Regreso de Egipto,” 256. 41 George Soares-Prabhu, “Jesus in Egypt: A Reflection on Mt 2:13–15. 19–21 in the Light of the Old Testament,” EstBíb 50 (1992) 227: “Their distinctive text-type (which agrees with neither the Masoretic Text nor the LXX nor any other known version) is best explained as Matthew’s own ad hoc composition, made in order to adapt the quotations

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

175

C. Reading of Text Unit by Unit 1. 2:13–15: The Messiah’s Flight to Egypt The opening verse of the pericope raises two themes that bear on Egypt: the name of Joseph and the topic of dreams.42 The Matthean character Joseph, who has important dreams, recalls his OT namesake. Before Joseph is forced to go to Egypt, he has two dreams (Gen 37:5, 9). Once Joseph is in Egypt, he does not speak of his own dreams, but instead interprets the dreams of others (Gen 40:5; 41:15). Matthew 2:13 depicts Joseph as sharing some obvious traits with the Joseph of Genesis. Another important connection of the Matthean Joseph’s dream is with Joseph’s father, Jacob, who also responds to a dream by going to Egypt (Gen 46:2–7).43 Although the NT Joseph shares a name with the important Genesis character Joseph, Jacob may be an even closer parallel.44 At this point, we need to examine two words in order to understand Matt 2:13 better: $, “to flee,” and ( , “to seek.” The first word relates to the many narratives of flight we have studied in the OT, while the second highlights the reason for Joseph’s flight. Scholars have detected a literary structure here involving a “seeking” that leads to “flight.”45 Apart from the obvious examples of Moses and Jeroboam, many OT passages contain examples of this sequence: Judg 9:21; 11:3; 1 Sam 19:2; 23:14–15; 27:45; 2 Sam 4:1–3; 13:37–38.46 We have also noted this phenomenon of

as closely as possible to their respective contexts.” Soares Prabhu also speaks of “Matthew the targumist.” 42 Ibid., 235: “In their form and purpose the dreams of Genesis and of Mt 1–2 are thus unique in the Bible. . . . The form in which they are narrated link the stories of the flight into and the return of Jesus from Egypt to the Old Testament story of the Exodus. For the dream of Joseph directing him to flee into Egypt, setting in train the series of events which will end with his descendants being led out from Egypt as a ‘great nation’.” 43 Luz, Matthew 1–7, 119. 44 Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New updated ed.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 545: “The midrash [Passover Haggadah] also draws together two separate biblical events pertaining to Jacob/Israel: his difficulties with Laban (Gen 31) and his subsequent migration to Egypt during the famine (Gen 46).” 45 Trebolle Barrera, “La Huida y Regreso de Egipto,” 253: “La estructura literaria del relato de huida-regreso se encuentra al completo sólo en los relatos de Moisés y Jeroboán. El correspondiente a la huida de Urías presenta en la segunda parte [i.e. the return] algunas modificaciones obligadas para la fuerza de los hechos.” 46 Ibid., 254.

176

Chapter 6

“seeking” and “flight” in connection with such extrabiblical figures as Idrimi,47 Sinuhe, and Urhi-Teshub. Another important connection with Egypt emerges from the similarity between Matt 2:13 and Exod 2:15. Craig Keener observes: “The Greek version of the Old Testament first uses Matthew’s word for ‘fled’ in Exodus 2:15, when Moses fled from Pharaoh in Egypt.”48 The importance of the OT background appears again here, with Matthew now highlighting the connection between another great OT figure and Jesus. The similarities between Herod and pharaoh further emphasize the importance of the Moses/Jesus typology. The careful reader notes that “like Pharaoh, Herod slays male Israelite children (Ex 1:16–2:5).”49 Therefore, “just as Moses escaped Pharaoh’s attempt to kill the male children of Israel, so Jesus escaped Herod’s slaughter of the male children of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16–18).”50 Thus, many connections exist between this verse and other biblical allusions to Egypt. Before Jesus can relive Moses’ Exodus from Egypt, he must relive “the departure of Israel from Canaan.”51 Yet, Exodus allusions already appear in connection with Matt 2:14’s account of the family’s departure for Egypt, particularly its portrayal of the pharaohlike Herod. Critics want all such allusions to be consistent and logical, but “inconsistencies like these pose problems only for post-enlightenment minds like ours.”52 Targums such as Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmentary Targum, or Neophyti 1 emerging in Jesus’ time had no problems conflating various stories. The “night”53 detail of this flight, for example, adds another element drawn from Exodus.54 Every verse of this pericope makes connections to the OT. We might pause and ask at this stage whether, in fact, some scholars push such connections too far; thus, for example, Hagner claims: “It does not seem likely, contrary to 47

Ibid., 255. Trebolle Barrera also notes that the Idrimi story works off a similar flight motif. 48 C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 107. 49 Ibid. 50 Matera, New Testament Theology, 37. 51 Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 216. 52 Soares-Prabhu, “Jesus in Egypt,” 238. 53 Ibid., 238: “We have ample evidence, then for a very early and increasingly elaborate midrashic tradition which pondered on the fact that the Exodus took place at night and found significance in this by associating this night with other crucial nights in salvation history.” 54 Ibid., 236–37: “We have here, I suggest, another allusion to the Exodus. For the Exodus from Egypt begins on the night of the Passover, and this night is given great importance in Jewish tradition. The solemnity of this night is commented on in the Hebrew text Ex 12:41–42, emphasized by the LXX, and elaborated with lyric intensity in the Palestinian Targum to the text.”

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

177

Brown (Birth), that Egypt here shows the influence upon Matthew of a ‘flight to Egypt’ tradition (two OT instances are given: 1 Kgs 11:40 and Jer 26:21 [LXX 33:21]; and one instance from Jos. Ant. 12.9.7).”55 Brown, however, does not speak of a “flight to Egypt” tradition, but rather of a “refuge-in-Egypt tradition.” Other scholars as well speak not of a “flight to Egypt” motif, but rather of a “refuge-in-Egypt tradition.”56 Trebolle Barrera’s flight and return (huida-regreso) schema, which we have noted in many OT passages, seems to add the nuance of a return to Brown’s “refuge-in-Egypt tradition.”57 Matthew’s fulfillment passage quotes Hos 11: 1: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and from Egypt I called my son.” Both Matthew and Hosea focus on a youthful figure. Hosea highlights and romanticizes “the idyllic period in the Exodus and wilderness wandering. . . .”58 Matthew obviously highlights Jesus’ youth as well, but also makes a strong theological point, given that Matt 2:15 has God speaking about his Son. Ulrich Luz notes: “This title is extraordinarily important for Matthew; it is the only christological title of the entire chapter.”59 Matthew and Hosea are both likely inspired by Exod 4:22, which states: “So you shall say to pharaoh: ‘Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my first-born.’” Exodus 4:22 shows why Hosea saw Israel’s youth as so important and why Matthew focuses on the christological title “Son” in his use of the latter text. 2. 2:19–21: The Messiah’s Return from Egypt The core of Mt. 2:19 obviously bears a striking resemblance to Matt 2:13. That core element ( '   ) '  $ ) also appears in Matt 1:20.60 We get no new information in this verse, as we already know from 2:15 that the Holy Family are in Egypt, and that Herod has died. Matthew 2:19’s similarities with texts from Exodus emerge in two areas. Both 2:19 and LXX Exod 2:23 use the verb  , “to die,” to describe the death of Herod and pharaoh respectively.61 An even more striking resemblance can be seen between 2:19 and the LXX of Exod 4:19, 55

Donald Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33a; Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 36. Soares-Prabhu, “Jesus in Egypt,” 241: “In the Bible '  is both a place of refuge in distress or danger (1 Kgs 11:40) and a ‘house of bondage’ (Ex 13:3.14; 20:2; Dt 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; Jud 6:8; Jer 34(41):13; Mic 6:4). The word thus carries ambiguous associations.” 57 Trebolle Barrera, “La Huida y Regreso de Egipto,” 254. 58 Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary (AB 24; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980) 47. 59 Luz, Matthew, 120. Luz’s reference is to Matthew 2. 60 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1. 271. 61 Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 39: “Cf. the similar language in the reference of the death of Pharaoh in Exod 2:23.” 56

178

Chapter 6

which unlike the MT of Exod 4:19, mentions the “king of Egypt.” The LXX of Exod 4:1962 also uses the verb  , but this long verse likewise goes on to make connections with the idea of seeking, which Matt 2:20 also makes, both verses using the phrase  (    * , “the ones seeking the life.” Noth pointed out the similarities between Exod 2:23 and Exod 4:19,63 and Trebolle Barrera calls attention to the fact that the LXX mentions the death of the king of Egypt in 4:19, but the MT does not.64 This fact is important, since most would agree that Matthew (generally) used the LXX as his OT. The literary structure of Matthew yields an order that has these verses (2:13–15, 19–21) pointing back to Moses in the Book of Exodus. “The angelic orders to return to Eretz-Israel because those seeking the child’s life were dead (2:19–21) explicitly recall Exodus 4:19–20. . . .”65 We will continue to see such similarities in the next verse. Just as v. 19 bears a striking resemblance to 2:13, so Matt 2:20 is remarkably reminiscent of 2:14. On the one hand, both latter verses contain the injunction: )  &        , “Arise, take the child and his mother.” On the other hand, 2:20 contains no reference to “night,” as found in v. 14. Although an Exodus motif does exist here, as this verse continues to echo Exod 4:20 where Moses is told to take his wife and children, the echo is more similar to the notice on Moses’ return from Midian to Egypt in Exod 4:20 that evidences none of the dramatics of his previous “exodus” from pharaoh. Here in Matt 2:20, Joseph and his family are told to leave Egypt, whereas in Exod 4:20 Moses and his family are being told to return to Egypt. Such a so-called “discrepancy” probably did not bother the ancient audience.66 Matthew 2:20 also interacts with Matt 2:13. The motif of taking child and wife recurs in the former verse. There is no longer need for the verb $, “to flee,” here because Joseph can now return rather serenely to his own land. The use of the verb , “to go,” makes sense within the narrative. One prominent verb taken over from 2:13 is ( , “to seek.” 62

LXX Exod 4:19: “And after many days, the king of Egypt died. And the Lord said to Moses in Midian: ‘Go, return to Egypt, for all who sought your life have died.’” 63 Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962) 32. 64 Trebolle Barrera, “La Huida y Regreso de Egipto,” 255: “La versión griega ofrece en Ex 4, 19 una frase que tanto el texto hebreo masorético, que constituye una exacta réplica de la frase ausente del texto hebreo como el griego ofrecen en 2,23a. Esta es, a su vez, prácticamente idéntica a la frase inicial del relato en 2,11. . . . La repetición exacta de la misma frase en 2,23 y 4,19 constituye una sutura textual (Wiederaufnahme) que permite recuperar el hilo de la narración, interrumpido por la inserción del material contenido en 2,23ab–4, 18.” 65 Keener, Commentary on Matthew, 112. 66 Soares-Prabhu, “Jesus in Egypt,” 238.

Egypt as a Place of Refuge in the Greco-Roman Period

179

We find this verb in 2:20 where the men who were “seeking” Jesus’ life are described as no longer a problem since they are now dead. As previously noted, the verb thus serves to structure Matthew’s two segments on Egypt, relating them to each other on both the obvious contextual level and the more subtle structural level. Scholars have also noted the links between the usage of these verbs in Matthew 2: “(  is sometimes used in the NT for seeking in a nonreligious sense . . . . This nonreligious seeking can take hostile forms: Herod seeks the child Jesus in order to kill him (Matt 2:13; cf. 2:20).”67 Matthew 2:21 has the same sequence of eight Greek words as does 2:20: )  &        , “Arise, take the child and his mother.” A subtle and interesting difference does, however, emerge given that *, “to go into,” is used here rather than the ! , “to go,” of Matt 2:20. Weder tell us that “Matthew never uses the word (*) except in dependence on a source. . . .”68 * also suggests “entering” not just a new geographic place, but the Kingdom of God69, and is used thirty-seven times in Matthew’s gospel.70 With this intimation of the Kingdom, Matthew’s “story line, which thus far has echoed primarily the infancy of Moses, now shifts to echo his career as an adult.”71 Egypt has served its purpose for Matthew and is never mentioned again in his gospel. D. Conclusion We have seen the significant influence of Egypt as a place of refuge motif in the OT on the Matthean birth narrative. Although scholars disagree about whether a “refuge-in-Egypt tradition” exists, with Brown and Soares-Prabhu arguing for one against Hagner, this story attests to Egypt as a place of refuge like in the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Hadad, Jeroboam, Jeremiah, and the Oniads. Important literary similarities exist in particular between the Matthean story of refuge and the LXX story of Moses’ seeking refuge. These similar literary structures, as well as his utilization of the “Egypt-in-refuge tradition,” demonstrate how Matthew grounds his refuge story in the OT’s use of that tradition.

E. Larsson, “( ,” in EDNT, 2. 102. H. Weder, “*,” in EDNT, 1. 400. 69 Ibid., 1. 401: Concerning *, Weder states, ibid.: “Theologically interesting is the language of ‘entering into the kingdom of God,’ which has its origin in Jesus’ proclamation and his understanding of the . . . & .” 70 BibleWorks for Windows, Version 5.0 (Big Fork, MT: Hermeneutika Bible Research Software, 2002). 71 Brown, Birth of a Messiah, 217. 67 68

180

Chapter 6

IV. General Conclusion There is much evidence of Jewish refugees in postexilic Egypt. Although Syene/Elephantine did not necessarily serve as a refuge for Jews, it perhaps laid the groundwork for Egypt becoming a place of refuge for Jews on a large scale. Josephus presents both the temple at Leontopolis and the high priest Onias III/IV as a refugee who fled to Ptolemy VI Philometor in the Jewish War, but he confuses several issues with the conflation of Onias III and Onias IV. Mention of Leontopolis is absent in the OT itself, and the most reliable source for understanding the Oniads as refugees in Egypt remains 2 Maccabees. Whereas some Jewish individuals in 1 and 2 Maccabees seek refuge in Egypt, we do not hear of Onias IV seeking refuge there or in Leontopolis. Both the treaty cited in 1 Macc 15:16 and 2 Maccabees 4, 5, and 9 attest to the reality of Jewish refugees in Egypt. Matthew’s story of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt likewise draws on the tradition of Egypt as a place of refuge in the OT. Although Matthew makes no explicit mention of OT figures in 2:13–15 and 19–21, Moses, Jeroboam, and Jeremiah certainly stand in the background of his presentation there.

