Heaven for Elijah? (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, 30) [New ed.] 9783631871348, 9783631871911, 9783631872024, 3631871341

Citation preview

Heaven for Elijah?

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

Volume 30

Michał Karnawalski

Heaven for Elijah? A Study of Structure, Style, and Symbolism in 2 Kings 2:1–18

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. This publication was financially supported by Collegium Bobolanum of the Catholic Academy in Warsaw, Poland.

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-87134-8 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-87191-1 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-87202-4 (EPUB) DOI 10.3726/b19363 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2022 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

dla Alfredy i Wiesława, moich rodziców po dwóch stronach rzeki

Contents Acknowledgments ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17 Abbreviations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  19 Bibliography ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  19 Bibles ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  20 Grammar ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  20 General �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  21

Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  23 1. Heavenly Ascent in the Ancient Near East �������������������������������������������������  24 2. Biblical and Post-​Biblical Perspectives ��������������������������������������������������������  27 3. Question and its Status ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  31 3.1 Our Question ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  31 3.2 Status Quaestionis �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  32 4. Text and Codices ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  35 4.1 Masoretic Text �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  35 4.2 Non-​Masoretic Texts ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  36 5. Methodology and Chapters ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  37 5.1 Examined Strata ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  38 5.2 Methodology ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  40 5.3 Chapters ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  41

Chapter I. From Hebrew to English ��������������������������������������������  43 1. Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 ��������������������������������������  43 2. Notes on the Adopted Translation and Textual Choices ���������������������������  46 2.1  Translation of ‫( בסערה הׁשמים‬2Kgs 2:1a, 11b) ������������������������������������������  46

8

Contents

2.1.1 Reflecting the Grammar Ambiguity �������������������������������������������  47 2.1.2 Identifying the “Missing” Elements ��������������������������������������������  48 2.1.3 The Reason of Omitting he �����������������������������������������������������������  53 2.1.4 Translation ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  54 2.2 Translation of ‫( חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬2Kgs 2:2aβ; 4aβ; 6aβ) ����������  56 2.2.1 Morphology and Syntax ����������������������������������������������������������������  57 2.2.2 The meaning of the formula ���������������������������������������������������������  61 2.3 Translation of ‫( אף־הוא‬2Kgs 2:14) ������������������������������������������������������������  64 2.4 Ketiv/​Qere Variant: ]‫( (הגיאות) [הגאיות‬2Kgs 2:16aβ) �����������������������������  66

3. Chapter Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  66

Chapter II. From Redaction to Structure ������������������������������  69 1. Redactional Setting ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  70 1.1 Redaction of the Elijah–​Elisha Cycles ����������������������������������������������������  70 1.2 Redaction of the Narrative: Classical Proposals ������������������������������������  75 1.3 Other Historical-​Critical Investigations on the Narrative �������������������  78 1.3.1 Rofé’s proposal ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  78 1.3.2 Łach’s proposal �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  81 1.3.3 Hergesel’s proposal ������������������������������������������������������������������������  81 1.3.4 McKenzie’s proposals ��������������������������������������������������������������������  82 1.3.5 Otto’s proposal ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  85 1.4 Section Conclusions ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  87 2. Structural Setting ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  88 2.1 Chiastic Structures of the Narrative ��������������������������������������������������������  88 2.1.1 Lundbom’s Chiasm ������������������������������������������������������������������������  88 2.1.2 Hobbs’ Chiasm �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  90 2.1.3 Long’s Chiasm ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  91 2.1.4 Cohn’s Chiasm �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  92 2.1.5 Brodie’s Parallelisms ����������������������������������������������������������������������  93 2.2 Non-​Chiastic Structures ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  94 2.2.1 Satterthwaite’s Proposal �����������������������������������������������������������������  94 2.2.2 Long’s Proposal ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  96

Contents



9

2.2.3 DeVries’s Proposal �������������������������������������������������������������������������  96 2.3 Close Reading with the Narratology Criteria ����������������������������������������  98 2.3.1 Macro-​Narrative ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  100 2.3.2 Narrative Sequence ����������������������������������������������������������������������  102 2.3.3 Micro-​Narrative ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 2.3.4 Scenes ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  107 2.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109

3. Chapter Conclusions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109

Chapter III. The First Scene: vv.1–​6 �������������������������������������������  113 1. Verbal Structures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 1.1 Narrator Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 1.1.1 Time Verbal Structures ���������������������������������������������������������������  115 1.1.2 Space Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  117 1.1.3 Speech Verbs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  118 1.2 Character Verbs ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  118 1.2.1 Elijah’s Verbs ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  118 1.2.2 Elisha’s Verbs (I) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  119 1.2.3 Sons of Prophets’ Verbs ���������������������������������������������������������������  120 1.2.4 Elisha’s Verbs (II) �������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 1.3 Incidents and Quasi-​Incidents ��������������������������������������������������������������  122 1.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 2. Narrative Techniques �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 2.1 Prolepsis in v. 1a ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  124 2.1.1 Proleptic Resumés Framework ��������������������������������������������������  125 2.1.2 Proleptic Titles Framework ��������������������������������������������������������  127 2.1.3 Sui Temporis Phenomenon ���������������������������������������������������������  128 2.1.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������  130 2.2 Repetitions in vv. 1–​6 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 2.2.1 The Four Speeches of the Narrator ��������������������������������������������  132 2.2.2 The Three Requests of Elijah ������������������������������������������������������  134 2.2.3 The Three Answers of Elisha ������������������������������������������������������  137

10

Contents

2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8

The Two Speeches of the Narrator ���������������������������������������������  138 The Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets ����������������������  140 The Two Answers of Elisha ��������������������������������������������������������  142 A Nonverbal Phenomenon ���������������������������������������������������������  142 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������  144

3. Plot Stages ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  145 3.1 The First Equilibrium �����������������������������������������������������������������������������  146 3.1.1 Initial Exposition Elements ��������������������������������������������������������  148 3.1.2 Gradual Exposition Examples ����������������������������������������������������  151 3.1.3 Gradual Exposition Elements ����������������������������������������������������  154 3.1.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������  155 3.2 From Equilibrium to Disequilibrium ���������������������������������������������������  156 3.2.1 Equilibrium of the Exposition ���������������������������������������������������  157 3.2.2 Perturbation in the Inciting Moment ����������������������������������������  159 3.2.3 Disequilibrium of the Complication �����������������������������������������  160 3.2.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������  163 4. Chapter Conclusions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  164

Chapter IV. The Second Scene: vv. 7–​14 ������������������������������������  169 1. Verbal Structures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169 1.1 Narrator Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169 1.1.1 Time Verbal Structures ���������������������������������������������������������������  169 1.1.2 Space Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 1.1.3 Deed Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 1.1.4 Speech Verbs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 1.2 Character Verbs ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 1.2.1 Elijah’s Verbs (I) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 1.2.2 Elisha’s Verbs (I) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 1.2.3 Elijah’s Verbs (II) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  181 1.2.4 Elisha’s Nominal Expressions �����������������������������������������������������  183 1.3 Incidents ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  183 1.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185

Contents

11

2. Narrative Techniques �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  186 2.1 Simultaneity ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  187 2.1.1 Types of Simultaneity ������������������������������������������������������������������  187 2.1.2 Phenomenon of v. 7 ���������������������������������������������������������������������  191 2.1.3 Phenomenon of v. 11a �����������������������������������������������������������������  195 2.1.5 Phenomenon of v. 12aα ���������������������������������������������������������������  200 2.2 Points of View ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  204 2.2.1 Points of View in Disequilibrium ����������������������������������������������  204 2.2.2 Points of View in Re-​establishment of Equilibrium ����������������  207 2.3 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  211 3. Plot Stages ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  212 3.1 Extended Disequilibrium �����������������������������������������������������������������������  212 3.2 Re-​establishment of the Equilibrium ����������������������������������������������������  214 3.3 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219 4. Chapter Conclusions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  220

Chapter V. The Third Scene: vv. 15–​18 ��������������������������������������  223 1. Verbal Structures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 1.1 Narrator and Character Verbs ���������������������������������������������������������������  223 1.1.1 Narrator Verbs in v. 15a ��������������������������������������������������������������  223 1.1.2 Sons of the Prophets Verb in v. 15a �������������������������������������������  224 1.1.3 Narrator Verbs in vv. 15b–​16a ���������������������������������������������������  224 1.1.4 Sons of the Prophets Verbs in v. 16a �����������������������������������������  226 1.1.5 Narrator Verb in vv. 16b �������������������������������������������������������������  227 1.1.6 Elisha Verb in v. 16b ��������������������������������������������������������������������  227 1.1.7 Narrator Verbs in v. 17a ��������������������������������������������������������������  228 1.1.8 Elisha Verb in v. 17a ��������������������������������������������������������������������  229 1.1.9 Narrator Verbs in v. 17b–​18 �������������������������������������������������������  230 1.1.10 Elisha Verbs in v. 18b ������������������������������������������������������������������  232 1.2 Functional Verb Groups �������������������������������������������������������������������������  233 1.2.1 Quasi Time Verbs ������������������������������������������������������������������������  233 1.2.2 Space Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  234

12

Contents

1.2.3 Deed Verbs �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  234 1.2.4 Speech Verbs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  234 1.3 Incidents ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  234 1.4 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  236

2. Narrative Techniques �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  236 2.1 Classification of Analepsis in v. 18b ������������������������������������������������������  236 2.1.1 Formula “Didn’t I tell” �����������������������������������������������������������������  237 2.1.2 Phenomenon of v. 18 �������������������������������������������������������������������  240 2.2 Functions of Analepsis vv. 18b ��������������������������������������������������������������  241 2.2.1 Functions of Analepses ���������������������������������������������������������������  241 2.2.2 Rhetorical Question ��������������������������������������������������������������������  242 2.2.3 Negative Particles in Direct Speech �������������������������������������������  244 2.2.4 Functions of v. 18bβ ��������������������������������������������������������������������  245 2.3 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  248 3. Plot Stages ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  248 3.1 End of Denouement in v. 15 ������������������������������������������������������������������  249 3.2 Plot’s Conclusion in vv. 16–​18 ���������������������������������������������������������������  250 4. Chapter Conclusions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  254

Chapter VI.  From Narrative to Symbolism ��������������������������  257 1. Itinerary Symbolism �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  259 1.1 Bethel (‫ )בית־אל‬as an Allegory ���������������������������������������������������������������  259 1.1.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  259 1.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  260 1.1.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  261 1.1.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  262 1.2 Jericho (‫ )ירחו‬as an Allegory ������������������������������������������������������������������  262 1.2.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  263 1.2.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  263 1.2.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  264 1.2.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  264

Contents



13

1.3 Jordan (‫ )הירדן‬as a Symbol ����������������������������������������������������������������������  265 1.3.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  265 1.3.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  265 1.3.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  266 1.3.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  266 1.4 Sky (‫ )ׁשמים‬as a Symbol ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 1.4.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  267 1.4.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  267 1.4.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  268 1.4.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  268

2. Heritage Symbolism �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  269 2.1 “Sons of ” (‫ )בני‬as a Symbol ���������������������������������������������������������������������  269 2.1.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  269 2.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  270 2.1.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  271 2.1.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  272 2.2 Two (‫ )ׁשנים‬as a Symbol ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  272 2.2.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style ��������������������������������������������������  272 2.2.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  272 2.2.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  273 2.2.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  274 2.3 “Spirit of ” (‫ )רוח‬as a Symbol ������������������������������������������������������������������  274 2.3.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style ��������������������������������������������������  274 2.3.2 Function in the Narrative �����������������������������������������������������������  275 2.3.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  275 2.3.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  276 2.4 Mantle (‫ )אדרת‬as a Symbol ���������������������������������������������������������������������  276 2.4.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style ��������������������������������������������������  277 2.4.2 Function in the Narrative �����������������������������������������������������������  277 2.4.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  277 2.4.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  277

14

Contents

3. Etiological Symbolism (Proto-​Symbolism) �����������������������������������������������  278 3.1 Gilgal (‫ )הגלגל‬as Proto-​Symbol ��������������������������������������������������������������  278 3.1.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style ��������������������������������������������������  278 3.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative ��������������������������  279 3.1.3 Occurrences in HB and Meaning ����������������������������������������������  280 3.1.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  283 3.2 Whirlwind (‫ )סערה‬as Allegory and Symbol �����������������������������������������  284 3.2.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style ���������������������������������������������������  284 3.2.2 Function in the Narrative �����������������������������������������������������������  285 3.2.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  286 3.2.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  287 3.3 Chariotry (‫ )רכב‬as Allegory and Symbol ����������������������������������������������  288 3.3.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style ��������������������������������������������������  288 3.3.2 Function in the Narrative �����������������������������������������������������������  288 3.3.3 Occurrences in HB ����������������������������������������������������������������������  289 3.3.4 Semiotic Identification ����������������������������������������������������������������  289 3.4 Further Remarks on Rolled Up (‫  �������������������������������������������������� )ויגלם‬290 4. Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks ����������������������������������������������������  290 4.1 Greek Narrative and Its Translation ������������������������������������������������������  290 4.2 Remarks on the Style ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  292 4.3 Remarks on the Structure ����������������������������������������������������������������������  294 4.4 Symbolism in LXX vs. MT ���������������������������������������������������������������������  295 4.4.1 Whirlwind (συσσεισμός) in vv. 1, 11 ����������������������������������������  295 4.4.2 Sky (οὐρανός) in vv. 1, 11 �����������������������������������������������������������  295 4.4.3 Gilgal (Γάλγαλα) in v. 1 ���������������������������������������������������������������  296 4.4.4 Bethel (Βαιθηλ) in v. 2, 3 ������������������������������������������������������������  296 4.4.5 Sons (υἱοὶ) in vv. 3, 5, 7, 15 ���������������������������������������������������������  296 4.4.6 Jericho (Ιεριχω) in vv. 4, 5, 15, 18 ����������������������������������������������  296 4.4.7 Jordan (Ἰορδάνης) in v. 6, 7 13, 16 ���������������������������������������������  297 4.4.8 Two: (δύο) in v. 12; (διπλᾶ) in v. 9; (ἀμφότεροι) in vv. 6, 7, 8, 11 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  297 4.4.9 Spirit (πνεῦμα) in vv. 9, 15, 16 ���������������������������������������������������  298

Contents



15

4.4.10  Mantle (μηλωτή) in vv. 8, 13, 14 �����������������������������������������������  298 4.4.11  Rolled Up (εἱλέω) in v. 8 ������������������������������������������������������������  298 4.4.12  Chariotry (ἅρμα) in vv. 11, 12 ���������������������������������������������������  299 4.5 Section Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  299

5. Chapter Conclusions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  300

Conclusions and Proposals ���������������������������������������������������������������  303 1. Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative �������������������������������������������������  303 1.1 Complexity of Style and Structure ��������������������������������������������������������  303 1.2 Relation between Basic Categories �������������������������������������������������������  307 1.3 Hierarchy within the Category of Space �����������������������������������������������  308 1.4 Hierarchy within the Category of Time �����������������������������������������������  309 1.5 Hierarchy within the Category of Agents ��������������������������������������������  309 2. Proto-​Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity ����������������������������������������  311 2.1 Literary Genre of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 ���������������������������������������������������������������  311 2.2 Three Etymological Traditions ��������������������������������������������������������������  313 2.3 Elaboration of the Traditions �����������������������������������������������������������������  313 2.4 Further Study Options ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  317

Transliterations ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  319 Hebrew Consonants–​Simplified Transliteration (TCHB) ����������������������������  319 Hebrew Vowels–​Simplified Transliteration ����������������������������������������������������  319 Greek Letters Transliteration ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  320

Hebrew Terms ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  321 Figures ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  323 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  325

16

Contents

Index of Authors ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  351 Index of References ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  357 Index of Subjects ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  377

Acknowledgments I would like to show my appreciation to all those who have made this work possible. I express my gratitude to Prof. Waldemar Chrostowski, who has efficiently and generously overseen this dissertation. I also wish to thank Prof. Peter Dubovský, the supervisor of my canonical license at the Pontifical Biblical Institute; Prof. Jean Louis Ska, whose seminar inspired me to explore narratological and historical-​critical methodologies; Prof. Agustinus Gianto, who encouraged my Hebrew studies; Prof. Yves Simoens who introduced me to biblical exegesis; Prof. Janusz Lemański and Prof. Adam Kubiś, who have proved very supportive and detailed reviewers; and Susan Slade for all her editorial support. I feel deeply indebted to the communities and institutions of Collegium Bobolanum, UKSW, and PBI. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Michael Kolarcik and Fr. Andrzej Kowalko, who kept my spirits up during my doctoral research. I also wish to express my appreciation for the Polish and British provinces of the Jesuits, especially to the London Jesuit community; Prof. Jack Mahoney, who proofread large parts of this dissertation; and, last but not least, Br. Andrzej Malenda, who helped me to properly understand texts in German.

Abbreviations Bibliography ANET

Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament Antiquities Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews” BDB Brown et al. The Enhanced Brown-​Driver-​Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon BLD Baldick, The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CDA Black et al. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian De genio Plutarch, “De genio Socratis” DJD Brooke, ed. et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DULAT del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition Geography Strabo, “Geography” GES Kautzsch and Cowley eds. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar GELS Muraoka, A Greek-​English Lexicon of the Septuagint HALOT Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Histories Herodotus, “The Persian Wars” IBH Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew IBHS Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax Iliad Homer, “The Iliad” J–​M Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew Oedipus Sophocles, “Oedipus” ODE Stevenson ed. Oxford Dictionary of English Odyssey Homer, “The Odyssey” Poetics Aristotle, “Poetics” Republic Plato, “Republic” Questions Philo, “Questions on Genesis” TCHB Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

20

Abbreviations

Bibles BJ BTP CEI KJV LUT NAU NIV NJB NKJ NRS LXB

Bible de Jérusalem Biblia Tysiąclecia Bibbia della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana King James Version Lutherbibel New American Standard Bible New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Revised Standard Version Brenton’s translation of LXX

Grammar (†)

every biblical reference quoted acc. accusative /​ accusativus act. active voice aor. aorist abs. absolute /​ absolutus c. commune coh. cohortative /​ cohortativus cons. construct /​constructus dat. dative /​dativus f. feminine fut. future tense gen. genitive /​genitivus ind. indicative /​ indicativus inf. infinitive /​ infinitivus impv. imperative

juss. m. n. nom. num. pron. pass. p. pl. prcl. ptc. sg. suf. v. voc.

Jussive Masculine nuter /​neutrum nominative /​nominativus Numeral Pronoun passive voice Person Plural Particle Participle Singular Suffix Verse vocative /​ vocativus

Abbreviations

21

General (†) A 1βασιλέων 2βασιλέων 3βασιλέων 4βασιλέων ANE Akk. B BH BHS ch. DH Dtr DtrG Ej Ei Ger.

all the occurrences Codex Alexandrinus 1Samuel LXX 2Samuel LXX 1Kings LXX 2Kings LXX Ancient Near East Akkadian Codex Vaticanus Biblical Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia chapter Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomistic Dtr Grundschrift Elijah Elisha in German

Gr. HB LXX LXX* LXX Aq. LXX Luc. MHb MS(S) MT Note occ. post-​Dtr S* SP Tg. J. Ug. vs.

Greek Hebrew Bible Septuagint Rahlfs’ edition of LXX Aquila recension of LXX Lucan recension of LXX Mishnaic Hebrew Manuscript(s) Masoretic Text footnote of this dissertation Occurrences post-​deuteromistic author Syriac Old Testament Samaritan Pentateuch Targum Jonathan Ugaritic Versus

Introduction The interpretation of the biblical narrative in 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is, for various reasons, apparently simple. Firstly, the narrative itself predicts in 2Kgs 2:1 what is going to happen: “When Yhwh was about to lead Elijah up in the whirlwind to heaven (…)” (‫)ויהי בהעלות יהוה את־אליהו בסערה הׁשמים‬. Secondly, an attentive biblical reader is prepared for such an event by Gen 5:24, in which he learns that another biblical figure, Enoch, “walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him” (‫)ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים‬. Thirdly, the motif of the heavenly ascent is present in those ancient cultures which shaped the biblical texts. Fourthly, our text was remembered by the majority of biblical and many post-​biblical texts as that which treated the heavenly ascent of Elijah. The studies of Hermann Gunkel and other contemporary scholars show, however, that this narrative is not about the heavenly ascent of Elijah, but rather about the succession of Elisha.1 How is it possible that the narrative seems to be about one thing but in fact is about another? How do the essential features of style, structure, and symbolism function to produce this narrative effect? Is there any feature which can help us to offer an answer which is adequate for both synchronic and diachronic readers?2 We start this introduction with the cultural, biblical, and post-​biblical background of the examined phenomenon and, in the second part of the introduction, we will move to the details of the methodology of research on 2Kgs 2:1–​18.

1 Hermann Gunkel, “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​18),” The Expository Times 41, no. 4 (1930): 182–​86; Geschichten von Elisa, Meisterwerke hebräischer Erzählungskunst 1 (Berlin: Karl Curtius, 1925), 4–​15. Geschichten von Elisa were published with major page errors. For instance, while some pages are doubled, other are missing. 2 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), 87–​98; Cours de linguistique générale, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, Etudes et Documents Payot (Paris: Payot, 1971), 127–​40. The synchronic reader is interested in understanding one of the last versions of the text, whereas the diachronic reader is interested in the way in which the text has developed through time.

24

INTRODUCTION

1. Heavenly Ascent in the Ancient Near East Before progressing to the research provided by modern exegetes, we need to realize that it is the tradition of the ancient Near East itself which prepares the biblical reader for the study of the narrative in 2Kgs 2:1–​18, known as the story about the heavenly ascent of Elijah. In fact, various human characters were associated with the ascent to heaven in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek cultures. The motif of the ascent into heaven characterizes the religious texts of ancient Egypt at various stages of the development of this civilization which interacted permanently with the culture of the Hebrews. The pyramid texts come from the period of Old Kingdom (2686–​2181 BCE), which clearly precedes the creation of the biblical scriptures. On the walls of the pyramids, there are many allusions to the ascent into heaven, such as ladders: Now let the ladder of the god be given to me, let the ladder of Seth be given to me, that I may ascend on it to the sky and escort Re’ as a divine guardian of those who have gone to their doubles.3

Furthermore, the coffin texts represent the successive period of the development of Egyptian religiosity. Most of them were created in the First Intermediate Period and in the Middle Kingdom Period (c. 2181–​1650 BCE), so also before the creation of the biblical scriptures. The pharaoh was believed to ascend to the sky to live with gods, as in the ­example below: I will cross over to the sky, I will live on what they live on, I will eat what they eat of, my booth is in plenty, my abundance is in the Field of Offerings, and I am well-​supplied in company with the gods, for I am one of them.4

Finally, the Book of the Dead reflects the postmortem beliefs from 1550 BCE to 50 BCE. It covers the period of the creation of the writings of the Hebrew Bible. Its composition starts in the New Kingdom period, which directly precedes the events described in Sam-​Kgs and finishes in the time of the creation of such Greek biblical writings as the Book of Wisdom. In one of the examples, the ascent into heaven is connected to the opening of the heavenly doors:

3 The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, ed. Raymond O. Faulkner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), I.166, § 478. 4 The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, ed. Raymond O. Faulkner (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973), I.158.

Heavenly Ascent in the Ancient Near East

25

May the doors of heaven be opened unto me. (…) May the goddess Skhet make me to rise so that I may ascend unto heaven.5

What seems to be crucial regarding these concise allusions to Egyptian texts is that the motif of the heavenly ascent was widely spread in the Egyptian civilization from the Third Millennium onwards and that it was associated both with different religious characters (Re’, Seth, Skhet) and with various religious objects (ladder, Field of Offerings, doors). While in Egypt the expectation of the heavenly ascent of buried pharaohs occurred widely in mortuary places, the situation in Mesopotamia was different for two reasons. Firstly, we learn of the heavenly ascent from the narratives and lists inscribed on clay tablets. Secondly, these stories regard past events attributed to Mesopotamian heroes. Two figures seem to be the most representative. The first figure is Etana. According to the Sumerian king list, he was the thirteenth king of Kish. This list of kings was written probably under the reign of Utu-​Hegal, a prince of Uruk (c. 2055–​2048 BCE), as an interpretation of an earlier kings list from Akkad. The record regarding Etana and his heavenly ascent is as follows: Etana the shepherd, the one who went up to heaven, who put all countries in order, was king; he reigned 1,500 years.6

Furthermore, we find this relation, developed to the genre of a narrative, among the Neo-​Assyrian clay tablets. These tablets come from the library of Ashurbanipal created in the seventh century BCE. The fragment regarding the heavenly ascent on an eagle is as follows: When he had borne in aloft a third league, The eagle [says] to him, to Etana:

5 The Book of the Dead: The Hieroglyphic Transcript of the Papyrus of Ani, ed. Ernest Wallis Budge (New York: University Books, 1960), 2.138, 39. 6 Mesopotamian Chronicles, ed. Jean-​Jacques Glassner (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 121–​22 (manuscript G, the second half of the Hammurabi dynasty). Cf. George Aaron Barton, “A Sumerian Source of the Fourth and Fifth Chapters of Genesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature 34, no. 1/​4 (1915): 1–​9; Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta, ed. Herman Vanstiphout (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 163; Karen Radner and Eleanor Robson, The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 509. It is worth noticing that the Sumerian literature was treated with narratological tools: Adele Berlin, Enmerkar and Ensuḫkešdanna: A Sumerian Narrative Poem, Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 2 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1979), 1–​31.

26

INTRODUCTION ‘See, my friend, how the land appe[ars]! The land has tuned into a gardener’s ditch!’ After they had ascended to the heaven of Anu, Had come to the gate of Anu, Enlil, and Ea, The eagle (and) E[tana to]gether did o[beisance] […] the eagle (and) Etana. (ANET 118) 7

Another story found in the library of Ashurbanipal regards a Mesopotamian mythical figure called Adapa. Fragments of this story were primarily found in Tell el-​Amarna in Egypt, its fourteenth century BCE setting. Adapa was the one who lost his chance to become immortal by refusing to eat and drink in heaven after his ascent. The reference to the heavenly ascent is as follows: The envoy of Anu arrived. ‘Send to me Adapa, Who broke South Wind’s wing?’ He made him take the way of heaven And he [Adapa] went up to heaven. When he came up to heaven, When he approached the Gate of Anu, Dumuzi and Gizzida were standing in the Gate of Anu.8

The question of immortality is also discussed in the myth of Gilgamesh. Moreover, other examples of the Mesopotamian figures who were associated with the heavenly ascent are the king Enmeduranki and sage Utuabzu. We can emphasize that the quoted narrative text describes the reality of gods living in heaven, despite this not being the case of the name’s list. Apart from a gate, there are other objects associated with the heavenly ascent, such as wind. Before moving to the biblical issues, we can evoke one non-​biblical example from the same Syro-​Palestinian context. It is the inscription of the Aramean king, 7 Cf. Abraham Winitzer, “Etana in Eden: New Light on the Mesopotamian and Biblical Tales in Their Semitic Context,” Journal of American Oriental Society 133, no. 3 (2013): 441–​65; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, The Anchor Bible 11 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 34–​35; J. Edward Wright, “Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions,” in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, ed. Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran, Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 123–​38; The Early History of Heaven (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 45–​47. 8 Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 186. For further study on the issue of the heavenly ascent in the Akkadian poetry we refer to: “šamû” in CDA.

Biblical and Post-Biblical Perspectives

27

Panammu I (780–​743 BCE), which refers to the motif of eating and drinking with a god after death as a change of the destiny of man: By being allowed to eat and drink with the Hadad, Panamuwa’s soul would be free from the confines of the Nether World, it would not be dead but would acquire life, nay … real personal immortality. Such was not the normal destiny of man.9

As we see, this inscription considers the issue of immortality. It can presume the necessity of the heavenly ascent but this is not discussed in the text, as is another general characteristic of the Syro-​Palestinian narratives. The three outlined groups of cultures (Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-​ Palestine) constitute a large background for the creation of our biblical text. This background would be enlarged by the Persian and Greek data. Let us make two remarks on the issue. Firstly, the motif of the heavenly ascent is to be identified in ancient Greek writings, such as in Plato’s Republic X.10 In the epics of Homer, it is associated with gods and not humans, as in the Iliad I and Odyssey V. Secondly, access to the beliefs of ancient Persia comes from a limited number of Achaemenid inscriptions and the medieval copies of the Avesta.11 The birth of Zarathustra, to be found in the Middle Persian (tenth century CE) text called Dinkard, is an example of a spiritual journey between heaven and earth.12

2. Biblical and Post-​Biblical Perspectives Let us move now from the wider cultural background, helpful to understand the initial motif of 2Kgs 2:1–​18, to the issue of the interpretation of this text within the Bible and some post-​biblical texts.

9 Michael C. Astour and Bendt Alster, “The Nether World and Its Denizens at Ugarit,” in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers read at the XXVIe recontre assyriologique internationale, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 228. 10 Other motifs occurring in our narrative can be, for example, found in Histories VII 40; Geography XV 3 18. 11 William W. Malandra, An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and Achaemenid Inscriptions (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 10. It is a very promising field of research. Malandra enumerates elements of ancient Iranian religion which we may try to identify in our narrative: sky gods and their chariots, wind gods. 12 Pahlavi Texts, ed. Edward William West (Cambridge: The Clarendon Press, 2013), Dinkard VII 2.

28

INTRODUCTION

Firstly, Mal 3:23–​24 BHS is the only clear reference to this episode in the Hebrew Bible.13 These last words of the Old Testament in the Christian biblical canon are as follows: I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and awesome Day of Yhwh comes. He will reconcile fathers (‫ )אבות‬to their sons (‫ )בנים‬and sons to their fathers, so that I do not have to come and put the land under the curse of destruction. (Mal 3:23–​24)14

We see that Elijah is going to be sent before the day of Yhwh comes. The prophecy presupposes that the ascent of Elijah has already taken place and that he is alive. The second verse is, however, surprising, because it is about reconciliation between ‫ אבות‬and ‫בנים‬. It seems that the prophecy alludes to the fathers-​sons wordplay which we find in 2Kgs 2:1–​18, and so it introduces another perspective of the interpretation of our episode. Elisha is not named here, as is the case in the whole of the Hebrew Bible except for Kgs. Secondly, the First Book of Maccabees, one of the essential Jewish writings written in Greek, included in a few principal Christian canons, offers a perspective of interpretation similar to the one which we find at the beginning of our episode: Elijah, because of great zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven.

(1Macc 2:58 NRS)

The reader finds out that Elijah was taken into heaven and nothing about Elisha. Elisha is not mentioned in 1Macc at all. Furthermore, the reason for the ascent distinguishes 1Macc from 2Kgs 2:1–​18. In 2Kgs 2, there is no notice of his zeal for the law. The zeal can, however, be an interpretation of a larger biblical unit, including, for example, 2Kgs 10:31. Thirdly, the Book of Ben Sira, from the Greek canon, which was fragmentarily rediscovered in Qumran in Hebrew (2QBen Sira, cf. Sir 6),15 seems to give the largest interpretation of our episode in the Bible:

13 The following observation has to be made at this place regarding the verse/​chapter division: Mal 3:23–​24 BHS =​Mal 3:23–​24 NJB =​Mal 4:5–​6 NRS. 14 Our proposed translation of: ‫הנה אנכי ׁשלח לכם את אליה הנביא לפני בוא יום יהוה הגדול והנורא׃‬ ‫והׁשיב לב־אבות על־בנים ולב בנים על־אבותם פן־אבוא והכיתי את־הארץ חרם׃‬ 15 We know the Hebrew text of Sir 48:12 from the Cairo Geniza (MS B –​12th century CE), cf. Émile Puech, “Élie et Élisée dans l’Éloge des Pères: Sira 48,1–​14 dans le manuscrit B et les parallèles,” Revue de Qumran 29, no. 2 (2017): 205–​18. The Hebrew text of Sir 48:1–​14 was also reconstructed in Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira: Traducción y notas, ed. Victor Morla (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2012), 325.