Chapter 7

Conclusion A recent interview with the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Stacy Schiff stated: “No one in the modern world controls the wealth or territory that Cleopatra did.”1 This statistic helps us to understand Egypt as a place of refuge. This monograph has attempted to demonstrate how the trickle of high-status refugees in the Late Bronze Age turned into a tradition of migration in the Greco-Roman period. Egypt as a place of refuge would continue to change and develop. I have attempted to demonstrate the importance of Egypt as a place of refuge in the OT by examining biblical texts from a number of different time periods. By exhibiting the importance of literary genre, I have tried to highlight the phenomenon of Egypt as a place of refuge in the OT. An interdisciplinary methodology of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism brings to light the importance of literary genre for understanding the history of the early monarchy, the fall of Jerusalem, and the Hasmonean Period. The analysis of the different texts builds on an understanding of refuge and refugees derived from a study of the wider ANE context as well as from biblical characters and biblical words. Similar literary patterns emerge in all the texts analyzed where the portrayal of events can be both rooted in history and also have a strongly literary character. Each episode needs an independent analysis in order to determine its genre. There are both strongly literary stories like Jeroboam and Hadad or the Holy Family, as well as episodes that more likely reflect a reaction to historical events like the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Egypt’s role as a place of refuge can thus be an historical reality and/or a literary motif.

I. Refuge and Refugees The semantic field of refuge is separate from that of “exile,” “diaspora,” and “criminal asylum.” I did this by focusing on Hebrew verbs of flight. Verbs such as , , and  recur in biblical stories of flight, while they are not as common in stories of diaspora and criminal asylum. In gen1

Deborah Solomon, “The Queen: Questions for Stacy Schiff,” New York Times Magazine, p. 20, October 17, 2010.

182

Chapter 7

eral, we find these verbs in narratives about individuals rather than collections of laws, poems, or other types of literature. Flight distinguishes itself from exile and diaspora because it rarely refers to battlefield situations, but rather to escape from hostile or difficult situations involving interpersonal or tribal tensions. While this distinction generally applies to both the verbs  and  in stories of flight, the MT never uses  for battlefield situations, but does sometimes use  for such situations. The verbs of flight also convey a sense of liminality. Although they can be used of important individuals like Moses and David, they usually describe such persons either before they have acquired power or after they have reached some nadir in their lives.  parallels  in a number of contexts that are important for my thesis, but it is also used in poetry that generally does not reflect the phenomenon of flight and refuge under study here. Nouns for “refuge” are also similar to  because they frequently do not connote literal flight to a place of refuge, but rather are highly theological in character, with God as the one in whom the speaker takes refuge. An examination of refugees in ANE literature highlights aspects of class that shed light on our understanding of refugees in the OT. Treaties offer a realistic picture of such class distinctions. Runaway slaves are sent home, but high-status refugees are more likely to find refuge in other lands. Highstatus refugees consistently receive better treatment in the stories of Sinuhe, Idrimi, and Urhi-Teshub IV. Uriah, the prophet in the OT (Jeremiah 26:20–23), who seemingly has little status, gets sent home quickly from Egypt for execution, in contrast to the royal refuge-seekers Chanunu of Gaza and Jamani of Ashdod. A key characteristic of all our high-status refugees is a dramatic reversal of their fates. When this characteristic is not present, as in the case of Hattusili, it leads to doubts as to whether he should be included in this group. A survey of the OT using the verbs of flight identifies many figures seeking refuge. The two most prominent figures in this category, Jeroboam and Jeremiah, receive their own chapters, in which I provide a close reading of the material concerning them. Other key figures in the OT include David, Moses, and Joseph. Joseph and Moses are important to my thesis because of their clear connections with Egypt. David offers an example of a fluid figure, quite similar to ANE characters like Idrimi and Sinuhe, because he flees in order to eventually return to centrality. He has recourse to flight at the beginning and near the end of his reign in order to return from liminality. Other figures like Absalom and Adonijah unsuccessfully try to replicate his example. We also see Jacob successfully employ this stratagem of fleeing in order to return from liminality. The divinity plays a central role in David’s story as well as in those of other fugitives like Hagar,

Conclusion

183

Jacob, and Jonah. I have tried to demonstrate that flight is a strategy used by many figures in the OT in response to liminality and loss of power.

II. 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 The textual complications of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 are enormous. We have a rich tradition of Greek manuscripts that diverge from the MT on many points. The MT presents Egypt as a place of refuge for bandits and troublemakers like Hadad and Jeroboam. In contrast to the MT, textual witnesses like LXXB and LXXL may heighten the negative view of Egypt with their picture of Jeroboam returning to Israel in time for the all-important assembly. While the MT does not have Jeroboam return to Israel until chap. 12, these two witnesses have him in Israel before the end of chap. 11, even while other Greek witnesses like LXXmisc and LXXA do not. Both these witnesses can be seen as whitewashing Jeroboam by leaving out important negative details concerning Jeroboam from the story. LXX misc leaves out Jeroboam raising his hand against the king in 11:26, and LXXA does not have the negative encounter of Ahijah with Jeroboam’s wife in chap. 14. All these different treatments evidenced by the fluid text of 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 demonstrate diverse views of Egypt. It appears as a welcome refuge in some witnesses, but as a threatening holding place for troublemakers in others. My close examination of the various text-forms has demonstrated the problem of using 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 for purposes of historical reconstruction. A close reading of this text reveals two elements that serve to unify 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 as well as the different genres present there. The language of flight is used of almost every major character in this pericope. The narrator uses the verb  to describe Jeroboam, Hadad, and Rezon, while the verb  is used of Rehoboam in chap. 12. Flight is ever-present in this unit. Moreover, the corollary of flight, , “to return,” occurs nine times in chap. 12. My focus on the vocabulary of flight demonstrates the literary artistry at work here. The above verbs provide a unifying theme throughout this pericope. We also found that the prophetic stories of Ahijah and Shemaiah interrupt the narrative’s flow. These stories break the chronological progression of the story and interject an ethical perspective into the narrative. All these literary features helped us see typological similarities between Jeroboam and Saul as well as Aaron. Like Egypt, Jeroboam becomes a byword for ambiguity within this pericope. As we have noted, the various LXX witnesses treat him differently. The MT shows a like fluidity when it condemns him at times, but at other times makes clear efforts to differentiate him from rebels like Hadad and

184

Chapter 7

Rezon through the use of different verbs to describe him and them. This same ambiguity extends to Egypt as a place of refuge. Just as Egypt nurtured Moses and Joseph, it also nurtures Jeroboam. The literary artistry on display in the story moves us beyond the limits of history. The narrator uses the prophetic stories within this pericope to bring out positive attributes of both Jeroboam and Rehoboam. I demonstrate how the bias against Jeroboam grows stronger still in textual witnesses that contain the midrashic Alternative Story. By the time we come to this story found in various LXX witnesses (1 Kgs 12:24 a-z), the denigration of Jeroboam is complete. Such complete denigration is at odds with the ambivalence of the MT pericope in which Jeroboam and Egypt both have a positive role to play at times.

III. The Book of Jeremiah The Book of Jeremiah presents a different set of challenges. The book mostly lacks the ambivalence found in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24 towards Egypt as a place of refuge. Although many scholars have highlighted the differences between the LXX and MT of the Book of Jeremiah, I agree with those scholars who argue for the relatively minor character of the differences between the texts, at least as regards their respective presentations of Egypt. The longer MT does not significantly diverge from the LXX in this regard. While the LXX overall provides a better witness to the original text of Jeremiah than the MT, their differences regarding the depiction of Egypt are simply not significant enough to justify not using the MT as the primary source for our study. Given this conclusion, I focus my exegetical study of Jeremiah 46 and the Baruch Narrative (Jeremiah 36–45) on the MT in both cases. Allusions to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah reveal the book’s negative picture of Egypt as a place of refuge. Only Genesis and Exodus have more allusions to Egypt than the Book of Jeremiah, but it is the latter’s negative image of Egypt rather than the former’s positive image that Jeremiah largely shares. I break down Jeremiah’s allusions to Egypt into three groups (contemporary allusions, Exodus allusions, and the allusions in the Baruch Scroll [36–45]). Meanwhile, I strive to avoid monolithically negative judgments about Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah that other scholars make since I see a degree of ambivalence and literary design in the book’s allusions to Egypt rather than a straight-forward rendering of history. The contemporary allusions stress that Egypt is an unreliable ally and that it is the “bad figs” of Israel who go there for refuge. The Exodus allusions also obviously have a negative quality to them. The Baruch Scroll is instructive

Conclusion

185

because its highly literary character reflects a need and a tendency to demonize Egypt. If Israel had not in fact been so obviously reliant upon Egypt as a place of refuge, there would have been no need for the heightened anti-Egypt rhetoric so prominent here and elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah. My contribution demonstrates how the highly literary nature of many of the allusions to Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah bespeaks a reality that is quite different than the constructed literary world found especially in the Baruch Scroll. A close reading of Jeremiah 46 demonstrates many of the challenges of relying on the Book of Jeremiah to reconstruct history. The two poems of this chapter depict more a theological reality than a political situation. The futility of flight to Egypt stands out as the overarching theme of these poems. Rather than portraying Egypt as a place of felicitous refuge, the poet constantly depicts Egypt as an enemy of the Lord. Once again, we find heightened rhetoric here, employing literary and mythological themes rather than language reflective of historical and political realities. These poems consistently mock Egypt. They offer explicit attacks on potential Egyptian refuges like Migdol and Memphis. We find poetic images such as a calf, retreating snake, and deforested land used to depict the futility of flight to Egypt. Jeremiah 46 serves as the parade example of the importance of genre questions in trying to understand Egypt as a place of refuge in the OT. The chapter’s poems counter the reality of Judean refugees going to Egypt as portrayed in the Baruch Scroll by highlighting the theological reality of Egypt as a place of bondage. When historians use the chapter to chronicle Israel’s interaction with Egypt, they rarely display a sensitivity to the hyperbolic imagery so often found in its poetry. These poems continue to press the point the Book of Jeremiah consistently makes: Egypt cannot be a place of lasting, secure refuge for God’s people.

IV. Egypt as a Place of Refuge for Postexilic Israel My main sources for Egypt as a place of refuge for postexilic Israel are 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees; Josephus; and Matthew. All these sources acknowledge the reality of Egypt as a place of refuge, although some of them use a literary framework to portray this reality. 1 Maccabees depicts Jewish fugitives in Egypt as being a matter of direct concern to the Romans (1 Macc 15:16). While no de iure treaty about the deportation of refugees is known as having existed between Israel and Egypt, at least a de facto treaty seems to have been operative in Egypt’s return of Uriah the Prophet to Judah in Jer 26:23. 2 Maccabees offers considerably more evidence concerning Egypt as a place of refuge. Here, both Jason the High Priest (2

186

Chapter 7

Macc 5:9) and Philip the Phrygian (2 Macc 9:29) use Egypt as a place of refuge. Many difficulties occur when we try to reconcile Josephus’ portrayal of the postexilic refugees in Egypt phenomenon with that of Maccabees. Josephus is of interest for my project because he writes of the reality both of Jews fleeing to Egypt and their favorable reception in Egypt. Josephus also offers us many additional details that may contribute to a greater understanding of Egypt and Jewish refugees there in the postexilic period. Josephus, for example, chronicles the important site of Leontopolis that has been uncovered by archaeological investigations. Since we never hear of this site in the OT, Josephus’s account of Leontopolis provides an example of the diversity of postexilic Judaism to which the OT does not allude. Nevertheless, Josephus may overstate the importance of Leontopolis. The OT does not speak of competition between the Jerusalem Temple and other (Diaspora) temples. We also have no evidence from the OT for Egyptianbased rivals to the high priesthood in Jerusalem. Certain scholars use Josephus as evidence for such phenomena, but I argue that the Leontopolis temple and its priesthood cannot be seen as a rival to the Jerusalem establishment based solely on Josephus. Maccabees was written before Josephus and must be considered a better source for many of the historical details. Where 2 Maccabees explicitly contradicts Josephus regarding the assassination of Onias III (2 Macc 4:34), we should give greater credence to the former. Hence, while Josephus helpfully adds to our knowledge of the historical epoch, his testimony must be treated carefully. Matthew 2:13–15, 19–21 both confirms our understanding of Egypt as a place of refuge drawn from the OT and depicts this refuge in a literary manner highly reminiscent of various OT stories. We cannot understand Matthew’s story of the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt apart from the OT. There is a well-delimited structure to Matthew’s verses dealing with Egypt that allows us to focus on these verses by themselves. As in the OT stories of refuge, the verb “to flee,” $, proves to be central in this NT story of flight. Its centrality also provides a link with all the stories of refugees and refuge from throughout the ANE, connecting the Holy Family with figures like Sinuhe, Idrimi, Urhi-Teshub IV, and the many OT figures that I have examined. Matthew’s literary structure parallels that found specifically in the LXX stories of flight and refuge in Egypt and thus clearly shows that he used the LXX as his OT.

Conclusion

187

V. Further Questions Additional questions emerge in each of the areas that I have studied. The figures of Chanunu of Gaza and Jamani of Ashdod as well as the relevant Hittite literature require further historical study. More research is also needed in order to understand how the literary and historical dimensions work together in 1 Kgs 11:14–12:24. Historical difficulties emerge when scholars try to understand Hadad within a tenth-century Edomite framework, but the question remains as to why he is presented as he is in 1 Kings 11. More work likewise needs to be done regarding the conflict between rhetoric and reality across the OT and other ANE societies in order to better understand the treatments of Egypt in the Book of Jeremiah as well as the views of Israel’s traditional enemies found in the OAN. The threat of deportation even without explicit treaties on the matter in the OT should be further investigated in order to better understand how ANE governments interacted with one another. For example, can a type of common law on refugees in the ANE be identified? Further study is also needed for a better understanding of the temple in Leontopolis and its relation to both the Jewish community in Egypt and the Jerusalem Temple. Finally, the importance of the OT flight narratives for understanding Matthew’s gospel calls for an ongoing examination of how genres used in the OT are employed in the NT.