Biblical and Post-Biblical Perspectives

29

When Elijah was enveloped in the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit. He performed twice as many signs, and marvels with every utterance of his mouth. Never in his lifetime did he tremble before any ruler, nor could anyone intimidate him at all. (Sir 48:12 NRS)

Referring only to the whirlwind, it does not mention the heavenly ascent at all. Clearly, it focuses on the succession of Elisha, providing us with a brilliant interpretation of the reception of the double spirit (twice as many signs and marvels as Elijah). It is the only reference to Elisha in the Hebrew Bible outside of Kgs. Fourthly, even if the scene in 2Kgs 2:1–​18 was understood as a succession story in Ben Sira, both Christian and late Jewish traditions focus on the speculations connected to the heavenly ascent of Elijah rather than on his biblical stories. In the New Testament, the word “Elijah” occurs 29 times, while the word “Elisha” occurs only once. Only in a few cases, does the reader encounter a reference which does not assume his heavenly ascent: namely, Luke 4:25–​26 refers to the episode with the widow of Zarephath; Luke 4:27 refers to the episode with Elisha and Naaman’s leprosy; Jam 5:17 refers to the initial episodes of Elijah’s cycle and the rain issue. In most of the cases, Elijah is understood, however, as the one who ascended to/​towards heaven: Matt 11:14; 16:14; 17:3, 4, 10, 11, 12; 27:47, 49; Mark 6:15; 8:28; 9:4, 5, 11, 12, 13; 15:35, 36; Luke 1:17, 9:8, 19, 30, 33; John 1:21, 25; Rom 11:2. The last reference is about Elijah who is with God and who pleads against Israel. The principal Jewish, non-​Christian texts also interpret the events announced in the first verse of 2Kgs 2. At the beginning of the first century CE, Philo of Alexandria refers to Elijah’s ascent into heaven as follows: And besides these two [Moses and Enoch] there was another, Elijah, who ascended from the things of earth into heaven, according to the divine appearance which was then presented to him, and who thus followed higher things, or, to speak with more exact propriety, was raised up to heaven. (Questions 1:86)

Josephus Flavius, contemporary to Philo, writes rather about the disappearance of Elijah than his ascent to heaven. He also underlines the discipleship of Elisha in the following way: Now at this time it was that Elijah disappeared from among men, and no one knows of his death to this very day; but he left behind him his disciple Elisha, as we have formerly declared. And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared: but so that no one knew that they died. (Antiquities 9:28)16

16 Cf. the departure of Moses in a cloud in Antiquities 4:326; James D. Tabor, ““Returning to the Divinity”: Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and

30

INTRODUCTION

Furthermore, the tractate Derek Eres Zuta, completed probably after the Babylonian Talmud (after the sixth century CE), mentions Elijah among the nine who entered the Garden of Eden. At this point, the Talmud does not focus on the heavenly realms, referring to Elijah as the Messiah in the following manner: Nine entered the Garden of Eden when they were still alive, and they are: Enoch the son of Jared, Elijah Messiah, Eliezer the bondsman of Abraham, Hirom the king of Zor, Ebed-​melech the Cushi, and Jabetz the son of R. Jehudah the Prince, Bothiah the daughter of Pharaoh and Serech the daughter of Ascher, and, according to others, also R. Jehoshua b. Levi. (Derekh Eretz Zuta 1:5)17

Finally, we need to mention the apocalyptic literature and the two different apocalypses of Elijah. The first one, often called Christian, was preserved in Coptic and may originally been created at the end of the third century CE.18 While the work itself does not really tell the story of Elijah, its name is due to one reference to Elijah’s descent at the end of the text. The second apocalypse, written in rabbinic Hebrew, was created somewhere between late antiquity and the Middle Ages (precise dating unknown). It contains five apocalyptic speeches of Elijah received not in the heavens, however, but at Mount Carmel:

Moses,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 2 (1989): 225–​38; Christopher Hong, “Intermediate State: The Ascension of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses,” 신학정론 10, no. 1 (1992): 88–​114; Peter Dubovský, “Cosmology in 1 Henoch,” Archív Orientální 68, no. 2 (2000): 205–​18. 17 Daniel Sperber, A Commentary on Derekh Eretz Zuta (Ramat-​Gan: Bar-​Ilan University Press, 1990). 18 Selected bibliography of the discussed apocalypses is as follows: Apocalypses of Elijah and Enoch: Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford University Press on Demand, 1993), 9–​94; Die hebräische Elias-Apokalypse und ihre Stellung in der apokalyptischen Litteratur des rabbinischen Schrifttums und der Kirche: Kritische Ausgabe mit Erläuterungen, sprachlichen Untersuchungen, und einer Einleitung, nebst Übersetzung und Untersuchung der Abfassungszeit, ed. Moses Buttenwieser (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897), 14–​34; Anna Kuśmirek, “Sefer Elijahu: Żydowska Apokalipsa Eliasza,” Studia Judaica 1, no. 13 (2004): 123–​37; The Apocalypse of Elijah: Based on P. Chester Beatty 2018, ed. Albert Pietersma, Susan Turner Comstock, and Harold W. Attridge (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 19–​66; The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Jozef Milik (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 139–​272; The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition, ed. Matthew Black (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 25–​102; Pierre Grelot, “La légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible: Origine et signification,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 46, no. 1 (1958): 5–​26.

Question and its Status

31

He lay down and fell asleep under a broom-​shrub. Behold, this angel touched him and said, ‘Get up and eat!’ Michael, the great prince of Israel, revealed this mystery to the prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel.19

Concluding this point, let us notice that the ascent of Elijah was memorized by several biblical (Maccabees, Ben Sira, New Testament) and various post-​biblical authors/​texts (Philo, Josephus, Mishnah). In some cases, the authors mention the issue of the succession of Elisha at the same place (Ben Sira, Josephus), but his name is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible out of Kgs.

3. Question and its Status As we have seen, 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is preceded by various non-​biblical and biblical texts referring to the heavenly ascent. The narrative itself has been analyzed and interpreted by Jews, Christians, and modern scholars. As such, what question should be posed to our narrative in the present context.

3.1 Our Question Hermann Gunkel summarizes his research on 2Kgs 2:1–18 with the following words: The purpose of the original story was to show how Elisha became Elijah’s successor. […] In order to set forth his conception of Elisha, the narrator has utilized an older tradition of Elijah’s ascension.20

As we will see in the appropriate chapters of this dissertation, we confirm both of Gunkel’s ideas: firstly, the purpose of the story is to show Elisha’s succession; secondly, the story is somehow constructed on the basis of Elijah’s ascension tradition. Additionally, the focalization of the plot on Elisha’s succession is confirmed by the majority of scholars interested in the issue.21 Now, the question is:

19 Our proposed translation of: ‫וישׁכב ויישׁן תחת רוחם אחר והנה זה מלאך כוגע בו ויאמר לו קום אכול‬ ‫דזא דנא גלא ליה מיכאל שׁרא רבא רישׂרל לאליהו הנביא נטורא רכרמל‬ cf. Die hebräische Elias-​Apokalypse und ihre Stellung in der apokalyptischen Litteratur des rabbinischen Schrifttums und der Kirche: Kritische Ausgabe mit Erläuterungen, sprachlichen Untersuchungen, und einer Einleitung, nebst Übersetzung und Untersuchung der Abfassungszeit, 15. 20 Gunkel, “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​18),” 186. 21 Cf. 3.2 Status Quaestionis.

32

INTRODUCTION How it is possible that the story about Elisha’s succession was remembered as the story about Elijah’s ascent?

Generally, there are two ways of answering this question: a) intertextual; and b) intratextual. Ad. a) The intertextual answer is provided by the contrast between the number of references about the human heavenly ascension in HB and the popularity of this theme in ANE. 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is the only explicit description of such an ascent in HB. For example, Gen 5:24 says only that Enoch disappeared; Ps 139:8 is only a speculation on the ascent; Dan 12:3 uses metaphorical language. The uniqueness of the human heavenly ascent in HB is the reason why 2Kgs 2:1–​ 18 was remembered as the story of Elijah’s ascent, even if this is not the primary aspect of the plot. Ad. b) The intratextual approach questions the construction of the narrative of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 in order to identify the features of style, structure, and symbolism which privilege Elijah’s ascent rather than Elisha’s succession. In this dissertation, we will analyze this intratextual construction of the narrative.

3.2 Status Quaestionis The issue of Elijah’s ascent in 2Kgs 2:1–​18 was treated by scholars using various methods of exegetical research. In 1888, Willis J. Beecher and William R. Harper classified 2Kgs 2:1–​18 as the story about Elijah’s ascent, while it is 2Kgs 2:19–​25 that was categorized as the story about Elisha’s succession.22 Other studies of Kgs at the time were focused on the identification of sources of various parts of the text, such as in 1893, when John Skinner classified 2Kgs 2:1–​25(18) as Elisha’s textual source, and not as Elijah’s, while Julius Wellhausen classified 2Kgs 2:1–​18 as Elijah’s source in 1899.23 Later on, various authors refer to the issue of the construction of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 in the light of Elijah’s ascent motif. In 1912, Albrecht Alt focused on the connection between the examined episode and the one in 1Kgs 19:19–​21 through the succession motif.24 Kurt Galling suggested that the motif of the heavenly ascent (v. 1a) did not introduce the original narrative.25 22 Willis Judson Beecher and William Rainey Harper, “Nineteeth Study: Elijah, Elisha, and Their Fellow-​Prophets,” The Old Testament Student 7, no. 5 (1888): 161–​64. 23 John Skinner, Kings: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes, Index, and Map, The New Century Bible (New York; Oxford; Edinburgh: H. Frowde; Oxford University Press; T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1893), 28; Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963), 263–​301. 24 Albrecht Alt, “Die literarische Herkunft von I Reg 19 19—​21,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 2 (1912): 123–​25. 25 Kurt Galling, “Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entrückung Elias,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53, no. 2 (1956): 129–​48.

Question and its Status

33

We have already mentioned Hermann Gunkel who, in 1925 and 1930, clarified that the story is about Elisha’s succession and not Elijah’s ascent.26 Gunkel recognized the crucial role of Elijah’s ascent for the construction of the narrative. Gunkel elaborated, however, the issue of the ascent, keeping his distance from the incident about the research of Elijah’s body, saying that this is an embedment. Furthermore, in 1943, Martin Noth opted for the integrity of the text, as did Alexander Rofé in 1988.27 In 1972, Hans-​Christoph Schmitt concluded that the heavenly ascent motif was added to the narrative only in the later stages of its redaction. This is coherent with the research of Jack Lundbom who, in 1973, suggested that the heavenly ascent motif is less important than the chariot one.28 In 1983, Fabrizio Foresti, situated the motif of Elijah’s ascension in the center of his chiasm referring to 2Kgs 2.29 In 1984, Hobbs instead placed the motif of Elijah’s ascension in the center of his chiasm referring to 2Kgs 1—​2.30 In 1986, Joachim Conrad proposed that 2Kgs 2:1–​18 can be read as Elijah’s story, but his arguments were convincingly rejected by Hartmunt Rösel in 1991.31 The chiasm of Foresti, claiming the centrality of Elijah’s ascent, was repeated by Robert Cohn 26 Gunkel, Geschichten von Elisa, 4–​15; “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​ 18),” 182–​86. Cf. Roland de Vaux, Les livres des Rois, La Sainte Bible (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1949), 134. 27 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Die Sammelden und Bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943), 72–86; The Deuteronomistic History, 2nd ed., Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Suplement Series 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 100–17; Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1988), 44–51. Cf. “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 4 (1970): 427–​40. 28 Jack R. Lundbom, “Elijah’s Chariot Ride,” Journal of Jewish Studies 24, no. 1 (1973): 39–​50. 29 Fabrizio Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” Rivista Biblica 31, no. 3 (1983): 257–​72. 30 Trevor Raymond Hobbs, “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose,” Studies in Religion 13, no. 3 (1984): 327–​34. 31 Joachim Conrad, “2 Kön 2, 1–18 als Elija-​Geschichte,” in Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament Jerusalem 1986, ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-​Dietrich Schunck, Beiträge zur Erforschung des alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 13 (Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 263–​71; Hartmut N. Rösel, “2 Kön 2, 1–​18 als Elija-​oder Elischa-​Geschichte?,” Biblische Notizen, no. 59 (1991): 33–​36.

34

INTRODUCTION

in 2000.32 In 2001 and 2003, Susanne Otto returned to Alt’s idea of the original story linking 1Kgs 19:19–21 with the examined text, shedding light again on the Elisha’s succession motif, while McKenzie in 2014 stressed the Elijah’s ascent aspect of the story.33 Furthermore, in the latest publications, we do not find unanimity in references to 2Kgs 2:1–​18. For example, Christoph Uehlinger in 2014, discussing 2Kgs 2:12, writes about Elijah’s ascent, while Kristin Weingart in 2018 writes, in the same case, about Elisha’s succession.34 We see, therefore, that, even if scholars agree with describing 2Kgs 2:1–​18 as Elisha’s succession, the story, for some reason, is often identified with Elijah’s ascent.35

32 Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 259; Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 11. 33 Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, Supplements To Vetus Testamentum 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1991); ““My God is YHWH”: The Composition of the Elijah Story in 1–​2 Kings,” in Congress Volume Munich 2013, ed. Christl M. Maier, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 163 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 92–​110; Susanne Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-​Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-​Elisa-​Erzählungen, Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 152 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001), 261–​65; “The Composition of the Elijah-​Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 4 (2003): 487–​508. 34 Christoph Uehlinger, “L’ascension d’Élie: A propos de 2 Rois 2, 11–​12,” in Bible et Proche-​Orient; Mélanges André Lemaire III, Transeuphratène 46 (Paris: Gabalda, 2014), 79–​97. 35 Cf. Otto Eissfeldt, “Die Komposition von I Reg 16,29 –​ II Reg 13,25,” in Das ferne und das nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet, ed. Fritz Maass, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 49–​58; Hans-​ Christoph Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütdersloh: Mohn, 1972), 102–​05; Armin Schmitt, Entrückung, Aufnahme, Himmelfahrt: Untersuchungen zu einem Vorstellungsbereich im Alten Testament, Forschung zur Bibel (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), 47–​138; Simon John DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 112; Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, vol. 1–​2, New Century Bible Commentary: Based on the Revised Standard Version (Grand Rapids; London: Eerdmans; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984), 69; Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 23.

Text and Codices

35

4. Text and Codices Before moving to the methodology of our work, let us introduce the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 identified in Codex Leningradensis, Codex Cairensis, and Codex Aleppo. At this point, we will also refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Finally, we will identify the border limits of the period of creation of the text.

4.1 Masoretic Text In this dissertation, we will investigate the Masoretic Text (MT) of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. Also, in all cases where we use non-​vocalized consonants, we refer to MT. If this is not the case, we shall remark upon it. Rare cases of transliteration and simplified transliteration also refer to MT. In the case of the quotations from the contemporary bibles, we use the three-​letter acronym (NRS, NJB etc.), except for situations in which we propose our own translation. In order to make the texts comparable, we replaced various translations of ‫( יהוה‬in NRS, NJB etc.) by “Yhwh*” if the particular translation is different than “Yhwh.” Let us now make a few remarks on 2Kgs 2:1–​18 in the basic MT codices.36 Firstly, if we look at the Codex Leningradensis (ca. 1008 CE), we perceive that the copyist makes a new paragraph just after 2Kgs 1:18 (the petuha sign in BHS, cf. TCHB 48–​49; BHS XII–​XIII), i.e. in 2Kgs 2:1. He passes to a new line (setuma in BHS) only after 2Kgs 2:22. Secondly, in Codex Cairensis (ca. 895 CE), the copyists suggest the same structure of MT, with a little variation in the notation: they make a double-​ spacing after v. 22 without passing to a new line. Thirdly, the copyist of Codex 36 The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition, ed. David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders (Leiden: Eerdmans; Brill, 1998); Codex Cairo of the Bible: From the Karaite Synagoge at Abbasiya. The earliest extant Hebrew Manuscript Written in 895 by Moshe ben Asher, ed. The Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Makor Publishing, 1971), 235–​36; Codex Alexandrinus (Royal Ms. 1 D V–​VIII) in Reduced Photographic Facsimile: Old Testament. Part II. 1 Samuel –​ 2 Chronicles, ed. Frederic G. Kenyon (London: British Museum, 1930), Facsimile, 222; The Aleppo Codex: Provided With Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aaron Ben Asher the Codex Considered Authoritive by Maimonides (Hebrew Edition), ed. Moshe H. Goshen-​Gottstein (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1976); The Later Historical Books: I and II Kings. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented From Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, ed. Alan England Brooke, Henry Saint John Thackeray, and Norman McLean, vol. 2 (Cambridge: University Press, 1930), 109–​11.

36

INTRODUCTION

Aleppo (ca. 920 CE) suggests a different division of the chapter. He passes to a new line twice: after v. 18 and then after v. 22.

4.2 Non-​Masoretic Texts The text of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 was not identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is, however, a quotation of 2Kgs 2:15–​16 in the so-​called 4QApocryphon of Elisha (4Q481a). There is also an indication that the fragment was preceded by 2Kgs 2:14. The quotation of the verses is not, however, complete. It can be found in DJD XXII.37 In this dissertation, we will make references to Codex Alexandrinus (A), then to Codex Vaticanus (B). Let us also remark that the text of LXX of 2Kgs 2:1–​ 18, proposed by Ralphs, is closer to A. This fragment differs from the majority of Ralphs’ text.38 Moreover, the A of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is closer to MT and reflects the kaige recension.39 There are no differences between LXX (Ralphs) and MT regarding verse numbering and order. Occasionally, we will invoke Targum Jonathan which is integrated to Sperber’s collection of Targum. We shall refer only to the Targum of the Prophets, while

37 Julio Cesar Trebolle Barrera, “Histoire du Texte des Livres Historiques et Histoire de la Composition et de la Rédaction Deutéronomistes avec une Publication Préliminaire de 4Q481A, ‘Apocryphe d’Elisée,’ ” in Congress Volume Paris 1992, ed. John Adney Emerton, Vetus Testamentum: Supplements 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 327–​42; Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes, Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 47 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifi ́ cas, 1989), 160–​63. 38 The Later Historical Books: I and II Kings. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented From Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, 2. 39 Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, vol. 50/​1, Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Fribourg; Göttingen: Editions Universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 356–​ 426; Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 34–​ 40; Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Textual criticism and the translator 3 (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 412–​67; Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” The Journal of Theological Studies 8, no. 30 (1907): 262–​78.

Methodology and Chapters

37

Sperber’s collection also contains the Targum of the Pentateuch (Onqelos) and Targum of the Writings (Jonathan). With regards to codices, we will refer to Ms. Oriental 2210 of the British Museum. The references will consider the textual-​ critical issues and not the narratological ones.40

5. Methodology and Chapters Let us focus now on the issue of methodology. Roman Ingarden, author of The Literary Work of Art and The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, developed the phenomenological approach to the literary work.41 This does not mean, however, that his understanding of the letter is limited to the phenomenological account. This Polish disciple of Edmund Husserl is well-​aware that the access to the larger picture of a literary work is given by the historical factor. On the one hand, Ingarden makes the following observation: The literary work is a many-​layered formation. It contains (a) the stratum of verbal sounds and phonetic formations and phenomena of a higher order; (b) the stratum of semantic units: of sentence meanings and the meanings of whole groups of sentences; (c) the stratum of schematized aspects, in which objects of various kinds portrayed in the work come to appearance; and (d) the stratum of the objectivities portrayed in the intentional states of affairs projected by the sentences.42

On the other hand, he refers to the history of literary works in general: There was a time when literary works of art endured without being fixed in writing. In those days they owed their continuance through many generations to the purely oral reproduction from memory by those who recited or sang them to others.43

Both remarks apply perfectly to our research on the narrative in 2Kgs 2:1–​18. It is essential to analyze the different strata of this biblical work, which apparently 40 The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, ed. Alexander Sperber, vol. 1–​3 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 273–​75. 41 Their original languages were correspondingly German and Polish: Roman Ingarden, Das Literarische Kunstwerk: Eine Untesuchung Aus Dem Grenzgebiet der Ontologie, Logik Und Literaturwissenschaft (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1931); O poznawaniu dzieła literackiego (Lwów: Ossolineum, 1937). Cf. The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature, Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973). 42 The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, 12. 43 Ibid., 14.

38

INTRODUCTION

tells the story of the heavenly ascent of Elijah. Nevertheless, its full interpretation necessarily consists of linking these strata to the successive stages of the creation of the narrative.

5.1 Examined Strata The terminological difficulty in examining the style, structure, and symbolism of a text regards the distinction between the three, which is not evident. On the one hand, their clear definitions are necessary for the acquisition of precise information on their behalf after exegesis. On the other hand, the interaction between the three, can often make this distinction purely ideological and detached from the reality of the narrative. We will refer at this point to the definitions of Meyer Howard Abrams. His definition of style is as follows: Style has traditionally been defined as the manner of linguistic expression in prose or verse –​ as how speakers or writers say whatever it is that they say. The style specific to a particular work or writer, or else distinctive of a type of writing, has been analyzed in such diverse terms as the rhetorical situation and aim; the characteristic diction, or choice of words; the type of sentence structure and syntax; and the density and kinds of figurative language.44

As we define style at the beginning of this point, this definition will become clearer when juxtaposed with successive ones. Let us highlight several issues. Firstly, style corresponds to the question “how do they say whatever it is that they say?” Secondly, the structure of a sentence is a part of the definition of style. Thirdly, it is also the case of figurative language, which might be understood as symbolism. Fourthly, Abrams defines style from a rhetorical perspective, i.e. it examines the relation between style and the audience. The narratological method, which will be largely used in this dissertation, concentrates on the relation between the style and the plot. The redactional critical method focuses on the style’s relation to different stages of the development of the text. The reader-​ response method focuses on the relation between the style and the reader, and so on.45

44 Meyer Howard Abrams and Geoffrey Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2015), 383. 45 One interesting question is as follows: How is it possible that the narrative develops the typical Egyptian motif of ascension, while using the Mesopotamian repetitive style? Cf. R. A. Carlson, “Élisée: le successeur d’Élie,” Vetus Testamentum 20, no. Fasc. 4 (1970): 385–​95.

Methodology and Chapters

39

Let us now pass to the definition of the structure (form): The form of a work is the principle that determines how a work is ordered and organized; critics, however, differ greatly in their analyses of this principle. All agree that “form” is not simply a fixed container, like a bottle, into which the “content” or “subject matter” of a work is poured; but beyond this, the concept of form varies according to a critic’s particular assumptions and theoretical orientation.46

A few remarks to the definition of the structure (form). Firstly, the question of the person who describes the structure is “how a work is ordered and organized?” Secondly, in this definition, Abrams recognizes the difficulty related to the variety of approaches to the issue of the structure. What is clear, however, is the interaction between the structure and other elements of the text. Thirdly, there are stylistic patterns, like repetition, which give structure to different parts of the text. In these cases, we will talk about stylistic structures. Fourthly, the narratological research examines the connection between structure and plot, such as particular scenes or incidents. Redactional criticism examines its connection with the redactional stages, and so on. In the case of symbolism, Abrams limits himself to case analysis. He provides a definition which refers to William Blake in the following fashion: symbolism is “a coherent system composed of a number of symbolic elements.”47 Let us juxtapose this definition with Goethe’s: Symbolism transforms an object of perception into an idea, the idea into an image, and does it in such a way that the idea always remains infinitely operative and unattainable so that even if it is put into words in all languages, it still remains inexpressible.48

A few remarks on this juxtaposition. Firstly, in both cases, symbolism is treated as a system. Secondly, according to Goethe, symbolism is characterized by an idea which is infinitely operative and unattainable. In this aspect, he considers it opposed to allegory. Thirdly, none of the definitions explain how we can identify symbolism within the text. In fact, there are two ways: intratextual and intertextual. The intratextual approach consists of identifying the system of symbolic elements within the text. The intertextuality, therefore, goes beyond the examined text.

4 6 Abrams and Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 140. 47 Ibid., 395. 48 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Maxims and Reflections,” in Penguin Classics (Suffolk: Penguin, 1998), § 1113.

40

INTRODUCTION

5.2 Methodology We will examine style and structure with the help of the narratological method in their intratextual aspect, i.e. we will define the function of different internal elements in reference to the plot.49 The idea of the division for the scenes is taken from Jean Louis Ska, who also inspired us to pay particular attention to verbal analysis.50 The plot stages will be established using the ancient criteria defined by Aristotle and the modern ones described by Tzvetan Todorov.51 The identification of the function of stylistic structures (narrative techniques) is principally due to the methodology of Meir Sternberg.52 The connections between the stylistic structures and the plot stages will be established thanks to Umberto Eco’s research on the model reader.53

49 Cf. Stephen Harrison, Stavros Frangoulidis, and Theodore D. Papanghelis, Intratextuality and Latin Literature, Trends in Classics –​Supplementary Volumes 69 (Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), 1–​14; Alison Sharrock and Helen Morales, Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 5. 50 Jean Louis Ska, Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–​31, Analecta Biblica 109 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1986), 20–​41; “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, Subsidia Biblica 13 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990), 33–​38; “The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–​26. 51 Poetics VI 1450a; Tzvetan Todorov, Introduction to Poetics, Theory and History of Literature 1 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), 41–​47; Poétique de la prose (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2014), 21–​29; Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal View of Twentieth-​Century Criticism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988), 1–​9; Tzvetan Todorov and Richard M. Berrong, “The Origin of Genres,” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (1976): 159–​70. 52 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 1–​83; Hebrews between Cultures: Group Portraits and National Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), I–​XXIII. 53 Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Advances in Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 3–​43; Lector in fabula: Współdziałanie w interpretacji tekstów narracyjnych, trans. Piotr Salwa (Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1994), 5–​96; Stefan Collini, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation: Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christine Brooke-​Rose (Cambridge: University Press, 1992), 23–​88.

Methodology and Chapters

41

The symbolism will be examined with the help of semiotic tools. While the typology of allegory and symbolism will refer to the concepts of Goethe, we will propose our own solutions, where the concept of proto-​symbol will take central place.54 This proposal is inspired by the research of Johann Jakob Bachofen.55 Other auxiliary terms which will be introduced include strong/​weak symbol and strong/​weak allegory. The relation between these elements will be examined using the concept of contiguity elaborated by Eco, and the concept of indices elaborated by Roland Barthes.56 These terms will be defined in the proper chapter. Finally, we will examine the possibility of treating symbolism as a bridge between the world of the text and the reality of its historical redaction. This last step is inspired by the research of Hermann Gunkel and Alexander Rofé referring to the relation between the text and the oral traditions.57

5.3 Chapters We start our dissertation by providing our translation of MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. Four translation issues will be discussed in Chapter I. Firstly, the meaning of the expression ‫ בסערה הׁשמים‬in 2Kgs 2:1a, 11b. Secondly, the proper vocalization and the speech parts in ‫ אם־אעזבך חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬in 2Kgs 2:2aβ; 4aβ; 6aβ. Thirdly, the meaning and syntax function of ‫ אף־הוא‬in 2Kgs 2:14. Finally, we will discuss the choice between the variants ‫​ הגאיות‬/ ‫ הגיאות‬in 2Kgs 2:16aβ.

54 Goethe, “Maxims and Reflections,” no 1113; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Schriften zur Kunst. Schriften zur Literatur. Maximen und Reflexionen,” in Goethes Werke (Hamburg: Christian Wegner Verlag, 1982), 470. Cf. Tzvetan Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, trans. Catherine Porter (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 198–​212. 55 Johann Jakob Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten (Basel: Bahnmaier, 1859), 61; Myth, Religion, and Mother Right, Mythos: Bollingen series 84 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 48–​50. Cf. De genio 589B. 56 Roland Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” New literary history 6, no. 2 (1975): 237–​72; “Théorie du texte,” in Encyclopaedia universalis (Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis France, 1973), 1013–​17; “L’effet de réel,” Communications 11, no. 1 (1968): 84–​89; Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, 72–​76. 57 Hermann Gunkel, Das Märchen im Alten Testament, Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart 2 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1917), 1–​ 15; Genesis, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), LIII–​LXXI; Rofé, “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories,” 427–​ 40; The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, 7–​54.

42

INTRODUCTION

We will start Chapter II with the presentation of various theories regarding the sources and redaction of Kgs. Furthermore, we will pass to theories regarding the redaction of 2Kgs 2:2–​18 (cf. Alt, Galling, Schmitt, Gunkel). Successively, we will present various chiastic (e.g. Lundbom, Hobbs) and non-​chiastic structures (e.g. Satterthwaite, Long). Finally, applying narratological criteria, we will identify the delimitation of the macro-​narrative, narrative sequence, micro-​narrative, and scenes. Chapter III, which regards the first scene of the narrative, starts the proper exegesis. The methodology used will be repeated in the following two chapters. The analysis of verbal structures will help us to understand the structure of the narrative incidents and the biblical context of the narrative. Analysis of the narrative techniques will help us to understand the functioning of various elements of the narrative and their relation to the plot. In Chapter III, we will analyze prolepsis and repetitions; in Chapter IV, regarding the second scene, we will examine simultaneity and points of view; in Chapter V, regarding the third scene, we will focus on analepsis. Furthermore, we will read each scene applying the reader-​ response method to identify relations between structural and stylistic elements. The last chapter, Chapter VI, regards the symbolism of the narrative elements. We will focus on the itinerary, heritage, and etiological symbolism, referring them to the categories of proto-​symbol, strong/​weak symbol, and strong/​weak allegory. We will also make brief comparisons with the symbolism of LXX. In the conclusion, we will give an interpretation of the style, structure, and symbolism examined in the light of proposals regarding the redaction of the text. On that basis, we will indicate the place of the heavenly ascent tradition in the process of the creation of the narrative.

Chapter I. From Hebrew to English In this chapter, apart from the translation, we present the justification of three of our major translation choices, regarding the following Hebrew expressions of MT: ‫( ּבַ ְסע ָָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם‬2Kgs 2:1a, 11b); ‫( חַ י־יְ הוָה וְ חֵ י־נַפְ ְׁשָך ִאם־אֶ ֶעזְבֶ ָּך‬2Kgs 2:4); ‫( אַ ף־הּוא‬2Kgs 2:14). We will also focus on the Ketiv/​Qere Variant, ]‫(הַ ּגְ יָאֹות) [הַ ּגֵאָ יֹות‬ in 2Kgs 2:16. The purpose of this chapter is not to justify all of our translation choices. We will, however, justify many of them in the following chapters.

1. Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 ‫ת־אלִ ָּ֔יהּו‬ ֣ ֵ ֶ‫ וַיְ ִ֗הי ּבְ הַ עֲל֤ ֹות יְ הוָה֙ א‬1 ‫יׁשע‬ ֖ ָ ִ‫ַ ּֽב ְסע ָ ָ֖רה הַ ּׁשָ ָ ֑מיִ ם וַּיֵ ֧לְֶך אֵ לִ ּיָ ֛הּו ֶואֱל‬ ‫ִמן־הַ ּגִ לְ ָּגֽל׃‬ ‫ ַוּי ֹאמֶ ֩ר אֵ לִ ָּ֙יהּו אֶ ל־אֱלִ יׁשָ֜ ע‬2 ֙‫ֵ ֽׁשב־נָ ֣א ֗ ֹפה ִ ּ֤כי יְ הוָה‬ ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ֔ ‫ַד־ּב‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ְׁשל ַָח֣נִ י ע‬ ‫ַו ּ֣י ֹאמֶ ר אֱלִ יׁשָ֔ ע‬ ‫חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ ֶעז ֶ ְ֑ב ָּך‬ ‫ית־אל׃‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ַוּי ְֵר ֖דּו ֵ ּֽב‬ ‫יאים אֲׁשֶ ר־ּבֵ ית־אֵ ל אֶ ל־אֱלִ יׁשָ ע‬ ֥ ִ ִ‫ ַוּיֵצְ א֙ ּו בְ ֵנֽי־הַ ּנְ ב‬3 ‫ֹאמ ֣רּו אֵ ָ֔ליו‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ֹלקחַ אֶ ת־‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ֲהי ֕ ַָדעְ ּתָ ִ ּ֣כי הַ ּי֗ ֹום יְ הוָ ֛ה‬ ‫ֹאׁשָך‬ ֑ ֶ ‫אֲדֹ נֶ ֖יָך מֵ עַ ֣ל ר‬ ‫ַו ּ֛י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫ּגַם־א ֲִנ֥י י ַ ָ֖דעְ ִּתי הֶ ח ֱֽׁשּו׃‬ ‫ ַוּי ֹאמֶ ֩ר לֹ֙ו אֵ לִ ָּ֜יהּו‬4 ֙‫יׁשע׀ ֵ ֽׁשב־נָ ֣א ֗ ֹפה ִ ּ֤כי יְ הוָה‬ ֣ ָ ִ‫אֱל‬ ‫יחֹו‬ ֔ ‫ְׁשל ַָח֣נִ י יְ ִר‬ ‫ַו ּ֕י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ ֶעז ֶ ְ֑ב ָּך‬ ‫יחֹו׃‬ ֽ ‫ַוּיָבֹ֖ אּו יְ ִר‬ ‫ר־ּב ִיריח ֹ֘ו‬ ֽ ִ ֶ‫יאים אֲׁש‬ ֥ ִ ִ‫ וַּיִ ּגְ ׁש֙ ּו בְ ֵנֽי־הַ ּנְ ב‬5 ‫ֹאמ ֣רּו אֵ ָ֔ליו‬ ְ ‫אֶ ל־אֱלִ יׁשָ ֒ע ַוּי‬

1 When Yhwh was about to lead Elijah up in the whirlwind to the sky, Elijah was walking with Elisha from Gilgal. 2 Elijah said to Elisha, “Stay here, for Yhwh has sent me as far as Bethel.” But Elisha said, “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you!” So they went down to Bethel. 3 The Sons of the Prophets who were in Bethel came out to Elisha and said to him, “Do you know that Yhwh is going to take your master from over your head today?” And he answered, “Yes, I know; be quiet.” 4 Elijah said to him, “Elisha, stay here, for Yhwh has sent me to Jericho.” But he said, “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you!” So they came to Jericho. 5 The Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho approached Elisha and said to him, (continued on next page)

44

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

 Continued ‫ֹלקחַ אֶ ת־‬ ֥ ֵ ‫ֲהי ֕ ַָדעְ ּתָ ִ ּ֣כי הַ ּי֗ ֹום יְ הוָ ֛ה‬ ‫ֹאׁשָך‬ ֑ ֶ ‫אֲדֹ נֶ ֖יָך מֵ עַ ֣ל ר‬ ‫ַו ּ֛י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫ּגַם־א ֲִנ֥י י ַ ָ֖דעְ ִּתי הֶ ח ֱֽׁשּו׃‬ ‫ ַוּי ֹאמֶ ֩ר לֹ֙ו אֵ לִ ָּ֜יהּו‬6 ‫ֵ ֽׁשב־נָ ֣א ֗ ֹפה ִ ּ֤כי יְ הוָה֙ ְׁשל ַָח֣נִ י‬ ‫הַ ּי ְַר ֔ ֵּדנָה‬ ‫ַו ּ֕י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ ֶעז ֶ ְ֑ב ָּך‬ ‫ֵיהם׃‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ַוּיֵלְ כ֖ ּו ְׁשנ‬ ‫יאים֙  ָ ֽהלְ כ֔ ּו‬ ִ ִ‫ ַוח ֲִמ ִ ּׁ֙שים ִ֜איׁש ִמּבְ נֵ ֤י הַ ּנְ ב‬7 ‫ֵיה֖ם ע ְָמ ֥דּו עַל־הַ ּי ְַר ֵ ּֽדן׃‬ ֶ ‫ּוׁשנ‬ ְ ‫ַו ַּיע ְַמ ֥דּו ִמּנֶ �֖גֶד מֵ ָר ֑חֹוק‬ ֙‫ וַּיִ ּקַ ֩ח אֵ לִ ָּ֙יהּו אֶ ת־אַ ּדַ ְר ּ֤תֹו וַּיִ גְ ֹלם‬8 ‫ַוּיַּכֶ ֣ה אֶ ת־הַ ֔ ַּמיִ ם ַוּיֵחָ ֖צּו ֵ ֣הּנָה ו ֵ ָ֑הּנָה‬ ‫ֵיה֖ם ּבֶ חָ ָר ָ ֽבה׃‬ ֶ ‫ַו ַּיעַבְ ֥רּו ְׁשנ‬ ‫ וַיְ ִ ֣הי כְ עָבְ ָ ֗רם וְ ֵ֙אלִ ָּ֜יהּו אָ ַ ֤מר אֶ ל־‬9 ֙‫אֱלִ יׁשָ ע‬ ‫ְׁשאַ ֙ל ָ ֣מה ֶ ֽאעֱׂשֶ ה־ ָּ֔לְך‬ ‫ּבְ ֶ ֖ט ֶרם אֶ ּל ַ ָ֣קח מֵ עִ ָ ּ֑מְך‬ ‫ַו ּ֣י ֹאמֶ ר אֱלִ יׁשָ֔ ע‬ ‫י־ׁשנַ �֥יִ ם ּבְ רּוחֲָך֖  אֵ ָ ֽלי׃‬ ְ ‫ִ ֽויהִ י־נָ ֛א ִ ּֽפ‬ ‫ ַו ּ֖י ֹאמֶ ר‬10 ‫ם־ּת ְר ֶ֙אה אֹ ֜ ִתי‬ ִ ‫הִ קְ ִ ׁ֣שיתָ לִ ְׁש ֑אֹול ִא‬ ‫ם־איִ ן ֥ל ֹא יִ הְ ֶיֽה׃‬ ֖ ַ ‫ל ָ ֻּ֤קח ֵ ֽמ ִאּתָ ְך֙ יְ ִ ֽהי־לְ ָך֣ ֵ֔כן וְ ִא‬ ‫ וַיְ ִ֗הי ֵהּ֣מָ ה הֹ לְ ִ ֤כים הָ לֹוְך֙ וְ דַ ֔ ֵּבר‬11 ‫וְ הִ ּנֵ ֤ה ֶ ֽרכֶב־אֵ ׁש֙ וְ ֣סּוסֵ י ֔ ֵאׁש‬ ‫ֵיה֑ם‬ ֶ ‫ַוּיַפְ ִ ֖רדּו ֵּב֣ין ְׁשנ‬ ‫ַו ַּ֙י ַע ֙ל ֵ ֣אלִ ָּ֔יהּו ַ ּֽב ְסע ָ ָ֖רה הַ ּׁשָ ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬ ֙‫יׁשע רֹ ֗ ֶאה וְ ֤הּוא ְמצַ עֵק‬ ֣ ָ ִ‫ ֶואֱל‬12 ‫אָ ִ ֣בי׀ אָ ִ֗בי ֶ ֤רכֶב יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ֙ל ּופָ ָ֣רׁשָ֔ יו‬ ‫וְ ֥ל ֹא ָר ָ ֖אהּו ע֑ ֹוד וַ�ֽ ַּי ֲחזֵק֙ ּבִ בְ ג ֔ ָָדיו‬ ‫וַּיִ קְ ָרעֵ ֖ם לִ ְׁשנַ �֥יִ ם קְ ָר ִ ֽעים׃‬