VI. A Final Remark My study of Egypt as a place of refuge has demonstrated the importance of genre for a better understanding of the topic, via its examination of the broad sweep of history through literary, historical, and textual criticism and close readings of selected texts. We find that Egypt plays an important role as a refuge within the history of Israel. While this role is explicit at times, it is often implicit in the literary structures used. The OT’s heightened rhetoric concerning Egypt points to the reality of refuge-seeking that often contrasts with the theological ideal of the OT’s authors, and this rhetoric has a counterpart in the wider world of the ANE.

Bibliography Primary Sources Anderson, H., trans. “3 Maccabees.” In OTP, 2. 509–29. Beckman, Gary, and Harry A. Hoffner., trans. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Biblia Sacra: Juxta Versionem Simplicem Quae Dicitur Pschitta. 3 vols. Beirut: Typis Typographiae Catholicae, 1951. Birch, Samuel. Select Papyri in Hieratic Character From the Collection of the British Museum. Part 2. London: Woodfall and Kinder, 1860. Brooke, Alan, Norman McLean, and Henry St. John Thackeray, eds. The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. 9 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–40. Burchard, C., trans. “Joseph and Aseneth.” In OTP, 2.177–247. Colson, Francis H., and George Herbert Whitaker, eds. Philo: With an English Translation. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Dalley, Stephanie, trans. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: From Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). 2nd enl. ed, ALASPM 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, and José Ramón Busto Saiz, eds. El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 50, 53, 60. Madrid: Instituto de Filología, C.S.I.C., 1989–1992. Foster, Benjamin R., trans. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. Fuchs, Andreas. Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994. Gardiner, Alan. “Die Erzählung des Sinuhe und die Hirtengeschichte.” In Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches: Hieratische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Ed. Adolf Erman, 5 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909. Gasquet, Francis Aidan, ed. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Latinam Vulgatam. 18 vols. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926. Gottlieb, Hans, ed. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version: Kings. Vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. HO 21.1–2. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995. Hout, Th. P. J. van den., trans “Apology of attuili.” In COS. Ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. 1. 199–204. 3 vols. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1997. Keilschrifturkunden Aus Boghazköi. Staatliche Museen Zu Berlin. Vorderasiatische Abteilung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1921–.

190

Bibliography

Kittel, Rudolf, Wilhelm Rudolph, and Karl Elliger, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio quarta emendata. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. Lichtheim, Miriam, trans. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 1. 222–35. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, and G. Chamberlain, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. Moran, William L., trans. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Nestle, Eberhard et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Trans. W. Watson. 2nd rev. ed. 2 vols. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003. Oppenheim, A. Leo., trans. “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts.” In ANET, 1. 282–85. –. trans. “The Story of Idrimi, King of Alalakh.” In ANET, 1. 557–58. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Smith, Sidney. The Statue of Idri–Mi. London,: British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949. Stutt, R. J. H., trans. “Letter of Aristeas.” In OTP, 2. 7–34. Swete, Henry, ed. The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. Rev. ed. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Thackeray, Henry St John, Ralph Marcus et al., eds. Josephus: With an English Translation. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–81. Winckler, Hugo, and Ludwig Abel. Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons. Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer, 1889. Ziegler, J., ed. Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. Rev. ed. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

Secondary Studies Abrego, José M. Jeremías y el Final del Reino: Lectura sincrónica de Jer 36–45. Estudios del Antiguo Testamento 3. Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1983. Ackerman, Susan. When Heroes Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David. Gender, Theory, and Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Aeschimann, A. Le Prophète Jérémie: Commentaire. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1959. Ahlström, Gösta. The History of Ancient Palestine. Ed. Diana Edelman. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Trans. John Bowden. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. –. “Exodus: Liberation History against Charter Myth” In Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4± 6, 1999, ed. by Jan W. van Henten and Anton Houtepen, 128–43. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001.

Bibliography

191

Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Allison, Jr., Dale C. “Day of the Lord.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Katharine Sakenfeld, 46–47. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007. Alonso Schökel, Luis. “Jeremias como Anti–Moises.” In De la Torah au Messie, Mélanges Henri Cazelles: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à L’institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979). Ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot, 245–54. Paris: Desclee, 1982. Amit, Yaira, ed. Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. –. Amos : A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 24. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. JSOTSup 297. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. – “Jeroboam I and the Deuteronomistic Historian’s Ideology of the Founder.” CBQ 60 (1998): 16–24. Auld, A. Graeme. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Baines, J. “Interpreting Sinuhe.” JEA 68 (1982): 31–44. –. “Myth and Literature.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature : History and Forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno, 361–77. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996. Baltzer, Klaus, and Peter Machinist. Deutero–Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. –. Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2004. Bárta, Miroslav. Sinuhe, the Bible, and the Patriarchs. Prague: Set out, 2003. Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’ancien Testament. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Bartlett, John R. Edom and the Edomites. JSOTSup 77. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Bauks, Michaela. Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, Religions- und Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11, 29–40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice in and Beyond the Biblical Context in Relation to Genesis 22 and Judges 11.” In Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Ed. Karin Finsterbusch et al., 65–86. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007. Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. JSJSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beckman, Gary. “International Law in the Second Millennium: Late Bronze Age.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol. 1, ed. by Raymond Westbrook and Gary M. Beckman, 753–76. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Begg, Christopher T. “A Biblical Mystery: The Absence of Jeremiah in the Deuteronomistic History.” IBS 7 (1985): 139–64. –. “David’s Flight from Jerusalem According to Josephus.” HTS 62 (2006): 1–22. –. “David’s Fourfold Escape According to Josephus.” Anton 80 (2005): 433–52.

192

Bibliography

–. “The Interpretation of the Gedaliah Episode (2 Kgs 25, 22–26) in Context.” Anton 62 (1987): 3–11. –. “The Jeroboam–Ahijah Encounter According to Josephus.” Abr-Nahrain 34 (1996– 1997): 1–17. –. Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8, 212–420): Rewriting the Bible. BETL 108. Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1993. –. Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy: (AJ 9, 1–10,185). BETL 145. Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 2000. –. “The Significance of Jehoiachin’s Release: A New Proposal.” JSOT 36 (1986): 49–56. –. “Unifying Factors in 2 Kings 1.2–17a.” JSOT 32 (1985): 75–86. –. “Yahweh’s ‘Visitation’ of Zedekiah (Jer 32,5).” ETL 63 (1987): 113–17. Bickerman, E. J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Bienkowski, Piotr. “The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan.” In You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. by Diana Edelman, 41–92. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. “‘Tribalism’ and ‘segmentary society’ in Iron Age Transjordan.” In Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, ed. Piotr Bienkowski, 7–26. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Boadt, Lawrence. Jeremiah 26–52, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Nahum. OTM 10. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik de. “Egypt in the Old Testament: Some Aspects of an Ambivalent Assessment.” In Selected Studies in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. by C. van Duin, 152–67. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Boer, Roland. Jameson and Jeroboam. SBLSS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Bogaert, Pierre, ed. Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son Milieu, Les Oracles et leur Transmission. New ed. BETL 54. Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1981. Bohak, Gideon. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis. Early Judaism and Its Literature 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Brady, Monica. “Syene.” In EDB, 1260. Brettler, Marc. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London: Routledge, 1995. Brewer, Douglas J., and Emily Teeter. Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New updated ed. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Brown, Peter R. L. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200– 1000. 2nd ed. The Making of Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. Brueggemann, Walter. “The Baruch Connection: Reflections on Jeremiah 43:1–7.” JBL 113 (1994): 405–20. –. 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 8. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. –. To Build, to Plant: A Commentary on Jeremiah 26–52. ITC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bibliography

193

–. Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. London: Routledge, 2003. Bunge, J. “Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch. Quellenkritische, literarische, chronologische, und historische Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrischpalästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr.” Ph.D. diss., Rheinische FriedrichWilhelms-Universität, Bonn, 1971. Bunson, Margaret, ed. Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Rev. ed. Facts on File Library of World History 243. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2002. Campbell, Antony F. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10). CBQMS 17. Washington, DC: CBA, 1986. –. and Mark A. O’Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000. Carroll, Robert P. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Crossroad, 1981. –. Jeremiah. OTG 9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Christensen, Duane L. Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in the Oracles against the Nations. HDR 3. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. NCB Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Coats, George W. From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story. CBQMS 4. Washington, DC: CBA, 1976. –. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. FOTL 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001. –. “The Other Egypt: A Welcome Asylum.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Ed. M. Fox, V. Hurowitz et al., 65–70. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Cohen, Raymond, and Raymond Westbrook. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. –. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. –. and Ernest S. Frerichs. Diasporas in Antiquity. BJS 288. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. –. and Joshua Schwartz, eds. Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism: Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Cohn, Robert L. “Literary Technique in the Jeroboam Narrative.” ZAW 97 (1985): 23–35. Collins, Billie Jean. The Hittites and Their World. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Collins, John Joseph. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. –. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

194

Bibliography

–. Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees: With an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre. OTM 15. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1981. –. “The Development of the Exodus Tradition.” In Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Soesterberg, January 4–6, 1999, ed. by Jan W. van Henten and Anton Houtepen, 144–55. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Condamin, Albert. Le Livre de Jérémie: Traduction et commentaire. Etudes Bibliques. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1920. Conroy, Charles. Absalom, Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20. AnBib 81. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. –. 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings: With an Excursus on Davidic Dynasty and the Holy City Zion. OTM 6. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983. Cooper, Jerrold S., and Glenn M. Schwartz, eds. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1991. Creach, Jerome F. D. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Cresson, Bruce. “Edom.” In EDB, 373. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Crüsemann, Frank. “Freiheit durch Erzählen von Freiheit: Zur Geschichte des ExodusMotivs.” EvT 61 (2001): 102–18. Currid, John D. Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997. Curtis, Adrian, and Thomas Römer. The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. BETL 128. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997. Dalley, Stephanie. The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Dandamaev, M. A., Marvin A. Powell, and David B. Weisberg, eds. Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.). Rev. ed. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984. Darnell, John C. and Richard Jasnow. “On the Moabite Inscriptions of Ramesses II at Luxor Temple.” JNES 52 (1992): 263–74. Davies, William David, and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. Day, John, and et. al. Wisdom in Ancient Israel : Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Delling, G. “Einwirkung der Sprache der Septuaginta in ‘Joseph und Aseneth’.” JSJ 9 (1978): 29–56. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings, WBC 12. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Dietrich, Walter. David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987. –. David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit; Beiträge zur Auslegung des Ersten Samuelbuches. OBO 206. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. –. The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E. SBL Biblical Encyclopedia Series 3. Trans. by Joachim Vette. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

Bibliography

195

–. Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und Geschichtsschreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchfrage. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. –. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dion, Paul. “Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First–Millennium Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Ed. by Jack M. Sasson, 1281–94. New York: Scribner, 1995. –. Hebrew Poetics. Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1992. –. “Yhwh as Storm-God and Sun-God: The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104.” ZAW 103 (1991): 43–71. Donner, H. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 2: Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba. GAT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Doran, Robert. “The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In NIB, 1–178. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. –. “The Second Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In NIB, 179–299. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. –. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12. Washington, DC: CBA, 1981. Dorsey, David. The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London,: Routledge & K. Paul, 1966. –. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985. Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Eades, K. L. “Sheba.” In EDB, 1198. Edelman, Diana V. “Solomon’s Adversaries Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam: A Trio of ‘Bad Guy’ Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution.” In The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, ed. by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy, 166–92. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Exum, J. Cheryl, and David J. A. Clines, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 143. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Fantalkin, Alexander and Israel Finkelstein. “The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8thCentury-BCE Earthquake-More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIa.” Tel Aviv 33 (2006): 18–42. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees.” In Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, 41–68. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –. Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. SJSSup 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. –. and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, the Bible, and History. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Fentress, Ken D. “Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A New Study of Ezekiel’s Chapters 29–32.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004.

196

Bibliography

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia. 2nd ed. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1998. –. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fieger, Michael, and Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes. Der Einzug in Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Josefsgeschichte. Das Alte Testament im Dialog 1. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007. Finkelstein, Israel. “The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity.” ZDPV 118 (2002): 109–35. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1985. Fischer, Georg. “Zum Text des Jeremiabuches.” Bib 78 (1997): 305–28. Foster, John L. and Ann L. Foster. “Ancient Egyptian Literature.” In Egyptology Today. Ed. Richard H. Wilkinson, 206–29. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Freedman, D. N., et al., eds. EDB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Fretheim, Terence E. First and Second Kings. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. –. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 15. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Pub., 2002. Friedman, Richard Elliott. “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2.” In Traditions in Transformation: Festschrift Honoring Frank Moore Cross, ed. by Baruch Halpern and Douglas Levenson, 167–92. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. –. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Frisch, Amos. “Shemaiah the Prophet Versus King Rehoboam: Two Opposed Interpretations of the Schism (1 Kings xii 21–4).” VT 38 (1988): 466–68. Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary. Trans. by Anselm Hagedorn. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Israelite Law: State and Judiciary Law.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. by Mircea Eliade and Charles J. Adams, 7.478–81. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Gafni, Isaiah. “Josephus and 1 Maccabees.” In Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 116–31. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. –. Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. JSPSup 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Gammie, John G. “From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses of the Sages amid the Varying Forms of Wisdom.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, 479–97. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. –. and Leo G. Perdue. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Gamberoni, J. “ bƗrach.” In TDOT, 2. 249–53. –. “  Ɨsâ.” In TDOT, 5. 64–75. Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Trans. M. Vizedom and G. Caffee. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Giveon, Raphael. The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies. OBO 20. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Bibliography

197

Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. –. II Maccabees: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 42. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. –. Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Gooding, D. W. “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power: A Rejoinder.” JBL 91 (1972): 529–33. –. “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power.” VT 17 (1967): 173– 89. Gordon, R. P. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions: Selected Essays of Robert P. Gordon. SOTSMS. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. –. “A House Divided: Wisdom in Old Testament Narrative Traditions.” In Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, edited by John Day et. al., 94–105. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.  “The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?” VT 25 (1975): 368–93. Görg, Manfred. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil. ErFor 290. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. –. “Namen und Titel in 1 Kön 11,19f.” BN 36 (1987): 22–26. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 Vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd fully rev. ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. Green, Barbara. King Saul’s Asking. Interfaces. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 22a. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period.” In The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. by Michael Coogan, 317–51. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Greenstein, Edward. “Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson, 2421–32. New York: Scribner, 1995. –. and David Marcus. “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi.” JNES 8 (1976): 59–96. Greifenhagen, F. V. Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity. JSOTSup 361. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Grossfeld, Bernard. “The Relationship between Biblical Hebrew  and  and their Corresponding Aramaic Equivalents in the Targum – , E(, (: A Preliminary Study in Aramaic–Hebrew Lexicography.” ZAW 91 (1979) 107–23. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. –. “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple.” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997): 47–70. Gunn, D. M. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978. Haag, Ernst. Das Buch Jeremia. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Geistliche Schriftlesung. Erläuterungen zum Alten Testament für die geistliche Schriftlesung 5. Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1988. Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew. 2 vols. WBC 33a. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

198

Bibliography

Hallo, William W., and William Kelly Simpson. The Ancient Near East: A History. 2nd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998. Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. The Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001 –. “Sectionalism and the Schism.” JBL 93 (1974): 519–32. –. “Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the 8th–7th Centuries BCE.” In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz, 291–338. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. –. and Deborah W. Hobson. Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. JSOTSup 124. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Hasel, G.“ pƗla.” In TDOT, 11. 551–67. Hauser, Alan J. “Tamar.” In EDB, 1273. Hendel, Ronald. The Epic of the Patriarch : The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. HSM 42. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1987. –. “The Exodus in Biblical Memory.” JBL 120 (2001): 601–22. Hens-Piazza, Gina. 1–2 Kings. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006. Henten, Jan W. van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Herr, Larry. “The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations.” BA 60 (1997): 114–83. Herrmann, Siegfried. Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch. ErFor 271. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. Hertog, Cornelis den. “The Geographical Shape of the Unconquered Land in Joshua 13:2–5 MT and LXX.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. by Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, 51–60. VTSup 124. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Higginbotham, Carolyn R. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and Accomodation on the Imperial Periphery. CHANE 2. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Hobsbawm, E. J. Bandits. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Hofmann, Beate. Die Königsnovelle: “Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk.” Ägypten und Altes Testament 62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz in Kommission, 2004. Hoffmann, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature.” ZAW 93 (1981): 37–50. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia/Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986. Hollis, Susan T. The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study. 2nd ed. Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008. Hornung, E. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Trans. by J. Baines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. “The Early and Late Phases of Urhi-Tesub’s Career.” In Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. K. Bittel, 123–49. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1974. –. “The Sudden Return of Urhi-Tessub to his Former Place of Banishment in Syria.” In The Life and Times of Hattusili III and Tuthaliya: Proceedings of a Symposium Held

Bibliography

199

in Honour of J. De Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout and C. H. van Zoest, 1–8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006. Huddlestun, J. R. “Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile? A Comparative Study of the River Nile in Ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Bible.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1995. –. “‘Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile?’ Some Egyptian Texts on the Inundation and a Prophetic Trope.” In Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. Bartlett, A. Beck, P. Raabe, and C. Franke, 338–63. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Hugger, Pirmin. Jahwe meine Zuflucht: Gestalt und Theologie des 91. Psalms. Münsterschwarzacher Studien 13. Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1971. Hughes, Jeremy. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. JSOTSup 66. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Hugo, Philippe. Les deux visages d’Elie: Texte massorétique et septante dans l’histoire de la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18. OBO 217. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Hutton, Jeremy Michael. The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Huwyler, Beat. Jeremia und die Völker: Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49. FAT 20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Jackson, Jared J. “Jeremiah 46: Two Oracles on Egypt.” HBT 15 (1993): 136–44. Janowski, Bernd, Beate Ego, and Annette Krüger, eds. Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte. FAT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. and Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm, eds. Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Hamburg, 17.–21. März 1990. OBO 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Janzen, John G. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. HSM 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Jenni, Ernst. “‘Fliehen’ im Akkadischen und im Hebräischen Sprachgebrauch.” Orientalia 47 (1978): 351–59. –. and Claus Westermann, ed. TLOT. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. 3 Vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000. Jong, Cornelis de. “Deux oracles contre les Nations, reflets de la politique étrangère de Joaqim.” In Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son milieu, Les oracles et leur transmission, ed. Pierre Bogaert, 369–79. New ed. BETL 54. Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1981. Katzenstein, H. J. “Before Pharaoh Conquered Gaza (Jeremiah XLVII 1).” VT 33 (1983): 249–51. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Trans. by T. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Keown, Gerald L. Jeremiah 26–52. WBC 27. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1995.

200

Bibliography

Kessler, Rainer. Die Ägyptenbilder der Hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte. SBS 197. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. –. The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction. Trans. by Linda Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. –. “The Threefold Image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible.” Scriptura 90 (2005): 878–84. Keulen, P. S. F. van. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. VTSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Kiefer, Jörn. Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der Hebräischen Bibel. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 19. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. Klein, Ralph W. “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power.” JBL 89 (1970): 217–18. –. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. OTG. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Kloppenborg, John S. “Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom.” HTR 75 (1982): 57–84. Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. Volume 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. HSM 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Kraemer, Ross S. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and his Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Trans. by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1988. Larsson, E. “( .” In EDNT, 2.102–03. Lemaire, André. “Hadad l’edomite ou Hadad l’arameén?” BN 43 (1988): 14–18. Lesko, Leonard H., ed. Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker: Presented on the Occasion of his 78th Birthday, December 10, 1983. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1986. Lesko, Leonard H. “Three Late Egyptian Stories Reconsidered.” In Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker : Presented on the Occasion of His 78th Birthday ,December 10, 1983, edited by Leonard H. Lesko, 98–103. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Brown University, 1986. Leuchter, Mark. “Jeroboam the Ephratite.” JBL 125 (2006): 51–72. –. Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. Hebrew Bible Monographs 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. –. ““The Prophets” And the Levites" In Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony.” ZAW 121 (2009): 31–47. –. and Klaus-Peter Adam. Soundings in Kings : Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Ed. by Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Levenson, Jon. Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. –. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? The Samuel & Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. Levy, Thomas E. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, 1995. – et al. “Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronologies: Edomite State Formation, the Bible and Recent Archaeological Research in Southern Jordan.” In The Bible and

Bibliography

201

Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. Thomas E. Levy and T. Higham, 129–63. London: Equinox, 2005. Licht, Jacob. Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978. Lichtert, Claude and Dany Noquert, eds. Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen. Brussels: Lessius, 2008. Lipínski, Edward. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Lippert, Sandra. Einführung in die Altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte. Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 5. Münster: LIT, 2008. Lipton, Diana. Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales. Hebrew Bible Monographs 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1660–1100 B.C. Studies in Diplomacy. Basingstoke, Hampshire/New York: Palgrave, 2001. –. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. London: Equinox, 2005. –. Three Amarna Essays. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1979. Lloyd, Alan. “The Late Period (664–332 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw, 369–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Logan, Alice. “Rehabilitating Jephthah.” JBL 128 (2009): 665–85. Long, Burke O. 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Loprieno, Antonio. “The ‘King’s Novel’.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno, 277–95. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Lundbom, Jack R. “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah.” HS 46 (2005): 301–20. –. Jeremiah 1–20: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 21a. New York: Doubleday, 1999. –. Jeremiah 37–52: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 21c. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Trans. by James Crouch. Rev. ed. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Lyng, Stephen. “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking.” The American Journal of Sociology 95 (1990): 851–86. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. “Les Doublets dans le Livre de Jeremie.” In The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception, ed, Adrian Curtis and Thomas Römer, 119–50. BETL 128. Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1997. Maehler, Herwig and Volker Michael Strocka, eds. Das Ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten d. Internat. Symposions, 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1978. Margalit, B. “Studia Ugaritica II: Studies in Krt and Aqht.” UF 8 (1976): 137–92. Marcus, David. Jephthah and His Vow. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press, 1986. Maier, Michael. Ägypten – Israels Herkunft und Geschick: Studie über einen theopolitischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch. ÖBS 21. Bern: Peter Lang, 2002. Malamat, Abraham. History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. CHANE 7. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2001. –. “The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom.” In Congress Volume

202

Bibliography

Edinburgh 1974, ed. Gary Anderson, 123–45. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Marlowe, W. “Put.” In EDB, 1101. Martin-Achard, R. “Gur to Sojourn Ger Sojourner.” In TLOT, 1. 307–11. Matera, Frank J. New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Matthews, Christopher. “Philip.” In EDB, 1047. Mazar, Benjamin, Shmuel Ahituv, and Baruch A. Levine, eds. The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. “The Apology of David.” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504. –. I Samuel: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. –. II Samuel: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 9.Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “The Source for Jeroboam’s Role at Shechem.” JBL 106 (1987):297–300. –. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. –. and Matt P. Graham, eds. The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. McMahon, Gregory. “Theology, Priests and Worship in Hittite Anatolia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient near East. Ed. Jack M. Sasson, 1981–95. New York: Scribner, 1995. Meyers, Carol. Exodus. NCB Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Mieroop, Marc van de. The Eastern Mediterranean in the Age of Ramesses II. Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007. –. A History of the Ancient near East, Ca. 3000–323 BC. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. Millar, Fergus. “Judaism in the Diaspora: Gentiles and Judaism.” In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), ed. Emil Schürer, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar, 3.1–176. 3 vols. Rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Miller, J. M. and J. H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Miller, Robert D., II. “The Roles of Moses in the Pentateuch.” In Moses: A History of Reception, 2nd–15th Century, ed. Jane Beal, 1–21. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Miscall, Peter D. “Moses and David: Myth and Monarchy.” In The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines, 184–200. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Min, Y-J. “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origin.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977. Modrzejewski, Joseph. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Moehring, H. R. “Review of Cohen’s Josephus in Galilee and Rome.” JJS 31 (1980): 240–42. Montgomery, James A. and Henry S. Gehman. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.

Bibliography

203

Morris, Ellen F. The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Morrison, M. A., and D. I. Owen, eds. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 29, 1981. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Mullen, Jr., E. Theodore. “The Sins of Jeroboam: A Redactional Assessment.” CBQ 49 (1987): 212–32. Na’aman, Nadav. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction: Collected Essays. 3 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. –. “Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E.” Tel Aviv 19 (1992): 71–93. –. and Israel Finkelstein. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Nicholson, Ernest W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Niditch, Susan. Folklore and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. –. Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. –. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. 2nd ed. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000. North, Robert. “Jeroboam’s Tragic Social Justice Epic.” In Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscelánea de Estudios Bíblicos y Hebráicos, ed. Lorenzo Alvarez Verdes and E. Javier Alonso Hernández, 191–214. Madrid: C.S.I.C., Instituto Benito Arias Montano de Estudios Hebráicos, Sefardies y Oriente Próximo, 1975. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Trans. by David Clines et al. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. –. Exodus: A Commentary. Trans. by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. –. The History of Israel. 2nd ed. Trans. by Stanley Godman. London: A. & C. Black, 1960. O’Brien, Mark A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. OBO 92. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. O’Connor, David, and David P. Silverman. Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Probleme der Ägyptologie 9. Leiden: Brill, 1994. O’Connor, Michael. Hebrew Verse Structure with Afterword. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Otto, Eckart, Jan Assmann, Georg Fischer, and Manfred Görg. Mose: Ägypten und das Alte Testament. SBS 189. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Otto, Walter G. A. and Hermann Bengtson. Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches: Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und des 9. Ptolemäers. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei der C. H. Beck’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1938. Otzen, B. “  Ɨb.” In TDOT, 14. 286–94. Parente, Fausto. “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis.” In Josephus and the History of the Greco–Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, 69–98. SPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –. and Joseph Sievers, eds. Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. SPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

204

Bibliography

Parkinson, R. B. “Individual and Society in Middle Kingdom Literature.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature : History and Forms. Ed. Antonio Loprieno. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996. Parpola, Simo. “International Law in the First Millennium.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol. 1. Ed. by R. Westbrook and G.M. Beckman, 1047–66. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. –. “Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instructions.” ZAW 93 (1981): 114–26. –. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Pfeifer, Gerhard. Ägypten im Alten Testament. Biblische Notizen Beihefte 8. Munich: Redaktion Biblische Notizen, 1995. Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Pietsch, Michael. “Von Königen und Königtümern: Eine Untersuchung zur Textgeschichte der Königsbücher.” ZAW 119 (2007): 39–58. Pilch, John J. Introducing the Cultural Context of the Old Testament: Hear the Word! Vol. 1. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. –. “Power.” In Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook, ed. John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, 139–42. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. Pitard, Wayne T. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Pleins, J. David. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Polzin, Robert. “Curses and Kings: A Reading of 2 Samuel 15–16.” In The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines, 201–26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Porten, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. –. “The Diaspora: The Jews in Egypt.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, 372–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. –. “Elephantine and the Bible.” In Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity: Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, 51–84. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. “Elephantine Papyri.” In ABD, 2.445–55. Preuss, H. D. “ Ma’on.” In TDOT, 8.449–52. Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006. Rapport, Nigel, and Joanna Overing. Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge, 2000. Redford, Donald B. “A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic Toponyms).” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12 (1982): 55–74. –. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. –. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50). Leiden: Brill, 1970. Reindl, J. “ nûs.” In TDOT, 9. 286–96.

Bibliography

205

Renfroe, F. “Lexikalische Kleinigkeiten.” UF 20 (1988): 221–32. Ringgren, Helmer.“ wz.” In TDOT, 10. 517. –. “ pû .” In TDOT, 11. 509–12. Ritner, Robert Kriech. The Libyan Anarchy Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period. Writings from the Ancient World 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Römer, Thomas. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Rosenberg, Stephen. “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine.” Near Eastern Archaeology 67 (2004): 4–13. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Sasson, Jack M. “On Idrimi and Sarruwa, the Scribe.” In Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on his SeventyFifth Birthday April 29, 1981, ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen, 309–24. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Schenker, Adrian. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. OBO 199. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. –. Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14. CahRB 48. Paris: Gabalda, 2000. Schipper, Bernd U. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion. OBO 209. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. –. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. OBO 170. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Schipper, Jeremy. “Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Dynastic or Transgenerational Punishment.” In Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship, ed. Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam, 81–105. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Schley, D. G. “‘Yahweh Will Cause You to Return to Egypt in Ships’ (Deuteronomy XXVIII 68).” VT 35 (1985): 369–72. Schmid, Konrad. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. WMANT 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Schreiner, Josef. Jeremia. 2 vols. NEchtB 9. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. Schmid, R. “   miqlƗ.” In TDOT, 8. 552–56. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel of Matthew. Trans. by Robert Barr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Schreiner, Josef. Jeremia II: 25,15–52,34. NEchtB 9. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Liteature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Senior, Donald. The Gospel of Matthew. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997. Shanks, Hershel. Ancient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1988. Shaw, Charles S. “The Sins of Rehoboam: The Purpose of 3 Kingdoms 12.24a-z.” JSOT 73 (1997): 55–64.