“Do you know that Yhwh is going to take your master from over your head today?” And he answered, “Yes, I know; be quiet.” 6 Elijah said to him, “Stay here, for Yhwh has sent me towards the Jordan.” But he said, “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you!” So the two of them walked on. 7 Fifty men of the sons of prophets went and stood opposite them at a distance, while the two of them stood at the Jordan. 8 Elijah took his mantle, rolled it up and struck the waters; and they were divided here and there, and the two of them crossed on dry-​shod. 9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” 10 He said, “You have made a difficult request. If you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; otherwise, it shall not.” 11 As they were walking on, talking, chariotry of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two. And Elijah went up in the whirlwind to the sky. 12 Elisha was looking and crying out, “My father, my father, chariotry of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his clothes and tore them in two pieces.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

45

Figure 1-I. Continued ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ ַו ָּ֙י ֶרם֙ אֶ ת־אַ ֶ ּ֣ד ֶרת אֵ לִ ָּ֔יהּו א‬13 ‫ַל־ׂשפַ ֥ת‬ ְ ‫נָפְ לָ ֖ה מֵ עָלָ ֑יו וַּיָ ׁ֥שָ ב וַ�ֽ ַּיעֲמֹ֖ ד ע‬ ‫הַ ּי ְַר ֵ ּֽדן׃‬ ‫ וַּיִ ּקַ ֩ח אֶ ת־אַ ֶּ֙ד ֶרת אֵ לִ ָּ֜יהּו אֲׁשֶ ר־‬14 ‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ֕ ‫נָפְ לָ ֤ה ֵ ֽמ ָעלָיו֙ ַוּיַּכֶ ֣ה אֶ ת־הַ ֔ ַּמיִ ם ַוּי‬ ‫ף־הּוא׀‬ ֣ ַ‫ֱֹלה֣י אֵ לִ ּיָ ֑הּו א‬ ֵ ‫אַ ֵּ֕יה יְ הוָ ֖ה א‬ ‫ַוּיַּכֶ ֣ה אֶ ת־הַ ֗ ַּמיִ ם ו ֵַּיֽחָ צּו֙ ֵ ֣הּנָה ו ֔ ֵָהּנָה‬ ‫יׁשע׃‬ ֽ ָ ִ‫וַ�ֽ ַּיעֲבֹ֖ ר אֱל‬ ‫יאים אֲׁשֶ ר־‬ ֤ ִ ִ‫ וַּיִ ְר ֙ ֻאהּו בְ ֵנֽי־הַ ּנְ ב‬15 ‫אמ ֔רּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִ ּֽב ִיריחֹו֙ ִמ ֶּ֔נגֶד ַו ּ֣י‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ֑ ָ ִ‫נָ ֛חָ ה ֥רּוחַ אֵ לִ ּיָ ֖הּו עַל־אֱל‬ ‫אתֹו וַּיִ ְׁשּתַ חֲוּו־ל֖ ֹו ָ ֽא ְרצָ ה׃‬ ֔ ‫ַוּי ֙ ָֹבאּו֙ לִ קְ ָר‬ ‫ֹאמ ֣רּו אֵ ָ֡ליו‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬16 ‫ֽי־חיִ ל‬ ַ ֗ ‫הִ ּנֵה־נָ ֣א ֵיֽׁש־אֶ ת־עֲבָ דֶ י ָ֩ך ח ֲִמ ִ ּׁ֙שים ֲאנ ֜ ִָׁשים ּבְ ֵנ‬ ‫יֵ ֣לְ כּו נ ָ֘א וִ יבַ קְ ׁ֣שּו אֶ ת־ ֲאדֹ נֶי ָ֒ך ֶּפן־נְ ׂשָ אֹו֙ ֣רּוחַ יְ ה ֔ ָוה‬ )‫ַוּי ְַׁשלִ ֙ ֵכהּו֙ ּבְ אַ ַ ֣חד הֶ הָ ִ ֔רים ֖אֹו ּבְ אַ ַ ֣חת (הַ ּגְ יָאֹות‬ ]‫[הַ ּגֵאָ י֑ ֹות‬ ‫ַו ּ֖י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫֥ל ֹא ִת ְׁש ָ ֽלחּו׃‬ ‫רּו־בֹו עַד־ּבֹ֖ ׁש ַו ּ֣י ֹאמֶ ר‬ ֥ ְ‫ וַּיִ פְ צ‬17 ‫ְׁשלָ ֑חּו‬ ‫ֹלׁשה־י ִ ָ֖מים‬ ֽ ָ ‫וַ�ּֽיִ ְׁשלְ חּו֙ ח ֲִמ ִ ּׁ֣שים ִ֔איׁש וַיְ בַ קְ ׁ֥שּו ְׁש‬ ‫וְ ֥ל ֹא ְמצָ ֻ ֽאהּו׃‬ ‫יחֹו ַו ּ֣י ֹאמֶ ר ֲאל ֔ ֵֶהם‬ ֑ ‫ ַוּי ָֻׁש֣בּו אֵ ָ֔ליו וְ ֖הּוא יֹ ֵ ׁ֣שב ּבִ ִיר‬18 ‫הֲלֽ ֹוא־אָ ַ ֥מ ְר ִּתי ֲאלֵיכֶ ֖ם‬ ‫אַ ל־ּתֵ ֵ ֽלכּו׃‬

13 He picked up the mantle of Elijah which had fallen from him and returned and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 He took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him and struck the waters and said, “Where is Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?” When he struck the waters, they divided here and there; and Elisha crossed over. 15 The Sons of the Prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him from a distance, they said, “The spirit of Elijah rests over Elisha.” They came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 16 They said to him, “Behold, there are with your servants fifty men, sons of power, please let them go to search for your master; perhaps the spirit of Yhwh has taken him up and cast him on one of the mountains or into one of the valleys.” But he said: “You shall not send.” 17 But they persisted until he was ashamed, he said, “Send!” So they sent fifty men. And they searched three days but did not find him. 18 They returned to him, while he was staying in Jericho; he said to them: “Didn’t I tell you ‘Do not go’?”

Figure 1-​I.  MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 and Its Translation

46

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

2. Notes on the Adopted Translation and Textual Choices Even if our dissertation itself is the proper commentary of the MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​ 18 and its translation, we need to focus on some translation and textual problems at the beginning. It is important, not only to express our opinion on controversies around the text but also to link this narrative with the history of the redaction of 2Kgs 2:1–​18.

2.1 Translation of ‫( בסערה הׁשמים‬2Kgs 2:1a, 11b) ‫ וַיְ ִהי ְּבהַ עֲלֹות יְ הוָה אֶ ת־אֵ לִ ּיָהּו ּבַ ְסעָ ָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם‬v. 1a ‫ ַוּיַעַ ל אֵ לִ ּיָהּו ּבַ ְסעָ ָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם‬v. 11bβ

The expression ‫ בסערה הׁשמים‬from vv. 1a and 11bβ poses a translation problem since the relation between these two nouns is not clear. The literal translation with the MT vocalization (‫ )ּבַ ְסע ָָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם‬would be: “in the whirlwind the heaven.” Let us notice that the practice of putting two nouns in status abs. within one expression is common in BH, cf. J–​M §125b; 130c; 132cf; GES §121 f. Of course, it does not mean that the identification of this practice leads to any clarity, as we will see below. At the same time, the existence of this practice was probably the reason why Charles Burney and Dominique Barthélemy, the two classical textual criticism references regarding our text, unfortunately did not comment on the case presented.1 The importance of the problematic aspects of this expression was recently drawn by Wright, who argued that the Greek-​Roman way of thinking highly influenced the interpretation of MT and that in fact the author of the narrative suggested that Elijah went to the ends of the earth and not into the heaven.2 According to him, ‫ הׁשמים‬in our expression means “skyward.”3 In this paragraph, we will shed more light on the issue to approach the proper solution.

1 Charles Fox Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 264–​67; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, 50/​1, 378–​80; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings. John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1970), 466–​76. 2 Wright, “Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions,” 123–​38; The Early History of Heaven, 63–​87. Cf. Robin B. Hoopen, “Where Are You, Enoch? Why Can’t I Find you? Genesis 5:21–​24 Reconsidered,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 18, no. 4 (2018), 4 December 2018, https://​www.jhsonl​ine.org/​. 3 TCHB 23–​74, cf. Baruch Halpern and David Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th-​6th Centuries B.C.E.,” Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 179–​244.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

47

To put things in order, let us propose three ways of dealing with our case: reflecting the grammar ambiguity; showing the necessity of the syntactical incoherence in the translation; identifying the “missing” Hebrew text elements; and providing the translation without clear identification of the “missing” elements. Let us look more closely at each proposition.

2.1.1 Reflecting the Grammar Ambiguity A quite simple solution would be to reflect the ambiguity of MT in the translation, independently of English grammar rules. However, we want to respect the semantics and the grammar rules of the target language.4 How can we then keep the certain ambiguity of MT? LXX is immensely helpful in this case. In LXX*, we find the following translation: ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν =​ “as it were into heaven.” Except our fragment, the expression ὡς εἰς is used in LXX* in: Jdt 14:5 LXX; 3Macc 5:22 LXX; Ps 73:5 LXX; Isa 5:6 LXX. A certain parallel to 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is found in Jdt 14:5b LXX, where ὡς εἰς occurs with the relation to the death: ἰδὼν ἐπιγνοῖ τὸν ἐκφαυλίσαντα τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ καὶ αὐτὸν ὡς εἰς θάνατον ἀποστείλαντα εἰς ἡμᾶς (“he may see and know him that despised the house of Israel, and that sent him to us as it were to his death” Jdt 14:5b LXB). However, ὡς εἰς is never used in LXX* with οὐρανὸς or its alternative forms. Our text would be an exception. The problem increases when we pose the question about the absence of the equivalent of ὡς in MT. The simplest solution would be ‫( כ‬kaf) instead of the article in ‫הׁשמים‬. However, firstly, such a combination does not appear in MT. This solution would introduce a new morphological entity to BH. We would need more arguments for it to make this proposal. Secondly, in LXX* we have additionally εἰς, so a “missing” element, which would unjustifiably increase the complexity of the speculative BH expression. It seems then that LXX* text will not help us this time in the translation. It confirms however the ambiguity of the meaning of the text.

4 Cf. L. Ronald Ross, “Advances in Linguistic Theory and Their Relevance to Translation,” in Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, ed. Timothy Wilt (Manchester; Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing, 2003), 122–​30.

48

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

2.1.2 Identifying the “Missing” Elements If we are looking for a “missing” element, the three proposals seem to represent the realistic possibilities: “missing” status cons.; “missing” preposition; “missing” directive -​‫ה‬.5 –​ “Missing” status constructus The general rule of BH is as follows: if we link two nouns by a status cons., the first noun occurs without article (J–​M § 129). If we then accept the status cons. solution, we should also be dealing with another irregularity of the text, i.e. the MT vocalization, which indicates the presence of the article in ‫בסערה‬. We know the status cons. of the noun ‫ סערה‬from the Book of Jeremiah: ‫( הנה סערת יהוה חמה יצאה‬Jer 23:19aα =​ 30:23aα). Our noun in the expression “whirlwind of Yhwh” has the final taw, which accords with the general BH rules. In both cases from the Book of Jeremiah, ‫ סערת‬modifies the word ‫יהוה‬. In our text, ‫ הׁשמים‬is mentioned instead. If we accept the status cons. solution, we should translate this expression as “the whirlwind of the heaven,” and eventually as “the whirlwind of the sky.” This would mean introducing a new biblical figure only for this narrative without any description or introduction. Choosing this solution in the translation would be simply non-​verifiable. Let us put this risky solution aside. –​ “Missing” preposition The next possible solution is that a preposition between the two nouns is missing. We find it in Tg. J.,6 which translates our expression as: ‫בעלעולא לצית ׁשמיא‬, which can be translated as “in the whirlwind skyward (heavenward).” In the Hebrew equivalent, we should use ‫ אל‬or simply ‫ל‬, replacing the article. ‫ אל־הׁשמים‬occurs in 1Kgs 8:30, Ps. 50:4, Jer 51:9, Dan 12:7; ‫ לׁשמים‬is known from 2Chr 28:9; 30:27, Ezra 9:6, Job 20:6 and Isa 51:6. It seems, however, to be extremely difficult to 5 Cf. Wright, “Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions,” 124–​25. 6 Targum Jonathan (ca. 2–​3rd century CE) shouldn’t be confounded with Targum Pseudo-​Jonathan (also called Targum Yerushalmi /​ Jerusalem Targum, cf. London MS [British Museum Add. 27031]. The latter contains a post-​Islamic fragment in Gen 21:21 in which Ishmael marries Adisha and Fatima; these correspond to the names of Muhammad’s wife and daughter) which regards only the text of the Pentateuch. Therefore, it is often dated from the seventh century CE, cf. Paul Virgil Flesher and Chilton Bruce, Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 71–​89.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

49

forget an obvious preposition in both occurrences of our expression (vv. 1 and 11). If, then, a preposition is missing, it is rather not a mistake. The probable solution is, therefore, that we are dealing with a type of implied preposition, typical especially for colloquialisms (cf. GES §125b).7 Now, let us make a few remarks on the usage of this verb in the examined verses of 2Kgs. Firstly, in 2Kgs 2:1a, ‫ בסערה הׁשמים‬refers to the inf. cons. of ‫ עלה‬in hiphil. This entity occurs only 3 times in BHS, apart from our fragment: in Jer 37:11; Ezek 26:19; 2Chr 35:14. Any of these verses contain the examined nouns. In each case, the semantics of our verb is different. They are used correspondingly in geographical, visionary and sacrifice contexts.8 Secondly, in 2Kgs 2:11, ‫ עלה‬occurs in qal as wayyiqtol, modifying our expression. We can find 118 occurrences of this form in BHS. It occurs 59 times in the geographical context. In the theophany setting, it occurs 9 times: in Gen 19:30; Gen 35:13; Exod 19:18; 24:9, 13, 15, 18; 34:4; Judg 13:20. It occurs 16 times in the sacrificial context: Gen 8:20; Exod 40:29; Num 23:2, 14, 30; Judg 13:19; 1Sam 13:9; 2Sam 6:17; 24:22, 25; 1Kgs 3:15; 12:32, 33; 1Chr 21:26; 2Chr 1:6; Ezra 3:3. It also occurs in other meanings, i.e. to climb and to lift up. Other occurrences do not belong to any of the mentioned groups.9 Thirdly, it must be already underlined that the root ‫ עלה‬does not refer to ‫סערה‬ in any verse of BHS, except for 2Kgs 2:1, 11. In BHS, ‫ עלה‬modifies ‫ ׁשמים‬in 7 verses:10 7 Lambdin makes a remark regarding the usage of prepositions in passive and stative verbs, showing the steps of a misleading transformation. The lack of ‫ אֶ ת‬in the passive voice is supposed to be copied to the active one, cf. IBH 207. 8 In BHS, we find 5 occurrences of status cons. of ‫ עלה‬in qal. In Josh 4:18, it means “to climb.” In Judg 13:20 and 1Kgs 18:36, it is used to describe the practice of the sacrifice. It is important to remark already that, in Judg, it occurs with the noun ‫​– הׁשמים‬we will treat this issue separately. In 1Kgs 11:15 and Jer 35:11, it is used in the geographical meaning. 9 The full list of occurrences of the verb ‫ עלה‬in inf. cons.: Gen 8:20; 13:1; 17:22; 19:30; 26:23; 35:13; 38:12; 46:29; 50:7, 9; Exod 10:12, 14; 19:18, 20; 24:9, 13, 15, 18; 34:4; 40:25, 29; Num 23:2, 14, 30; 33:38; Deut 34:1; Josh 6:20; 8:10; 10:7, 36; 15:15; 18:11; 19:10; Judg 1:4; 2:1; 4:10; 8:8, 11; 9:48; 13:19, 20; 14:2, 19; 1Sam 1:21; 2:6; 11:1; 13:9, 15; 14:13, 46; 24:1; 27:8; 2Sam 2:2; 6:12, 17; 15:24; 19:1; 20:2; 21:13; 24:19, 22, 25; 1Kgs 2:34; 3:15; 5:27; 12:32, 33; 15:17; 18:43; 20:1, 26; 22:20, 29; 2Kgs 1:9, 13; 2:11, 23; 4:34, 35; 6:24; 12:11, 19; 14:11; 15:14; 16:9, 12; 17:5; 19:14; 23:2; 1Chr 11:6; 13:6; 21:19, 26; 2Chr 1:6; 3:5, 14; 12:9; 18:19, 28; 25:21; 29:20; 32:5; 34:30; 36:17, 23; Ezra 1:3; 3:3; Isa 37:14; 53:2; Jer 51:16; Ezek 11:23, 24; 14:7; 40:6; Jonah 4:6. 10 Of course, there are many other verbs which modify ‫ ׁשמים‬from the very beginning of BHS, cf. ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1; 2:4; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Isa 42:5; 45:8, 12, 18; 65:17.

50

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

]‫ֹא־מתּו הֻּכ֖ ּו (ּבָ ֳעפָלִ ים) [ּבַ ְּטחֹ ִ ֑רים‬ ֵ ֔ ‫ֲׁשר ל‬ ֣ ֶ ‫וְ ָ ֽה ֲאנ ִָׁשים֙ א‬ ‫ו ַ ַּ֛תעַל ַ ֽׁשוְ עַ ֥ת הָ ִ ֖עיר הַ ּׁשָ ָ ֽמיִ ם ׃‬ ‫ֹאׁשֹו לָעָ ֥ב י ִ ַּֽגיעַ׃‬ ֗ ‫ִאם־ ַיעֲלֶ ֣ה לַּׁשָ ַ ֣מיִ ם ִׂש ֑יאֹו ְ֜ור‬ ‫מֹוגֽג׃‬ ָ ‫הֹומֹות ַ֜נפְ ׁשָ֗ ם ּבְ ָרעָ ֥ה ִת ְת‬ ֑ ‫ַיעֲל֣ ּו ׁשָ֭ מַ יִ ם י ְֵר ֣דּו ְת‬ ‫ִ ֤מי ע ָ ָֽלה ־ ׁשָ ַ֙מיִ ם ׀ ַוּי ַ ֵ֡רד ִ ֤מי ָ ֽאסַ ף־ר֙ ּוחַ׀ ּבְ חָ פְ ָ֡ניו‬ ‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ֑ ָ ֵ‫ר־מיִ ם׀ ּבַ ִּׂש ְמ ָ֗לה ֭ ִמי הֵ ִ ֣קים ּכָל־אַ פְ ס‬ ַ֙ ‫ִ ֤מי ָ ֽצ ַר‬ ‫ם־ּבנ֗ ֹו ִ ּ֣כי תֵ ָ ֽדע׃‬ ְ֜ ֶ‫ּומה־ּׁש‬ ֽ ַ ‫ה־ּׁש ֥מֹו‬ ְ ַ‫מ‬

‫וְ אַ ּתָ ה אָ מַ ְרּתָ בִ לְ בָ בְ ָך הַ ּׁשָ מַ יִ ם אֶ ֱעלֶה ִמּמַ עַל‬ ‫לְ כֹוכְ בֵ י־אֵ ל אָ ִרים ּכִ ְס ִאי וְ אֵ ׁשֵ ב ּבְ הַ ר־מֹועֵד ּבְ י ְַרּכְ תֵ י‬ ‫צָ פֹון׃‬ ‫ִ ּֽכי־תַ עֲלֶ ֤ה בָ בֶ ֙ל הַ ּׁשָ ֔ ַמיִ ם וְ ִ ֥כי ְתבַ ֵּצ֖ר ְמ ֣רֹום עֻּזָ ּ֑ה מֵ ִא ֗ ִּתי‬ ‫הוֽה׃‬ ָ ְ‫יָבֹ֧ אּו ׁשֹ ְד ִ ֛דים לָ ּ֖ה נְ אֻם־י‬ ֙‫ִאם־יַחְ ְּת ֣רּו בִ ְׁש ֔אֹול ִמ ָ ּׁ֖שם י ִ ָ֣די ִתּקָ ֵח֑ם וְ ִ ֽאם־ ַיעֲלּו‬ ‫ידם׃‬ ֽ ֵ ‫אֹור‬ ִ ‫הַ ּׁשָ ֔ ַמיִ ם ִמ ָ ּׁ֖שם‬

Those who did not die were stricken with tumors, and the cry of the city went up to heaven . (1Sam 5:12 NRS) Even though they mount up high as the heavens , and their head reaches to the clouds, (Job 20:6 NRS) They mounted up to heaven , they went down to the depths; their courage melted away in their calamity; (Ps 107:26 NRS) Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person’s name? And what is the name of the person’s child? Surely you know! (Prov 30:4 NRS) You said in your heart, “ I will ascend to heaven ; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;” (Isa 14:13 NRS) Though Babylon should mount up to heaven , and though she should fortify her strong height, from me destroyers would come upon her, says Yhwh*. (Jer 51:53 NRS) Though they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; though they climb up to heaven , from there I will bring them down. (Amos 9:2 NRS)

Figure 2-​I.  Modifications of ‫ ׁשמים‬by ‫ עלה‬in BHS

Now, the closest form to the one in 2Kgs 2:11 is in 1Sam 5:12, since only here is ‫ עלה‬in wayyiqtol, however it is feminine. There are no occurrences of this root in inf. cons., therefore none of the verses clearly approach 2Kgs 2:1. The most valuable observation is that, in all these verses, except Job 20:6, ‫ ׁשמים‬is not preceded by a preposition. It confirms that such a practice was normal for biblical authors, but it does not resolve the problem: what did they have in mind. In Job 20:6, the author speaks about “reaching the clouds”; in other cases, the authors speak about reaching directly ‫הׁשמים‬, of course, mainly in the speculative way.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

51

–​ “Missing” the directive ‫ה‬ Another possibility to resolve our problem is to add the directive ‫ ה‬to the word ‫( הׁשמים‬GES § 90; J–​M § 93). There are 11 occurrences of ‫ הׁשמימה‬in BHS: Gen 15:5; 28:12; Exod 9:8, 10; Deut 4:19; 30:12; Josh 8:20; Judg 13:20; 20:40; 2Chr 6:13; Job 2:12. To understand this possibility, we will analyze the cases where ‫ הׁשמימה‬is modified by the verb ‫עלה‬. There are 4 such verses: In three verses, ‫ עלה‬occurs in yiqtol (Deut) or in qatal (Josh, Judg 20). Only in Judg 13:20a, the forms of ‫ עלה‬resemble the ones from 2Kgs 2: “When the flame went up (‫ )בעלות‬toward heaven (‫ )הׁשמימה‬from the altar, the angel of the Lord ascended (‫ )ויעל‬in the flame (‫)בלהב‬.” The noun ‫ להב‬is modified in v. 20aα by ‫עלה‬, which is in inf. cons. in qal. The difference in 2Kgs 2:1a regards the stem. In the latter, ‫ עלה‬is in hiphil. It is important to notice the second occurrence of this root. In v. 20aβ, ‫ עלה‬occurs in the abbreviated form of wayyiqtol, in masculine. This form is identical to the one in 2Kgs 2:11b. Let us compare other elements of the corresponding verses. ֙‫֥ל ֹא בַ ּׁשָ ַ ֖מיִ ם ִ ֑הוא לֵאמֹ֗ ר ִ ֣מי ַי ֲעלֶה ־ּלָ ֤נּו הַ ּׁשָ ַ֙מיְ מָ ה‬ ‫וְ יִ ּקָ ֶח֣הָ ָּ֔לנּו וְ י ְַׁש ִמעֵ ֥נּו אֹ ָ ֖תּה וְ ַנע ֶ ֲֽׂשּנָה׃‬ ‫יהם וַּיִ ְר ֗אּו וְ הִ ֵּ֙נה ָע ָ֜לה ע ַ ֲׁ֤שן‬ ֶ ֜ ‫וַּיִ פְ נ֣ ּו אַ נְ ׁשֵ ֩י הָ ֙ ַעי אַ ח ֲֵר‬ ‫הָ עִ יר֙ הַ ּׁשָ ֔ ַמיְ מָ ה וְ ל ֹא־הָ ָ֙יה בָ ֶה֥ם י ַ ָ֛דיִ ם לָנ֖ ּוס ֵ ֣הּנָה ו ֵ ָ֑הּנָה‬ ‫רֹודף׃‬ ֽ ֵ ָ‫וְ הָ עָם֙ הַ ּנָ ֣ס הַ ִּמ ְד ֔ ָּבר נֶהְ ּפַ ְ֖ך אֶ ל־ה‬

‫וַיְ הִ ֩י בַ ֲעלֹ֙ות הַ ַּ֜להַ ב מֵ עַ ֤ל הַ ִּמז ְֵּ֙ב ַ֙ח הַ ּׁשָ ֔ ַמיְ מָ ה וַּיַ ֥עַל‬ ‫מַ לְ אַ ְך־יְ הוָ ֖ה ּבְ לַ ֣הַ ב הַ ִּמז ְֵּב֑חַ ּומָ נ֤ ֹוחַ וְ ִא ְׁשּתֹו֙ רֹ ִ֔אים‬ ‫ֵיה֖ם ָ ֽא ְרצָ ה׃‬ ֶ ‫וַּיִ ּפְ ל֥ ּו עַל־ּפְ נ‬

‫ָׁשן ו ִ ַּ֤יפֶן‬ ֑ ָ ‫וְ הַ ּמַ ְׂש ֗ ֵאת הֵ ֵ ֛חּלָה ַלעֲל֥ ֹות ִמן־הָ ִ ֖עיר ע ַּ֣מּוד ע‬ ‫ּבִ נְ י ִָמן֙ אַ ח ָ ֲ֔ריו וְ הִ ּנֵ ֛ה עָלָ ֥ה כְ לִ יל־ הָ ִ ֖עיר הַ ּׁשָ ָ ֽמיְ מָ ה ׃‬

It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” (Deut 30:12 NRS) So when the men of Ai looked back, the smoke of the city was rising to the sky . They had no power to flee this way or that, for the people who fled to the wilderness turned back against the pursuers. (Josh 8:20 NRS) When the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of Yhwh* ascended in the flame of the altar while Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground. (Judg 13:20 NRS) But when the cloud, a column of smoke, began to rise out of the city, the Benjaminites looked behind them –​and there was the whole city going up in smoke toward the sky ! (Judg 20:40 NRS)

Figure 3-​I.  Modification of ‫ הׁשמימה‬by the Verb ‫עלה‬

52

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

The correspondence of the elements of Judg 13:20aα to 2Kgs 2:1a is highlighted by the frames: ‫וַיְ הִ ֩י בַ ֲעלֹ֙ות הַ ַּ֜להַ ב מֵ עַ ֤ל הַ ִּמז ְֵּ֙ב ַ֙ח הַ ּׁשָ ֔ ַמיְ מָ ה‬ ‫וַיְ הִ י ּבְ הַ עֲלֹות יְ הוָה אֶ ת־אֵ לִ ּיָהּו ּבַ ְסע ָָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם‬

Judg 13:20aα 2Kgs 2:1a

Firstly, we see that the time reference structure ‫ ויהי‬+​ ‫ ב‬+​ inf. cons. occurs in both verses. Secondly, ‫ב‬, preceding inf. cons. (respectively in qal and in hiphil), occurs without dagesh and with patah in Judg and with dagesh and shewa in 2Kgs. Thirdly, the preposition ‫ ב‬occurs in 2Kgs also with dagesh, even if it is preceded by a long vowel. That is why we can identify a tendency of the MT scribe to put dagesh in the examined text, even if it is not expected. Fourthly, the subject in Judg is ‫ להב‬and, in 2Kgs, it is ‫יהוה‬. Fifthly, the final ‫ ה‬in ‫הׁשמימה‬ in Judg is not present in 2Kgs. Sixthly, the final ‫ ה‬in Judg 13:20aα regards the direction of ‫להב‬. The flame cannot reach heaven in the visual level, it disappears somewhere (cf. Josh 8:20; Judg 20:40). Finally, there are two good translations of Judg 13:20aα which reflect the nature of the flame: a) “towards heaven;” b) “to the sky.” NRS translates it as “towards heaven.” Should we, therefore, choose the b) translation of 2Kgs 2:1, 11 in order to distinguish it from Judg 13:20 (with the directive he)?11 Let us leave the final decision for further analysis. Perceiving their similarity, we should also compare Judg 13:20aβ and 2Kgs 2:11b: ‫  ַו ַּי ַעל   מַ לְ אַ ְך־יְ ה ָוה   ּבְ   לַהַ ב  הַ ִּמזְּבֵ חַ   ׃‬ ‫  ַו ַּי ַעל   אֵ לִ ּיָהו   ּבַ   ְסע ָָרה הַ ּׁשָ מָ יִ ם  ׃‬

Judg 13:20aβ 2Kgs 2:11b

In both cases, we see the same wayyiqtol, followed by the subject, which, correspondingly, is ‫ מלאך יהוה‬and ‫אליהו‬. It is followed by an expression ‫ ב‬+​ noun. Clearly, the subject is going up in the entity preceded by ‫ב‬. The preposition occurs with dagesh even if it is preceded by a vowel. Now, ‫ להב‬is in status cons., so NRS translates it as “the flame of the altar.”12 The corresponding elements ‫המזבח‬ and ‫ הׁשמים‬are in status abs.

11 Since we wrote the essential part of this dissertation in London, we used the anglicized NRS. 12 The other meaning of this noun is “blade,” cf. Judg 3:22; Nah 3:3, HALOT, “‫להב‬.”

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

53

2.1.3 The Reason of Omitting he If the grammar connection between Judg 13:20 and 2Kgs 2:1, 11 is correct, we need to try to understand the reason why the final he does not occur in ‫ הׁשמים‬in 2Kgs.13 Let us look at the cases when the final he is omitted or used in our narrative. In v. 2a, when Elijah asks Elisha to stay on the way from Gilgal, because Yhwh sent him as far as Bethel, the authors use the expression: ‫ׁשלחני עד־בית־אל‬. The preposition ‫ עד‬underlines the distance between the twosome and the sanctuary. The reader cannot yet be sure if Elijah reaches Bethel. The situation is different in v. 2b, where the reader finds out that “they went down to Bethel.” The incident described in v. 3 happens in Bethel, so we are confirmed that they have reached Bethel. Now, the expression which is used in v. 2b to express the idea of entering Bethel does not contain any preposition or any directive he: ‫וירדו‬ ‫בית־אל‬. The analogue construction occurs in v. 4a, where Elijah demands Elisha to stay, because Yhwh sends him to Jericho. A preposition or the directive he is lacking in this case (‫)ׁשלחני יריחו‬, just as in the indication of their arrival in v. 4b (‫)ויבאו יריחו‬. We are confirmed that the twosome has arrived in Jericho from the incident in v. 5. The situation changes when Elijah informs Elisha about the fact of being sent “towards the Jordan.” In this case, the authors add the directive he to the proper name: ‫ׁשלחני הירדנה‬. Then, in v. 7, we find out that the “two of them stood at the Jordan.” Here, the authors use the preposition ‫ על‬and, in consequence, the place where they stay occurs without the directive he: ‫על־הירדן‬. Furthermore, in. v. 8, they cross the divided river and the departure of Elijah takes place on the other side in vv. 9 ff. The Jordan was not, then, the point of destination of the journey of the twosome in the same sense as Bethel or Jericho, where they stay and where they are questioned by the prophets in vv. 3a, 5a. The usage of the directive he with the proper name expresses the idea that the future destination is not precisely the Jordan river but a larger area. Such usage of the directive ‫ ה‬can also be translated as a vague “over there.”

13 Another question is why this similarity occurs. The first possibility is as follows. If Judg 13:20 is inspired by 2Kgs 2:1a, 11b, it means that the author may have understood the lack of precision in the case of ‫הׁשמים‬, and that is why he added the final ‫ה‬. Secondly, if it is 2Kgs 2:1a, 11b that succeed Judg 13:20, the omission of ‫ ה‬in 2Kgs could then be a failure or a conscious scribal operation. Whatever the time order of the verses, the missing element of 2Kgs 2:1, 11 with which we are dealing is the directive ‫ה‬. However, there is also the third possibility, i.e. the authors of our texts are using the directive ‫ה‬ in one sense, and they omit it in the other case to produce a different sense.