206

Bibliography

Shaw, Ian, and Paul T. Nicholson, eds. British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1995. Simkins, Ronald A. “Honor, Shame.” In EDB, 603–04. –. “Paran.” In EDB, 1009. Singer, Itamar. “The Urhi-Tessub Affair in the Hittite–Egyptian Correspondence.” In The Life and Times of Hattusili III and Tuthaliya: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of J. De Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, ed. Th. P. J. van den Hout and C. H. van Zoest, 27–38. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2006. Ska, Jean Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Trans. by Pascale Dominique. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. –. “The Heart and Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology.” JBL 117 (1998): 427–36. –. The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. –. and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTSS 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Snaith, John G. “Literary Criticism and Historical Investigation in Jeremiah Chapter XLVI.” JSS 16 (1971): 15–32. Snell, Daniel C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. CHANE 8. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Soares-Prabhu, George. “Jesus in Egypt: A Reflection on Mt 2:13–15. 19–21 in the Light of the Old Testament.” EstBíb 50 (1992): 225–49. Soderlund, Sven. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. JSOTSup 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Soggin, J. Alberto. An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. 2nd completely rev. and updated ed. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993. Solomon, Deborah, “The Queen: Questions for Stacy Schiff.” New York Times Magazine. P. 20, October 17, 2010. Spalinger, Anthony. “Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (C. 620 B.C.–550 B.C.).” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 5 (1977): 228–44. –. “The Year 712 B.C. and Its Implications for Egyptian History.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10 (1973): 95–101. –. “Orientations on Sinuhe.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 25 (1998): 311–39. Stamm, J. J. Fremde, “Flüchtlinge und ihr Schutz im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt.” In Der Flüchtling in der Weltgeschichte: Ein ungelöstes Problem der Menschheit, ed. André Mercier, 31–66. Bern: Herbert Lang, 1974. Steen, Eveline van der and Piotr Bienkowski. “Radiocarbon Dates from Khirbat enNahas: A Methodological Critique.” Antiquity 80 (2006): 1–4. Steiner, Richard. “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” JBL 118 (1999): 497–505. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Jeremia im Parteienstreit: Studien zur Textentwicklung von Jer 26, 36–43 und 45 als Beitrag Zur Geschichte Jeremias, Seines Buches und Judäischer Parteien im 6. Jahrhundert. BBB 82. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992. Stulman, Louis. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. The Biblical Seminar 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. –. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah, with English Translation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985.

Bibliography

207

Sweeney, Marvin. First and Second Kings: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. –. “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Jeroboam Narratives in 1 Kings/3 Kingsdoms 11–14.” JSJ 38 (2007): 165–95. Taylor, Bernard A. The Lucianic Manuscripts of 1 Reigns. HSM 50–51. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Taylor, Joan. “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence from the Zadokite Temple of Onias.” JSJ 29 (1998): 297–321. Taylor, John. “The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw, 330–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1966. Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. WMANT 41. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. –. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45: Mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redaktion des Buches Jeremia. WMANT 52. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Timm, Stefan. Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. Ägypten und Altes Testament 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989. Toews, Wesley I. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. Toorn, Karel van der. “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39 (1992): 80–101. Tov, Emanuel. “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie.” RB 79 (1972): 189–99. –. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. –. “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” In Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète et son Milieu, Les oracles et leur Transmission, ed. Pierre Bogaert, 146–67. BETL 54. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1981. –. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd ed. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. –. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Book of Kings.” BIOSCS 15 (1982): 12– 35. –. “El Relato de la Huida y Regreso de Egipto (Mt 2, 13–15a. 19–21): Estructura y Composición.” EstBíb 50 (1992): 251–60. –. Salomon Y Jeroboan: Historia de la Recension de 1 Reyes 2–12, 14. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis Dissertationes 3. Salamanca: Universidad Pontifica, 1980. Tsumura, David. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Tucker, Gene M. “Prophetic Speech.” Int 32 (1978): 31–45. Turner, Victor Witter. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967.

208

Bibliography

–. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. Performance Studies Series 1. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982. –. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Symbol, Myth, and Ritual Series. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. Vanoni, Gottfried. Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12. ATSAT 21. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1984. Veijola, Timo. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, Sarja B 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977. Vervenne, Marc. “The Sea Narrative Revisited.” Bib 75 (1994): 80–98. –. “Violent Imagery in the Hebrew Bible: Satanic Verses or Anti-Metaphors?” In Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels: Festschrift für Peter Weimar Zur Vollendung Seines 60. Lebensjahres. AOAT 294. Ed. by Klaus Kiesow and Thomas Meurer, 523–43. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003. Vittmann, Günther. Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 2003. Walker, Larry. “Thebes.” In EDB, 1296–97. Walsh, Jerome T., and David W. Cotter. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Wanke, Gunther. Jeremia 25,15–52,34. ZBAT 20.2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry : A Guide to Its Techniques. Corrected edition. T & T Clark Biblical Languages. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005. Watts, James W. “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Nations.” CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47. Weder, H. “*.” In EDNT, 1.400–01. Weippert, H. “Die Ätiologie des Nordreiches und seines Königshauses (1 Reg 11, 29– 40).” ZAW 95 (1983): 344–75. Weiser, Artur. Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 25,15–52,34. ATD 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Wente, Edward. “The Tale of Two Brothers.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. Ed. William Kelly Simpson and Robert Kriech Ritner. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2003. Westbrook, Raymond. “International Law in the Amarna Age.” In Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations, ed. Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, 28–41. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. –. “Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 128 (2008): 317–24. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 37–50: A Commentary. Trans. by John Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986. –. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Trans. by David Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. –. Jeremia. Biblisches Seminar. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1967. –. and Rainer Albertz. “Glh to Uncover.” In TLOT, 1. 314–20. Whitters, Mark F. “Jesus in the Footsteps of Jeremiah.” CBQ 68 (2006): 229–47. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah : A Commentary. Trans. by T. Trapp. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson, 2003.

Bibliography

209

Williams, Ronald J. “Egypt and Israel.” In The Legacy of Egypt, ed. J. R. Harris, 257–90. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. –. “‘A People Come out of Egypt’, An Egyptologist Looks at the Old Testament.” In Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, ed. G. W. Anderson, 231–52. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Willis, T. M. “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3.” CBQ 53 (1991): 37–44. Wilson, Kevin A. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine. FAT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wißmann, Felipe B. “Sargon, Mose und die Gegner Salomos: Zur Frage vorneuassyrischer Ursprünge der Mose-Erzählung.” BN 10 (2001): 42–54. Würthwein, Ernst. Das Erste Buch der Könige. ATD 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Africa and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. “Yehudiyeh (Tell el-); Leontopolis.” In Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, eds. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson. 548. Rev. and updated ed. New York: Continuum, 2001. Younger, Jr., K. Lawson. “Sargon II: The Annals.” In COS, 1. 199–204. Zevit, Ziony. “Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12–2 Kings 12 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult.” JSOT 32 (1985): 57–73. –. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York: Continuum, 2001. Zipora, Talshir. The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6. Jerusalem: Simor, 1993.

Source Index Genesis 9:21 10:6 12:10–12 12:10–20 12:17–20 12:19 16:1–14 16:6 16:8 21 21:8–20 21:9–21 21:21 22:4 23:4 25:4 27 27:43 28:12 28:20–22 31 31:1 31:5 31:13 31:20 31:21 31:22 31:26 31:27 31:29 32:6 34:25 35:1, 7 36:35 37:3 37:5, 9 38:24 39:12, 13, 15 39:18 39:22 40:5

43 140n102, 148 62 55n79 87 85 55n79 40, 55 55 56 55n79 55, 56 85 105 47 85 56 40, 56 57 58 56 56 57 57 56 56, 57 56 43, 57 56 57 56 105 56 82, 83 61 175 94 61 41, 61 62 175

40:14 41 41:15 41:17 41:34 41:37–45 46:2–7 48:21 Exodus 1:8 1:14 1:16–2:5 1:22 2:10 2:11–22 2:11–25 2:14–15 2:15 2:17 2:23 3:9, 17 4:3 4:10 4:19 4:19–20 4:20 4:22 5:1 5:1–15 7:8–13 7:20–21 7:29 12:4 12:12 12:31–32 13:5 13:17–14:21 14:5 14:12

62 87 175 87 97n156 86n109 175 79

62 105 176 84 63, 89 174 52 81 40, 41, 52, 63, 85, 89, 176 63 105, 177 63 63 135 63, 177–178 174 178 177 80 87 87 138 138 47 138 87 63 148 41, 57, 63 136

212

Source Index

15:1b–18 15:5, 10 16:3 19–20 20:24–26 20:26 21:13 36:33 41:8 41:33, 39

146–147 148 136 178 54 43 54n74 41 107 106

Leviticus 22:10 25:6 25:23 25:35 25:40 25:45 25:47 26:36

47 47 47 47 47 47 47, 55n78 46

Numbers 10:12 11:5 20:14–21 20:18 22:31 24:11 25:15 35 35:9–28 35:15

85 136 89 57 43 41 85 46 53n71 47

Deuteronomy 2:1–8 12:4–14 12:9–14 17:16 18:15 18:18 19:1–13 23:7 26:15 28:68 32:27 33:2 33:27

89 168 169n20 133, 135, 136 160n222 160nn221–222 53n71 89 45 136 42 85 45

Joshua 2:1 2:15 4:9

94 50n59 137

14:28 20

148 46, 53n71

Judges 5:3 6:12 9:2 9:4 9:15 9:21 11:1 11:1–12:7 11:3 11:14–28 11:30–31 16:7–11 18:25

90 97 91 58 58 40, 41, 58, 81, 175 57, 97 56 57, 81, 91, 175 57 58 98 58

Ruth 1:4–5 2:1 2:12

94 97 42

1 Samuel 1:11 6:7 9:1 10:3 12:11 15:27–28 16:1–13 16:8 19 19:1 19:2 19:8 19:10 19:10–12 19:11 19:17–18 19:18 20 20:1 20:30 21:11 22:1 22:17 22:20 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:12

58 98 97 82 58 98 13n64, 100 57 48n45 9, 95, 166, 169 175 9, 166, 169 41, 42 42, 48 9, 166, 169 42, 48 45, 48, 49 93 48 156 45, 48, 49 42, 48 48 48 57 48 45, 49, 50 50

213

Source Index 23:14 23:14–15 25:28 27:1 27:1–4 27:4 27:45 28 30:5

50 81, 175 100 42, 48 91 45, 48, 49 175 82 43

2 Samuel 4:1–3 7:16 8:3–8 8:5 8:13 8:13–14 10:6–19 11:3–4 12:18 13:14 13–14 13:23, 28 13:29 13:34 13:37–38 13:38 14:21 14:25–27 14:28 14:33 15:10 15:13–16:14 15:14 15:31 16:22 17:4 18:9 18:28 19 19:10 20 20:1 20:1–2a 20:2 20:6 20:7 20:8 20:10 20:13 20:21 20:22

175 100 83n97 71n29 71n29 82 83n97 94 94 52 52n68 52n68 51, 52 52 52, 81, 175 91 52 52n68 52n68 52 53 45, 50 48, 51, 53 51 53 103 51 93 51 48, 51 53 94, 109 93 93, 94 94 94 94 94 94 93, 94 94

23:13 20:24 21:1–9 22 22:23

42, 48, 50 111, 111n220 82, 82n89 60 44

1 Kings (3 Reigns) 1–2 1:5 1:6 1:11 1:42 1.49–53 1:50 1:50–53 2:5 2:5–8 2:25 2:28–34 3:1 3:9 3–10 3:12 3:18 4:6 6:1–7 9:16 11 11:1 11:1–13 11:11 11:11–12 11:12 11–12 11:13 11:14 11:14–12:24 11:14–16 11:14–22, 25b 11:17 11:17–22 11:19 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:23–25a 11:23ff 11:25 11:26

53 94 53n69 94 97n155 54n72 53 54n74 54n74 12 54 53, 54 5 109 103 109 105 111, 111n220 98 85 66, 89 5 65, 96 96, 98, 99 95n147 99n165 69 76 65, 78, 79, 91 183–184 82–84 82–90 48, 51n64, 78, 83, 89 77, 84–89 56, 87 69 76, 80 48, 51n64, 78, 79, 90n121 90–92 91 76, 89–90, 91 65, 69, 72n32, 76,

214 11:26–12:24 11:26–27 11:26–29a 11:26–39 11:26–40 11:27 11:27–28 11:28 11:29–30 11:29–38 11:29–39 11:30 11:31 11:31–39 11:32 11:34 11:35 11:37 11:38 11:39 11:40

11:41–43 11:42 11:43 11:43–12:24 12:1 12:1–3 12:1–14 12:1–19 12:2 12:3 12:4–5 12:5 12:6 12:6–11 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:11 12:11–12 12:12 12:12–15 12:15 12:16 12:16–17 12:17

Source Index 70n16 100 72n32 95 92–102 72n32, 92, 93, 99n165 96–97, 105 57, 76, 97, 111 97–99 101 66, 98 98, 99 97, 99n165, 109 81, 82, 99–100 72n35 99n165, 100 99n165 100 81, 99 76 40, 45, 48, 51n64, 66, 76, 78, 85, 86n106, 95, 100– 101, 135, 177 101–102 68, 74n49, 102 68, 68n10, 74n49, 76, 102 68n12 102 103–104 103 81, 102–112 48, 51n64, 68n10, 69, 79 69, 80 104–106 76, 79 79 106–108 76 80 79 76 110 79 108–109 76, 99n165 79, 109 109–111 76

11:26–12:20 12:20–21 12:20–24 12:21 12:21–24 12:22 12:22–24 12:24 12:24a–z LXX 12:24b LXX 12:24d–f LXX 12:24e LXX 12:24e–f LXX 12:24k LXX 12:25 12:25–33 12:26–32 12:29 13:4, 6 14:1–20 14:7–16 14:14 14:14–16 14:21 14:29–31 15:18 16:30 17:1 20:1 20:20

79, 80, 92–96, 99, 99n165, 100, 105, 109, 113 95n144 113 112–114 76, 78, 79 114n236 114 113–114 76, 78, 79, 109 68n12, 69, 70n16, 76 57, 94 68n10 86n109 70 102 78 82 92n132 82, 86n109 99n165 69 82 82 93n132 108, 114 114 83, 90, 90n123 82 47 83 42

2 Kings 2:20 3:4–5 5:1 6:24 9 9:4–10 15:20 17:4 17:20–23 18:21b 20:5, 8 20:19–25:30 21:10ff 23:2 23:29

98 84 97, 97n155 83 41 82 97, 97n155 38 93n132 70 105 133 164n1 136 150

215

Source Index 24:15 25:2 25:21 25:22–30 25:26

43 132 43 128n43 128

1 Chronicles 6 12:29 19:6–19 28:1 29:15

46 97 83n97 97 47

2 Chronicles 7:8–9 11:1–4 12:3 13:3 13:6–7 30:27 35:20 36:15

167 113 140n102 97 58 45 145 45

Ezra 2:1 6:21

80 80

Nehemiah 8:10 13:10

44 48, 51n64

Esther 5:1

105

1 Maccabees 1:16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2:53 3:32 10–11 10:51, 57 11:1, 13, 59 15:16 15:21

166 166, 166n7 166 166n7 166 166 166, 173, 185 166

2 Maccabees 1:1, 10 1:1–10a 1:5 1:9 1:10b–2:18 2:17 4:21

9, 166 167 168 167 168 169n20 9, 166

4:34 5:9 9:29

170 169, 173, 185 9, 166, 169–170, 173, 185

Job 11:20 26:13

46 47

Psalms 2:12 3:1 5:12 7:2 7:2 [Eng. v. 1] 11:1 14:6 16:1 17:7 18 18:2f.(1f.) 18:3, 31 22:6 25:20 26:8 31:2, 20 31:2[1] 33:17 34:9, 23 36:8 37:40 39:13 41:2 46:2 55 55:8 55:9 57:1 57:2 59:17 61:4 61:5 62:8, 9 64:11 68:2 68:6 71:1 71:7 73:28 74:14 89:49 91:2

60n98 59 60n98 60n98 42 42, 60n98 46, 60n98 42, 60n98 60n98 60 60 60n98 42 42, 60n98 45 60n98 42 42 60n98 60n98 60n98 47 42 46, 60n98 47 47 47 59 42, 60n98 59 46, 60n98 60n98 46, 60n98 60n98 59 45 42, 60n98 46, 60n98 46, 60n98 148 42 46, 60n98

216

Source Index

91:4 91:9 94:22 104:7 104:18 104:19 104:26 107:20 114:3, 5 116:4 118:8, 9 124:7 132:6 136 137:1 139:7 141:8 142:4 142:5 142:6 144:2

60n98 46, 60n98 46, 60n98 59 46, 60n98 42 148 42 59 42 60n98 42 93n136 79 79 59 42, 60n98 46 59 46, 60n98 42, 60n98

Proverbs 8:15 14:32 31:4

90 42 90

Sirach 24:25 39:22 47:14

89 89 89

Isaiah 8:1–4 10:9 10:14, 31 10:33–34 14:32 15:5 16:2, 3 17:12–14 19:5–8 19:18–25 19:22 19:24 21:14, 15 22:3 27:1 28:14–22 30:1–3 30:2 33:3

98 145 47 156 42 47 47 148 138 158 157 149 47 47 47 45n28 45n28 42, 45 47

36:6b 40:23 52:2 52:12 Jeremiah 1:6 1:9 2:1–2a 2:6 2:16 2:18 2:36 4 4:25 6:13–15 7:1–2a 7:12, 14 7:18 7:22 7:25 8:3 8:10–12 9:9 9:10 9:24 9:25 11:4 11:7 11:20 13:1–11 15:1 16:1 MT 16:14 MT 16:14–15 16:15 16:19 20:11 20:12 21:2 22:7 22:25 23:2 23:3 23:5–6 23:7 23:7–8 23:8 23:19–20 24:8 24:9

70 90 47 46

135 160, 160n221 120 124 129, 152 126, 128, 129, 129n48 126, 128, 129 132 47 120 120 138 138 124 124 44 120 47 45 129 126, 128, 129 124, 126 124, 126, 162 120 98 134, 160 120 124 120, 135 44 46 156 120 120 156 120 44 44 120 124 120, 135 44 120 126, 127, 128, 135 44

Source Index 25:19 (32:19) 25:30 (32:30) 26 (33) 26:6, 9 (33:6, 9) 26:20 (33:20) 26:20–23 (33:20–23) 26:21 (33:21) 26:22 (33:22) 26:23 (33:23) 27:8 (34:7) 27:10, 15 (34:9, 14) 28:5 (35:5) 29:7 (36:7) 29:14, 18 (36:14, 18) 29:24–32 (36:24–32) 30:10–11 (37:10–11) 30:17 (37:17) 30:23–24 (37:23–24) 31:32 (38:32) 32:9 (39:9) 32:20 (39:20) 32:21 (39:21) 32:37 (39:37) 33:14–16 33:15 (26:15) 34:13 (41:13) 35:5 (42:5) 36–45 (43–51) 37:5 (44:5) 37:7 (44:7) 38:17–18 (45:17–18) 38:18, 23 (45:18, 23) 39:9 (46:9) 39:18 (46:18) 40:1–7 (47:1–7) 40:12 (47:12) 41:1 (48:1) 41:15 (48:15) 41:17 (48:17) 42:14 (49:14) 42:15 (49:15) 42:16 (49:16) 42:17 (49:17) 42:18 (49:18) 42:19 (49:19) 43:2 (50:2) 43:3 (50:3) 43:4–7 (50:4–7) 43:5 (50:5) 43:7 (50:7) 43:9 (50:9)

126, 128, 129 45 124 138 62, 127 127, 182 40, 81, 126, 135, 177 126, 135 166, 169, 185 120 44 120 135 44 68n9 120 44 120 124 161 124 124 44 120 152 124 120 126, 130–139 136 136 131 42 43 42 43 44 136 42 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 43 133 44 136, 152 42

43:9–10 (50:9–10) 43:11 (50:11) 43:12 (50:12) 43:13 (50:13) 44:1 (51:1) 44:8 (51:8) 44:12 (51:12) 44:13 (51:13) 44:14 (51:14) 44:15 (51:15) 44:16 (51:16) 44:17 (51:17) 44:18 (51:18) 44:19 (51:19) 44:24 (51:24) 44:25 (51:25) 44:26 (51:26) 44:27–28 (51:27–28) 44:28 (51:28) 44:30 (51:30) 46 (26) 46:1–12 (26:1–12) 46:2 (26:2) 46:3–6 (26:3–6) 46:3–12 (26:3–12) 46:4 (26:4) 46:5 (26:5) 46:6 (26:6) 46:7 (26:7) 46:7–10 (26:7–10) 46:8 (26:8) 46:9 (26:9) 46:10 (26:10) 46:11 (26:11) 46:11–12 (26:11–12) 46:12 (26:12) 46:13 (26:13) 46:13–19 (26:13–19) 46:14 (26:14) 46:15 (26:15) 46:16 (26:16) 46:17 (26:17) 46:18 (26:18) 46:19 (26:19) 46:20 (26:20) 46:20–24 (26:20–24) 46:21 (26:21) 46:22 (26:22) 46:24 (26:24) 46:25 (26:25)

217 137 137 137, 138, 162 137 136, 151 137 137, 138–139, 162 137, 138 137 136 137 138 138 138 137, 138, 139, 152, 162 138 132, 137, 138 137, 138 138, 139, 152, 162 136, 159 162 159 126, 128, 145, 147 146–147 143, 160 144 46, 144, 145 46, 144, 145 144 147–149 126, 128, 144 144 145 126, 128, 144, 156 149–151 144, 145 126, 128 151–153 126, 128, 130, 151–152, 162 124 145 126, 128 144 126, 128, 144, 156 126, 128 153–156 46, 144, 145 144 126, 128, 144, 156 126, 128, 130, 162

218 46:25–26 (26:25–26) 46:27–28 (26:27–28) 46:28 (26:28) 48:47 (31:47) 49:5 (30:5) 49:6 (30:6) 49:19–21 49:27 (30:27) 49:36 49:39 50:17 (50:27) 50:44–46 (27:44–46)

Source Index 156–158 120 44 158 44, 47 158 120 83 44 158 44 120

Ezekiel 4:1–8 27:10 29:1–5 29:13–16 29:14 30:4 30:5 30:8, 16 30:14–16 30:18 36:27 38

98 140n102 138 158 157 137 140n102, 148 137 157 152 80 140n102

Daniel 11:43

140n102

Hosea 11:1 12:2

177 38

Amos 1:4 5:18, 20 7:12

83 148 40

Jonah 1:2 1:3 1:10 4:2

59 40, 59 59 59

Nahum 1:7 2:12 3:8 3:9

42 45 157 148

Zechariah 2:17[13]

45

Matthew 2:13 2:13–15 2:14 2:16 2:16–18 2:19–21 2:19–23 2:21

178, 179 9, 175–177, 186 178 84 176 9, 177–179, 186 164 179

Hebrews 11:32

58

Other Ancient Sources 3 Maccabees 165, 165n6 Babylonian and Assryian Historical Texts 35, 37–38, 51, 53, 159, 182 The Story of Idrimi, King of Alalakh 3, 23– 27, 50, 50n58, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 63, 175

Josephus 9, 164–165, 168n16, 169, 170– 173, 180, 186 Tale of Sinuhe 2, 19–22, 21, 22, 50, 52, 53, 56, 175 Tale of Two Brother, 32–35, 33, 34 Urhi-Teshub 27–32, 51, 53, 63, 175

Author Index Abrego, José M. 7n33, 8n38, 130n53, 132n62 Ackerman, Susan 12nn63–66, 50n57 Ahlström, Gösta 110n215, 159nn216–217 Albertz, Rainer 80n80, 134n73. Allen, Leslie C. 123n30 Allison, Dale C., Jr. 148n153. Alonso Schökel, Luis 7n33, 8n37, 125n35, 135n77, 135n81 Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman 40n8, 177n58 Anderson, H. 165n5 Ash, Paul S. 5n21, 92n132 Auld, A. Graeme 84n100, 85n104 Baines, J. 19n11, 22n21, 33n73 Bárta, Miroslav 2n1 Bartlett, John R. 82n92, 89n118 Bauks, Michaela 57n85, 57n87, 58n92 Beckman, Gary 26n36 Beckman, Gary and Harry A. Hoffner 17n3 Begg, Christopher T. 48n45, 50n62, 128n43, 133n70 Bickerman, Elias J. 102n175, 168n18 Bienkowski, Piotr 85n105, 115n240. Birch, Samuel 32n68 Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth M. see Smith, Mark S. and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik de 6n22, 127n41, 133n67 Boer, Roland 67n5 99n166, 101n172, 103n184, 104n186, 108n203 Bohak, Gideon 172n34 Brettler, Marc, 6n24, 81n86 Brewer, Douglas J. and Emily Teeter 150n169 Brooke, Alan, Norman McLean and Henry St. John Thackeray 10n48, 67n7 Brown, Raymond E. 175n44, 176n51, 179n71

Brueggemann, Walter 84n101, 100n169, 103n181, 106n193, 126n37, 131n60 Bryce, Trevor 5n18, 27n42, 29n48, 29n56, 30n60, 86n108, 150n166 Bunge, J. 167n14 Bunson, Margaret 151n176 Burchard, C. 9n43, 165n4 Busto Saiz, José Ramón. see Fernández Marcos, Natalio and José Ramón Busto Saiz Carroll, Robert P. 119n3, 120n9, 120n11, 120n14, 121n17, 128n44, 130n55, 131n58, 139n92, 149n160, 155n195, 156n204, 157n207 Childs, Brevard S. 149n159 Christensen, Duane L. 143n126 Clements, R. E. 158n212 Coats, George W. 6n23, 62n107, 62n109, 106n195 Cogan, Mordechai 6n22, 66n2, 67n6, 78n77, 81n83, 82n90, 83n96, 85n103, 90n122, 93n134, 97n155, 98n161, 103n183, 105n192, 111n221, 113n230, 133n66 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 171n31 Cohn, Robert L. 96nn151–152, 97n154, 98n157, 98n159, 99n165, 110n214 Collins, Billie Jean 27nn42–43, 29n52, 29nn49–50, 30n58, 30nn62–63, 31nn65–66, 56n83 Collins, John Joseph 9n40, 80n81, 102n176, 134n74, 160n223, 165n3, 167n11 Conroy, Charles 52n67 Cotter, David W. see Walsh, Jerome T. and David W. Cotter Creach, Jerome F. D. 54n72, 59n97, 60n104 Darnell, John C. and Richard Jasnow 88n115

220

Author Index

de Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik. see Boer,de Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik. see Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik den Hertog Cornelis 152n180 DeVries, Simon J. 66n3, 67n6, 77n71, 82nn90–91, 83n93, 98n158, 112n227, 113n231 Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz and Joaquín Sanmartín 40n4 Dietrich, Walter 53n69, 54n73 Dion, Paul 90n120, 144n132 Donner, Herbert 126n39 Doran, Robert 166n8, 166n10, 167n12, 167n14, 169n22 Dorsey, David A. 55n80 Douglas, Mary 11n56, 15n77 Dozeman, Thomas B. 13n67 Eades, K. L. 93n135 Edelman, Diana V. 8n35 Fernández Marcos, Natalio and José Ramón Busto Saiz 10n49, 67n7 Fieger, Michael and Sigrid HodelHoenes 25n31, 62n108, 62n111 Finkelstein, Israel 86n107 Fischer, Georg 119nn6–7, 122n25, 123n27 Fishbane, Michael A. 160n222 Foster, John L. and Ann L. Foster 34n75 Freedman, David Noel. see Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman Fretheim, Terence E. 95n147, 99n167, 101n170, 105n190, 114n235, 149n163 Friedman, Richard Elliott 6n22, 134n72 Fritz, Volkmar 87n110 Frymer-Kensky, Tikva 40n7 Fuchs, Andreas 35n83 Gamberoni, J. 40n6, 42n16, 45n28, 46n35, 48n47, 51n64, 59n95, 60n103, 60nn100–101 Gammie, John G. 106n196 Gardiner, Alan 19n11 Gehman, Henry S. see Montgomery, James A. and Henry S. Gehman Gennep, Arnold van 11n53, 12 Gibson, Shimon. see Negev, Avraham and Shimon Gibson