54

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

Now, similarly, we might conclude that the he in the narrative expresses more the idea of direction than of location. There is a problem regarding this solution. The form ‫ בית־אל‬ending with directive he does not occur in BH, unlike the form ‫הגלגלה‬, cf. Josh 10:6, 15, 43; 2Sam 19:16, 41; 2Kgs 4:38. The form ‫ יריחו‬ending with he occurs in the following verse: In his days Hiel of Bethel (‫ )חיאל בית האלי‬built Jericho (‫ ;)יריחה‬he laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yhwh*, which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun. (1Kgs 16:34 NRS)14

We see, however, that the final he in ‫ בית־אל‬is not directive. Simply, it is another spelling of ‫יריחו‬. The noun ‫ הירדן‬plus final he could, therefore, be used because, simply, such a form existed in BH. Finally, there are some indications that the authors wanted to present ‫ הׁשמים‬as a precise location, as in the cases of Bethel and Jericho. There are also indications that they did not only want to indicate a general direction, as in the case of the Jordan. We have not, however, found sufficient arguments to support these theses. We are, therefore, inclined to the thesis that the authors did not want to be clear about the direction of the departure of Elijah.

2.1.4 Translation Let us look at each of the elements of the expression ‫בסערה הׁשמים‬. The word ‫ סערה‬occurs 14 times in BHS in status abs. (2Kgs 2:1, 11; Job 38:1x2; 40:6x2; Ps 107:25, 29; 148:8; Isa 29:6; 40:24; 41:16; 54:11; Ezek 1:4) and 2 times in stat cons. (Jer 23:19; 30:23). Additionally, it occurs 10 times in a shorter form ‫( סער‬Ps 55:9; Jer 23:19; 25:32; 30:23; Amos 1:14; Jonah 1:4, 11, 12, 13). In Ps 55:9; 107:25, 29, 148:8, Isa 29:6; 40:24; 41:16; 54:11; Ezek 1:4 Amos 1:14; and Jonah 1:4, 11, 12, 13, it occurs together with other forces of nature. In these cases, the noun is translated as “storm,” “stormy” or “tempest.” In Job 38:1; 40:6; Jer 23:19; 25:32; 30:23, it occurs without connection to the forces of nature. It functions rather as a medium of Yhwh. In this meaning, ‫ סערה‬is translated as “whirlwind” in Job, while ‫ סער‬is translated as “tempest” in Jer. If we consider that in 2Kgs 2:1, 11 ‫סערה‬ is not clearly connected to the forces of nature, it seems that we should translate it as “whirlwind,” since its form is identical to the one from the book of Job (with

14 This fragment can explain why Bethel and Jericho are connected. Jericho might have been (re)built by a person coming from Bethel. In this case, someone may consider Bethel as the mother city/​sanctuary for Jericho.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

55

the final he). The translations known from HALOT, i.e. “heavy gale” (‫ )סער‬and “high wind” (‫)סערה‬, are not widely used, probably because they are descriptive (more than two words). The word ‫ הׁשמים‬is problematic when we need to decide whether it refers to “heaven” or to “sky” (cf. HALOT “‫ׁשמים‬,” 2, 5, 10–​13). It is so because such a distinction does not correspond to the Near East nor to the ancient Israelite cosmology.15 What is more, the popular biblical editions which use both translations follow some inexplicit semiotic principles. Generally, there is a tendency to translate ‫ הׁשמים‬as “heaven” (eventually “heavens”) (NRS, cf. NAU, NIV, NJB), even if there is the possibility to translate it as “sky,” e.g. the expressions ‫תחת הׁשמים‬ “under the heaven” (cf. Gen 7:19; Deut 2:25; 4:11; Job 28:24, 37:3, 41:3; Eccl 1:13, 2:3, 3:1; Dan 9:12) or ‫ככוכבי הׁשמים‬, “the stars of heaven” (cf. Gen 22:17; 26:4; Exod 32:13; Deut 1:10; 10:22; 28:62 and 1Chr 27:23). Nevertheless, some precise rules may be formulated. Firstly, human beings occur as rhetoric figures in questions or speculations regarding the possibility of going up to heaven (Deut 30:12; Job 20:6; Ps 107:26; Prov 30:4; Isa 14:13; Amos 9:2). In all these cases, the translation “to heaven” is chosen in NRS. Similarly, if something else reaches the heavenly realm, e.g. the “cry of the city” in 1Sam 5:12, the translation of ‫ ׁשמים‬is “heaven” (NRS; cf. NAU, NIV, KJV, NKJ vs. NJB).16 Secondly, there are some expressions where the “sky” translation is common, e.g. ‫עוף הׁשמים‬, “the birds of sky” (cf. Gen 1:30, 2:19, 6:7, 7:23, 9:2; Deut 28:26; 2Sam 21:10; 1Kgs 14:11, 16:4, 21:24; Ps 104:12; Eccl 10:20; Jer 4:25, 15:3; Ezek 31:6, 13; 32:4; Hos 2:20; Zeph 1:3). The birds of the sky do not reach the heavenly realm. It is also the case of some biblical objects, e.g. smoke. In Jos 8:20aα/​Judg 20:40, we find the expression “smoke of the city was rising to the sky” (NRS; cf. NAU, NIV, NJB, vs. KJV, NKJ). This expression informs the reader that the city was burning, and not that the smoke reaches the heavenly realm. Now, while the syntactical function of ‫ הׁשמים‬in MT is unclear, the usage of ‫ סערה‬is specified by the preceding preposition ‫ב‬. It seems, therefore, that the authors of the text, for some reason, wanted to be more precise referring to ‫סערה‬ than to ‫הׁשמים‬. Should not we follow this logic in the translation? In this case, we can qualify the translation of ‫ הׁשמים‬by the classification of ‫סערה‬. Let us ask the question if it is closer to the smoke or to the cry. The smoke is visible like the

1 5 Wright, The Early History of Heaven, 3–​97. 16 The noun ‫ ׁשועה‬occurs in BHS only in status cons. (i.e. ‫ ׁשועת‬in 1Sam 5:12; Jer 8:19) or with a suffix (in Exod 2:23; 2Sam 22:7; Ps 18:7; 34:16; 39:13; 40:2; 102:2; 145:19; Lam 3:56), cf. HALOT, “‫ׁשועה‬,” cf. 1, 2.

56

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

whirlwind, unlike the cry. We classify it as a smoke-​type and not as a cry-​type. The smoke, just as in Jos 8:20aα/​Judg 20:4, “was rising to the sky.” The translation of ‫ הׁשמים‬in 2Kgs 2:1, 11 as “the sky” is, therefore, justified. Moreover, the expression “in the whirlwind to the sky” reflects the following details. Firstly, the reader should expect the “to heaven” translation, as in Deut 30:12; Job 20:6; Ps 107:26; Prov 30:4; Isa 14:13; Amos 9:2 (NRS) and as in the closest text to ours, i.e. Judg 13:20 (which contains the directive he). This expectation should not, however, be reached because of the ambiguity in MT. Secondly, it reflects the occurrence of the article in ‫הׁשמים‬.

2.2 Translation of ‫( חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬2Kgs 2:2aβ; 4aβ; 6aβ) ָ‫ ו ַּ֣י ֹאמֶ ר אֱ לִ יׁשָ֔ ע חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ עֶ ז ֶ ְ֑בּך‬2aβ ‫ ו ַּ֕י ֹאמֶ ר חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ עֶ ז ֶ ְ֑ב ָּך‬4aβ ָ‫ ו ַּ֕י ֹאמֶ ר חַ י־יְ הוָ ֥ה וְ ֵ ֽחי־נַפְ ְׁשָך֖ ִאם־אֶ עֶ ז ֶ ְ֑בּך‬6aβ The expression ‫ חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬has a formulaic meaning. It occurs in three verses of our text: 2a, 4a, 6a. It is translated in this dissertation as “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you.” The discussion on the original vocalization and especially on the meaning of the expression is quite extensive.17 The MT vocalization is the following: ‫חַ י־יְ הוָה וְ חֵ י־נַפְ ְׁשָך ִאם־אֶ ֶעז ֶ ְ֑ב ָּך‬. In the biblical context, our formula occurs on two occasions in the ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬ ‫ אם־אעזבך‬variant (2Kgs 2:2, 4, 6; 2Kgs 4:30); two times in the variant without ‫( אם־אעזבך‬1Sam 20:3; 25:26); and once as ‫( חי־יהוה וחי אדני המלך‬2Sam 15:21). With some further modifications, it also occurs in some extra-​biblical Hebrew texts, e.g. in the 3rd Lachish Letters (III.9) and possibly in 4QParaphrase of Kings.18

17 GES § 93 a; § 149 a, c; Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 264; Andrew B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 164–​65; Moshe Greenberg, “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥai/​Ḥē,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 1 (1957): 34–​39; Manfred R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 81, no. 1 (1969): 74–​ 92; Moshe Zvi Segal, “Constructing the Phrases of the Oath and the Vow,” Leshonenu 1 (1929): 215–​27; Yael Ziegler, ““As the Lord Lives and as Your Soul Lives”: An Oath of Conscious Deference,” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 1 (2008): 117–​30. 18 The Lachish Letters, ed. Harry Torczyner and Naphtali Herz Tur-​Sinai (London; New York; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1938), 46–​75; Greenberg, “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥai/​Ḥē,” 35. Cf. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 764.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

57

2.2.1 Morphology and Syntax Let us focus our attention on the elements of the ‫ חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬formula. Firstly, we make some remarks on the ‫ חי־יהוה‬part of the formula. Secondly, we examine ‫ חי‬and its morphology, also making reference to the usage of ‫נפׁש‬. Finally, we analyze ‫ ו‬and ‫ אם‬as crucial elements of the syntax. –​ General remarks on ‫ חי־יהוה‬formula Firstly, it should be said that the occurrence of the names of gods or other powers in oaths was a common practice in the Near East. In the case of our text, the name ‫ יהוה‬is used in a determined ‫ חי־יהוה‬structure. This structure with different names of gods was, for Lehmann, “undoubtedly the most universal oath form in the ancient Near East.”19 He shows some usage of this kind of formula in ancient Akkad, Egypt and Ugarit.20 In the Akkadian writings, we can find oaths niš ilim (by the god) and niš šarrim (by the king).21 In ancient Egypt, the word ʿnḫ,

1 9 Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 84. 20 Liverani writes a few very inspiring paragraphs on the issue of life in the political context of Ancient Egypt: “In exchange for all this, Pharaoh gave ‘life’ (Egypt, ‘nh’ ‘Amarna Akkadian balātu), which he retained exclusively and gracefully conceded. ‘Life’ in political terms meant the right of reigning as a vassal. But according to Egyptian ideology, it was something more concrete and precise, it was the ‘breath of life’ coming from Pharaoh’s mouth (and with his breath, his words) to the benefit of those who were allowed into his presence, or to whom his messages were addressed. Perhaps the king of Tyre exaggerates when he wishes to express his joy for having received a manifestation, though indirect (through a messenger), of Pharaoh’s ‘breath of life’: My lord is the Sun who comes forth over all lands day by day, according to the way (of being) of the Sun, his gracious father, who gives life by his sweet breath that returns as a north wind; who established the entire land in peace, by the power of his arm; who gives forth his cry in the sky like Baal, and all the land is frightened at his cry. The servant herewith writes to his lord that he heard the gracious messenger of the king who came to his servant, and the sweet breath that came forth from the mouth of the king, my lord, to his servant –​his breath came back! Before the arrival of the messenger of the king, my lord, breath had not come back; my nose was blocked. Now that the breath of the king has come forth to me, I have great joy and I am very happy day by day” (LA 117 =​ EA 147). Cf. Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, ed. James Crossley and Philip R. Davies, Bible World (London; Oakville: Equinox, 2005), 14–​15. 21 Małgorzata Sandowicz, Oaths and Curses: A Study in Neo-​and Late Babylonian Legal Formulary, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 398 (Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2012), 73–​ 75. Cf. “nīšu (A,b’)” in CAD; “nīšum (II)” in CDA.

58

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

meaning ‘to live’ or simply ‘life’, was probably used as a synonym for ‘oath’.22 In Ugaritic oaths, the verb it (sic) was used to express the idea of the presence/​existence of staying alive, e.g. “as truly as Asherah of Tyre is present.” We see clearly that the Hebrew formula possibly emerged, or at least was strongly influenced, from the parallel formula functioning in other languages. Now we must approach the meaning of our expression given by the author/​ authors of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. Even if the expression itself is a reminiscence from polytheistic beliefs, we do not expect it to be used by the author as a kind of speculation on the existence of Yhwh,23 since what we can call “mono-​Yhwh-​ism” is the central preoccupation of the authors of Elijah-​Elisha stories, e.g. the Baal and Asherah problem in 1Kgs 16–​18; 2Kgs 10; 17.24 What, though, is the sense of ‫ חי־יהוה‬expression in our formula? Let us move to the analysis of the morphology and of the syntax. –​ The morphology of ‫חי‬ To elucidate this issue, we must ask the question of whether ‫ חי‬is a verb or a noun. If it is a verb, is it in the qatal form or the participle one? If it is a noun, is it in the absolute or in the construct state? The second question to be asked concerns

22 Cf. John A. Wilson, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7, no. 3 (1948): 129–​56. 23 In the biblical context, we should ask if it is normal that a biblical character pronounces the name of God in a narrative dialogue –​it is forbidden in Exod 20:7 /​Deut 5:11. In fact, the biblical characters use freely the name ‫( יהוה‬1Sam 30:26; 2Sam 22:4; 1Kgs 1:37 etc.), and it does not provoke controversies in the biblical narration. The Lachish letters prove that the name ‫ יהוה‬was used in everyday life in the sixth century. This is so different to the latter attitude to the usage of the God’s name, e.g. in the Jewish diaspora, cf. The Lachish Letters, 46–​75. 24 Although, for the monotheistic biblical authors, gods, except Yhwh, are “made by hands” (cf. 2Kgs 22:17; Jer 1:16; 25:6; 44:8; 2Chr 13:8; 34:25), the traces of polytheism are largely present in it, e.g. in Ps 82:6–​7 (NRS): “I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.’” Yhwh had also used to be treated as some other gods from the pantheon of Canaan. We find the traces of such understanding in inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud (‫ )יהוה שומרון ואשרתו‬and Khirbet el-​Qom (‫)ברך אריהו ליהוה נצרי ולאשרתה הושע לה‬, referring to family relations of Yhwh. Cf. Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 186–​91; Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (London; New York: T& TClark, 2007), 150–​64; Graham I. Davies, Corpus and Concordance, vol. 2, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Cambridge University Press, 2004), 11, 13.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

59

the difference in the vocalization of ‫ חי‬in the formula, since it is vocalized ‫ חַ י‬and respectively ‫ חֵ י‬by the Masoretes. In B and in A,25 ‫ חי‬was translated into Greek as ζῇ (Regnorum IV 2:1–​18), so as an indicative present verb, without differentiating between the first and the second occurrence. LXX* version of the formula is the following: ζῇ κύριος καὶ ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου. Since many scholars adopted the verbal solution without making a difference in meaning between the first and the second occurrences,26 the result is visible in many present English translations (NRS, NJB, NKJ, NIV).27 Joüon proposed that ‫ חי‬is a verb –​qal perfect from the root ‫( חיי‬J–​M § 79). Wilhelm Gesenius proposed the same solution, however he mentioned that ‫ חי‬could be also a noun (GES § 77i). Moshe Greenberg is the one who classified ‫ חי‬as a noun.28 His argumentation was the following: if we accept the participle explanation, we should ask about the gender of the noun which the participle is modifying. ‫ נפׁש‬is feminine, so the modified participle should be feminine too. Therefore, in the place of ‫ חי‬we should have here ‫חיה‬.29 The nominal solution is also confirmed by LXX Luc.30 After Sievers, Greenberg says that ‫ חַ י‬is an absolute state, and that ‫ חֵ י‬is a construct one, just as is the case of ‘day’ and ‘dē’.31 There are also some non-​grammatical proposals regarding the vocalization of ‫חי‬. Charles Fox Burney suggested that MT vocalization is rather artificial, and

25 The Later Historical Books: I and II Kings. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented From Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, 2; Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta interpretum olim ad fidem codicis ms. Alexandrini, ed. Johann Jacob Breitinger and Johann Ernst Grabe (Tiguri Helvetiorum: Joannis Heideggeri & Soc., 1730), 194–​96. 26 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis: Übersetzt und erklärt, 2 ed., Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 390; Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 164–​65. 27 “As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live” (2Kgs 2:2 NRS); “As Yahweh lives and as you yourself live” (2Kgs 2:2 NJB); “As the LORD lives, and as your soul lives” (2Kgs 2:2 NKJ); “As surely as the LORD lives and as you live” (2Kgs 2:2 NIV). 28 Greenberg, “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥai/​Ḥē,” 36. 29 We can add that, in Gen 42:15, we find the same verb form regarding the pharaoh: ‫חֵ י‬. This is also the base for being rejecting the qatal possibility. 30 ma thn zwhn sou kai ma thn zwhn thj yuch sou. (4βασιλέων 4:2, 4, 6). 31 Eduard Sievers, Metrische Studien: Studien zur hebräischen Metrik, Abhandlungen der Philologisch-​historischen Klasse der Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften 21 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1901), 296 n1.

60

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

that ‫ חַ י‬seems to introduce the sacred oath and ‫ חֵ י‬the non-​sacred one.32 Another scholar, Yael Ziegler, analyzing other occurrences of our formula in the Old Testament, like the one in the Shunammite’s son story (2Kgs 4:8–​37), showed that another non-​grammatical explanation is possible. For him, the second part of our double formula had a deferential character. The idea would be that a character uses the double-​formula when he wants to show a special deference to his collocutor. In our text, it would express the master-​disciple relationship.33 This is an important observation, but it does not resolve the problem of the translation. For Hermann Gunkel, these variations were “nur eine rabbinische Finesse.”34 If we understand the first ‫ חי‬as an absolute state of a noun and the second as a construct one, without any grammar logic of their application, as seems to be suggested by Greenberg, we should clearly confirm that it is “eine rabbinische Finesse.” It is not excluded however that MT understanding can be considered as something more than that. The crucial indication comes from Tg. J. Probably before the creation of MT vocalization (7th–​10th century CE), Tg. J. (2th–​3rd century CE) distinguishes between the first and the second occurrence of the equivalent of ‫ חי‬in our formula: ‫ קיים הוא יוי  וחיי  נפׁשך אם אׁשבקנך‬.35 Following the rules of Aramaic grammar, we classify ‫ קיים‬as a participle and ‫ חיי‬as a noun.36 They correspond respectively to the occurrences of ‫חי‬. If the first ‫ חי‬is a participle and the second is a noun, Greenberg’s argumentation, regarding the lack of the feminine form of the participle, is not valid for Tg. J. solution (participle…noun). It also avoids the ambiguity of the suggestion that two noun states were applied arbitrarily. –​ Usage of ‫( ו‬waw) and ‫אם‬ ‫( ו‬waw) and ‫ אם‬can function in many ways in phrases. Let us start with a remark on the usage of ‫ אם‬in our formula, which is ended by ‫אם־אעזבך‬. In oaths, ‫אם‬ means: “certainly not” and ‫ אם־לא‬means “certainly” in the same context. Then ‫אם‬ would correspond rather to the Arabic ʿin (GES § 149.). The examples of such a usage of ‫ אם‬are as follows: Ps 89:10; Isa 5:9; Job 1:11. The usage of ‫( ו‬waw) in our formula is much more complicated. Principally, it can express a conjunction or a disjunction (J–​M §173h). In the case of the latter, 3 2 Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 264. 33 Ziegler, ““As the Lord Lives and as Your Soul Lives”: An Oath of Conscious Deference,” 122 n14. 34 Gunkel, Genesis: Übersetzt und erklärt, 390. 35 For the issue of dating: Flesher and Bruce, Targums: A Critical Introduction, 199–​207. 36 Segal, “Constructing the Phrases of the Oath and the Vow,” 215.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

61

we would receive, for example: “Living Yhwh just as the life of your breath.” The speaker would confirm that he believes that Yhwh is a living God. The life of Elijah (“as the life of your breath”) would be only a reference made to be sure about the meaning of ‫חי‬. Elisha would then designate Yhwh as the only “guarantee” of the oath, which would not violate the manifested will of Elijah (of going alone). However, this expression is repeated three times in our text. If ‫ וחיי נפׁשך‬is a kind of example, why should it be repeated three times? In the case of a simple conjunction, “Yhwh” and “your breath” are probably seen by the author as two “guarantees” of the oath. However, we should ask why Elijah should be taken as a “guarantee” of the oath of not abandoning him in a case when the oath is against his will of going alone (“You stay here for Yhwh is only sending me to …”)? It would be absurd! It does not seem then that the author understood this waw as a simple conjunction. The major translations opt for the conjunction solution (NAU, NIV, NJB, NRS). We tend to keep this idea, but not with the simple “and” understanding. The conjunctive waw can be also understood as “[together] with.” In that case, the reader gets an impression of inclusion of the second part, preceded by waw. Waw understood as “together with” occurs also in 2Kgs 2:1b: Elijah was walking with Elisha. HALOT gives us other examples: Isa 42:5; Exod 12:8; 21:24; 1Chr 21:10b (cf. HALOT “‫ו‬,” 4, 9). HALOT also underlines that in Dead Sea Scrolls, waw meaning approaches to ‫עם‬.

2.2.2 The meaning of the formula We have analyzed the morphology of the elements of our formula and its syntax. Now we need to pass to its interpretation, which is often made with the curse-​ benediction key. Since there are some important difficulties with this solution, we will present our own proposal, i.e. understanding the formula as a credo. For Manfred R. Lehman, oaths are “substantially based on curses. They are thus restrictive and prohibitive in character.”37 He presents the basic formula of the oaths in that way: “May I be cursed if (‫ )אם‬I do X” =​ “I swear I will not do X.”38 It might be possible that the original oath formula was a curse, but it does not mean that the author of the narrative meant the same thing. He does not because, as we have already noticed, Elijah, who was against the idea of following him by Elisha, cannot logically be the person to be cursed regarding the fact of leaving himself. 3 7 Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 87. 38 Cf. Segal, “Constructing the Phrases of the Oath and the Vow,” 216.

62

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

Lehman was conscious of difficulties with the classical Near East understanding of the oath formulas applied to the biblical text. That is why he made another proposal for the biblical ‫ חי־יהוה‬formula. He observed that, in most cases of the ‫ חי־יהוה‬formula type, ‫ חי‬refers to a third party: God. He underlined that “it does not make sense to invoke a curse on a third party, especially a divine being for breach of private oath by one of its parties.”39 Per him, Deut 32:40 (‫ )כי־אׂשא אל־ׁשמים ידי ואמרתי חי אנכי לעלם‬is the crucial indication of the original meaning of the oath. He suggests that this oath represents the proto-​type meaning “May I/​you be blessed with long life if I/​you comply with this oath.” All derivations of the ‫ חי־יהוה‬formula should then respect the “original” meaning. Unfortunately, Lehman does not analyze it as a part of the double-​ formula followed by ‫אם‬. Since he associated ‫ אם‬with curses, the question is: what would be its function and meaning in the benediction? However, whilst the lack of this analysis makes his proposal not strictly applicable to our work, it becomes clear that our formula probably does not express a curse. –​ Curse-​benediction logic We have noticed that Lehman’s proposal highlights the difficulty in the classification of the double-​formula. Furthermore, we must ask if we should think at all about our formula in the curse-​benediction categories.40 For Lehman, the Bible, especially the Pentateuch,41 which calls itself the Book of Covenant, is based on the Near East treaty structural elements. For example, in the Hittite treaty between Mursili and Duppi-​Tessub af Amurru, just after mentioning gods and the universe as signatories of the treaty, it assures that its violator will be cursed and its observer will be blessed.42 Of course, we can say that these features are traceable in Lev 26:3–​46 or in Deut 27:11–​28:69; but should we say that the biblical authors arranged and modified other texts to the structure of the treaty-​ covenant? This hypothesis would impose on 2Kgs 2:1–​18, and other biblical fragments, a very narrow interpretation. That is why we cannot limit ourselves to the concept of the treaty-​covenant as the interpretative key and, therefore, we cannot limit the possible meaning of our formula to the curse-​blessing categories.

39 Unfortunately, the same thing can be said about a blessing; cf. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 83. 40 Ibid., 74. 41 The same elements are observed in the treaty between Ramses II and Muwatallis of Hatti which is known in its Egyptian an in its Hittite version; cf. Ibid., 77. 42 It is also underlined that a common meal used to be an integral element of the treaty.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

63

–​ The credo category The expression ‫ חי־יהוה‬and the preposition ‫ אם‬indicate that the formula contains the traditional oath structure. It also functions as an oath because Elisha, promising not to leave Elijah, follows him. We should ask now about the guarantee of the oath. If it is neither a curse nor a blessing, what then makes the oath efficient? The answer is well-​conveyed in our translation of the formula: “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you.” In fact, Elisha says that he wants to follow Elijah because living Yhwh is with him.43 In that way, his belief in the presence of Yhwh, becomes the guarantee of the oath, and the oath becomes efficient. –​ Other occurrences of the formula We should now ask if our solution is applicable to other occurrences of the formula. In 2Kgs 4:30, the Shunammite woman uses the same formula as ours. She wants to bring Elisha to her home to save her son, because she believes that Yhwh is with him. Let us now check the occurrences in the Books of Samuel. In 1Sam 20:3, the situation is somewhat complicated, also because the formula occurs without ‫אם‬. The deferential explanation of Ziegler, apparently, is more applicable.44 However, our translation of the formula goes deeper. It shows that there is a possibility of another interpretation within the text. David seems to communicate to Jonathan that David’s life depends on Jonathan, because Yhwh is with him. Also, in 1Sam 25:26, our formula occurs without ‫אם‬. It is sure that Abigail wants to show respect to David to save her husband’s life, however her words are not an oath. Our translation fits this understanding very well. Abigail underlines that Yhwh is with David to prevent him from shedding blood. The last occurrence upon which to be commented, in 2Sam 15:21, also does not contain ‫אם‬. The situation is clear. Our translation of the formula shows that Ittai, wanting to follow David, recognized the presence of Yhwh in him. Summing up, we conclude that the proposed translation of the formula can also be applied to its other occurrences; however, in most of them, the formula does not function as an oath.

43 Dominik Markl, “This Word Is Your Life: The Theology of ‘Life’ in Deuteronomy,” in Gottes Wort im Menschenwort: Festschrift für Georg Fischer SJ zum 60. Geburtstag, Österreichische biblische Studien 43 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2014), 71–​96. 44 Ziegler, ““As the Lord Lives and as Your Soul Lives”: An Oath of Conscious Deference,” 128.

64

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

2.3 Translation of ‫( אף־הוא‬2Kgs 2:14) ֙‫ וַּיִ ּקַ ֩ח אֶ ת־אַ ֶּ֙ד ֶרת אֵ לִ ֜ ָּיהּו אֲ ׁשֶ ר־נָפְ לָ ֤ה ֵ ֽמעָ לָיו‬14 ‫ֹלה֣י אֵ לִ ּיָ ֑הּו‬ ֵ ֱ‫ֹאמר אַ ֕ ֵּיה יְ הוָ ֖ה א‬ ַ ֕ ‫ַוּיַּכֶ ֣ה אֶ ת־הַ ֔ ַּמיִ ם וַּי‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ֽ ָ ִ‫ף־הּוא׀ ַוּיַּכֶ ֣ה אֶ ת־הַ ֗ ַּמיִ ם ו ֵַּיֽחָ צּו֙ ֵ ֣הּנָה ו ֔ ֵָהּנָה ַו�ֽ ַּיעֲבֹ֖ ר אֱ ל‬ ֣ ַ‫א‬

In 2Kgs 2:14, the reader must face the meaning of the expression ‫אף־הוא‬, which occurs just after the pausal athnah (GES §15 f; cf. TCHB 198–​99). It has been a problem for translators since antiquity. The problem regards the usage of the expression within the verse, whose specification determines the translation. The particle ‫ אף‬itself means “nose” or “anger” (HALOT, “‫אף‬,” II 1, 3), however it can be used as ‫“( גם‬also”). Joüon speaks in the latter case about the “asserverative force with the rather vague notion of ‘emphasis’ ” (J–​M §164g).45 The expression ‫ אף־הוא‬itself would then mean “also he,” analogically to Gen 40:16: ‫אף־אני‬, “I also” or to Lev 26:16, 24, 41. This understanding of ‫ אף־הוא‬corresponds to some ancient translations. In LXX Aq., we find καίπερ αὐτὸς; in S* we find the equivalent of ‫אף־הוא‬, similarly in Tg. J. To understand better the meaning of this expression, we need to consider the syntax of the verse. First, let us check the accentuation of the verse. In MT, athnah is placed in ‫אליהו‬, which precedes ‫אף־הוא‬. This means that ‫“ אף־הוא‬belongs” to the second part of the verse. In this case, we can understand ‫ אף־הוא‬as the indication of the repetition of Elijah’s gestures by Elisha: “also he, as Elijah, stroke the water.” Dominique Bartélemy suggests that this interpretative solution quoted by Isaac Abravanel was originally proposed by Yéfet ben Ely.46 For Charles Burney,47 if we want to keep the logical division proposed by MT, we should add a verb directly to the ‫ אף־הוא‬expression, otherwise it does not follow Biblical Hebrew grammar rules. That is why he proposes simply to omit ‫ אף־הוא‬in this verse. The omission would be coherent with LXX Luc., which seems to be unfortunately ignored by Barthélemy. However, it should be underlined that, in this recension, we find more differences with MT. We find there an addition of “and they were not divided” and an omission of “Yhwh.” The

45 J–​M adds, however, in the same paragraph that: “The notion of ‘emphasis’ is often invoked rather irresponsibly as a facile panacea for textual or exegetical difficulties of all sorts.” 46 Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, 50/​1, 379–​80; Isaac Abravanel, Commentary on the Former Prophets [Perush `al Nevi’im Rishonim] (Jerusalem: Torah ve-​Da`at, 1955), ‫מלכים ב ב‬. 47 Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 266.

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

65

omission seems then to be a very selective solution: why should we accept one variant and neglect the other variants? Let us see first what happens if we change the verse accentuation. The alternation of the accentuation was explicitly proposed by Carl Keil.48 In fact, it was not new because the prominent versions of LXX accepted implicitly this solution translating our expression as αφφω, which would correspond to the Hebrew ‫איפה‬. In this case, we should link it to ‫ איה‬which begins the question regarding Yhwh: ‫איה יהוה אלהי אליהו אף־הוא‬. ‫ אף־הוא‬/​ ‫ איפה‬finishes simply the question as a question mark or it adds the intensity to the question: “where then?” Within the Biblical text, there are some indications to opt for this solution. For example, in Judg 9:38, we find the combination of ‫ איה‬and ‫אפוא‬: ‫ויאמר אליו זבל איה אפוא פיך אׁשר תאמר מי אבימלך‬. Similarly, we find this combination in Isa 19:12; Job 17:15 and in Hos 13:10. The problem with these similitudes is that, in all biblical examples between ‫ איה‬and ‫אפוא‬, there is a maximum one word of interval. In our verse, these terms are divided by three words. It seems then that we are not allowed to read them as one “where,” however there are examples of other question tags suggesting division by a few words within one simple question: Judg 9:38; Isa 19:12; Job 17:15; and Hos 13:10. We should then think about another solution which respects changing the accentuation, i.e. putting athnah in ‫אף־הוא‬. Let us go back to the understanding of ‫ אף‬as ‫גם‬. The expression would then mean: “he also.” Barthélemy, following Abravanel, proposes here two different ways in which this expression can function in the verse. The first one: ‘And the God of Elijah, he also, where is he?’ In this proposal, Elisha is saying that Elijah is taken away and, what is more, Yhwh is absent. The second proposal is: ‘And the God of Elijah, he also?’ Here the accent is put on the fact that Yhwh has left Elisha. So Yhwh has taken his master, and now he also was leaving. This is the preference of Barhélemy and Abravanel. We accept the latter argumentation. The verse is expressing a claim to God. The diacritical sign of athnah was probably intentionally transposed in order not to show that Elisha was referring to Yhwh in this symbolic moment of the transmission of the prophetical power.

48 Carl Friedrich Keil, The Books of the Kings, Biblical Commmentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872), 290–​98.

66

FROM HEBREW TO ENGLISH

2.4 Ketiv/​Qere Variant: ]‫( (הגיאות) [הגאיות‬2Kgs 2:16aβ) ‫ וִ יבַ קְ ׁ֣שּו אֶ ת־אֲ דֹ נֶי ָ֒ך ּפֶ ן־נְ ׂשָ אֹו֙ ֣רּוחַ יְ ה ֔ ָוה‬16aβ ]‫ַוּי ְַׁשלִ ֙כֵהּו֙ ְּבאַ ַח֣ד הֶ הָ ִ ֔רים ֖אֹו ְּבאַ ַח֣ת )הגיאות( ]הגאיות‬

There is a Ketiv/​Qere variant in MT of 2Kgs 2:16a. The Ketiv form, ‫הגיאות‬, is known from Ezek 6:3a49 (‫ואמרת הרי יׂשראל ׁשמעו דבר־אדני יהוה כה־אמר אדני יהוה‬ ‫ )להרים ולגבעות לאפיקים ולגאיות‬and from Ezek 35:8, where it is suffixed (‫)גאותיך‬. The Qere form, ‫הגאיות‬, comes from the root ‫גיא‬. It is known from Ezek 7:16; 32:5; 36: 4, 6. In both cases, it is translated as “valleys.” In Tg. J., we also read “the valleys,” ‫חליא‬. The word is attested in this translation in a few places: Judg 14:14; Ezek 7:16; 31:12; 32:5. The difficulty comes with LXX Luc. We read ἕνα τῶν βουνῶν, so “one of the hills.” The Hebrew equivalent would be ‫הגבעות‬, which is largely attested (Deut 12:2; 2Kgs 16:4; 2Chr 28:4; Song 2:8; Isa 2:14; 65:7; Jer 4:24; Hos 4:13; Amos 9:13; Mic 6:1). Now, there is no reason to follow LXX Luc. Nevertheless, the tendency of the Jewish scribes to play with “up” and “down” ideas is worth underlining. We will return to it in the following chapters.