Goldstein, Jonathan A. 166n9, 167n13, 168n15, 169n20, 169n23 Gooding, D. W. 68n12, 70n16 Gordon, R. P. 106n196 Görg, Manfred 5n20 Gottlieb, Hans 10n50 Gray, John 67n6, 83n94, 97n155, 98n162, 102n177, 110n212, 113n232 Green, Barbara, 48n46, 49n54 Greenstein, Edward 3n9, 23n26, 24n27 Greenstein, Edward and David Marcus 23n23, 25nn33–34, 56n82 Greifenhagen, F. V. 5n21 Gruen, Erich S. 9n40, 9n44, 165n3, 168n16, 170n25, 171n28 Hagner, Donald Alfred 177n55, 177n61, 179 Halpern, Baruch 49n56, 108n205, 112n225 Hasel, G. 41n12, 47n38, 48n48 Hauser, Alan J. 94n139 Hayes, J. H. see Miller, J. M. and J. H. Hayes Hendel, Ronald 14n70, 14n72, 21n18, 56n11 Hens-Piazza, Gina 78n78, 84n102, 90n119, 91n127, 94n138, 95n145, 105n191, 107n199, 109n207 Henten, Jan W. van 167n11 Herr, L. 110n216 Herrmann, Siegfried 119n3, 130n54 Hertog, Cornelis den 152n180 Hodel-Hoenes, Sigrid. see Fieger, Michael and Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes Hoffmann, Yair 148n154 Hoffner, Harry A. see Beckman, Gary and Harry A. Hoffner Hofmann, Beate 88n114 Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling 40n3 Holladay, William L. 119n3, 135n78, 137n87, 140n96, 141n110, 142n118, 144n134, 148n152, 154n187, 156n203, 157n205 Hollis, Susan T. 21n16, 32n68, 32n70, 34n79, 35n81 Hornung, Erik 154n189, 157n206 Hout, Th. P. J. van den 27n42, 27n46 Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 29n55, 30n61, 30n64 Huddlestun, John R. 5n21, 137n89, 147n150

Author Index

221

Hugger, Pirmin 60n99 Hutton, Jeremy Michael 59n96, 155n192 Huwyler, Beat 9n39, 143n123, 145n137, 153n181, 160n218

122n26, 123n28, 123n32, 130n52, 143n128, 146n141, 146n145, 149n161, 150n167, 151n171, 152n177, 153n184 Luz, Ulrich 174n39, 175n43, 177n59 Lyng, Stephen 14n74, 21n17

Jackson, Jared J. 6n23, 146n143, 149n162 Janzen, John G. 119n4, 120n10, 121n20, 122n26 Jasnow, Richard. see Darnell, John C. and Richard Jasnow Jellicoe, Sidney 68n11, 69n15 Jenni, Ernst 5n19, 37n88 Jongeling, K. see Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling

Macchi, Jean-Daniel 120n12 Maier, Michael 6n23, 125n34, 126n38, 127n40, 128n46, 129nn47–48, 133n68, 136n83, 136n85, 137n88, 138n90, 150n165, 159nn214–215 Malamat, Abraham 7n29, 81n82, 91n125, 102n178 Marcus, David 58n88. see Greenstein, Edward and David Marcus Marcus, Ralph. see Thackeray, Henry St. John, Ralph Marcus et al. Margalit, B. 40n5 Marlowe, W. 140n102 Martin-Achard, R. 47n42, 55n78 Matera, Frank J. 174n37, 176n50 Matthews, Christopher 170n24 McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 49n50, 50n63, 51n65, 52n68 McKane, William 119n3, 121n19, 132n65, 139n95, 144n131, 146n142, 146n144, 147n146, 147n151, 149n158, 151n172, 153n186, 155n194, 158n170 McKenzie, Steven L. 49n51, 49n53 McLean, Norman. see Brooke, Alan, Norman McLean and Henry St. John Thackeray McMahon, Gregory 27n45 Millar, Fergus 171n30 Miller, J. M. and J. H. Hayes 81n88, 102n180, 159, 160, 160n219 Miller, Robert D., II 134nn75–76 Min, Y-J. 121n16 Montgomery, James A. and Henry S. Gehman 110n211, 110n213, 111n222 Moran, William L. 87n113 Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. 93n132

Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger 155n196 Keener, Craig S. 176n48, 178n65 Keown, Gerald L. 6n23, 140n97, 143n120, 145n136, 147n149, 149n157, 151n173, 153n183, 154n187, 156n202, 158n209, 159n213 Kessler, Rainer 6n22, 7n32, 8n34, 62n110, 70n17, 89n117, 118n1, 118n2, 139n91 Kiefer, Jörn 39n1, 40n2, 43n20, 43n23, 44n26 Knoppers, Gary N. 92n131, 95n144, 101n171 Kraemer, Ross S. 9n42 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 60n102 Larsson, E. 179n67 Lemaire, André 83n97 Lesko, Leonard H. 34n76 Leuchter, Mark 93n133, 93n136, 160n220, 160n221, 161n226 Levenson, Jon 105n189 Levy, Thomas E. et al. 85n105 Lichtheim, Miriam 19nn11–12, 32n72 Lippert, Sandra 4n4 Liverani, Mario 2n3, 17n1, 18n6, 18n8, 102n179 Lloyd, Alan 150n168 Logan, Alice 58n91, 58n93 Long, Burke O. 103n182, 104n187, 106n194, 112n228, 114n234 Loprieno, Antonio 87n112, 88n114 Loretz, Oswald. see Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz and Joaquín Sanmartín Lundbom, Jack R. 119n3, 119n6, 120n15,

Negev, Avraham and Shimon Gibson 165n2 Nicholson, Ernest W. 131n56, 131n59, 131n69 Nicholson, Paul T. see Shaw, Ian and Paul T. Nicholson Niditch, Susan 34n71, 57n86, 107n200 North, Robert 103n185

222

Author Index

Noth, Martin 178n63 Notley, R. Steven. see Rainey, Anson F. O’Brien, Mark A. 81n87 O’Connor, Michael 142n118, 144n133 Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaquín Sanmartín 40n4 Oppenheim, A. Leo 23nn23–24, 35nn83–84, 37n91, 38n93 Otzen, B. 43n22, 47n39, 57n84 Overing, Joanna. see Rapport, Nigel and Joanna Overing Parente, Fausto 170n26, 172n33 Parkinson, R. B. 19n11 Perdue, Leo G. 12n61, 14n73, 106n197 Pilch, John J. 51n66 Pitard, Wayne T. 91n124 Porten, Bezalel 164n1 Preuss, H. D. 45n30 Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley 7n31 Rapport, Nigel and Joanna Overing 11n55 Redford, Donald B. 6n25, 35n80, 106n196, 152n178 Reindl, J. 41n10, 46n37 Renfroe, F. 40nn4–5 Ringgren, Helmer 44n25, 45n29 Ritner, Robert Kriech 4n4 Rudolph, Wilhelm 143n124, 153n182 Sanmartín, Joaquín. see Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz and Joaquín Sanmartín; Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaquín Sanmartín Sasson, Jack M. 3n10, 23n23, 24n29 Schipper, Bernd U. 7n30, 35n83, 37n86, 37n89, 38n92, 86n106, 115n238, 159n214 Schipper, Jeremy 82n89 Schmid, R. 46n33, 54n74, 55n76 Schreiner, Josef 147n147 Schwartz, Daniel R. 169n21 Shaw, Ian and Paul T. Nicholson 156n201 Simkins, Ronald A. 56n81 Singer, Itamar 30n59 Ska, Jean Louis 55n79 Smith, Mark S. 114n237, 135n80, 147n148 Smith, Mark S. and Elizabeth M. BlochSmith 13n68, 63n112

Smith, Sidney 23n23 Snaith, John G. 143n125, 155n193 Snell, Daniel C. 3n6, 3n11, 18n5, 23n25 24n30, 26n35, 26n38, 49n55, 50n61, Soares-Prabhu, George 9n45, 174n41, 176n52, 177n56, 178n66, 179 Soderlund, Sven 119n4, 119n7, 121n16, 122n22 Soggin, J. Alberto 95n148, 96n153, 96n174, 109n209 Spalinger, Anthony 7n28, 19n11, 21n15, 38n94 Stamm, J. J. 2n2, 2n4, 48n44 Steen, Eveline van der and Piotr Bienkowski 85n105 Steiner, Richard 129n49 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 120n13 Stulman, Louis 119n5, 121n18, 125n36, 127n42, 130n51, 131n57 Sweeney, Marvin 8n36, 53n71, 68n9, 68n10, 79n79, 86n109, 89n116, 94n140, 109n206, 111n219, 112n226, 114n236, 160n224, 161n225 Taylor, John 152n178 Tcherikover Victor, 172n34 Teeter, Emily. see Brewer, Douglas J. and Emily Teeter Thackeray, Henry St. John. see also Brooke, Alan, Norman McLean and Henry St. John Thackeray Thackeray, Henry St. John, Ralph Marcus et al. 9n41 Thiel, Winfried 133n71 Thompson, J. A. 151n171, 153n185, 155n200 Toews, Wesley I. 93n137 Tov, Emanuel 66n4, 76nn67–69, 119n4, 120n8, 122, 123n29, 123n31, 144n129, 151n174 Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 7n33, 10n46, 67n8, 81n84, 174n38, 174n40, 175n45, 176n47, 177n57, 178n64 Tsumura, David 50n59 Turner, Victor Witter 11n54, 11n57, 12n59, 13n65, 13n67, 21n19 Uehlinger, Christoph. see Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger

Author Index Van de Mieroop, Marc 3n8, 24n28, 26n41, 26nn39–40, 29n51 van den Hout, Th. P. J. see Hout, Th. P. J. van der Steen, Eveline. see Steen, Eveline van Gennep, Arnold. see Gennep, Arnold van Henten, Jan W. see Henten, Jan W. Vervenne, Marc 148n155, 148n156 Vittmann, Günther 4nn16–17 Walsh, Jerome T. and David W. Cotter 78n76, 91n129, 95nn142–143, 96n150, 104n188, 109n208, 109n210, 112n224 Wanke, Gunther 136n84, 137n86 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 143n127, 144n135 Watts, James W. 151n175 Weder, H. 179nn68–69 Weiser, Artur 143n122

223

Wente, Edward 32nn68–69, 35n82 Westbrook, Raymond 3n5, 17n2, 18n7, 22n22, 25n32, 31n67 Westermann, Claus 61n105 Westermann, Claus and Rainer Albertz 43n21 Wildberger, Hans 158n212 Wilkinson, Richard H. 152n179, 154n190 Willis, T. M. 8n36, 69n13, 72n32, 95n146 Wilson, Kevin A. 6n21 Winckler, Hugo and Ludwig Abel 35n83 Würthwein, Ernst 106 Zevit, Ziony 54n75 Ziegler, J. 10n48, 122n21 Zipora, Talshir 66n1

Subject Index 1 Kings. See also Kings period; names of specific figures, e.g., Jeroboam – translation 11:14-12:24 (rebellions against Solomon), 70–75 1 Maccabees, 166 2 Maccabees, 9, 167–170. See also GrecoRoman period 3 Maccabees, 165, 165n6 Aaron and Jeroboam, 81, 183 Abimelech 58, 91 Abraham and Jeroboam 7–8 Absalom – flights of 5, 40, 51–53, 182 – and Jacob 56 – and Jeroboam 81, 93 – and Moses 63 Adonijah 5, 53–55, 94–95, 182 Adoram 111, 111n220 Ahijah 80–81, 97–99 altar, horns of 53–54, 54nn73–74 Alternative Story – bias against Jeroboam in 184 – image of Egypt in 69–70, 102 – Joseph elements in Hadad story 86n109 – variations from MT 76 Amos, flight in 40 Amun (Egyptian god) 157 Apis bull god 124, 152–153, 152n179, 154 Assyria – deportations by 43 – and Egypt 37, 38, 128–129, 149, 159 – in Neo-Assyrian period 36–38 – and Urhi-Teshub 30 asylum, verbs describing 45–46 Babylonian Exile 43, 80, 131–132 band of warriors motif 24n30, 91 bandit heroes 50n58, 58 banishment, verbs describing 44 Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45) 130–139

– allusions to Egypt in 8–9, 131, 132 – as framing device 131 – negative view of Egypt in 132–133, 162, 184–185 Boaz and Jeroboam 97 calf (heifer) image in Jeremiah 154, 185 captivity, words describing 43, 47 Carchemish, 145, 146, 159 centrality, efforts to maintain – and Absalom 52–53 – and David 48, 49, 51 – in Joseph 62–63 – and Moses 63 – of people in flight 64 Chanunu of Gaza 35, 37, 51, 53, 182 class. See high-status refugees; low-status refugees; status preservation Code of Hammurabi on low-status refugees 2, 4 control of destiny and flight, 43 crimes – and asylum 46, 181 – as unethical act 56 Damascus as place of refuge 92 danger, liminality as 11 David – flight as escape 42 – flight as evasion of tension 5, 39, 40, 48, 51, 53 – in flight from a foe 41 – and Idrimi 25 – and Jephthah 58 – and Jeroboam 81, 95 – liminality of 12–13 – as man of valor 57 – as refugee 48–51 – and Rezon 91 debtors in Egyptian law 4

Subject Index deforestation imagery in Jeremiah 156, 185 deportation vs. flight 37, 38, 43, 187 diaspora, words associated with 43–44, 181 domestic conflicts as cause of expulsion 55–56 dream motif in stories 28, 57, 175, 175n42 edgework, 14–15, 21. See also liminality Edom and historicity of Hadad story 82–84, 115–116 Egypt. See also Egypt as a place of refuge – allusions to in Jeremiah 8–9, 125–139 – ambiguity and tension in portrayals of 88–89 – and Assyria 37, 38, 128–129, 149, 159 – attitude toward foreigners in 4–5, 88 – contrast between LXX and MT 100–101, 117 – in Exilic/post-exilic period 150 – flight from, in Jeremiah 154–155, 155n92 – generic descriptions in Kings 116 – generic knowledge of in Jeremiah 116, 137–138, 152–154, 162 – in Greco-Roman Period 164 – imperial ambitions of 3–4 – as incubator for rebels 104, 105, 117 – and Joseph story 106 – in Kings period 7–8, 128, 134 – liminality as challenge to 34 – marriage customs in 85–87, 86nn108– 109, 116 – relationship with Israel 5–9 – restoration of in Jeremiah 158 – role of in Matthew 179 – in Solomon's time (Third intermediate period) 86–87, 115 – sources of information on 160 – value of continuity and restoration in 34 Egypt, negative portrayals of – in 1 Kings 183 – in Baruch scroll 132–133, 162, 184–185 – in Jeremiah 129–130, 148, 149, 161 – in Wisdom,102 Egypt, positive or neutral portrayals of 88–89, 100–101, 104, 133n67, 157, 170 Egypt as a place of refuge – in 2 Maccabees 169 – appeal of at literary level 92

225

– contrast of LXX and MT 69–70, 101– 102, 124 – in Exilic/postexilic period 126–127, 136, 138, 157–158, 161 – flight-and-prosperity-in-Egypt motif in Hadad, 83 – in Matthew 173–179 – in Neo-Assyrian period 36–38 – opposition to by Jeremiah 133 – for temporary periods only 47 Egyptian literature – Sinuhe 2, 19–22, 21, 22, 50, 52, 53, 56, 175 – Tale of Two Brother, 32–35, 33, 34 Elephantine settlement 160, 164, 164n1, 180 Elisha in flight from a foe 41 escape from a war 41–42, 48, 182 exile – as element in power struggles 31 – as forcible separation from one's home 25 – of important man 51 – meaning of term 181 – temporary duration of exile 22, 47 exiles gathering an army for return 23, 56, 57, 58. See also band of warriors motif Exilic/postexilic period (Jeremiah) 10, 118–163 Exodus from Egypt. See also Moses – allusions to in Jeremiah 125–126, 137– 138, 148 – and Jeroboam 80 – and Messiah's flight into Egypt, 176, 177–179 – as rite of passage 13 expulsion contrasted with flight 56 extradition. See treaties on extradition fleeing and seeking – in Matthew, 175, 178–179 – parallels in OT and extrabiblical figures 175–176 flight – futility of, in Jeremia, 145, 146, 154–155 – in Kings 183 – and liminality 23, 38, 41, 64, 182 – in Matthew 186 – in Sinuhe 22 – vocabulary of 5

226

Subject Index

flight and return motif – absent in Exodus story 63 – in Messiah's flight into Egypt 177 – in threats to Solomon 79–80 flight as escape 41–42, 48, 182 flight as evasion of tension – and David 39, 40, 48, 51, 53 – and Hagar 55 – and Jacob 56, 57 – and Jonah 59 – in Kings 78–79, 188 – and Moses 52, 56, 63 – in Psalms 59–60 – uses of term 40–41, 182 flight from a foe – in Jeremiah 46 – in Joseph 61 – in Kings 54, 79 – in Moses 63 – in Psalms 59, 60 – use of the term, 41, 46–47, 181–182 flight to Egypt. See Egypt as a place of refuge flight with possessions – and Jacob 56–57 – and Moses 63 fugitives acting on their own initiative 44 genre study and understanding of flight narratives 3, 6, 116 Gideon and Jeroboam 97 God, actions of – and Exodus from Egypt 63 – in gathering scattered people 44 – and Jacob’s flight 57 – and Joseph 61–62 – as a place of refuge in Psalms 42, 44–45, 46, 59–61, 64 – power of God in Jeremiah 150–151, 185 – as protector of Judean remnant 138, 161 Greco-Roman period – Matthew 173–179 – Oniads 165–173 Hadad the Edomite 82–90 – flight to Egypt 62, 78, 84–89 – historicity of story 82–84 – and Joseph 84–85, 86n109, 87 – literary structure of story 8, 77 – as portrayed in LXX and MT 69 – role in Solomon story 89–90 – as type of Moses 79, 83, 84–85, 87, 89–90

– as typological character 116 Hagar 40, 55–56 Hammurabi, code of, on low-status refugees 2, 4 Hanukkah, observance of in Egypt 167, 168 Hattusili 29–32, 29n53, 30n64, 56, 150n166, 182 heifer (calf) image in Jeremiah 154, 185 – and Absalom 51 – and David 39, 40, 48, 51, 53 – and Hagar 55 Herod and Pharaoh 176 Herodotus on Egypt 150 high-status refugees. See also low-status refugees; status preservation – flight to maintain status 2, 25–26, 45, 48, 182 – Moses as 63 – need for protector 54–55 – Sinuhe as 2, 22 Holy Family, flight to Egypt of 173–179, 180 homelessness and alienation 25, 25n34 Homer on Egypt 150 honor as value in Mediterranean area 51, 51n66, 53 horns of the altar 53–54, 54nn73–74 Hosea, on Egypt as refuge 177 Hoshea and alliance with Egypt 38 hospitality and relations with other governments 18 Idrimi 23–27 – compared to biblical figures 25, 50, 50n58, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 63 – fleeing and seeking 175 – liminality of 23, 26 – literary aspects of 3, 24 Jacob – capturing Laban’s daughters 43 – flight episodes in 40, 56–57, 182 – and Idrimi story 25 Jamani of Ashod 35, 37–38, 159, 182 Jason the High Priest, as refugee 169, 169n23, 185 Jephthah – as bandit figure 50n58, 58 – domestic conflict 55–56 – flight of 40, 57–59 – and Idrimi 25, 50n58, 57, 58

Subject Index – and Jeroboam 81, 97 – as warrior 57 Jeremiah 118–163, 119–124. See also Baruch Scroll (Jeremiah 36–45) – differences between MT and LXX 8, 119–124, 161–162 – flight in 39 – historicity of 185 – and Moses 134–136, 135n80 – negative picture of Egypt in 129–130, 132–133, 148, 149, 161, 184–185 Jeremiah 46 – historicity of 148–149, 159–161 – literary structure of 143–145 – translation of 139–143 Jeroboam 92–102 – ambiguous treatments of 183–184 – as bandit hero 58 – characterization of 81–82, 92–93, 96–97, 105 – descriptions of 79 – Egypt as a place of refuge for 62, 100 – flight of 39, 40, 45, 78 – image of in LXX 68–69 – and Jephthah 57 – and Jeremiah 160–161 – literary structure of story 8, 77–78 – as man of valor 57 – and Moses/Exodus 80 – in Rehoboam story 113 Joab 12, 12n62, 52, 53–55, 54n72, 84 Jonah 40, 59 Joseph and Aseneth 9, 9n42, 165 Joseph, husband of Mary 174 Joseph, son of Jacob – absent in Jeremiah 134 – Egypt as a place of refuge and 62–63 – flights of 41, 61–63 – and Hadad the Edomite 84–85, 86n109, 87 – and Idrimi story 25 – and Jeroboam 7–8, 100–101 – and Messiah’s flight to Egypt 175 – and Rehoboam story 106 – and Tale of Two Brothers 34–35, 34n79 Josephus – reliability of 170–173, 180, 186 – as source of information 9, 164–165 – on temple at Leontopolis 168n16, 169, 170, 186 Joshua and Jeremiah 137–138 Jotham 40, 41, 81

227

Judean remanant after Exile – dangers of Egypt for 138, 161 – as refugees in Egypt 136, 138, 157–158 key words (themes) – in Jeremiah 143–145 – in Kings 75, 78–80 – nouns for “refuge” 44–47 – verbs for “fleeing” 5, 39–44 – in Wisdom literature 107n198 Kings period – flight in 78–79, 188 – refuge in 65–117 kingship motif in Jeroboam story 100 Kish (father of Saul) and Jeroboam 97 Leontopolis, temple at 164–165, 167–169, 169n20, 172, 172n34, 180, 186 liminality 11–15 – and flight 23, 38, 41, 64, 182 – in Joseph story 61–62 – of peripheral figures 49–50 – in Urhi-Teshub 29, 30, 31, 32 limits of refuge and Adonijah 54 literary structure – in 1 Kings 66–67, 75–78, 183 – in Baruch Scroll 131 – differences between MT and LXX 8, 119–124, 161–162 – in Jeremiah 143 – in Joseph story 62 – in Matthew’s flight to Egypt story 175, 178 – uses of 6 low-status refugees. See also high-status refugees; status preservation – in Code of Hammurabi 2, 4 – lack of political value in 17–18 Lucius the consul, letter of 166 LXX. See Septuagint (LXX) marginalization. See liminality mass flight of refugees 3 Matthew 173–179 – and OT accounts of Egypt 9, 186 – structure of 174 – theological agenda 117, 182 – translation of flight to Egypt story 174 medical metaphors 150 Messiah’s, flight and return to Egypt 173– 179

228

Subject Index

Midian – in Hadad story 56, 85 – and Moses 41, 46, 63, 89, 178 military metaphors in Jeremiah 150 Moses – and Absalom 52 – as bandit figure 50n58 – in Baruch Scroll 134–135, 134n75, 135n80 – as criminal 46 – flights from Egypt 40–41, 52, 56, 63 – and Hadad 84–85 – and Idrimi story 25 – and Jacob 56 – and Jephthah 57 – and Jeremiah 134, 137–138, 160 – and Jeroboam 81, 105 – and Jesus 176 – rite of passage of 13–14 – and Urhi-Teshub 63 – as warrior 57 mothers – prostitutes as 57, 94 – royal mothers 94–95 – widowed 79, 94–95 mother’s people, flight to 23–24, 52, 56 mythological aspects of Jeremiah 46, 148–149 Naaman and Jeroboam 97 Near Eastern Literature, refuge in 17–38 Nehemiah and Idrimi 25 Neo-Assyrian period 36–38. newness motif 98–99 night motif in Messiah’s flight into Egypt 176, 176nn53–54 Oniad family 9, 165–173, 170–173 Oracles Against the Nations (OAN) – in Baruch Scroll 136 – as historical evidence 160 – in Jeremiah 126, 139, 157–158 – mockery in 149 – placement of in MT and LXX 124 – in prophetic literature 128–129 Paran as place of refuge 56, 85 peripheral figures. See liminality permanent exile, words associated with 43–44, 47 Philip the Phrygian, as refugee 169–170, 170n24, 186

poetic verse, use of – as emotional expression 147n148 – in Oracles Against the Nations 128–129 – and refuge as theological concept 182 – in Rehoboam story 110 political refugees – David as 48 – in Egyptian law 4 – and extradition 17 – liminality of 1 – Sinuhe as 20–21 power struggle as cause of flight 48–49, 56 prisoners of war, words describing 43, 47 prophetic stories – Ahijah 99–100 – David and Jeroboam 95 – references to Egypt in 128–129 – Shemaiah the Elamite 68, 78, 80–81, 112, 113–114, 183 – in threat to Solomon 80–82 Psalms, spiritual refuge in 42, 45, 46, 59–61, 64 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes and Jewish refugees 166 punishment – deportation as 37, 44 – flight as God’s judgment 91, 92n131 – God’s judgment in Jeremiah 125, 138, 147 – in prophecy 99 Qumran texts of Jeremiah 122–123, 123n30 rebellion of Northern Kingdom 109–111 refuge as God’s protection 42, 44–45, 46, 59–60 Rehoboam, 102–112 – character of, 108–109, 112 – historicity of story 102–103, 106–108, 111–112, 113 – literary structure of story 78, 81, 103–104 – perspectives on 114, 114n236 – words describing flight of 41, 79 restoration to leadership theme – in Egyptian stories 34 – and Hattushili as exile 31 – in Jeremiah 157–158 return of refugees – in Jacob 56–57

Subject Index

229

– in Kings 183 return to Egypt, warnings against 136, 138 Rezon 77–78, 90–92 risky behavior – in liminal figures 11, 15, 15n77, 32, 38 – Sinuhe 21 – Urhi-Teshub 32 rites of passage and liminality 11, 34

– and liminality 14 – of political refugees 1 Succession Narrative, liminality in 12 symbolic actions – by Ahijah 98–99, 113 – by Jephthah 58n89 – by Jeremiah 137, 161 – in Jeroboam story 116

Sargon II and flight of Philistine princes 35–38 Saul and Jeroboam 82 scattering, verbs describing 43–44 seeking. See fleeing and seeking self-initiated flight vs. divinely guided flight 57 “sending out” and departure from Egypt 80 Septuagint (LXX). See also Alternative Story – in criticism of 1 Kings 66 – negative treatment of Egypt in 183 – as source for Matthew 178 servanthood 79, 95, 104–105, 107 Sheba and Jeroboam 93–94 Shemaiah the Elamite 68, 78, 80–81, 112, 113–114, 183 Shimei and David 12, 12n62, 51 Sinuhe 19–22 – compared to biblical figures 50, 52, 53, 56 – fleeing and seeking 2, 175 – liminality of 21, 22 slaves, runaway – David as 50 – Joseph as 61–62 – as refugees 3 – in treaties 26, 26n37 – vs. exile of high-status persons 25, 182 snake imagery in Jeremiah 155–156, 185 social environment, uprooting of exiles from 32 Solomon – death of 101–102 – marriage to daughter of Pharaoh 4–5, 5n18 – royal mother of 94–95 – threats to power of 12, 78 sources used for study 10 sovereignty and right to grant asylum 18, 36 status preservation – flight as means of 2, 45, 48, 182

Tale of Two Brothers 32–35, 33, 34 Tamar, rape of 52 tearing of garments motif 98–99 temporary duration of exile 22, 47 Thebes (Egypt) 157 theological agenda – and destruction of Northern kingdom 93n132 – in Jeremiah/ Baruch Scroll 131n56, 133n69, 146n143, 149, 150, 155, 163, 185 – in Jeroboam story 100, 104 – in Kings 67, 102, 102n180, 112, 112n226, 115, 116 – in Matthew 117, 182 – in Rezon story 91 – and use of Egypt 163, 185, 187 Transjordan as place of refuge 59 translations of critically reconstructed texts – 1 Kings (11:14–12:24) 70–75 – Jeremiah (46) 139–143 – Matthew (2:13–15, 19–21) 174 treaties on extradition – and control over refugees 2 – in Greco-Roman period 166, 173, 180, 185 – for low-status refugees 17–18 – and threats posed by high status refugees 26, 26n38 Urhi-Teshub 27–32 – compared to biblical figures 51, 53, 63 – fleeing and seeking 175 – liminality of 29, 30, 31, 32 Uriah the prophet – Egypt as improper refuge for 62, 127–128, 159, 185 – flight as evasion of tension 40 – and Jeroboam 81 – as low-status refugee 1, 54, 182 – placement of story in MT and LXX 124

230

Subject Index

warrior as exile 24n30, 57, 91 water motif in Jeremiah 146, 147–148, 149 Wisdom, Book of 102, 167n11

wisdom tales – Joseph story as 106, 106nn195–196, 107nn197–198 – Rehoboam as 81, 103, 106–108, 109 – use of generic god in 7n27