3. Chapter Conclusions Let us summarize the results of our analysis. Firstly, ‫( בסערה הׁשמים‬2Kgs 2:1a, 11b), posing syntax and semantic problems, was translated “in the whirlwind to the sky.” This translation reflects the ambiguity in MT, which distinguished the expression examined from its closest equivalent in Judg 13:20. Secondly, the oath formula ‫( חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬2Kgs 2:2a, 4a, 6a), was translated by us as “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, I will not leave you.” We consider the first occurrence of ‫ חי‬as a participle and the second as a noun, which corresponds to Tg. J. We also argue that ‫ ו‬meaning in the formula corresponds to ‫עם‬. The formula functions as an oath, but also as a kind of credo in the presence of Yhwh. Thirdly, the unclear expression ‫( אף־הוא‬2Kgs 2:14), was translated as “he also?” We did not follow LXX* where we find αφφω, i.e. ‫איפה‬, functioning as a question tag, since its position in the verse does not correspond with other examples from MT. We followed here Keil’s argumentation. The understanding of ‫ אף‬as ‫ גם‬seems to be more accurate. We accepted the argumentation of Barthélemy, proving that

49 “And say, ‘Mountains of Israel, listen to the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains, the hills, the ravines and the valleys’.” (Ezek 6:3 NAU)

Translation of the Masoretic Text of 2Kgs 2:1–18

67

the division does not reflect the position of athnah. ‫ אף־הוא‬belongs semantically to 14a and not to 14b, as MT suggests. Fourthly, ‫ הגיאות‬/​ ‫( הגאיות‬2Kgs 2:16a), the Ketiv/​Qere choice in 2Kgs 2:16a does not impose a great problem for the translation. In fact, both forms occur in other places of MT. ‫ הגיאות‬and ‫ הגאיות‬mean “valleys.” In this context, LXX translation is curious: ἕνα τῶν βουνῶν. It cannot be accepted here without any indication from MT; nevertheless, it shows an important point of tension between the up/​down ideas.

Chapter II. From Redaction to Structure The issue of the Deuteronomistic History (DH) has been widely discussed and taught by biblical scholars for many decades.1 In this dissertation, we classify our narrative as a part of DH. In this context, an important distinction must be made. It regards two understandings of DH. On the one hand, DH can be understood as the work of the Deuteronomistic (Dtr) redactor. On the other hand, DH can simply be the precise collection of biblical books, i.e. Deut, Josh, Judg, 1Sam, 2Sam, 1Kgs and 2Kgs. This distinction would probably have been useless for Martin Noth who proposed in 1943 that these books were composed by one single Dtr redactor who used stylistically varying sources. Nevertheless, the discussion, which followed his dissertation Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, is precisely based on the negation of such a one-​man redaction. In our dissertation, we will use DH in the second meaning, i.e. as a simple collection of books, without opting for Noth’s idea of the single redaction. In this sense, we say that the examined narrative belongs to DH.2

1

2

The unit was envisaged in Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, 3–​109. See also: Christopher Begg, “Martin Noth: Notes on His Life and Work,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 182 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 18–​30. Noth, working at that time in Königsberg, advanced the thesis that the books of Deut, Josh, Judg, 1Sam, 2Sam, 1Kgs and 2Kgs were composed as a single and coherent unit from various textual sources. That composition took place during the Exile of the Jews, so between 587 and 539 BCE. Its editor, called the Deuteronomist (Dtr), was supposed to work in the Mizpah region, the provisional capital of Judah under Neo-​Babylonian rule. The theory of Noth, despite various contestations, modifications, and alternative proposals, has become a part of the paradigm of biblical science. It does not mean that Noth’s theory should be ignored as such. On the contrary, we admit that recently this theory has gained new importance thanks to various scholars who Thomas Römer has called “Neo-​Nothians.” This notion is used in: Thomas Römer, The So-​Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 31. The most noticeable Neo-​ Nothian scholar is without doubt: John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Heaven; London: Yale University Press, 1983), 209–​48; “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography,” Catholic Biblical Quartely 59, no. 1 (1997): 45–​57. Cf. Bartosz Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-​Numbers, and Samuel-​Kings

70

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

After the clarification regarding the Dtr terminology, we pass to the problematic of this chapter. Firstly, we will present here the crucial redactional ideas of various historical-​critical scholars regarding our narrative and its setting within the Elijah-​ Elisha cycles, Kgs and DH.3 Later, we will concentrate on its structure and on its setting. Among many possibilities, we will try to identify the structure, which is clearly focused on the plot. To do so, we will view the crucial proposals of chiastic and non-​chiastic structures. We will finally check if the close reading with the narratology criteria provides good tools to identify the structure respecting the plot. On the base of this research, we will apply the following categories to the analysis of the narrative’s structure. Finally, we will present our preliminary observations on the relation between the historical-​critical and the narrative layers of the narrative.

1. Redactional Setting Let us start with the essential scholarly proposals regarding the redaction of the Elijah-​Elisha cycles within the Kgs redactional setting. Later, we will progress to the various historical-​critical problems and proposals regarding our narrative.

1.1 Redaction of the Elijah–​Elisha Cycles There is a significant number of scholars who worked on Kgs before the launching of Noth’s theory of DH.4 One of the emblematic examples of this

3

4

as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy, European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), 225–​80. One of the alternative discussions in the field was initiated in Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History 1 (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), ch. 12–​26. Polzin detected two different narrative voices, one reinterpreting the other. Cf. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and Literature Series 9 (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 57–​64. Noth’s theory is based on the work of previous generations of exegetes who identified the specificity of Deut and the presence of its linguistic and conceptual patterns in various books of the Bible. The history of this research is rich. It was very clearly presented in Römer, The So-​Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, 13–​44. Cf. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Halle: Schimmelpfennig und Compagnie, 1807), 396–​408; John William Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua (London: Roberts; Longman; Green, 1862), 147–​57; Samuel Rolles Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, International Critical Commentary 34 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), I–​XCV. Noth, opposing the view that the coherent history starts in Gen, noticed that

Redactional Setting

71

extremely rich group is John Skinner, who worked at the end of the nineteenth century. He identified various textual sources within Kgs.5 Firstly, he noticed that, despite the fact that three sources are explicitly mentioned in the text,6 they were not used directly by the redactor of Kgs. These sources are: A –​ the Book of the Acts of Solomon (mentioned in 1Kgs 11:41); KI –​ the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (cited for all the conclusion formulas of the reigns, except Jehoram and Hoshea); KJ –​the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (except Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah). Secondly, Skinner enumerated other sources which are not mentioned in the text by name,7 however they were used directly in the redaction of Kgs.8 Among there is no sign of Dtr editing in the first four books of the Pentateuch, cf. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 1–​106; Spinoza, “Theological-​ Political Treatise,” in Collected Works of Spinoza, ed. Edwin Curley (Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2016), 169–​205. In that way, Deut became for him an obvious beginning of DH. He also argued that Deut 1–​4 was written on purpose to introduce the specific material, regarding the law issues presented in the following chapters. Successively, 2Kgs 25:27–​30 (Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation) was identified as the conclusion of DH. So it was not added by the author of Ezra, as Andreas Masius had already suggested in 1574: Wim François, “Andreas Masius (1514–​73). Humanist, Exegete and Syriac Scholar,” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 61, no. 3–​4 (2009): 199–​244. Cf. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 27. 5 Skinner, Kings: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes, Index, and Map, 3–​33. The exceptional value of Skinner’s investigation is confirmed by the fact that, a long time before Cross, he elaborated the hypothesis of H. Ewald regarding the two-​stages edition of the Josh-​Sam-​Kgs biblical books: the first pre-​Exilic and the second Exilic or post-​Exilic one. 6 He calls them “the Proximate Sources.” 7 Some of them were created on the base of the (A), (KI), (KJ) sources. 8 He calls these collections “the Primary Sources”: Source (C) –​the account of Solomon’s accession in 1Kgs 1–​2 is taken from a Court-​memoir of the reign of David, just as 2Sam 9–​10; –​ Source (S) –​ the wisdom anecdotes from Solomon’s reign: Solomon’s dream at Gibeon (1Kgs 3:4–​15); his famous Judgement (3:16–​28); the visit of the Queen of Sheba (10:1–​10). They were taken from the source A.; –​Source (T) –​ the account of the building of the Temple and palace in 1Kgs 6–​7. Skinner supposes that it was drawn from the Temple archives; –​ Source (N) –​ it is a group the northern narratives regarding Israel; –​Source (J) –​the tales from the southern kingdom: 2Kgs 11; 2Kgs 12; 2Kgs 4 ff.; 2Kgs 16:10–​18; and 2Kgs 22:3–​23:24. This group was taken straight from (KJ); –​Source (I, I2) –​the accounts of Hezekiah’s reign in 2Kgs 18:17–​ 20:19. They are extracted from the biography of the prophet Isaiah; –​Source (P) –​the priestly glosses are visible in 1Kgs 8:1–​11; 1Kgs 18:31b; –​Source (Z) –​later additions.

72

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

these sources, we observed collections of different literary genres: accounts, wisdom anecdotes, tales, legends and priestly glosses. From the viewpoint of the Elijah-​Elisha narratives, one identified source is crucial: source N. It is a group of the northern narratives regarding Israel. N was based on KI –​ 1Kgs 20; 22:1–​38; 2Kgs 3; 6:24–​7:20; 9; 10 –​ and on two prophetical collections. The first prophetical collection, Ej, is composed of legends about Elijah: 1Kgs 17–​19; 21; 2Kgs 1:2–​17. The second one, Es, is composed of the legends about Elisha in 2Kgs 2; 4:1–​6:23; 8:1–​15; 13:14–​21. Skinner noticed that there are many similarities between various elements of the source, especially between Ej and Es. It is also important to underline that he classified 2Kgs 2:1–​25 as Es and not as Ej. In the same period, Rudolf Kittel, the professor of the Universities of Breslau and Leipzig, distinguished the following sources in Kgs:9 A –​ the Annals of the Kings themselves; K –​ the source called the Books of the Annals of the Kings; D2 –​ a Dtr revision, known already from Judg and Sam. Source K should be divided into two periods: Ki, which regards Israel after 722, and Kj, which regards Judah after the time of Jehoiakim, so after 597. Now, even if Kgs is described by Kittel with these categories, he notices that the Elijah-​Elisha stories must be treated differently. The prophetical history source, Pr, was independent from K. Pr contains 1Kgs 17–​19, 21. Concerning 2Kgs 1, Kittel attributes v. 1 to K and vv. 2–​17 as a late elaboration of 1Sam 19:18–​24. 2Kgs 2 begins the group called Pr2: 2Kgs 2:1–​18 (“a good old narrative piece”); 2Kgs 2:19–​22, 23–​25; 4:1–​7; 8–​ 37, 38–​41, 42–​44; 5; 6:1–​7, 8–​23; 8:1–​6, 7–​15; 13:14–​21. 2Kgs 9–​10 are from the period described there. The small insertions are made by the author of the present Book of Kings, since Pr2 dates from “not long after the year 700.”10 Julius Wellhausen proposed that the Elijah–​Elisha stories were also taken from various sources.11 One source is represented by ­chapters 1Kgs 17–​19, 21; another by 1Kgs 1:1–​2:18; the next one by 1Kgs 20, 22, 2Kgs 3, 6:24–​7:20, 9–​10; the following source is represented by 2Kgs 2:19–​25, 4:1–​7, 38–​44 and 6:1–​7; in the separate Judean group, there are 2Kgs 11:1–​12:17; finally, ­chapter 2Kgs 13 belongs to another larger group of material. That which concerns redaction, the Rudolf Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), VIII–​X; A History of the Hebrews, trans. John Taylor, vol. 1–​2, Theological Translation Library 3, 6 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1895–​1896), 216. 10 A History of the Hebrews, 1–​2, 215. 11 Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 278–​301. 9

Redactional Setting

73

core of the Elijah-​Elisha stories, according to Wellhausen, was composed before the Exile, but all of the material was elaborated later, as is visible in the complexity of the sources and the gaps in the presented set.12 Finally, Martin Noth during the Second World War proposed that the Elijah-​ Elisha stories were assembled and edited by the Dtr editor.13 Firstly, the principal sources for Dtr were the Books of Chronicles of Israel and the ones of Judah (these sources already were compilations of the annals of the kings). Secondly, there was a separate source providing Solomon’s material. Thirdly, another source referred to the David and Saul material. Fourthly, Dtr also used some local, traditional sources. Although, Noth treated them as not defined, there are some exceptions, e.g. the material from 1Kgs 12:32–​13:32 and 2Kgs 17:25–​28, 2Kgs 23:16–​28 is from local traditions from the shrine at Bethel. Fifthly, stories about Elijah and Elisha have their own source. He writes about this in the following way: In accordance with the traditional arrangement of the Elijah-​Elisha stories, Elisha does not begin public life until the translation of Elijah, the account which comes between sections on two different kings in 2 Kings 2 with two short anecdotes about Elisha appended to it.14

Sixthly, the main intention of Dtr was to integrate all the material to his story without changing it. Nevertheless, it was slightly modified, e.g. the name of the king was put into 2Kgs 1:2–​17a. Seventhly, Dtr organized all the sources into one story. He intended to describe the monarchical period, with its catastrophic end. Noth’s DH theory constitutes for us a watershed between the classical and modern exegesis of Kgs. In recent decades, these theories were elaborated in the context of the complexity of the DH discussion.15 Firstly, James Maxwell Miller 12 Ibid., 298., cf. Rudolf Kittel noticed that some Elisha legends were artificially assigned to the Omrid period. 13 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 100–​17. Cf. Könige, vol. 1, Biblischer Kommentar des Altes Testament 9 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968), 288–​307. 14 The Deuteronomistic History, 108–​09. 15 Apart from those who are skeptical regarding the totality of the DH hypothesis (Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 281–​300.), these are two of the most noteworthy proposals of the elaboration of the Noth thesis. Both regard the number and the time of the Dtr editions. Frank Moore Cross relaunched de Wette’s idea of the composition of DH under Josiah. He argued, however, that, after the fall of Jerusalem, the second redactor completed the DH, adding e.g. 2Kgs23:26–​25:30 and the texts which allude to the exile, e.g. Deut 28:36–​37, cf. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University

74

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

was probably the first to clarify the theological and historical differences between the Dtr material and the Elisha collection, classifying Elijah’s and Elisha’s cycles as a secondary redaction.16 His research indicates the existence of a post-​Dtr redactor. Secondly, Hans-​Christoph Schmitt claimed that only the Jehu narrative was originally added by Dtr, however, the Elijah and Elisha material is pre-​Dtr.17 Thirdly, Hermann-​Josef Stipp proposed that the Elisha stories were added to Kgs by a post-​Dtr redactor, however, some of them were bound together earlier, e.g. 2Kgs 2:1–​18 and 2Kgs 4. All the stories were not added as one collection.18 Summing up, there is no one generally accepted theory regarding the diachronic history of the Elijah–​Elisha accounts. Most scholars likely agree that these stories were incorporated into Kgs at some point.19 The second thing is

Press, 1973), ch. IV. R. Smend from Göttingen, distinguished the first (exilic) edition of the Dtr Historian (DtrH) and the later layer of Nomistic editions (DtrN), cf. Rudolf Smend, “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and James Gordon McConville, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 95–​110. The proposals of both authors were elaborated in the Anglo-​Saxon world and in the German-​speaking one. Cf. Richard Donald Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, ed. David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies, and David M. Gunn, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 13–​42; Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works, Harvard Semitic Monographs 22 (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1981), 1–​43. Both schools determined not only the present biblical discussion in general but also the research on the particular biblical texts, including 2Kgs 2:1–​18. 16 James Maxwell Miller, “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85, no. 4 (1966): 451. Cf. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, 292–​321. 17 Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 131–​38. 18 Hermann-​Josef Stipp, Elischa-​Propheten-​Gottesmänner: die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text-​und Literaturkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–​7, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 24 (Sankt Ottilien: Eos-​Verlag, 1987), 49–​62. 19 Harald Schweizer, Elischa in den Kriegen: Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von 2 Kön 3, 6, 8–​23, 6, 24–​7, 20, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 37 (München: Kösel-​Verlag, 1974), ch. 2; McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, 95.

Redactional Setting

75

that these stories were not composed at the same time, even if they might have been incorporated into Kgs together. Let us pass now to the classical proposals regarding the redaction of 2Kgs 2:1–​18.

1.2 Redaction of the Narrative: Classical Proposals One of the frequently quoted redactional problems of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 regards the relation of the fragment to the vocation of Elisha in 1Kgs 19:19–​21. The reason for noticing this issue comes from the fact that these stories are the only ones where Elijah and Elisha occur together. This proposal was made by Albrecht Alt in the context of the discussion in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft in 1912. The article of Alt from 1912, entitled Die Literarische Herkunft Von I Reg 19 19–​21, is an analysis of the unexpected ending of the account regarding Elijah’s sojourn on Mount Horeb in 1Kgs 19:19–​21.20 Alt observed that the orders of Yhwh given to Elijah in vv.15b, 16a (anoint Hazael, Jehu and Elisha) are not completed within the account. There occurs instead the story of Elisha’s mantle, which is supposed to replace the ending. The orders to reveal the Lord’s will to Hazael and Jehu are fulfilled only by Elisha and his disciple in 2Kgs 8:7 ff. and in 2Kgs 9:1 ff. In fact, Alt claims that the original ending was suppressed by the redactor of Kgs. The logical question that occurs in the next part of the article regards vv. 19–​21: where are they from? Alt says that there is only one story in the Bible that undertakes all the following motives: the throwing of the mantle over Elisha; Elisha’s service to Elijah; and making Elisha the protagonist of Kgs’ plot. This fragment regards Elijah’s ascension (Himmelfahrt) in 2Kgs 2:1ff. It becomes his proof that the two accounts used to constitute a single unit and were then separated only to build the narrative of Kgs. The second problem regards the originality of v. 1a (‫ויהי בהעלות יהוה את־‬ ‫)אליהו בסערה הׁשמים‬. Kurt Galling, in his article Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entrückung Elias, proposed that these words were imbedded to synchronize the beginning of the story with v. 11b (‫ )ויעל אליהו בסערה הׁשמים‬and vv. 17a–​18, which 20 Alt, “Die literarische Herkunft von I Reg 19 19—​21,” 123–​25. Cf. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1–​2 (Munchen: Beck, 1953), 345–​57; Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, Biblical Seminar 9 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 239–​60. He concludes that complicated analysis, such as that of Böklen, does not necessarily explain vv. 19–​21: Ernst Böklen, ”Elisas „Berufung” (I Reg 19 19—​21),” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 1 (1912); ”Noch einmal zu 1 Reg 19 19—​21,“ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 4 (1912). Cf. Karl Marti, ”Bemerkung zu I Reg 19 19—​21,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 1 (1912): 48.

76

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

function, according to him, as a narrative continuity of 2Kgs 1.21 His idea corresponds to Alt’s thesis regarding the original unicity of the Himmelfahrt account with 1Kgs 19:19–​21. The third problem regards 2Kgs 2:2–​6. Hans-​Christoph Schmitt, the author of Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, sees in these verses an addition.22 He notices that vv. 2–​6 (… ‫ )ויאמר אליהו אל־אליׁשע ׁשב־נא פה‬represent a style different from the rest of the story. For example, the name of Yhwh occurs within these verses eight times and, in the following verses, only in two occurrences: in v. 14a which is ziemlich sicher a secondary addition (Schmitt identifies this style as similar to the Yahwist one –​ Jahwebearbeitung) and in v. 16, which is the latest emendation to the text. Another argument which is considered to confirm this redactional strata is the usage of the formula ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬, which is considered to come from miracle stories (Wundergeschichtensammlung). It was only introduced to Elisha’s succession story, which is of a different type. The last argument is an observation that v. 1b (…‫ )וילך אליהו ואליׁשע מן־הגלגל‬can be easily connected directly to v. 7 (… ‫)וחמׁשים איׁש מבני הנביאים הלכו ויעמדו מנגד‬.23 These nuances are clearly visible in Schmitt’s larger picture of the process of the creation of 1Kgs 19:19–​21 and 2Kgs 2:1–​25, which can be displayed in the following fashion:24

2 1 Galling, “Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entrückung Elias,” 139. 22 Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 104–​05. Cf. Mark A. O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” Australian Biblical Review 46 (1998): 5–​6. O’Brien also gives us the arguments for the late dating of vv. 2–​6: firstly, it is impossible to envisage a journey from Gilgal down to Bethel; secondly, the fragment employs many times the active form of the verb lqh with Yhwh as a subject; thirdly, if we remove vv. 2–​6, there would be a smooth connection between 1b and 7. 23 The text is considered, precisely because of its style, by many scholars as an integral part of the art of storytelling and not as an addition. Cf. James Alan Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 348; Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 209; 466; Lundbom, “Elijah’s Chariot Ride,” 43–​47; Albert Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, vol. 1–​2, Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–​1912), 77–​78; Rofé, ”The Classification of the Prophetical Stories,” 436; Gregorio del Olmo Lete, La vocacion del lider en el antiguo Israel: Morfologia de los relatos biblicos de vocacion, Institución San Jerónimo; Bibliotheca Salmanticensis: Estudios 2 (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1973), 169–​70. 24 Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 107.

Redactional Setting

77

1. Sukzessorsammlung: 1Kgs 19:19 (without ‫​–)וילך מׁשם‬21; 2Kgs 2:1b.7–​11a.12aδ-​14 (without ‫)יהוה‬.15(without ‫)אׁשר־ביריחו‬.18aβ; 2Kgs 2:19–​21(without ‫)כה־אמר יהוה‬.22a.23.24 (without ‫;)בׁשם יהוה‬ 2. Jahwebearbeitung: 2Kgs 2:2–​6.‫ יהוה‬in v. 14.‫ אׁשר־ביריחו‬in v. 15.22b.25a; 3. Gottesmanbearbeiung: ‫ וילך מׁשם‬in 1Kgs 19:19; 2Kgs 2:1a.11b.12aαβγ.‫ כה־אמר יהוה‬in v. 21.‫ בׁשם יהוה‬in v. 24.25b; 4. Later emendation: 2Kgs 2:16–​18:aα.b. Let us also notice that the Jahwebearbeitung and Gottesmanbearbeitung is based both on the Sukzessorsammlung and Wundergeschichtensammlung. Hermann Gunkel, apart from other classic works,25 is the author of commentaries on the Elijah–​Elisha cycles: Elias, Jahve Und Baal and Geschichten von Elisa.26 In his short article, Elisha –​ the Successor of Elijah, published in English in 1930, he noticed that vv. 16–​18 (… ‫הנה־נא יׁש־את־עבדיך חמׁשים אנׁשים בני־חיל‬ ‫ )ילכו נא‬do not fit into the constructed plot of the story.27 His argumentation is as follows: at the beginning of the story (v. 1), the author is announcing that 25 After the brilliant contribution of Gunkel’s research, the literary genres became an essential basis for the critics of the historical composition of Kgs. There are many scholars who shall be mentioned here, e.g. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 77–​144; Burke O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 19–​32; Simon John DeVries, 1 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary 12 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985), XVII–​XVIV; Trevor Raymond Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary 13 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985), XVII–​XLVIII; Iain W. Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 45–​67. 26 Hermann Gunkel, Elias, Jahve und Baal, Die Religion des Alten Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1906), 8–​67; Geschichten von Elisa, 4–​15. Cf. Hermann Gunkel and Heinrich Zimmern, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), 5–​10; Gunkel, Genesis, V–​XCII; Ausgewählte Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904), V–​XI; Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen: (das erste Buch Mosis), Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 1–​51; Das Märchen im Alten Testament, 1–​16. 27 “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​18),” 182–​86.

78

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

Elijah will be taken to heaven. Then it is effectively enacted in v. 12. The Sons of the Prophets announce his departure to Elisha from the very beginning (vv. 3, 5). According to Gunkel, there is no explanation within the text as to why the prophets are looking for Elijah in vv. 16–​18. The only reasonable explanation is that vv. 16–​18 are an addendum to the text. The final redactor wanted to show the nature of the prophetic ecstasy. A significant number of scholars show the textual continuity in 2Kgs 2:1–​18. His solution, however, remains the most quoted one. Let us pass to the selection of the present historical-​critical investigation.

1.3 Other Historical-​Critical Investigations on the Narrative There are also scholars who were not classified in the first two points but whose research is important for this dissertation. We think here of Alexander Rofé, who examined Kgs with the concept of the development of literary genres. Furthermore, we will indicate two scholars who make link between the solutions presented in 1.1 and 1.2, and the Polish exegetical milieu, in which this dissertation was devised, i.e. Józef Łach, Tomasz Hergesel. Finally, we will indicate two scholars whose recent publications influenced our work: Susanne Otto, and Steven McKenzie.

1.3.1 Rofé’s proposal Alexander Rofé, referring to DH, noticed a certain diachronic order of the development of the biblical genres.28 Firstly, he distinguished a simple legenda, which he characterized as focusing on the miraculous and as the veneration of the person of the prophet, e.g. the healing of the spring by Elisha in 2Kgs 2:19–​22.29 Secondly, the legenda was literarily elaborated into a complex narrative, telling the circumstances of the occurrence of the miracle, e.g. the tale of Shunammite in 2Kgs 4:8–​37. Thirdly, the legenda grew and multiplied over time. In this context, many questions regarding the life of the prophet were constantly posed. One of the most significant concerned the beginnings and the end of his prophetic activity. In that way, the genre called vita emerged.30 2 8 Rofé, “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories,” 427–​40. 29 Even if there is a general agreement that vv. 19–​22 are a latter addition to the chapter, it does not mean that the story itself is not to be dated earlier, cf. discussion in Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 106–​7; Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17 –​ 2. Kön. 25, Das Alte Testament deutsch 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 277–​8. 30 The term “vita” was borrowed by Rofé from the Christian literature of the Middle Ages.

Redactional Setting

79

Before passing to vita, since 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is a component of this genre, let us mention further genres classified by Rofé in the book which followed the cited article.31 The first one is exemplum, originally treating the heroes and the villains, e.g. the Micaiah account in 1Kgs 22. The second is a parable, regarding the relation between the prophet and God, e.g. the account regarding the Man of God in 1Kgs 13:11–​34. The third is epic, e.g. Elijah’s and the Lord’s struggle against Baal in 1Kgs 16:29–​19:18.32 The last one is martyrology,33 which was in the process of emerging within the biblical texts, e.g. the transformation of 1Kgs 19:10–​14 into 2Chr 36:15–​16, where the attitude of people towards the prophets is already murderous. Let us pass now to the story regarding Elisha. It is classified by Rofé as vita. 1Kgs 19:19–​21 and 2Kgs 2:1–​18 are the beginning of this vita, which finishes in 2Kgs 13:14–​19 with the death of the prophet.34 Rofé notices that most of the Elisha stories are placed in the Omrides period. This issue and the diachronic order of the stories are the subjects of the author’s investigation. In order to classify diachronically the Elisha stories, Rofé starts with a simple observation. There are two ways of putting stories in order: the chronological one and the associative one. In the Elisha cycle, only the inauguration and the death stories (2Kgs 2:1–​18; 2Kgs 13:14–​15, 20–​21) are ordered chronologically. All other stories seem to be ordered associatively.35 Now, most of the legenda concerning Elisha appears in 2Kgs 4–​8. The editor of these stories places them under the reign of Joram, the son of Ahab, putting his 31 Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, 7–​12. 32 So, in this category, he refers only to a part of Elijah’s cycle, i.e. without 2Kgs 20 and 1Kgs 1. 33 The concept is present both in Christianity and Judaism. In the second case, this is the story of the deaths of several famous Rabbis (including Rabbi Akiva), read on Yom Kippur and Tisha b’Av. 34 DeVries proposes a remarkably interesting table of the Elisha cycle layers, in which he places 2Kgs 2:1–​18 in the earliest layer, called Early legitimation collection. The following layers are Later legitimation collection; Early Syrian-​war collection; Jehu accession narrative; Later Syrian-​war collection; Late Jehuite narrative; Deuteronomistic Extract R(I) and R (II), cf. DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition, 117. It is astonishing that, on page 82, he opts for Rofe’s solution (pp. 436–​39) of the relatively late dating of 2Kgs 2:1–​18! 35 Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, 49–​51.

80

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

name in the framework (i.e. the contextual structure) of the stories, i.e. 2Kgs 3:1–​ 3 and 2Kgs 8:29. The king, however, stays anonymous within the stories. Rofé perceives that that there is a clear incoherence regarding the identification of the king as Joram by the editor. On the one hand, the prophet Elisha is a good friend of the king; on the other, he incites Jehu to kill the same king (2Kgs 9:1–​13). This ambiguity does not fit the figure of the prophet. That is why, originally, the anonymous king was someone from Jehu’s dynasty and not from Joram’s, who is from the Omrid dynasty. His next argument regards the dating of Joram’s assassination and Jehu’s enthroning. They took place in the year when Jehu sent tribute to Shalmaneser III of Assyria, i.e. in 841 BCE. Joash, the king from the beginning of the prophet’s activity, died in 800 BCE. Rofé concludes that his prophetic career cannot have lasted more than forty years. That is why the stories from 2Kgs 4–​8 were archaized by the editor of the Books of Kings. The next observation regards some parallel stories in the Elijah and Elisha cycles. The examined accounts regard Elijah’s miracles of the food in the house of the widow of Zarephath in 1Kgs 17:8–​24 and Elisha’s miracle of oil in 2Kgs 4:1–​7. He observed that the Shunammite story with Elisha is less elaborate than the one with Elijah, e.g. it is the widow from Zarephath who responds with the declaration of faith: “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord is truly in your mouth”36(1Kgs 17:24). This is the first reason to put Elisha’s account before Elijah’s on the diachronic timeline. The second one comes from the analysis of the content. The poor widow from Zarephath had an attic. How is it possible? Probably this idea was borrowed from the Shunammite’s story.37 We sum up Rofé’s work in three points. Firstly, he suggests that there is a successive progress in the genres regarding the biblical prophetical stories. This progress is precisely determined: simple legenda, elaborated legenda, vita, exemplum, parable, epic and martyrology. Secondly, some Elijah stories come from the parallel Elisha ones, e.g. 1Kgs 17:8–​24 from 2Kgs 4:1–​7. He does not claim, however, that this applies to all respective stories. Thirdly, the stories were elaborated not only individually but also in groups to fit them to the Kgs composition, 36 This type of elaboration is known from the comparison between Exod 17:1–​7 and Num 20:1. 37 This thesis, regarding the inspiration of the Elijah story by Elisha’s, was proposed by de Vaux. Others undertook this idea: Vaux, Les livres des Rois, 102–​03; Celso Alcaina Canosa, “Panorama crítico del circlo de Eliseo,” Estudios Bíblicos 23 (1964): 217–​34; Rudolf Kilian, “Die Totenerweckungen Elias und Elisas –​ eine Motivwanderung?,” Biblische Zeitschrift 10 (1966): 44–​56; Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 153.

Redactional Setting

81

e.g. Elisha stories from 2Kgs 4–​8 are placed in the Omrid dynasty period, while they come from the Jehu dynasty period, which was shown by Rofé. Fourthly, 2Kgs 2:1–​18 is composed of a few oral traditions used by one single author to produce vita.

1.3.2 Łach’s proposal Józef Łach is a Polish scholar worked on biblical texts shedding light on the figure of Elisha as the holder of the name “God the Saviour.”38 Łach distinguished the sources of Kgs as follow: Chronicles of Solomon (1Kgs 2:12–​11:43); Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel; Chronicles of David’s Court; Chronicles of Ahab (1Kgs 17:1–​22:40); Acts of the Temple (1Kgs 6 ff.); Book of Songs (the Righteous) (1Kgs 8:13); Psalm of Isiah (2Kgs 19:21–​34); and Biographies of the Prophets (Elijah: 1Kgs 17 –​ 2Kgs 2; Elisha: 2Kgs 2–​13). Regarding 2Kgs 2, he proposed that all initial verses which contain the name of Yhwh, with the exception of v. 1b (which expresses the oldest version of the text), should be associated with the same Yhwh-​redaction, i.e. vv. 1a.2–​6.39

1.3.3 Hergesel’s proposal Another Polish scholar, Tomasz Hergesel also entered into dialogue with the German historical-​critical tradition.40 Within the Elijah and Elisha cycles, he 38 Józef Łach, Bóg-​Zbawca w biblijnych opowiadaniach o Elizeuszu (Szczecin; Warszawa: Kuria Biskupia Szczecińsko-​Kamieńska, 1987), 52–​54. Cf. “Elizeusz jako sługa Eliasza i prorok Jahwe (1 Krl 19,16–​21; 2 Krl 2,1–​18),” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 4, no. 40 (1987): 273–​80; Waldemar Chrostowski, Bohaterowie wiary Starego Testamentu (Warszawa: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1992), 85 ff; Mieczysław Mikołajczak, “Samoofiarowanie Eliasza (1 Krl 17, 21),” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 51, no. 2 (1998): 81–​87; “Il viaggio di Elia nel deserto (1 Re 19, 1–​18),” Collectanea Theologica 69 (1999): 5–​23; Witczyk, “La missione di Elia nella tradizione dell’AT, nella letteratura intertestamentaria e negli scritti di Qumran,” 25–​36; Mirosław Jasiński, Posłannictwo proroka w cyklu Elizeusza: Studium egzegetyczno-​teologiczne 1 Krl 19,15 –​ 2 Krl 13,21, Studia i Materiały 73 (Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny, 2004), 43–​66; Dariusz Dziadosz, Gli oracoli divini in 1 Sam 8–​2 Re 25. Redazione e teologia nella storia deuteronomistica dei re (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 2002), 7–​14. 39 Łach, Bóg-​Zbawca w biblijnych opowiadaniach o Elizeuszu, 58–​61. 40 Georg Hentschel, “Historyczne podstawy tradycji o proroku Eliaszu,” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 33, no. 2 (1980): 49–​58; Kilian, “Die Totenerweckungen Elias und Elisas –​ eine Motivwanderung?,” 44–​56; Rudolf Smend, “Das Wort Jahwes an Elia,” Vetus Teslamentum 25, no. 3 (1975): 525–​43; Armin Schmitt, “Die Totenerweckung in 1 Kön.

82

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

confirmed the existence of two pre-​canonical traditions.41 The earlier tradition, referring to the notion “man of God” (1Kgs 17:8–​24; 2Kgs 2:19–​25; 4:1–​ 41; 5:1–​15a.19:21–​23; 7:2,17–​20; 8,1–​15), was cultivated in prophetic circles. These episodes mainly regard miracles done by both prophets of Yhwh. The most emblematic would be the ones that happen in Sarepta (Elijah) and Shunem (Elisha). Among other examples, there are: the healing source in Jericho or the healing of Naaman. In this group, Hergesel also includes some anecdotes, such as that regarding the poisoned soup or the lost axe. He refers to the later tradition (1Kgs 18:1–​21; 2Kgs 3:4–​27; 6:15b–​18; 6:20; 6:24–​7:1; 7:3–​16) as “yahwic” –​ to render it distinct from “Yahwist,” as in the Pentateuch. This tradition contains principally the elements expressing the comparison of Elijah to Moses; the confrontation of Elijah and Ahab; and Elisha’s military successes. It was cultivated in a priestly milieu. The third tradition identified by Hergesel in the canonical text is the Dtr one. 2Kgs 2:1–​18 and 2Kgs 13:14–​21, containing the title “chariotry of Israel and its horsemen,” were composed by the Dtr author on the basis of both the man–​of–​God and “yahwic” traditions. Without entering the problematic discussion regarding the possible dating of each tradition, we conclude that, according to Hergesel, our narrative was composed at the last stage of the creation of the Elijah-​Elisha Dtr canon.

1.3.4 McKenzie’s proposals Steven McKenzie’s investigation into the Elijah–​Elisha stories will be presented in two stages, corresponding to his works from 1991 and from 2014.42 In the first stage, he evokes the idea that there is no sign of the Dtr edition in Elijah–​Elisha stories,43 which is striking in the case of the Jehu narrative in 2Kgs 9–​10, which

XVII 17–​24: Eine form-​und gattungskritische Untersuchung,” Vetus Testamentum 27, no. 4 (1977): 454–​74; ”Die Totenerweckung in 2 Kon 4, 8–​37,” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1975): 1–​25. 41 Tomasz Hergesel, “Eliasz i Elizeusz “Mężowie Boży” w służbie Jahwizmu (1 Krl 17–​22; 2 Krl 1–​2),” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 20, no. 2 (1982): 22–​45; “Cud w interpretacji autorów biblijnych,” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 34, no. 2 (1981): 105–​13. 42 McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, 95–​99; ““My God is YHWH”: The Composition of the Elijah Story in 1–​2 Kings,” 92–​110. 43 It is also the case of the Elijah stories, with the exception of 1Kgs 21:20–​26 in MT and of 2Kgs 1:6 in LXX Luc.

Redactional Setting

83

theologically seems to be close to Dtr.44 He considers most of the long prophetic narratives in 1Kgs 17 –​2Kgs 13 as post-​Dtr additions.45 Some of the narratives, e.g. 2Kgs 2, stand outside of the Dtr chronological framework, since it was not the Dtr redactor who put them there. In contrast to Stipp, McKenzie thinks, at this stage of his research, that Elijah–​Elisha narratives were inserted into DH essentially as one group.46 The reason for this conclusion is that the interrelationship of the narratives is too complex to establish a catena of independent insertions, e.g. 2Kgs 2 presupposes the Elijah cycle; 1Kgs 17 and 1Kgs 19 presupposes the Elisha cycle.47 The question that must be posed is quite obvious: if we are not able to understand the complexity, does it mean that it is impossible? The answer is negative. That is why his argumentation is not sufficiently convincing at this point. Finally, McKenzie abandons his one-​group-​embedment idea in his next publication from 2014. The second stage of McKenzie’s research is influenced by Rofé’s works. McKenzie focuses on the Elijah stories in 1–​2 Kings. His thesis is bold: the Elijah stories are not only a postexilic product but also a post-​Dtr one. He also suggests that the Elijah stories are without value for historical reconstruction of the ninth century reality.48 His argumentation can be summarized in the following way. Firstly, inspired mainly by Rofé, he also argues that some Elijah stories come from the parallel Elisha ones:49 (a) The Elijah stories are more elaborate on the narrative 44 Cf. Hermann-​Josef Stipp, “Remembering Josiah’s Reform in Kings,” in Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 85 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 225–​38. 45 For Martin Noth, they were simply created before the Dtr composition and incorpo�rated into the DH practically without changes (verbatim). 46 Stipp, Elischa-​Propheten-​Gottesmänner: die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text-​und Literaturkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–​7, 49–​62. 47 McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, 99 n. 24. 48 ““My God is YHWH”: The Composition of the Elijah Story in 1–​2 Kings,” 110. In this dissertation, we will try to prove that, even if the first part of the statement is true, the stories have value for historical reconstructions, since they are testimonies of the days when they were created. 49 Resemblances between many biblical texts come from the fact that some of them were simply used as sources for others. The older biblical texts were transformed into new stories by the biblical authors for various purposes. Very often, both texts were entered not only into the biblical canon but also into distinct books, e.g. 1Kgs 12:25–​32 and Exod 32:1–​6. The nature of these transformations, also in Kgs, was carefully examined

84

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

level.50 McKenzie refers in this case to Trebolle Barrera, who claims that elaboration here is an interpolation in the case of Sam and Kgs;51 (b) They are also more advanced as literary genres –​none of the Elijah tales is a basic legenda, in contrast to the Elisha tales, which preserved a couple of them, e.g. 2Kgs 4:38–​41 (the poisoned soup); (c) There are significant story details, used in both parallel stories, which fit the Elisha narrative and not the Elijah one; (d) He refers to Alt’s observation that 1Kgs 19:19–​21 was probably borrowed from the Elisha cycle.52 Secondly, Elijah occurs suddenly in 1Kgs 17:1. For a character of importance for the book, we would expect some introduction, e.g. the birth narrative of Moses or the transmission of the prophetic power (as this is the case for Elisha) or the revelation of the word of Yhwh to Jeremiah. It is true that the end of his earthly existence is well described in 2Kgs 2:1–​18, but this account is outside of the structural framework of Kgs. Thirdly, in addition to the fact that the Dtr language is absent from the Elijah stories (outside 1Kgs 21:20–​26 and 2Kgs 1:6 LXX Luc.), there are noteworthy elements within his story which contradict the Dtr theology, e.g. the fact that Elijah builds an altar on Mount Carmel in 1Kgs 18:20–​40 is in opposition to the Dtr fight for cultic centralization; also, Elijah complains in 1Kgs 19:10 that Yhwh’s altars were destroyed. Fourthly, his final argument comes from the Naboth story, where Elijah is acting. Following Marsha White and Patrick Cronauer, he argues that it was based on the account regarding David and Bathsheba.53 After Rofé, he places

50 51 5 2 53

in the twentieth century. It is worth noting at this point the theory of the literature regarding the transformation of the previous texts: Gérard Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré, Points Essais (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1982), 7–​48; Julia Kristeva, “Intertextualité,” in Le texte du roman: Approche sémiologique d’une structure discursive transformationnelle, Approaches to Semiotics 6 (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), 139–​76. Of course, there are also traces of elaboration in Elisha stories, e.g. 2Kgs 4:1–​7, 38–​ 41; 6:1–​7. Trebolle Barrera, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes, 160–​63. Alt, “Die literarische Herkunft von I Reg 19 19—​21,” 123–​25. Marsha C. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup, Brown Judaic Studies 311 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 1–​78; Patrick T. Cronauer, The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9, Library of Hebrew Bible; Old Testament Studies 424 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 102–​12.

Redactional Setting

85

it in the postexilic era of Ezra-​Nehemiah.54 There are a few reasons for that: (a) In 2Kgs 9–​10, in the crucial and early text where the justice over Ahab’s dynasty is fulfilled, Elijah’s condemnation of Ahab or Jezebel is not mentioned; (2) the king of Samaria, as a concept indicating that Samaria was an independent unity, is late; it probably comes from Babylonian or Persian times;55 (3) the controversy over marriages to foreign women gain a lot of importance in the era of Ezra-​Nehemiah.56

1.3.5 Otto’s proposal The works of Susanne Otto from 2001 and 2003 are important from the viewpoint of the verification of McKenzie’s thesis, and all the more so since she also opts for the post-​Dtr solution.57 The first issue is the embedment of the Elijah-​Elisha stories as one group. She simply says that there were four stages of composing these tales, known today as a part of Kgs.58 To distinguish them, she started, just as McKenzie, with the reference to Dtr. To classify any text as Dtr, it must match the Dtr consistent conception of history, language, style, and theology. Otto makes an interesting attempt to show that the following three stories are a part of the primitive DH: Naboth’s vineyard (1Kgs 21); Ahaziah’s death (2Kgs 1); Jehu’s coup (2Kgs 9–​10). Naboth’s vineyard, considered in 2014 by McKenzie as one of the latest, is for her in the redactional hardcore. She finds the Dtr reports and statements in 1Kgs 22:52–​54 (regarding Ahaziah) and in the initial stage of the fall of the house of Ahab in 1Kgs 21:20bβ–29. She also classifies the motive of the antagonism of Elijah against Ahab and Baal as a Dtr one (similarly, the

54 Alexander Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story,” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 1 (1988): 89–​104. 55 Cronauer, The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9, 120–​21. 56 Romer calls it: the problem of the Persian era, cf. Deut 7; Ezra 9–​10: Römer, The So-​Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, 150. 57 Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-​Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-​Elisa-​Erzählungen, 247–​66; “The Composition of the Elijah-​Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History,” 487–​508. 58 She also expresses regret that Hermann-​Josef Stipp, whom we have already mentioned, does not offer insight into the editor’s intentions in opting for the multi-​editorial post-​Dtr: Stipp, Elischa-​Propheten-​Gottesmänner: die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text-​und Literaturkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–​7, 49–​62.

86

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

motive of the disaster which inevitably comes just after the attempt of seeking after foreign gods). The most pertinent thing, from the viewpoint of this dissertation, is the classification of the Naboth story as primitive. It necessarily leads to the negation of the primitivity of the Elisha stories as a group, since Elijah holds the function of the prophet in it. The second stage of the creation of the Elijah–​Elisha stories was adding the narratives about the Omrid wars into DH, i.e. 1Kgs 20:1–​43; 21:1–​38; 2Kgs 3:4–​ 27; 6:26–​7:20. At this stage, Otto emphasizes the comparison of the DH characteristics with the war stories. It leads to the conclusion that the prophetical motives are so present within the latter that its author necessarily came from the prophetical cycles. The third stage was adding 1Kgs 17–​18. The argumentation opting for this embedment is brilliant. The redactors of DH do not pay attention to Elijah’s victory over Baal, even though it should be of great theological importance for them.59 From the reign of Jehu in 2Kgs 9 to the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 2Kgs 17, Israel remained only in the sin of Jeroboam, just as during the times before Ahab. Therefore, if 1Kgs 17–​19 is a Dtr insertion, the Dtr redactor would destroy their own storyline. Moreover, 2Kgs 2 and 2Kgs 13:14–​21 are outside the Dtr framework. Otto estimates that the stories regarding the victory over Baal fits well with the reality of the late sixth century. The new beginning after the exile was marked by the calling for conversion of all Israel to Yhwh as the only God. The fourth stage was decisive for the present format of the Elijah-​Elisha cycles. The crucial moment is adding the 1Kgs 19:1–​18 to the textual corpus. By the journey to Horeb, the redactor wanted to balance Elijah’s victory over the cult of Baal on Mt. Carmel. He also wanted to produce on this base the definitive link between the Elijah and Elisha tradition. Also, at this stage, the counterpart to 19:17 was formed by the greater part of the Elisha stories coming from an older collection of miracles: 1Kgs 19:19–​21; 2Kgs 2:1–​15; 13:14–​21. It must be underlined here that 2Kgs 2:1–​15 is treated as the text preceding the whole story of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. The second remark regards the strongly-​rooted theory that 1Kgs 19:19–​21 and 2Kgs 2:1–​15 probably once formed one single unit that has been

59 The confrontation between the cult of Yhwh and the cult of Baal is notably analyzed in: Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 145–​216. Cf. Erhard Blum, “Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels: Eine Ganzheitliche, Historisch-​Kritische Lektüre von 1 Regum XVII–​XIX,” Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 3 (1997): 277–​92.

Redactional Setting

87

split into two in Kgs to show the last act of Elijah’s life at the end of his life story.60 At this stage of formation, the author wanted to make an association between Elijah and Moses, to whom the prophetical authority was subordinated. The last stage of composing of Elijah-​Elisha stories was the insertion of 2Kgs 2:16–​18, probably by someone acquainted with the author of 1Kgs 19:1–​18’s circles. At the same time, the digression about Gehazi were embedded: 2Kgs 4:29–​30a, 31, 32b, 35 and 2Kgs 1:3–​4. The comparison between the Sons of the Prophets and the servant of the prophet emphasizes the veracity of the ascension. Let us now sum up Otto’s investigation. Firstly, even if some Elisha stories preceded the Elijah ones, as in the story of the Jehu cup or the tales from the Omrid wars, it cannot be said that all the Elisha stories served as a model for the Elijah ones. Secondly, the Omrid wars preceded 2Kgs 2:1–​15, even if the Jehu cup is placed later in the text. Further, the necessity of balance with the stories with the prophets of Baal guides to the embedment of 1Kgs 19:1–​18 and 1Kgs 19:19–​21; 2Kgs 2:1–​15; 13:14–​21. Moreover, Otto confirms both: the theory of Gunkel that 2Kgs 2:16–​18 was added later to 2Kgs 2:1–​15, and the theory of Alt that 2Kgs 2:1 ff. was used to form unity with 1Kgs 19:19–​21. Now we will pass to the conclusion of this first part of the chapter.

1.4 Section Conclusions There are good reasons to say that the Books of Kings were edited as a part of DH by a post-​Dtr editor(s). There are two major arguments: the fact that some fragments are located out of the Dtr framework (2Kgs 2:1–​18; 2Kgs 13:14–​21) and that some fragments contradict the Dtr priorities (Miller). However, it is still difficult to opt for one dating of Kgs’ redaction; the proposals of the scholars we consulted do not go beyond the Persian time. Regarding the diachronic order within the Elijah-​Elisha cycles, we conclude that: (a) There are Elijah stories which come from Elisha’s, which was shown by Rofé and confirmed by McKenzie. (2) At the same time, it seems that there are no Elisha stories which come from Elijah’s. (3) Two stories, where both characters occur together, are classified as Elisha’s (1Kgs 19:19–​21; 2Kgs 2:1–​18). It is probable that they used to be united in the past (Alt) to create a fragment of the vita genre (Rofé). (4) The observations of Otto, regarding the absence of the traces of the victory over Baal out of the Elijah stories, strengthen the possibility of the late reduction of Elijah 60 As we have shown above (cf. 1.2), the idea comes from A. Alt. Another good description can be also found in: Schmitt, Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie, 75–​76, 102–​07.

88

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

stories. (5) Except from Noth and his followers, our narrative is considered as one of the latest emendations into DH, eventually followed by the emendation of v. 1a and vv. 16–​18 rather than vv. 2–​6.

2. Structural Setting Let us pass now to the structural analysis of this fragment and of its setting. In this second part of the chapter, we will first present various chiastic structures of the narrative, trying to understand to what extent they are helpful for analyzing the plot.61 Secondly, we will examine some non-​chiastic structures, which are also often based on parallels, to foresee the best plot comprehension. Thirdly, using the proper narratology tools during the process of close reading, we will establish the closure of the narrative within its larger structural setting. We will also divide the narrative into scenes.

2.1 Chiastic Structures of the Narrative The history of the explicit analysis of chiasm, regarding our narrative and its literary setting, seems not to be remarkably old. It relates to the quite recent intensification of this type of research, strongly connected to rhetorical criticism.62 The classical commentaries, such as the ones of James Montgomery or John Gray, do not contain this type of exegesis.63 The first known chiasm, regarding our narrative and its setting, was probably proposed only in the early seventies. Let us now present the successive proposals.

2.1.1 Lundbom’s Chiasm Jack Lundbom suggested in 1973 that, in fact, Elijah did not ascend to heaven but was kidnapped and killed by soldiers riding a chariot. The order is considered to have been given by the king Jehoram, probably with the king’s mother’s

61 “plot” (BLD) –​“The pattern of events and situations in a narrative or dramatic work, as selected and arranged both to emphasize relationships –​usually of cause and effect –​ between incidents and to elicit a particular kind of interest in the reader or audience, such as surprise or suspense.” 62 Roland Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, International Studies in the History of Rhetoric 3 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 1–​25. 63 Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, 353–​56; Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 465–​72.

Structural Setting

89

A Samaria (1:2); B Unidentified Mountain (1:9); C Gilgal (2:1); D Bethel (2:2–3); E Jericho (2:4–5); F Jordan River (2:6–8); G Trans-Jordan (2:9–12); F’ Jordan River (2:13–14); E’ Jericho (2:15–22); D’ Bethel (2:23–24); C’ ….......; B’ Mount Carmel (2:25); A’ Samaria (2:25)

Figure 4-​II.  Lundbom’s Chiasm

blessing –​ Jezebel.64 This conclusion was based inter alia on a chiasm.65 Its key was topographic: the biblical authors describe Elisha going back on the footsteps of his walk with Elijah in what was a kind of mourning. Here is Lundbom’s proposition:66 Apart from the chiasm parallels marked by the prime sign (’), Lundbom underlined three principal similarities between the symmetrical parts of the chiasm: the interplay between “up and down”; 50 men figure; and the divine fire. The basic problem of this proposal regards Gilgal, because it does not appear on the way back part (cf. C’).67 Lundbom accepts this asymmetry as it is. For that which concerns the narrative criticism, the question is whether the structure from 1:2 to 2:25 regards one narrative or an ordered collection of narratives, e.g. NRS, NIV, NJB, cf. LUT, BJ, CEI, and BTP do not treat 1:2–​2:25 as a single narrative. What does it mean? In fact, there is no clear continuity of the plot and

64 According to Lundbom, the author of the text does not write about it since, simply, the story was remembered by the people of Israel after the transformation of the narrative. Finally, the death of Elijah was remembered as Yhwh’s victory. 65 He begins his article with the quotation from John 8:52–​53 regarding the death of all the prophets, cf. Adam Kubiś, The Book of Zechariah in the Gospel of John, Etudes bibliques 64 (Pendé: Gabalda, 2012), 434–​40. 66 Lundbom, “Elijah’s Chariot Ride,” 42. 67 Of course, it is remarkably interesting on the symbolic level. It was not a problem for the editor to add Gilgal to complete the chiasm, however, for some reason, it is not done. May we interpret it as there was no way to go back to the times of Joshua’s conquest?

90

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

characters. This problem will be common for other chiasms of this section of Kgs. Let us present the chiasm of Hobbs.

2.1.2 Hobbs’ Chiasm Raymond Hobbs follows the idea of one chiasm referring to the structure of 2Kgs 1–​2.68 Contrary to Londbom, he does not propose a historical-​critical interpretation of these chapters. Hobbs’ chiasm is as follows: A Severe test of authority; destruction of men (1:9–15) B Request for diseased item to be healed (1:1–8, 16–18) C The sons of the prophets admit departure of Elijah (2:2–6) D The sons of the prophets are witnesses (2:7) E Dividing of river Jordan with mantle/coat (2:8) F Symbol of succession: spirit/mantle (2:9) G Witnessing of the event by Elisha (2:10) H The ascension of Elijah (2:11) G’ Witnessing of the event by Elisha (2:12) F’ Symbol of succession: spirit/mantle (2:13) E’ Dividing of river Jordan with mantle/coat (2:14) D’ The sons of the prophets are witness (2:15) C’ The sons of the prophets admit departure of Elijah (2:16–18) B’ Request for diseased item to be healed (2:19–22) A’ Severe test of authority; destruction of men (2:23–24)

Figure 5-​II.  Hobbs’ Chiasm

The first thing that comes into spirit is that there is no empty section within the pairs of chiasms, as was the case in Lundbom’s proposition. Effectively, this chiasm is not constructed on the basis of the itinerary, so Gilgal is no longer crucial. It also does not reflect the tension or revelation within the plot. This is the thematic factor that is the most important for Hobbs: witnessing (D, G), authority (A, B, C) and succession (F). Even actions –​dividing the river (E) and ascension (H) –​belong to the theme category. Of course, in his research, Hobbs is not limited to the juxtaposition of themes. He is also interested in visual aspects –​e.g. the juxtaposition of the hairy Elijah (1:8) and the bald Elisha –​and linguistic patterns –​e.g. the cry of Elisha in 2:12 vs. the cry at Elisha’s deathbed in 13:14. What is more, the significant difference to Lundbom would be the omission of 1:1–​8 and 2:25. The latter omission 68 Hobbs, “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose,” 332.

Structural Setting

91

regards the topography, but the former omission regards the introduction to the story Ahaziah. It is not plot analysis which is then Hobbs’ main preoccupation.

2.1.3 Long’s Chiasm The geographic markers of the chiasm can also lead into radically different structural division from that of Lundbom, who saw unity between ­chapters 1 and 2. In 1991, Burke Long showed that this type of marker can also lead to establishing a one-​chapter chiasm:69 A. From Gilgal to Bethel (2:1b–2) B. Bethel (2:3–4) C. Jericho (2:5–6) D. Jordan River (2:7–8a) E. Crossing (2:8b) F. Transjordan (2:9–14a) E’ Crossing (2:14b) D’ From the Jordan to Jericho (2:15–17) C’ Jericho (2:18–22) B’ Bethel (2:23–24) A’-------- ()

Figure 6-​II.  Long’s Chiasm

Firstly, we see that the problem of the correspondence between (A) and (A’) does not vanish.70 Eventually, this is the reason why Long does not limit himself to this chiasm and proposes a few structural divisions –​we will present them in the following paragraphs. Secondly, an important detail regards the beginning and the end of this chiasm. Long does not include v. 1a in A. This changes the character of the following narrative, since the main question of the text is no longer “how” the things were going to happen.71 He neither includes v. 25 in the chiasm. This verse was the basis for the construction of Lundbom’s chiasm. It

6 9 Long, 2 Kings, 25. Cf. Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 259. 70 Particularly on the topic of the asymmetry of v. 25: Jerome T. Walsh, Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001), 107–​08. The general law was given by Alter: «The rising and the return to the place of origin formally mark the end of the narrative segment.» Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 107. 71 Gunkel, “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​18),” 186; Cohn, 2 Kings, 11.

92

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

seems that Long’s proposition does not fully respect the text and the narrative known from MT. Nevertheless, Long also proposed an abbreviated chiasm of the scene of the examined narrative:72 A. Sons of prophets afar off (v.7); B. River divided, Elijah and Elisha cross over (v. 8); C. Vision in Transjordan (vv. 9–12); B’ River divided, Elisha crosses back (vv. 13–14); A’ Sons of prophets at some distance (v. 15).

Figure 7-​II.  Long’s Abbreviated Chiasm

Surprisingly, he does not keep the symmetry established in the previous chiasm, e.g. vv. 13–​14a are moved from the center into B’. This is probably caused by the wish to follow the flow of the narration and not the topography or themes within this scene, however it does not show the whole story leaving the journey back and forth apart.

2.1.4 Cohn’s Chiasm In 2000, Cohn proposed a chiasm of vv. 1–​25. Notwithstanding other secondary details, the chiasms of Cohn and Long are similar. The major difference is that Cohn does not exclude vv. 1a and 25 from the structure as follows:73 A. Elijah and Elisha leave Gilgal (2:1–​2); ………….. A’ Elisha returns to Samaria (2:25). To accept this parallel, we need to ignore the incoherence as Cohn did, explaining that the preceding story, from ch. 1, ended in Samaria. We need to ask then: why does the chiasm not start in the previous episode? Another solution would be to agree that Gilgal is in Samaria; or to agree that both symbolize the same thing; or to leave A or A’ without description, as in some other mentioned cases. Nevertheless, it seems that, if we leave A’ as it is, we need rather to agree that Lundbom is right and that ­chapters 1 and 2 have to be read in unity.

7 2 Long, 2 Kings, 25. 73 Cohn, 2 Kings, 10–​11.

Structural Setting

93

2.1.5 Brodie’s Parallelisms74 When we analyze the article of Thomas Brodie from 1989, regarding the relations between 2Kgs 1:1–​2:6 and Luke 9:51–​56, we see that there is indeed a strong parallelism between ch. 1 and ch. 2 in 2Kgs, however it does not mean that we are justified to identify the center of the common structure on that basis, as did Lundbom and Hobbs.75 Brodie identified the following parallels: the king’s death and Elijah’s assumption –​they are described as something planned by God (2Kgs 1:4, 6, 16; 2:1, 3, 5); the fire brings death (1:9–​14) and life (2:11); identification/​recognition of Elijah (1:17; 2:10, 12); the location of true God (1:3; 2:14); the useless quest of fifty people (1:2b, 5, 9, 11, 13; 2:7, 16–​18); the threesome structure is also parallel (1:9–​14; 2:1–​6). The problem with the center is visible in the pairing, i.e. verse 2:11 is paired with 1:9–​14. In the previously analyzed chiasms, 2:11 was in the center of a larger structure; at the same time, 1:9–​14 was marginal. Analogically, 1:3 is paired with 2:14. In some presented chiasms, the former is even excluded from the structure (Hobbs, Long, Cohn), whereas, in all chiasms, the latter belongs to the core. It seems then that the basis for the previously presented chiasms is not only the parallelism, but also a kind of ideological choice. Now, if we claim that the parallelisms between ch. 1 and ch. 2 do not form a chiasm on each level of reading, we need to answer the question: what do they form? The phenomenon of connecting chapters without the common plot in the Bible is explained by Robert Alter in reference to the story of Joseph (Genesis 37 and 39–​50) and the story of Tamar (Genesis 38).76 In fact, these chapters do not form a unified narrative, but they comment on each other by their parallels.77 74 For different types of parallelisms see: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 3–​26; Luis Alonso-​Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, Subsidia Biblica 11 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), ch. V; Jan P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 2001), 61–​86. 75 Brodie (1989), 100. Analyzing the non-​chiastic patterns of the structural analysis means that we can try to verify what different themes/​parallels tell us about the structure of the text, leaving behind the chiasmic focalization, i.e. the “mirror” structure and preferably its center. 76 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 1–​24. Cf. Peter Dubovský, “Genesis 39 and ‘The Tale of the Two Brothers’,” in Bible et Terre Sainte: Mélanges Marcel Beaudry, ed. José Enrique Aguilar Chiu, Kieran J. O’Mahony, and Maurice Roger (New York; Washington: Peter Lang, 2008), 47–​61. 77 Firstly, Gen 38 is a commentary on the figure of Judah, highlighting his fecundity but also his brutality. Judah is shown as the one who conceived Perez, progenitor of

94

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

Brodie proposed that the deep-​seated unity between ch. 1 and ch. 2 can be explained by analogy to the ideas of Alter. For now, it is crucial that we are fully justified in deciding not to follow the chiastic pattern for the analysis of the plot, even if there are clear parallels within the text and its setting. Let us sum up the chiasm issue. Firstly, of course, we did not analyze each possible chiasm; nevertheless, we argue that our analysis shows the general typology, e.g. the chiasms of Cohn and Fabrizio Foresti belong to the same type. Secondly, as the analysis of Brodie shows, there are many parallelisms in the setting of our narrative which are not included in the chiastic structures proposed by the scholars, which may be due to ideological choices. Thirdly, the examined chiasms are not sufficiently oriented toward the analysis of the plot. They are rather oriented toward analysis of geography or themes. The question, therefore, is the following: are they also the most proper structure of the narrative? Fourthly, for that which concerns the coherence of the chiasm, Lundbom’s proposal remains fundamental. Nevertheless, we are not forced to accept his “kidnaping” interpretation. The organization of ch. 1 and 2 is eventually the work of a later editor, and the possibility of such an interpretation seems to be accidental.

2.2 Non-​Chiastic Structures Now, let us analyze the structure of our text and its literal setting from the non-​ chiastic point of view. Chiasm is only one of the structures to be identified within a text. There were various non-​chiastic proposals regarding the structure of our narrative. Let us present and briefly evaluate a few of them: Satterthwaite’s, Long’s and DeVrie’s.78 Each of them considers different range of verses, respective to their analyzed themes.

2.2.1 Satterthwaite’s Proposal In 1998, Philippe Satterthwaite observed that, until then, it was hard to find an indisputable unifying theme regarding Elisha. On the one hand, Elisha is

Jesse, from whom comes the House of David. Alter underlines the role of the verbal connections between Gen 37 and 38, e.g. ‫( הַ ּכֶר־נָא‬recognize). Gen 38 is connected to Gen 39 by the problem of sexual continence: Judah and Tamar, on the one hand, Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, on the other. Alter elaborates here the Midrash on this fragment (Bereshit Rabba 84:11, 12). 78 Another example: Janusz Lemański, “Sprawisz, abym ożył” Ps 71,20b: Źródła nadziei na zmartwychwstanie w Starym Testamencie, Rozprawy i studia 532 (Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 2004), 125–​27.

Structural Setting

95

engaged in politics (war against Moab in 2Kgs 3; war against Aram in 2Kgs 5–​8); on the other, he is a miracle-​worker (2Kgs 4; 6:1–​7). According to many authors, the reason is simple: these accounts were created to magnify Elisha’s reputation, so their disposition does not have greater importance. The narratologists argues Philip Satterthwaite, referring to Robert Alter, Adele Berlin, Shimeon Bar-​Efrat and Meir Sternberg, contested this view.79 According to Satterthwaite, by juxtaposing the miracle accounts with narratives relating to the larger Israel, the biblical authors underline the conclusions about the impact of Elisha’s followers on Israel at large. The provision of food for the woman of Zarephath (1Kgs 17:8–​16) is a symbolic demonstration of the Yhwh superiority on Baal’s territory. Elisha is the second Joshua who conquers the land,80 e.g. Jericho was the city which Joshua cursed in Josh 6:26, now it is healed by Elisha. The Sons of the Prophets from 2Kgs 2 are, in this case, the nucleus of a restored Israel. 2Kgs 2 is programmatic because it raises the question of how the faithful Israel can influence Israel as a whole. On that basis, the distinction is made between the faithful and unfaithful Israel. Finally, we do not have to search a more coherent sequence of events. For Satterthwaite, the literary techniques (an implicit commentary; juxtaposition; deliberate presentation of events out of chronological sequence) are also used by the biblical authors to invite the reader to return to Yhwh and to reflect on what has been lost. Now, we must look at Satterthwaite’s proposition in the context of the narrative analysis. Firstly, the world of the narrative is not significant for the author. He is focused on the message of the text, even if he finds unifying themes or symbols within the cycle, such as: the destruction of Ahab’s line; war against Baal; Aramean threat; superiority of Yhwh; faithful and unfaithful Israel; invitation and reflection. Secondly, the work of Satterthwaite does not really justify treating the events described in ch. 2–​8 as one plot. His approach does not privilege the narrative analysis as such. Nevertheless, Satterthwaite’s work confirms for us that analysis of the examined narrative referring to the Elisha cycle remains important.

79 Philip E. Satterthwaite, “The Elisha Narratives and Coherence of 2 Kings 2–​8,” Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 1 (1998): 1–​28. Another excellent analysis: Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 21–​44. 80 He also completes the process begun by Elijah on Mt. Carmel in 1Kgs 18.

96

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

2.2.2 Long’s Proposal Except for the chiasm (cf. 2.1.3), Burke Long proposed a structure of the setting of our narrative based on a thematic pattern. The results of this work are as follows:81 I 2:1–​14 –​Ascension of Elijah and empowering of Elisha; II 2:15–​24 –​Miraculous confirmation of Elisha; III 2:25 –​Concluding notices: move from Bethel to Samaria. Figure 8-​II.  Long’s Proposal

We see that Long treats 2:1–​25 as a unity. The reason for such a treatment is given by the existence of the regnal summaries in 1:17b–​18; 3:1–​3. Long calls our chapter a “pausal moment,” since it is located between the closing regnal summary and the opening one. That is why he says that the chapter is a Dtr inclusion!82 We see then that his division is firstly formal (regnal summaries) and secondly thematic (ascension/​empowering and confirmation). Treating v. 25 apart is curious. Firstly, is there really a reason to exclude it from the last large unit (i.e. 2:15–​24) if Mount Carmel, mentioned in 2:25, is a place confirming his connection to Elijah? If the move from Bethel to Samaria is treated separately, why not the move from Gilgal to Bethel, from Bethel to Jericho, and from Jericho to the Jordan? It seems that this kind of thematic structure does not provide a frame through which to analyze the plot based on the movement of the main characters.

2.2.3 DeVries’s Proposal The structure of the narrative identified by Simon John DeVries in 1978 is clearly not another version of a chiasm.83 Even if he is not focused on parallels, he pays attention to repetitions, which are an essential tool within the storyteller’s workshop. Let us look at his proposal:

8 1 Long, 2 Kings, 19. 82 Ibid., 21. 83 DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition, 82.

Structural Setting I 1/​2 a. b. II. 1. a. b. c. 2. a. b. c. 3. a. b. c. III. 1. a. b. c. 2. a. b. c.

97

A demonstration of Elisha’s fitness; The test at Bethel/​Jericho; A challenge to Elisha’s fidelity, 1 f./​4; A challenge to Elisha’s prescience, 3/​5; A demonstration of Elisha’s inspiration; The crossing of the Jordan; A challenge to Elisha’s fidelity, 6; Transitional: the prophetic guild as witnesses, 7; The parting of the waters, 8; The designation of a test; The offer of a parting gift, 9a; The request for a prophetic birthright, 9b; The condition: inspired sight, 10; The test fulfilled; Elijah’s rupture, 11; Elisha sees, 12a; Confirmation: Elisha exch. his garments for Elijah’s mantle, 12b–​13a; A demonstration of Elisha’s empowerment; A testing of his miraculous power; Striking the water with Elijah’s mantle, 13b–​14a; The parting of the waters, 14b; Recognition by the prophetic guild, 15; A vindication of his authority; The prophetic guild request permission to seek Elijah, 16; The search permitted, 17; Elisha’s remonstrance, 18.

Figure 9-​II.  DeVries’s Proposal

Already, paying attention to the repetition (I) suggests that acts are crucial for DeVries’ structure.84 The symbolism is set apart, since the nouns, which are used in each point (demonstration, test, challenge, crossing, parting etc.), express actions within the narrative and not its message. There is, however, a problem regarding the radical focalization on Elisha’s figure. Elijah, as a character, occurs

84 Cf. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament, Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 346–​50.

98

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

in the proposed structure only at the very moment of his departure (3a). We assume that DeVries’ interest is narrative; however, he treats 2Kgs 2:1–​18 overall as an element of the larger Elisha cycle, and that is why he does not stress the plot as such. Let us pass now to our proposal of the identification of the structural setting of our narrative.

2.3 Close Reading with the Narratology Criteria We have observed the presented chiastic or non-​chiastic patterns focusing on the disposition of words within the text. Furthermore, we will use narratology criteria to describe the narrative plot: the episode closure, the scene division, and the construction of the plot. The usage of some categories, which have been already presented (e.g. cycle, theme, character), will be also necessary, first to understand the narratological tools and then to understand the world of the narrative. Both regarding the closure of the episode and the division into scenes, we will refer overall to the methodology elaborated by Jean Luis Ska,85 Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin.86 This methodology is based on the ideas of Gian Giorgio

85 Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 1, 33; Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–​31, 22. Ska proposed that, to identify the structure of the narrative, the following criteria should be used: change of place, change of time, change of characters, and change of action. Additionally, the change of style as a criterion should be applied as the last one. Now, even if the change of style is the weakest criterion, very often it is the clearest one, since it is easy to identify a specific word or structure; therefore, it is an important indicator of a hypothetic cloture which must be verified by stronger criteria. Let us pose a few questions regarding his proposal. Normally, the action is the main preoccupation of a storyteller but, if we claim that the story is written to magnify a figure of a prophet, the change of character may have for us at least the same importance? In that case, when we claim that this is an etiology, we give priority to the change of place. If we claim that a story was created to explain some aspects of the liturgical calendar, in this case, the change of time would be for us the most important? 86 Daniel L. Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism (London: SCM Press, 1999), 31. Marguerat and Bourquin presented the criterion in the following order: the change of time, the change of place and the change of the constellation of characters and the change of theme. Firstly, we see that they put the criterion of time before the criterion of place, contrary to Ska. Secondly, they propose the fourth criterion of theme, which is clearly different from Ska’s criteria of action or style. At the same time, they underline that the change of theme is the weakest criterion; however, in some cases, it permits to

Structural Setting

99

Trissino (1478 –​1550) developed the obseravtions of Aristotle in Poetics V 1444b and 1450b. To the criteria of the change of action, place, time, characters, style (Ska) and theme (Marguerat–​Bourquin) given by our authors, we would like to add another one. Let us call it a “friendly neighborhood.” This criterion will be defined here as taking care not only of the examined episode but also of the narratives which it precedes and follows, since we would not like to leave the neighboring narratives without important elements of their plot.87 Of course, this criterion is weak, because the narratives often overlap; however, we should take it into consideration since the criterion becomes inevitable in many practical cases, e.g. for the publishers of the bibles which we use as exegetes or as theologians. Let us present the methodology, based on these proposals, which will be applied below. It will be introduced with the following table: change of action change of style change of action change of time change of style change of action change of characters change of style change of theme friendly neighborhood change of place

Figure 10-​II.  Closure Categories

make the final decision on closure. Thirdly, they explain to us an essential rule: to pronounce the closure of the narrative we need to apply two or three criteria. One criterion is then not sufficient for this purpose. Our general remark to their approach is the following: they define the closure as “the totality of narrative indicators which fix a beginning and an end to the narrative, thus delimiting a space where meaning is produced.” This definition is clear, except one part regarding the production of meaning. Many of us would rather expect “understanding of meaning” or “finding the meaning” instead. On the one hand, this definition seems to be oriented completely towards the reader putting the historical author apart. On the other hand, the authors refer to the history of the text to learn that the chapter and verse division is conventional, and it should not be treated as a criterion of closure. Nevertheless, these authors also introduce essential categories for our structural research. 87 The analogy to the textual widows or orphans is convenient here.

100

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

The categories in the left column will be discussed first, each with its reference to the action and the style of the narrative. To establish the closure, we will need coherence between two of the left column criteria, following the Marguerat and Bourquin approach. If it is not the case, we will use the change of theme criterion. Finally, we will verify if our text is friendly to its neighbors. Marguerat and Bourquin provide us with some other essential categories helpful not only for the closure but also for the identification of the structure and its structural setting: a macro-​narrative, a micro-​narrative, a narrative sequence and a scene.88 Now, we will classify our narrative and its setting according to these categories. We will quote their definitions in the corresponding paragraphs.

2.3.1 Macro-​Narrative To what macro-​narrative does the examined narrative belong? There are a few theoretic possibilities: firstly, it belongs to the Sam-​Kgs unit; secondly, to the Kgs unit; thirdly, to a modified Kgs unit; fourthly, to 2Kgs; fifthly, to Elijah’s cycle, considered as a macro-​structure; sixthly, to Elisha’s cycle. Seventhly, to Elijah-​ Elisha’s large cycle. Now, if the macro-​narrative is defined as the “maximal narrative unit conceived of as a whole by the narrator,” we can already exclude the fifth and fourth options since they are interrupted a few times by other narratives, such as the one regarding the prophet Micaiah in 1Kgs 22 or that of the reparation of the temple in 2Kgs 12.89 Can we then identify our macro-​narrative with 2Kgs? The problem with this solution is that the narratives about the life of Elijah and Elisha 88 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 30–​39. 89 Bar-​Efrat notices that “the existence of the narrator within the narrative distinguishes narrative from its sister art, drama.” Shimeon Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 13. Cf. Poetics XIV. The difference with drama is, however, only a preliminary distinction. To understand who the narrator is, we need also to distinguish him from the real author, the implied author, and the narrator; Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 119–​48. Cf. Chatman’s distinction: real author> implied author> narrator> narration> narratee> implied reader> real reader in Seymour Benjamin Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), 151. The narrator, then, is different from the real author, who is the historical figure responsible for the creation of the text. The narrator is not the implied author, who is only the image of the author projected by the text itself. The narrator is, according to Sternberg, “the figure chosen and devised by the author to perform the telling.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the

Structural Setting

101

occur both in 1Kgs and in 2Kgs. What about 1Kgs–​2Kgs solution? Is there any reason to go beyond this unity? An important argument to identify these two chapters as a macro-​unity is provided by the formula: “then … slept with his fathers,”90 which does not occur in 1Sam–​2Sam, but is largely present from the beginning of 1Kgs to the end of 2Kgs: 1Kgs 2:10; 11:43; 14:20, 31; 15:8, 24; 16:6; 28; 22:40, 51; 2Kgs 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 29; 15:7, 22, 38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6.91 Now, the story of David links 2Sam with 1Kgs. In the former, he comes to the court of Saul, he defeats Goliath, he becomes king, and, finally, he conceives Solomon. In the latter, he becomes ill and dies. We cannot neglect the unity of his life story. In fact, if we want to identify the macro-​narrative, we should seriously consider options larger than the 1Kgs–​2Kgs range. 1–​4βασιλέων, as names for Greek versions of 1Sam, 2Sam, 1Kgs, 2Kgs, indicate continuity of these books.92 The classical authors, such as Henry Thackeray, argue that the division within the text between 2βασιλέων and 3βασιλέων was located after the rapport of the death of David in 1Kgs 2:10–​12.93 Can we then consider 1Kgs 2:13 –​ 2Kgs as a macro-​narrative? This solution is very similar to that of Jan Fokkelman, who, in 1995, in his Reading Biblical Narrative, proposes to treat 1Sam, 2Sam, 1Kgs 1–​2 as unity and 1Kgs 3 –​2Kgs as another unity.94 Apparently, it resolves the problem of the David cycle rupture.

Drama of Reading, 74. Now, as Fokkelman writes, the narrator is “a pose, an attitude. One could call him an offshoot or a sub-​personality of the writer.” Jan P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, Tools for Biblical Study 1 (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999), 55. Ska’s definition gives a clear-​cut understanding: “The narrator is always present in the narrative as part of its structure even after the author’s death because he is the voice that tells the story.” Jean Louis Ska, Jean-​Pierre Sonnet, and André Wénin, L’analyse narrative des récits de l’Ancien Testament, Service Biblique Évangile et Vie 107 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1999), 44. 90 The so-​called Death Formula is defined in: Long, 2 Kings, 321. 91 Cf. 2Chr 9:31; 12:16; 13:23; 16:13; 21:1; 26:23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20. 92 Cf. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 54 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994), 3–​37; Jan Joosten, “The Value of the Septuagint for Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible as Illustrated by the Oxford Hebrew Bible Edition of 1 Kings,” in Text-​critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, ed. Johann Cook and Hermann-​Josef Stipp, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 157 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 223–​36; ”Une théologie de la Septante? Réflexions méthodologiques sur l’interprétation de la version grecque,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 132, no. 1 (2000): 31–​46. 93 Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” 263. 94 Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 156–​62.

102

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

Unfortunately, it poses an essential problem regarding the Solomon cycle, i.e. the birth of Solomon is described in 2Sam 12:24. Why do we want to save the integrality of David’s story without applying the same rule to Solomon’s?95 It is much safer to suppose that our narrative belongs to the Sam–​Kgs macro-​narrative. It is in 1Sam 1 in which the characters (Eli, Samuel) who are not connected narratively to the previous book of Judges96 are introduced.

2.3.2 Narrative Sequence The Narrative Sequence is “series of micro-​narratives linked by a unifying theme or a common character.”97 It is not necessarily unified by the continuity of action; in other words, it can be alternated with other narrative units which do not belong to the same Narrative Sequence. We presuppose that the notions of “narrative sequence” and “cycle” are interchangeable. Now, it is largely acknowledged that our narrative belongs to the Elisha cycle and not to Elijah’s.98 This association is made in the face of the dichotomic choice: Elisha’s or Elijah’s. It is, however, a deprivation of the Elijah cycle of its natural end, which would normally be indicated by the death of the main character.99 One would say that it is right because, if we do not have his birth narrative, why on earth should we keep the integrity of the cycle by the description regarding the last day of his earthly life?100 Now, on the one hand, we have already presented (1.2) the

95 This would probably need a work on one of the stages of the translation of the Hebrew text into Greek, in which 2βασιλέων 11:2 –​ 3βασιλέων 2:11 were excluded from the translation unity, probably because the translators were ashamed of the Bathsheba story. 96 In BHS, we find the Book of Judges before Sam; in NRS we find there the Book of Ruth. NRS’ solution is probably based on the final Davidic family list in Ruth 4:13–​22. Nevertheless, the presence of David in the list is figurative (as in the psalms) and not narrative. It is so different with the rapport regarding his death in 1Kgs 2. 97 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 34. 98 Cf. Introduction. 99 Cf. different formulas integrated to the characters’ stories in Kgs: 1Kgs 11:43; 14:20, 31; 15:8; 15:24; 16:6, 28; 19:5, 6; 21:4, 27; 22:40, 51; 2Kgs 4:11, 34; 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 29; 15:7, 22, 38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6. 100 The necessity of including all episodes of someone’s life into a biblical cycle becomes essential if one wants to refer to the personal experience of the main character, cf. Krzysztof Siwek, Powstał prorok jak ogień: Droga Eliasza, Biblijni Bohaterowie Wiary 1 (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Collegium Bobolanum, 2020), 98–​103.

103

Structural Setting

opinion of Alt that our narrative was originally unified with 1Kgs 19:19–​21.101 Elisha becomes Elijah’s disciple in the latter. On the other hand, we have seen by the analysis of chiastic structures that the episodes from 2Kgs 2:19–​22 and 23–​25 are strictly connected to our narrative. The episodes regarding the healing of the water in Jericho and the she-​bears are the direct confirmation of the transmission of the prophetic power of Elijah, which takes place in our narrative. Our proposal consists of considering the four mentioned episodes (1Kgs 19:19–​21; and three episodes from 2Kgs 2:1–​25) as a separate Narrative Sequence, which will be entitled “Elijah-​Elisha Transitional Cycle” or, briefly, “Transitional Cycle.” Let us present our proposal graphicly:

Elijah Cycle

Transitional Cycle

Elisha Cycle

Figure 11-​II.  Triple Cycle

Our proposal could be contested by the fact that the names Elijah and Elisha occur together, already in 1Kgs 19:15–​18. In this episode, the Lord says to Elijah that he should return to the wilderness of Damascus to anoint Hazael, Jehu and Elisha. Should we not include these verses in the Transitional Cycle? On the one hand, it would deprive the narrative of the revelation on Mount Horeb of its end, leaving it in the suspense. On the other hand, the appointment of these three figures takes place in the Transitional Cycle and in Elisha’s cycle (2Kgs 1:19–​21 (2:1–​8); 8:13; 9:6). Therefore, we should rather treat the mission of anointment given to Elijah as an introduction to the two following cycles. Having introduced the term “Transitional Cycle,” we would like to introduce another term. The threesome, Elijah cycle, Transitional Cycle and Elisha cycle, will be called in this dissertation the “Triple Cycle.” The “Triple Cycle” overlaps all

101 Alt, “Die literarische Herkunft von I Reg 19 19—​21,” 124. Cf. Jürgen Vorndran, “Elijas Dialog mit Jahwes Wort und Stimme (1 Kön 19, 9b–​18),” Biblica 77, no. 3 (1996): 417–​24.

104

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

of the Elijah-​Elisha stories in 1Kgs 17 –​2Kgs 13, i.e. excluding, correspondingly to the definition of the narrative sequence, episodes without these characters, e.g. that regarding the prophet Micaiah and the war against Aram in 1Kgs 22.

2.3.3 Micro-​Narrative Let us pass to the identification of the micro-​narrative. Marguerat and Bourquin defined it as: “the minimal narrative unit presenting a narrative episode, the unity of which can be identified by the indicators of closure.”102 In our work, we will use the words “micro-​narrative” and “episode” in the same sense.103 To determine our episode, using the narrative criteria presented above, we need to understand first its textual context. In 2Kgs 1, we find the story about the illness and death of Ahaziah, the king of Israel. Elijah occurs there as the one who destroys two squads of the king’s army with fire from heaven and prophesies the death of the injured king. The inevitability of the king’s fate is explained by the fact that he wanted to consult Baal-​ zebub, the god of Ekron, instead of Yhwh. The death of Ahaziah and the succession of monarchic power are described in the last verses of this chapter, i.e. in 2Kgs 1:17–​ 18. The literary unit which we find here is called the Concluding Regnal Resumé.104 This type of resumé is largely used in Kgs.105 After it, we expect the Introductory Regnal Resumé, which is frequently used in Kgs.106 The Resumé occurs only in 2Kgs 102 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 34. 103 Cf. gr. ἐπεισόδιος : «originairement partie du drame entre deux entrées du chœur c. à d. le dialogue Arist. Poet. 12,5 ; postérieur : toute digression, incident» Anatole Bailly, Dictionnaire grec-​français (Paris: Hachette, 1899). 104 The LXX text is different from MT at this point. In LXX, v. 18 is enlarged. The addi�tional text, which we find there, is an Introductory Regnal Resumé (IRR), which is similar to the one that we find in 3:1–​3 in both textual traditions. In LXX, the IRR is then doubled! That is why we are ready to agree that one of them is a secondary addition. Since 3:1–​3 occurs in MT and LXX, probably the “second” part of v. 18 in LXX is a later addition. This is confirmed by the condensed style of this part, which, in the translation, is reflected by the multiplication of the “;” sign, cf. LXB. 105 The Regnal Resumé (ger. Abriss einer königlichen Regierungszeit) is explained by Long as: “A formulaic summary in the books of Kings which provides information about a monarch of Israel or Judah. Regnal resumé normally appears in two parts, as an introductory and a concluding summary which form a framework around other materials relating to a particular reign.” Long, I Kings, 159–​64. 106 Cf. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, ix–​xv; Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, 29–​42; Noth, Könige, 1, 327; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, 31–​37; Enzo Cortese, “Lo

Structural Setting

105

3:1.107 In between, we have the whole chapter, i.e. 2Kgs 2. As we have seen, this chapter constitutes one narrative sequence with 1Kgs 19:19–​21. Now, let us distinguish our episode closure within its narrative context. We apply the criterion of place first. In 2Kgs 2:1, the narrative informs us that Elijah and Elisha were on their way from ‫הגלגל‬. There is a large discussion where ‫הגלגל‬ should be located. Nevertheless, this notion occurs in the following sequence of references: 2Sam 19:15, 40; 2Kgs 2:1; 4:38. As we see, it does not occur either in 2Kgs 1 nor in 2Kgs 2. At the same time, it occurs just after the proleptic title and the Regnal Resumé. 2Kgs 2:1 is, according to the criterion of place, the beginning of our episode. Where does it end? The following location names –​i.e. Bethel (vv. 2, 3, 23), Jericho (vv. 4, 5, 15, 18), Jordan (vv. 6, 7, 13) –​would rather suggest the closure around v. 23 in the chiastic model, which it would be preferable to avoid for the reasons explained in 2.1. The new places occur in v. 25: Mount Carmel and Samaria. According to the criterion of place, this verse would indicate the end of the episode. Let us pass to the examination of time. The first indication of this type is given by the Regnal Resumés in 2Kgs 1:17–​18 and 3:1–​2. These Resumés are written from the perspective of the narrator.108 The time space in 2Kgs 2:1–​25 could schema deuteronomistico per i re di Giuda e d’Israele,” Biblica 56, no. 1 (1975): 37–​52; Erik J. Smit, “Death-​and Burial Formulas in Kings and Chronicles Relating to the Kings of Judah,” Neotestamentica, no. 1 (1966): 173–​77. Cf. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, ed. Albert Kirk Grayson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). In the latter, they enumerate different types of Babylonian chronicles and chronical formulas, i.e. the synchronic formula. Cf. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, 55–​99. 107 It could occur directly after the concluding one, as in 1Kgs 14:29–​15:3 (accession of Jeroboam in Judah); 1Kgs 15:7–​15 (accession of Asa in Judah); 1Kgs 15:23–​26 (accession of Nadab in Israel); 1Kgs 16:14–​15 (accession of Zimri in Israel), 2Kgs 13:24–​14:4 (accession of Amaziah in Judah). Sometimes, the Introductory Resumé occurs after a literary unit called rapport, e.g. rapport regarding prophetic activities (1Kgs 16:5–​ 10); a political breakdown (1Kgs 16:20–​23); a coup d’état, building activities (2Kgs 14:17–​24); territory expansion (2Kgs 13:24–​25). Finally, the Introductory Resumé can occur after narrative units, e.g. after 1Kgs 16:29–​22:53 (the narratives regarding Elijah’s, Micaiah’s and an anonymous prophet activity); the second example is in 2Kgs 1:17–​3:3, so the portion of the text where the lecturer finds the examined narrative. Now, in this context, we can pose the question of whether the Regnal Resumé literary unities belong to the narrative or not. If not, where does this micro-​narrative start and where does it end? 108 If we want to avoid simplification of the narrator’s text function, we would need to enumerate the whole spectrum, as Sternberg does: Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 120. He mentions fourteen

106

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

indicate the time unity of the episode. 2Kgs 2:1 starts with “… ְ‫וַיְ הִ י ּב‬,” what should be translated as “when… .”109 Nevertheless, it is not a precise reference of time. Such a reference occurs only in v. 3b: “Do you know that Yhwh is going to take your master from over your head today?” The action, from v. 1 up to v. 17a (“But they persisted until he was ashamed, he said, ‘Send!’ ”) takes place “today.” In v. 17b, we find out that “they searched three days but did not find him.” The next time reference occurs only in 2Kgs 3:1 in the Regnal Resumé, which introduces a new theme of the king. According to the category of time, we establish the final closure or in v. 17a or in v. 25. The criterion of characters is also important for the closure. Elijah and Ahaziah are the main characters of 2Kgs 1. Both names occur also in the Concluding Regnal Resumé in 1:17–​18. Just after it, in 2:1, the narrator enumerates Elijah and Elisha.110 Both are main characters of our narrative. Elijah disappears in 2:11. Later, Elisha becomes the main character. The last occurrence of both names is observed in 2:15a. Should we then conclude that the episode ends in v. 15? That would correspond to the suggestion of those scholars applying narrator’s functions in the Hebrew Bible: 1. Expositional antecedents (Job 1; 2Sam 21:1–​3; Judg 16:4); 2. Character sketches; 3. Descriptions of objects; 4. Inter-​scenic summary; 5. Retrospectives; 6. Prospects: “Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death” (1Sam 15:35); 7. Genealogies and catalogues; 8. Identifications (Judg 7:1); 9. Value judgements; 10. Telescoped inside views; 11. Notes and stage directions in dialogue (Exod 24:3; 2Sam 6:20); 12. Intrusions into direct discourse; 13. Bibliographical references; 14. Temporal or cultural bridging. As we will see, our narrator does not fulfill most of these functions in the First Scene. 109 This formula is often used in the Hebrew Bible to start new stories, c.f. 1Sam 25:2; 28:1; 30:1; 1Kgs 6:1; 2Kgs 18:1; 25:1. More frequently, however, the formula is used only to introduce a new element of the same story, e.g. 1Sam 3:2; 18:6, 20:35; 23:6; 25:37; 28:22; 2Sam 1:2. In any case, the discussed formula normally introduces a new time period: GES §114e; J–​M §124d. The idea of the parallel events would be introduced by e.g.: w-​qatalti (and not by wayyiqtol), cf. J–​M §188 f. 1 10 The biblical narrators tell the story without mentioning themselves explicitly. This type of narration is sometimes called the ‘third person’ narration. In post-​exilic biblical Hebrew, we also meet, in a few places, ‘first person’ narration, cf. Ezra and Nehemiah (this terminology is contested by: Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 243–​62.). In these biblical books, the narrator is the protagonist. Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 24. The question which should be posed in this context regards the number of narrators in the Bible. Is there one or many narrators? The answer depends on the exegetical approach. In our dissertation, we accept the multiplicity of the narrators. When we say ‘the narrator’, we think about the narrator of a single biblical narrative.

Structural Setting

107

the historical-​critical method, as was shown previously, cf. 1.3. In fact, the conversations regarding Elijah continue until v. 18, which is why we should establish the end of our episode at this verse. The criterion of theme is decisive in determining the end of our episode. According to the three previous criteria, the episode starts in v. 1. In this verse, the theme of the ascent of Elijah is introduced. The theme is explored up to v. 18. Vv. 19 ff. introduce the themes of the cleaning up of the water and the one of the curses. Summing up, the application of all the major criteria indicate that our Micro-​ Narrative starts in 2Kgs 2:1. The criterion of place indicates that it finishes in v. 25. That of time indicates v. 17. That of the characters indicates v. 18. Similarly, the criterion of theme indicates v. 18. We determine our Micro-​Narrative in 2Kgs 2:1–​18, based on the criteria of characters and theme, since v. 25 would be confirmed clearly only by one criterion.111 Moreover, the following stories in vv. 19 ff. can function as separate episodes, which respects our criterion of the “friendly neighborhood.”

2.3.4 Scenes Marguerat and Bourquin define the scene as “a sub-​unit of a micro-​narrative;”112 they add that: “The scene changes when the narrator makes the readers see something else, when he offers them another overall view or another segment of it.”113 Introduction of something new to the plot is then an important indication for the scene division. Let us start with the change of place criterion. The episode starts on the way from Gilgal (v. 1). It finishes in Jericho (v. 18). Within the episode, we can find the following references to geographic places: Gilgal (v. 1), Bethel (v. 2a), Bethel (v. 2b), Bethel (v. 3a), Jericho (v. 4a), Jericho (v. 4b), Jericho (v. 5a), Jordan (v. 6a), Jordan (v. 7), Jericho (v. 15a), Jericho (v. 18). Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (vv. 1–​6) are the crucial elements in the repetitive structure of the journey of the two prophets. The journey to Bethel, Jericho and the Jordan is additionally

111 The results of our research correspond to the division of the text proposed by the copyist of the Aleppo Codex, cf. Introduction. 112 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 34. Cf. Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 33. 113 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 34.

108

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

announced in other verses: 2a, 4a, 6a. The information that both prophets are standing at the Jordan river is given to the reader in v. 7. Later, the water miracles and the ascension take place. The next geographical place is mentioned only in v. 15a, but the information that the action has been really moved to Jericho is given only in v. 18. At this stage of our reflection, we propose a threefold scene geographical division: a) From Gilgal to Jericho (vv.1–​6); b) At the Jordan river (vv.7–​14); c) From the Jordan to Jericho (vv. 15–​18). Additionally, there are some references to places which are not expressed by the proper names. In vv. 1, 11, heaven is mentioned as the place towards which Elijah was supposed to be taken. In vv. 7, 15, prophets standing at some distance are taking part in the narrative. In v. 8, the dry-​shod on which the twosome crossed is mentioned. In v. 13, we read about the bank of the river where Elisha was standing. In v. 16, the mountains and valleys are the places where the strong men were supposed to go to look for Elijah. Now, heaven, mountains and valleys are only indications of places, but the action does not venture there. The dry-​shod and the bank of the river regard the Jordan, so they are not separate places. The place(s) where the prophets were standing at a distance belong to a different category, because they are witnessing in vv. 7 and 15. The fact of mentioning the place where they stay in these two verses confirms our proposal not only on the action level but also on the stylistic one, because, in both verses, we find the expression “the Sons of the Prophets.” Let us now look at the characters of the examined narrative. Elijah and Elisha are introduced in the very beginning, i.e. in v. 1. They are separated only in v. 11, where potentially we could propose the end of the scene. However, in v. 12, Elisha keeps watching and crying out to Elijah. Successively, Elijah is mentioned by the narrator and by Elisha himself in vv. 13 and 14. It is difficult then to make the scene closure in v.11. There are other figures which occur in our narrative. The Sons of the Prophets, vv. 3, 5, 7, 15, and the strong men, vv. 16, 17, are taking part in the action. We can divide these figures into three groups according to their function in the text: prophesying (vv. 3 and 5); witnessing (vv. 7 and 15); and searching (vv. 16 and 17). Referring to the criterion of the place, we see that the witnessing group is crucial for the scene division, since it occurs in vv. 7 and 15. However, in vv. 15, they start to take an active part in the plot. That is why the previously proposed closure of the scene, i.e. vv. 1–​6; 7–​14; 15–​18, is confirmed by the characters’ criteria.

Chapter Conclusions

109

The last category is that of time. Elisha agrees twice that, this very day (‫)היום‬, Yhwh is going to take his master away (vv. 3 and 5). The reader is then sure that the action at least until v. 11 is taking place within one day. Vv. 12–​17a do not have any indication of the change of time at all. It is only in v. 17b that we find out that the fifty men were searching for Elijah for three days. We can then divide our narrative into three parts, applying the time division: 1) out of time reference –​ vv. 1–​2; 2) one-​day events –​ vv. 3–​17a; 3) three-​day quest –​ vv. 17b–​18. That scene closure does not correspond to the others; however, it seems to be the weakest criterion. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, the no time reference in vv. 1–​2 can hardly be treated as a period. Secondly, the three-​day quest description is neither complex, nor long enough to form a scene.

2.4 Section Conclusions Concluding the issue of the narrative division of the text, we note that the application of our three categories permits us to identify the threefold closure of the scenes of the examined narrative (a) vv. 1–​6; (b) vv. 7–​14; (c) vv. 15–​18. This closure agrees with the application of two over three narrative criteria: change of place and characters. The time criterion does not permit us to propose any convincing closure. The theme of our narrative is stable, so it cannot be used for the scene division. This scene closure fulfills our additional criterion of the “friendly neighborhood.”

3. Chapter Conclusions We proposed, then, that, to identify the structure of the story and to respect the world of the narrative, we need to apply proper narratology criteria when reading the text. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, identifying the historical-​critical structure does not mean identifying the narratological structure of the text;114 on the other hand, as we have seen in 2.1, the role of examined chiastic or other patterns should not be overestimated, since they are not focused 114 James Barr, “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes Cornelis de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–​14; Stephen R. Haynes and Steven L. McKenzie, To Each its own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 1999), 1–​10; Luis Alonso-​Schökel, “Of Methods and Models,” in Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, ed. John Adney Emerton, Vetus Teslamentum Supplements 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 3–​13.

110

FROM REDACTION TO STRUCTURE

enough on the plot of the narrative. The criteria which we applied to identify the macro-​narrative and the sequence in which our narrative is inscribed can be called the unity of the biography of the main character. We concluded that the macro-​narrative is constituted by the books 1Sam–​ 2Kgs. The narrative sequence was defined by us as the combination of 1Kgs 19:19–​21 and 2Kgs 2:1–​ 25. Applying the major criteria of change of place, characters, time, and some minor ones, we have determined the closure of the narrative as 2Kgs 2:1–​18. We have also divided it into three scenes: a) From Gilgal to Jericho (vv. 1–​6); b) At the Jordan river (vv.7–​14); c) From the Jordan to Jericho (vv. 15–​18). This can also be presented in a table (Column N): The Narratological Division (N) a) vv. 1–​6

b) vv. 7–​14 c) vv. 15–​18

The Historical-​Critical Division (HC) v. 1a vv. 1b –​the original story vv. 2–​6 vv. 7–​15 –​the original story vv. 16–​18

Figure 12-​II.  Narratological Division Vs. Historical-​Critical Division

Now, we presented earlier a few historical-​critical theories regarding the division of our narrative, e.g. Schmitt proposed that vv. 2–​6 are later additions (cf. 1.2). This proposal appeared not to correspond formally (verse by verse) to the results of our narratological research, since these verses belong to the section of the narrative identified as the scene (a), i.e. vv. 1–​6, so vv. 2–​6 do not form their own narrative unity, cf. Figure 12-​II (Column HC). It is also the case of the much older Gunkel’s proposal, which is convincing to many scholars, that vv. 16–​18 are additions. According to our narrative analysis, these verses constitute a narrative section with v. 15. In conclusion, it must be underlined that, even if the classical historical-​critical theories regarding the sequential redactions of our narrative are true, their authors changed the final structure of the plot, and so of the narrative, par excellence. This operation is visible in the final version of the narrative. In the case of the sequence of the narrative, the results of the historical-​critical quest of Alt, who proposed the preceding unity of two episodes describing the prophetic succession of Elisha, appeared helpful in narratological research. Nevertheless, narratological criteria determined the results of our quest. Finally, we proposed that the episodes regarding the transmission of the prophetic power can be narratively considered as transitional. Connecting it only to the Elisha

Chapter Conclusions

111

cycle, as is commonly done, deprives the Elijah cycle form its crucial element, i.e., its end. In our proposal, the transitional sequence belongs both to Elijah’s and Elisha’s cycles. Determining the macro-​narrative to which the examined narrative belongs, we kept in mind the historical-​critical theory postulating that the problem with the unity of the biography of David in Sam–​Kgs was resolved in the past by the division between Sam and Kgs in 1Kgs 2:13, so after the passage regarding the death of David. We have, however, argued that the narratological order is rather maintained if we consider 1Sam–​2Kgs as a unity (macro-​narrative; cf. LXX). Also in this case, the comparison of the results of the historical-​critical research on the structure and the narratological ones show the necessity of the methodological distinction.

Chapter III.  The First Scene: vv.1–​6 “From Gilgal to Jericho” This chapter opens the series of three chapters in which we apply narratological tools to particular scenes. In this chapter, we will focus on Scene I (2Kgs 2:1–​6). On the one hand, we will use the terminology elaborated by the narratologists. On the other hand, in many places, we will propose our own terms. Analysis of the verbal structures will help us understand the style and structure of the text. Based on the analysis, we will identify incidents which take place within the scene. Afterwards, we will focus here on the two narrative techniques: prolepsis and repetitions; and we will try to understand their functions. On that premise, we will be able to define the specificity of the three stages of the narrative identified within the text. In consideration of the foregoing, we will prepare the ground for the reflection on Scene II.

1. Verbal Structures Shimon Bar-​Efrat writes that a scene consists of incidents. He distinguishes two types of incidents: actions and events. An action takes place when the character is the subject. An event takes place when the character is the object. Moreover, the incidents are often distinguished by the authors by the introduction of the equivalents of such particles as “because” and “for,” on the one hand, and simply by the Hebrew “waw,” on the other.1 Now, there are many waw in our scene. What criteria should we apply to identify the incidents? Jean Luis Ska in Le Passage de la Mer proposes analysis of the usage of verbs to understand the structure of the scene, so let us be inspired by this idea.2 Additionally, we will distinguish two 1

2

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 96. Cf. our discussion on waw in I 2.2. For the grammatical terminology, see: Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 7–​38; Agustinus Gianto, “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew,” Israel Oriental Studies 18 (1998): 183–​98; “Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe,” Language 79, no. 1 (2003): 202–​04. If we say verbs, we mean here the verb forms and their roots. Cf. Ska, Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–​31, 42–​46. Alter seems to confirm the verbal approach: “Verbs tend to dominate this biblical narration of the essential, and at intervals we encounter sudden dense concentrations or unbroken chains of verbs, usually attached to a single subject, which indicate some

114

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

major groups of verbs within the biblical texts. The first group is connected to the narrator and we will call it “narrator verbs.”3 The second group is connected to the characters who express themselves in dialogues or monologues and we will call it “character verbs.”4

3

4

particular intensity, rapidity, or single-​minded purposefulness of activity (Rebekah making the preparations for the deception of Isaac, David finishing off Goliath in battle).” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 101. Cf. the description of the verb in the narrative in general: Todorov, Introduction to Poetics, 27–​40. Fokkelman proposes a hierarchical distinction, not only between the narrator and the characters, but also between the narrator’s and the character’s text. The former is the main text. The character text is only embedded into it. This distinction is used by Fokkelman: “The main text is the narrator’s, and all words spoken or thought by characters have been embedded in this. Character text, whether monologue or dialogue, is ‘only’ embedded text and is opposed to narrator’s text.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 67. As we see, this distinction corresponds to Fokkelman’s idea of the narrator as the subpersonality of the author of the narrative. Furthermore, Bar-​Efrat observes the existence of a double structure within the narrative: the stratum of events (so also of the characters) and the stratum of the narrator. The stratum of events is the main one. The stratum of the narrator is mediating between the world of the narrative and us. Very often, this stratum remains invisible, since the reader can feel the presence of the narrator only when they speak about themselves or if they address the reader directly. If the narrator is covert, the reader normally passes to the stratum of events (and characters). Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 24. The other important problem regards the distinction between the narrator and the characters. Bar-​Efrat seems to identify the narrator and his text: “In the narrative the narrator exists alongside the characters, and the narrator’s voice is heard as well as theirs.” Ibid., 13. The question which should be asked is as follows: Does the narrator only give the floor to the characters or does the narrator speak through them? Is he really the master of the whole narration? We do not want to exclude the idea that the narrator speaks through the characters, which is why we will make the distinction between the narrator and the narrator’s text. Ska and some other French-​speaking authors would classify these groups respectively as parts of récit and discours. The English equivalents are not so clear, especially if we want to avoid terminological chaos, e.g. regarding the term “narration” (according to Ska, the closest corresponding terms in English would be “speech” and “narration.”) In this way, he distinguishes in the scene of Exod 14:15–​25: discours of God in vv. 15–​18; récit in vv. 19–​25a; and discours of Egyptians in v. 25b. Cf. Ska, Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–​31, 77. One of the difficulties regarding terminology comes from the fact that the narrative elements fulfill more than one function: e.g. on the one hand, the scene verbs are markers of narrative structure; on the other, they are intrinsic elements of the narrative. The remark of Alter is pertinent in this case: “Language in the biblical stories is never

Verbal Structures

115

1.1 Narrator Verbs We can distinguish three groups of verbs within the narrator’s speech.5 These groups regard time, space and speech.6 The time verbal structures are often introduced by “when” or “while” and, at this moment, the narration is oriented towards the time description and not the space movement, even if this is mentioned. The space verbs are normally connected with the change of location or the body position of characters. The speech verbs introduce the characters’ speech.

1.1.1 Time Verbal Structures The category of time verbal structures will refer to expressions which determine the time of the incidents.7 In our scene, there are only two of these (another time expression: ‫ היום‬in vv. 3, 5). They constitute one single expression at the beginning of the episode. This expression informs the reader when the events take place: ‫( ויהי בהעלות יהוה‬v.1a)

“When (Yhwh) was about to lead up”

The construction “wayhî +​bet +​inf. cons.” is widely used in HB for time reference. It is, however, important to notice that the inf. cons. in v. 1a occurs in hiphil, which makes the whole expression quite unique.

conceived as a transparent envelope of the narrated events or an aesthetic embellishment of them but as an integral and dynamic component –​an insistent dimension –​of what is being narrated.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 140. 5 We use the term “narrator’s speech” to distinguish the voice of the narrator from the speeches of the characters. The discourse of the narrator would include, then, the speeches of the characters and the speeches of the narrator. 6 Three basic functions of narrators’ speeches among events dominated by dialogues: “The conveying of actions essential to the unfolding of the plot (other sorts of action are hardly ever reported) that could not be easily or adequately indicated in dialogue; the communication of data ancillary to the plot, often not strictly part of it, because actions are not involved (data, in other words, essentially expository in nature); the verbatim mirroring, confirming, subverting, or focusing in narration, of statements made in direct discourse by the characters (what I have referred to as dialogue-​bound narration).” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 96. 7 Cf. “It should be noted that this initial exposition is as a rule devoid of verbs except for the verb ‘to be,’ which, as I have observed, often does not even appear textually.” Ibid., 101.

116

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

In our Triple Cycle, the expression which uses the same pattern is the one informing the reader about the massacre of the prophets of Yhwh: ‫( וַיְ הִ י ּבְ הַ כְ ִרית ִאיזֶבֶ ל‬1Kgs 18:4)

When Jezebel was killing off

Furthermore, a variant of this expression is repeated within 1Kgs 18, just as in the case of our narrative. We will return to this topic in the following paragraphs. For now, it is important to notice that the very beginning of the expression “wayhî +​bet” is also used in different cases: ‫( וַיְ הִ י בַ ּצָ ה ֳַריִ ם‬1Kgs 18:27)

At noon

‫( וַיְ הִ י ּבַ עֲלֹות‬1Kgs 18:36)

At the time of the offering

‫( וַיְ הִ י ּבַ ְּׁשבִ עִ ית‬1Kgs 18:44)

At the seventh time

Each case is different. The first one regards a precise time referring to the sun (noon). The second regards the time of the offering. It is important to notice that the verbs are the same as in 2Kgs 2:1a, even if they are in qal. The third refers to the number of recurrences (the seventh time). We need to emphasize that we are dealing here with present events. To express it, the Triple Cycle’s narrator uses other techniques, e.g.: –​ using the word ‫אַ חַ ר‬: ‫( וַיְ הִ י אַ חַ ר הַ ְּדבָ ִרים הָ אֵ ּלֶה‬1Kgs 21:1)

Later the following events took place;

–​ using the particle ‫כ‬: ‫( וַיְ הִ י ּכִ ְׁשמֹ ַע אֵ לִ ּיָהּו‬1Kgs 19:13)

When Elijah heard it;

‫( וַיְ הִ י ּכְ מֹות אַ חְ אָ ב‬2Kgs 3:5)

But when Ahab died;

–​ saying simply:8 ‫( וַיְ הִ י י ִָמים ַרּבִ ים‬1Kgs 18:1)

After many days;

8 We must, however, be careful because the expression: ‫( ויהי היום‬2 Kgs 4:8) means: “one day.”

Verbal Structures

117

–​ using ‫ וְ הָ יָה‬instead of ‫וַיְ הִ י‬: ‫( וְ הָ יָה ּבְ הֵ עָלֹות‬Jer 37:11)

Now when (the Chaldean army) had withdrawn;

In the last case, we see that the verb ‫ עלה‬is in inf. cons. niphal, and is preceded by bet, but ‫ והיה‬is not in weqatalti. Therefore, a past tense is used in the translation.9 Now, the question arises, what is the function of the expression ‘When Yhwh was about to lead up’? Does it determine the time of the episode? Does it introduce the idea of events that are going to happen? If it determines the time of the episode, what are the real events that are going to happen? The answers for these questions are not obvious. Let us keep in mind, however, the idea that somehow the expression determines time.

1.1.2 Space Verbs Space verbs express movement of characters or objects within the narrative.10 In our scene, there are a few of them. The first one occurs already in v. 1b: ‫( ַו ֵּילְֶך‬1b)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg.

Next, locomotion verbs can be grouped into two, since they occur in the same place of the scene: ‫( ַוּי ְֵרדּו‬2b)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

‫( ַוּיֵצְ אּו‬3a)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

and: ‫( ַוּיָבֹ אּו‬4b)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

‫( וַּיִ ּגְ ׁשּו‬5a)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

There is a discussion regarding the wehaya form among scholars. It is also suggested that wehayah preceding wayyiqtol is a kind of a grammatical error committed by scribes, cf. GES §112uu. 10 We do not use here the more common expression motion verbs in order to make clear the distinction between space verbs and deed verbs, cf. IV 1.1.3. 9

118

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

The last occurrence of such a verb in our scene: ‫( ַוּיֵלְ כּו‬6b)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

As we see, there is nothing special about the stem of these verbs: all of them occur in qal and wayyiqtol. Only two of them are based on the same root, i.e. ‫הלך‬. In v. 1b, it occurs in sg. and in v. 6b in pl.11

1.1.3 Speech Verbs Speech verbs are a group of verbs which are between the narrator and the character verbs. However, whilst the speech verbs introduce the character’s, we classify them as part of the narrator’s because it is the narrator who informs the reader about the fact that someone is going to speak. Only one speech verb occurs in our scene. In fact, the situation is not different in other biblical narratives. We refer to two occurrences of ‫אמר‬: ‫ַוּי ֹאמֶ ר‬ (2aα, 2aβ, 3b, 4aα, 4aβ, 5b, 6aα, 6aβ)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg.

‫ֹאמרּו‬ ְ ‫( ַוּי‬3a, 5a)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl.

From the viewpoint of structure, these verbs are crucial, because they occur very regularly. All of them constitute “say-​answer” couples in the scene. In the case of the plural form, it is the Sons of the Prophets who answer, whereas in other cases there are dialogues between Elijah and Elisha.

1.2 Character Verbs The internal division of the character verbs is clear. It refers to each of the characters. In that way, we have Elijah’s, Elisha’s, and Son of the Prophets’ verbs. Additionally, we need to distinguish the verbs used by Elisha in the conversations with Elijah from those used in conversation with the Sons of the Prophets.

1.2.1 Elijah’s Verbs The verb root ‫ יׁשב‬is used in the very first speech of Elijah to Elisha. This verb occurs 3 times, always in repetitive speech. Here are some grammar details:

11 Cf. Cohn, 2 Kings, 13.

Verbal Structures

‫( ׁשֵ ב‬vv. 2a, 4a, 6a)

119

qal, impv., 2 m., sing., +​prcl. cf. 1Sam 15:11; 24:2; 26:25; 2Sam 1:1; 2:30; 11:12; 20:22; 1Kgs 12:20; 13:10, 33; 18:43; 2Kgs 2:25; 4:38; 9:18, 20; 23:25, 26

The first remark is clear, although not obvious: an imperative in HB can occur only in a speech. Secondly, our imperative is modified by the particle ‫נא‬. According to HALOT, the particle linked to an imperative means “surely,” which can be often translated as “do +​ impv.,” ex. Gen 13:14: “Do lift up (‫ )ׂשא נא‬your eyes (…).”12 The next verb, ‫ׁשלח‬, occurs three times in the same speeches of Elijah: ‫( ְׁשלָחַ נִ י‬vv. 2, 4, 6)

qal, qatal, 3 m., sg. +​suf., 1 c., sg. cf. 1Sam 15:20; 19:17; 20:29; 2Sam 9:7, 10, 11; 1Kgs 11:21; 2Kgs 2:2, 4, 6; 5:22; 8:9; 18:27

The usage of this verb within our scene expresses the idea of present perfect: “Yhwh has sent me (‫ )ׁשלח‬as far as (…).” It regards an event which influences the present action. Elijah, however, already knows his destination, so we cannot avoid connection with the past.

1.2.2 Elisha’s Verbs (I) The verbs used by Elisha can be assigned to the dialogue with Elijah or to the dialogue with the Sons of the Prophets. There are two verbs which come from the dialogue with Elijah. The first one is: ‫( חַ י־‬vv. 2, 4, 6)

qal, ptc., m., sg. cf. 1Kgs 1:29; 2:24; 12:6; 17:1, 12, 23; 18:10, 15; 20:32; 21:15; 22:14; 2Kgs 3:14; 4:30; 5:16, 20; 19:4, 16

The major problem with this word is that we need to decide whether it is a noun or a verbal participle. We treat this in I.2.2 when we are dealing with

12 The meaning changes a little bit if the particle occurs with the energetic impv., i.e. which is reinforced by the final he. Here we have an example of Gen 32:30, translated as “just say (‫ )הגידה־נא‬your name (…).”; cf. HALOT, “‫נָא‬.”

120

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

the whole expression diachronically. In fact, ‫ חי‬occurs twice in each of Elisha’s reactions (‫ )חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬to Elijah’s words. We identify its first occurrence within this expression as a verb in participle (vocalized by patah), and the second occurrence as a noun in status cons. (vocalized by ṣere). We have translated the participle as ‘living.’ It introduces the oath-​formula. The second verb from this series is ‫עזב‬: ‫( אֶ ֶעזְבֶ ָּך‬vv. 2, 4, 6)

qal, yiqtol, 1 c., sg. +​suf. 2 m., sg. cf. Gen 28:15; Josh 1:5; 2Kgs 4:30

This verb is used within the oath-​type conditional sentence. It provides the content of the oath formula: “I will not leave you!” After this declaration, the dialogue finishes and the action of the episode moves on. Since the verb occurs in yiqtol, there are a few modal translations possible: “would,” “can,” “should,” “must.” The usage of ‫ אם‬before ‫ עזב‬not only introduces negation, but also it excludes the possibility of the modal translation, because it is rooted in earlier, similar Near Eastern patterns which we have presented in I.2.2.

1.2.3 Sons of Prophets’ Verbs The first verb used by the Sons of the Prophets, ‫ידע‬, corresponds to the function of ‫ אמר‬used by the narrator to introduce direct speech. ‫ ידע‬introduces a question. This verb is: ָ‫( ֲהיָדַ עְ ּת‬vv. 3, 5)

question prcl. +​qal, qatal, 2 m., sg. cf. Job 38:33; 39:1; Dan 10:20

The structure of the expression is simple: “Do you know that (…).” The subordinate clause is placed just after ‫כי‬. The meaning of the verb followed by ‫כי‬ is problematic, since it can mean “to realize,” as in Gen 3:7 (NRS): “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they realized that (‫ )וידעו כי‬they were naked.” It can also mean “to hear,” as in Neh 13:10 (NRS): “I also heard that (‫)ואדעה כי‬ the portions (…).” Finally, “to know” is the most expected translation, e.g. Judg 13:21b (NRS): “Then Manoah knew (‫ )ידע‬that it was the angel of the Yhwh.” Which sense would better indicate the identity of a prophet? The meaning “to realize” would be the most prophetic, since it refers to the intuition of the future, although this meaning is associated with niphal. Let us look at the verbal which can be classified similarly. In the discourse of the Sons of the Prophets, there are two occurrences of ‫לקח‬:

Verbal Structures

ַ‫( ֹלקֵ ח‬vv. 3, 5)

121

qal, ptc., m., sg. cf. Gen 19:14; 27:46; Deut 27:25; 2Sam 4:6; Prov 9:7; 11:30; Jer 23:31; Ezek 24:16; 37:19, 21; Amos 5:12

The root ‫ לקח‬occurs in the question expressing the speculation of the Sons of the Prophets about future events.13 This verbal has a lot of meanings in qal: take, grasp, seize, go away with, accept, receive, acquire, take up, fetch, bring, remove someone. The meaning of the verbal in our scene is most precisely expressed by ‘take up,’ because of the expression “over your head (‫)מעל ראׁשך‬.”14 The multiplication of the particles, however, is not necessary, since we already have “from over” in the same sentence, which is why we have kept the translation “take.”

1.2.4 Elisha’s Verbs (II) The last couple of verbs are to be found in the repetitive Elisha answer. The first one is ‫ידע‬, occurring in the answer to the question using the same verb: ‫( יָדַ עְ ִּתי‬vv. 3, 5)

qal, qatal, 1 c., sg. cf. 1Sam 17:28, 55; 20:30; 22:22; 24:21; 25:11; 29:9; 2Sam 1:10; 18:29; 19:7, 23; 22:44; 1Kgs 17:24; 2Kgs 4:9; 5:15; 8:12; 19:27

The meaning of this occurrence should be the same as the one in the question. It is preceded by “also I” (‫)גם־אני‬. The whole expression is an equivalent of “yes,” i.e. it forms a positive answer. The last verb used in our scene is ‫חׁשה‬: ‫( הֶ חֱׁשּו‬vv. 3, 5)

hiphil, impv., m., pl; cf. –​

These are the only two occurrences of the impv. of ‫ חׁשה‬in the whole Hebrew Bible, cf. Judg 18:9; 1Kgs 22:3; 2Kgs 7:9; Neh 8:11; Ps 28:1; 39:3; 107:29; Eccl 3:7; Isa 42:14; 57:11; 62:1, 6; 64:11; 65:6.15 This verb in qal means “to conceal,

1 3 Cf. O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 6. 14 Cf. Deut 32:11: “As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up (‫)לקח‬, and bears them aloft on its pinions.” 15 Cf. Jerzy Seremak, Psalm 24 als Text zwischen den Texten, Österreichische biblische Studien 26 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004), 455–​62.

122

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

withhold.” In hiphil, however, it expresses the order “to be silent,” but also “to hesitate,” cf. 2Kgs 7:6: “if we are silent (/​if we hesitate; ‫ )מחׁשים‬and wait until the morning light, we will be found guilty; therefore let us go and tell the king’s household.” In our scene, the dialogue stops after the usage of this imperative. Therefore, we are convinced that it means “be silent.”

1.3 Incidents and Quasi-​Incidents We will use two notions to understand the structure of the episode: incident and quasi-​incident. The incident is identified by the twosome consisting of speech and space/​time verbs, whereas the quasi-​incident does not include the speech verbs. It consists of time and space verbs. It is identified in v. 1: [v. 1] The Initial Quasi-​Incident –​ The Time Verb(s): ‫ויהי בהעלות‬ –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫וילך‬

The quasi-​incident introduces the following units. The first proper incident starts with the first speech verb ‫ אמר‬and finishes with the clause containing the space verb ‫ירד‬. The length of this incident corresponds to v. 2: [v. 2] The Initial Incident –​ The Speech +​the Elijah’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫ׁשב‬, ‫ׁשלחני‬ –​ The Speech +​the Elisha’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫חי‬, ‫אעזבך‬ –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫וירדו‬

The dialogue between Elijah and Elisha is crucial for the incident. The space verb prepares the reader for the next incident in v. 3: [v. 3] The Bethel1 Incident –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫ויצאו‬ –​ The Speech +​the Sons of the Prophets Verb(s): ‫ויאמרו‬, ‫הידעת‬, ‫לקח‬ –​ The Speech Verb(s) +​the Elisha’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫ידעתי‬, ‫החׁשו‬

Here we see that the space verbs ‫ויצאו‬, ‫ וירדו‬constitute a passage between incidents. The situation is different with the next incident. Here, the incidents are distinguished based on the dialogues, between the Sons of the Prophets and Elisha respectively, and later between Elijah and Elisha: [v. 4] The Bethel2 Incident –​ The Speech +​the Elijah’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫ׁשב‬, ‫ׁשלחני‬ –​ The Speech +​the Elisha’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫חי‬, ‫אעזבך‬ –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫ויבאו‬

Narrative Techniques

123

Now, we return to the space verbs key closure: ‫ויגׁשו‬, ‫ויבאו‬. The next incident is represented by v. 5: [v. 5] The Jericho1 Incident –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫ויגׁשו‬ –​ The Speech +​the Sons of the Prophets Verb(s): ‫ויאמרו‬, ‫הידעת‬, ‫לקח‬ –​ The Speech +​the Elisha’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫ידעתי‬, ‫החׁשו‬

Here, the dialogue between the Sons of the Prophets and Elisha makes for the unity of the incident. In the last incident, the unity is made by the dialogue between Elijah and Elisha: [v. 6] The Jericho2 Incident –​ The Speech +​the Elijah’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫ׁשב‬, ‫ׁשלחני‬ –​ The Speech +​the Elisha’s Verb(s): ‫ויאמר‬, ‫חי‬, ‫אעזבך‬ –​ The Space Verb(s): ‫וילכו‬

We started, in v. 1, with the structures of the time and space verbs and we have finished with the space verb’s structure in v. 6b. The unity of incidents is made by mini dialogues. Let us also add that the quasi-​incident probably constitutes the background of the action, and that the proper movement of action will eventually occur among the proper incidents. Let us also propose a simplified terminology regarding the grouping of incidents. The Initial Quasi-​Incident (v. 1) and the Initial Incident (v. 2) will be called the initial incidents; the Bethel1 Incident (v. 3) and the Bethel2 Incident (v. 4) will be called the Bethel incidents; and the Jericho1 Incident (v. 5) and the Jericho2 Incident (v. 6) will be called the Jericho incidents.

1.4 Section Conclusions Firstly, the scene starts with one quasi-​incident, followed by five incidents. Secondly, the incidents that happen in the same place occur in pairs: Bethel1 +​ Bethel2 and Jericho1 +​Jericho2. Thirdly, in the first incident of each pair, there is a dialogue among individuals; a group dialogue occurs in the second. Fourthly, the last Jericho2 incident is special, since it contains the repetition of the verbal ‫הלך‬, used in the initial incident (the repetition is not verbatim, since the verb occurs in plural, cf. 2.2).

2. Narrative Techniques In this section, we will discuss two narrative techniques which are representative of the First Scene: prolepsis and repetition. In each issue, we will present their general characteristics.

124

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

2.1 Prolepsis in v. 1a The expression “It happened when Yhwh was about to lead Elijah up in the whirlwind to the sky” (‫( )ויהי בהעלות יהוה את־אליהו בסערה הׁשמים‬v. 1a) refers to future events within the narrative.16 The wording is repeated in v. 11, so ca. in the middle of the story. The narrative technique used by the narrator is called prolepsis (telling events before the moment in which they chronologically take place).17 This technique is overall an operation in narrative time.18 Using Gérard Genette’s terminology, we would say that our prolepsis

16 As it is about the future, it is not pretemporal as Alter suggests for such cases, calling the initial exposition the pretemporal verses, stating that they are followed “by a transitional segment in which true verbs are introduced; but, according to the indication of the adverbial phrases accompanying them (otherwise biblical verb tenses are ambiguous), be construed as either iterative or habitual. This means that after an actionless beginning, events begin to happen, but only repeatedly, as a background of customarily patterned behavior to the real plot. Finally, the narrative moves into the report of actions occurring in sequence at specific points in time (what Gerard Genette calls the ‘singulative’ as against the iterative sense), and from that point, of course, it generally moves on to dialogue.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 102. 17 It must also be noticed that it is not so frequent as its counterpart, i.e. analepsis, (telling events after the mentioned moment). Ska notices that prolepsis is more commonly used in autobiographies. Does it say anything about our episode? It would be difficult to treat it as autobiography, since if it is not written as the first-​person narration, we would at least expect that the author would identify himself with the main character, i.e. with one of the prophets. We would rather say that the examined episode is a part of a biography; “prolepsis” –​ “The Greek word for ‘anticipation’ (…). In narrative works, a ‘flashforward’ by which a future event is related as an interruption to the ‘present’ time of the narration” (BLD). 18 To understand the usage of both techniques we need to make a distinction between narrative time and narration time. Ska defines narrative time as “the duration of the actions and events in the story. It is measured in units of ‘real’ time (seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries, millenaries…). Narration time is defined by him as “the material time necessary to tell (or peruse) the ‘discourse’ (concrete narrative). Here the ‘duration’ is the length of the narrative and is measured in words, sentences, lines, verses, paragraphs, pages, chapters…” Bar-​Efrat puts it another way: “the narrative needs the time which is outside it in order to unravel itself by stages before the reader. (…) The narrative also requires internal time, because the characters and the incidents exist within time.” Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 141. Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 7–​8. The reflection on the time in the narrative is extensive. It is one of the main issues in narratology, cf. Meir Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore;

Narrative Techniques

125

is internal and repeating (the announced event takes place within the temporal field of the plot, and the quasi-​verbatim wording is repeated within our narrative).19 During this point, we will focus on the functions of our prolepsis.20

2.1.1 Proleptic Resumés Framework The question concerning the resumé function of v. 1a is justified by the regnal resumé structure of Kgs. The corresponding formula between v. 1a and the structure of regnal resumé is called by Burke Long21 “the Introductory Regnal Resumé.” Let us note that that which proceeds our narrative has a proleptic character: London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 1–​34; DeVries, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament, 31–​54; Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1–​3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009–​2010), IX–​XII. 19 Genette observes that there are different types of prolepsis in literature in general. The first distinction he makes is between internal and external ones. It is the last non-​proleptic scene which marks the limit of the temporal field. If the proleptic incident happens before this event, it is called internal. If it happens later, it is called external. The last type of the prolepses (prolepses (gr.) is a plural form of prolepsis) often functions as epilogue. The next distinction he makes is the one regarding uniqueness. An incident can be retold again at the very moment when it happens in the timeline. This type is called repeating prolepsis. It can play a role of advance notice. In modern literature, it is often connected to the usage of such formulas as “we will see.” Sometimes, a proleptic incident is told only once. As such, it will fill a future gap in the story. This type is called the completing prolepsis. In this context, we can also speak about the possible miscellany of analepses and prolepses. Genette calls this type syllepses. A good example is grouping voyage narratives and anecdotes according to the geographical principle. Cf. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 68. Genette, representing the Parisian milieu, is considered as one of the main figures of the modern narratology. Its main narratological reference regards the monumental work: Marcel Proust, “À la recherche du temps perdu,” (Paris: Gallimard, 1913–​1927). Genette’s work was published in French as a part of the trilogy: Gérard Genette, Figures, Collection “Tel Quel” (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1966); Figures II, Points 106 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969); Figures III, Poétique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1972). 2 0 Of course, the relation between the future and the past is much more compli�cated. For example, the French philosopher Vladimir Jankelevitch used the term “primultimateness” to describe the first time as the last time on the level of the newness of the experience. Cf. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 72; Paul Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago; London University of Chicago Press, 2004), 457–​506. 21 We have already referred to this issue when we were identifying the structural setting of the narrative in II 2.3.3. The regnal resumés occur in variants: introductory and

126

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah; he reigned two years over Israel. He did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh*; and walked in the way of his father and mother, and in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin. He served Baal and worshiped him; he provoked Yhwh*, the God of Israel, to anger, just as his father had done. (1Kgs 22:51–​ 53 NRS)

After this resumé, we find a 16–​verses long episode regarding Elijah denouncing Ahaziah. The narrator, who announces in the resumé that Yhwh was angry with Ahaziah because he served Baal, prepares the reader for what follows.22 In the episode, Ahaziah becomes injured and dies as a blasphemer worshiping Baal, warned by the Tishbite. Does this resumé correspond to v. 1a? Firstly, there are two crucial elements in 2Kgs 1 which are missing in comparison with 2Kgs 2: a) the reader of 2Kgs 1 does discover that Elijah plays the crucial role in this episode; b) the reader of 2Kgs 1 does not find out that Ahaziah is going to die.23 Secondly, according to Long, the

concluding. Clearly, the equivalent of the concluding variant is missing in the setting of our episode. It would be, however, unique because, in the case of Ahaziah of Judah, who was killed by Jehu, we do not find a formula that can be called Concluding Regnal Resumé. Let us look at the description of his death: “When King Ahaziah of Judah saw this, he fled in the direction of Beth-​haggan. Jehu pursued him, saying, “Shoot him also!” And they shot him in the chariot at the ascent to Gur, which is by Ibleam. Then he fled to Megiddo and died there. His officers carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem and buried him in his tomb with his ancestors in the city of David. In the eleventh year of Joram son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to reign over Judah. (2Kgs 9:27–​29)” Cf. Burke O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 3 (1987): 385–​99. 22 Sternberg notices that, in the first chapter of the Bible, the result of comparison of the situations of the narrator and God is asymmetrical. God exercises his omnipotence staying unseen by humanity, while the narrator makes the scene visible to his addressee, the reader. The examined relation is supposed to change “with the advent of man and above all the people of Israel,” i.e. somewhere between Genesis and Exodus. Sternberg adds: “As regards frequency and elaborateness and systematicity, this pattern exceeds anything known in pagan literature, and for reasons closely linked to the break with paganism.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 103. Both in the asymmetrical and symmetrical situation, the narrator preserves the guise of the objective recorder, manifesting his omniscience. 2 3 Both elements are to be, however, found in the Concluding Regnal Resumé: “(1) a cita�tion formula, referring the reader to other sources for regnal information; (2) notice of death and burial of the king; (3) notice of succession. Examples are 2 Kgs 13:10–​13

Narrative Techniques

127

Introductory Regnal Resumé should be structured according to the scheme: (1) the name of the king and the date of accession (cf. 1Kgs 22:51a (NRS): “Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah”); (2) the age of the king at accession (for Judah only); (3) the length of reign and capital city (cf. 1Kgs 22:51a: he reigned two years over Israel); (4) the name of the queen mother (for Judah only); (5) a theological evaluation (cf. 1Kgs 22:52a (NRS): “he did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh*”). Now, we see that the structure of v. 1a does not resemble the general structure of resumé: we do not find there any date (1); any age (2); any length of service (3); any feminine name (4). Therefore, we are dealing with a different narrative concept than resumé, even if we find in our expression summary elements. Let us check other possibilities of identifying the specificity of the narrative technique used at the beginning of our episode.

2.1.2 Proleptic Titles Framework The Biblical reader knows the usage of the titles of episodes from the Book of Genesis. The title introduces the narration, although very often it does not sum up the plot.24 Rather, it expresses the movement from the truth to the whole truth, if we want to use the language of Sternberg.25 Let us see two examples: (‫ )וירא אליו יהוה באלני ממרא‬Yhwh appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. (Gen 18:1 NRS) (‫ )ויהי אחר הדברים האלה והאלהים נסה את־אברהם‬After these things God tested Abraham (Gen 22:1a NRS)

(the complete regnal resumé); 1Kgs 15:1–​5, 33–​34 (introductory); 1Kgs 14:19–​20; 2 Kgs 10:34–​35 (concluding). Regnal resumé is a literary device invented by the authors-​ editors of 1–​2 Kings, though it is possible that some elements at least were drawn from his sources.” Long, 2 Kings, 311–​12. Cf. 1Kgs 15:1, 9, 25, 33; 16:8, 15, 21, 24; and after it, e.g. 2Kgs 14:23; 15:1, 13, 17, 23, 27, 32; 16:1; 17:1. 24 Weingart says that v. 1a is a “summarizing prolepsis.” Kristin Weingart, ““My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!”(2 Kings 2:12 //​ 13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 2 (2018): 260. Cf. Jean Louis Ska, “Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph,” Biblica 73, no. 4 (1992): 518–​27; “Quelques exemples de sommaires proleptiques dans les récits bibliques,” in Congress Volume Paris 1992, ed. John Adney Emerton, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 61 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1995), 315–​26. 25 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 232 ff.

128

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

We may observe a few things regarding these titles. Firstly, God occurs in both as the main actor of events, just as in 2Kgs 2:1a. Secondly, Abraham occurs in both titles, but the second character, correspondingly Sarah and Isaac, is not mentioned, even if they play an equal role to Abraham in the narrative. This is also the case in 2Kgs 2:1a, where Elijah is mentioned without Elisha. Thirdly, the concepts expressed by the verbal structures (“appear” and “tested”) indicate some ambiguity. If God appears to Abraham, why does the narrator tell the story about three men who came to Abraham? Next, in Gen 22, who is really tested: Abraham or Isaac? Analogically, 2Kgs 2:1a does not express the idea of the transmission of prophetic power, crucial for the episode. Let us present graphically a general scheme of our title in 2Kgs 2:1a: Verb chain (What?)

Yhwh (Who?)

The verb chain introduces The name Yhwh gives the perspectives of time and to the text a theological action. character.

+​character (Whom?) Elijah is the most prominent. Elisha, the other character crucial to the plot, is not mentioned

Figure 13-​III.  The Scheme of the Title in 2Kgs 2:1a

Now, let us note two differences. Firstly, the time expression occurs at the beginning of the story in Gen 22:1 and 2Kgs 2:1, in opposition to its absence in Gen 18:1 (‫​ ויהי בהעלות‬/ ‫ ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬vs. ‫)וירא אליו יהוה‬. Secondly, there is one essential difference between the quoted verses from Gen and that from our episode. Gen 18:1 and 22:1 are not repeated within the narrative, even as variants. We need, then, to ask the question, whether the relation between 2Kgs 2:1 and v. 11 is so essential that we should classify it differently from the quoted examples from Gen. To try to understand this issue, let us turn to the examples where the initial verse is repeated within the narrative.

2.1.3 Sui Temporis Phenomenon One of the best known biblical narratologists, Jan Fokkelman, refers to 2Kgs 2:1a in his Reading Biblical Narrative. He notices that this verse is “no more than an indication of time.”26 What else can be said about this verse on the narratological level? 26 Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 92. He makes this remark, saying that v. 1a is not enough to say who is the real hero of the story.

Narrative Techniques

129

Firstly, let us notice that the formula from v. 1a is repeated as a variant in v. 11b (“And Elijah went up in the whirlwind to the sky”). Therefore, the function of v. 1a is larger than an indication of time since both variants link various scenes of the texts (Scene I and Scene II). Secondly, we know this phenomenon from the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible:27 “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1a NRS) “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (…)” (Gen 2:1a NRS)

While Gen 2:1a introduces the reader to the seventh day of the creation, Gen 1:1a introduces the whole narrative and, at the same time, the first day of creation. Since the information of the accomplishment of the heavens and the earth is given in both cases, apparently, one of these verses does not respect the chronology of the narrative time. In fact, Gen 1:1a starts with the letter bet, which reveals the interest of the narrator to fix the time of the narrative in general. Similarly, Gen 2:1a starts with the indicative of time (wayhî +​ bet). We need to ask the question regarding the scope of the usage of this technique. Thirdly, in Gen 1, time is primordial.28 It is, therefore, clear that the narrator does not use any reference to any other parallel figure or event.29 This is not, however, the case 27 Fokkelman analyzed the Book of Genesis using the narrative key, cf. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 1–​10. 28 Primordial time is the time “existing at or from the beginning of time” (ODE). 29 Another definition of the biblical narrator discussed in this paragraph is based on his relation to God, understood as a biblical character (e.g. Gustave Flaubert compares the narrator to the God acting in the universe, saying that the former must be as the latter within the narrative: everywhere present but nowhere apparent. We are not discussing God here in this sense, i.e. as a transcendent figure. We instead limit ourselves to immanent reality). Both figures of the biblical narration are considered to be omniscient. This is only an analogical resemblance and not an ideological one, as was noted in: Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 83. Fokkelman says that the resemblance is on the literal level and not on the theological one. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 56. We see that, independently from the terminology, the biblical narrator remains omniscient within the world of the narrative. The narrator is presented as omniscient already in the very first verse of the Bible. Sternberg says that: “The narrator can freely exercise omniscience without in the least relinquishing his title to historicity.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 125. This is probably one of the main reasons why the biblical narrator is omniscient at all. It is worth noticing that this omniscience does not involve omnipresence, because

130

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

of the narrator of Kgs. As we have seen earlier, the regnal resumé formula consists of references to contemporary figures and events. Why, then, does the narrator of our narrative make no reference to any other figure or event, choosing the technique which is applied to the primordial narrative about the creation of the world? A possible answer to this question would be that the narrators of Gen 1:1 and 2Kgs 2:1 were created by the same school of authors or redactors. This is not excluded, and we leave this indication for historical-​critical research. We need, however, an answer on the narrative level. The most important thing is that the applied narrative technique opens a new section of narrative time.30 It happens so by necessity, as in Gen 1, or by choice, as in 2Kgs 2. The time reference, which is aimed by the narrator, is internal. In fact, he refers to a crucial event within the narrative, which becomes the time reference. He does not refer in this case to the events that are happening outside the world of this narrative. That is why we will call this narrative technique: sui temporis, i.e. of its own time. On the one hand, sui temporis technique shows that the narrator is not interested in the continuation of the preceding events. In this way, the text auto-​defines itself in its temporal aspect. On the other hand, the narrative is oriented toward the future.

2.1.4 Section Conclusions The proleptic expression being examined (v. 1a) does not perform only one function. We observed that the proleptic resumé function of the examined expression is very doubtful. In fact, the expression does not respect the structure of the resumé type used by Kgs, avoiding, at the same time, the central theme of the transition of the prophetic power to Elisha.31 On the one hand, we observed the narrator cannot be everywhere at the same time. Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 17. 30 The similarity between Gen 1:1a and 2Kgs 2:1a is based on their function and not the wording. This final cause is different from the material, formal or efficient causes (Aristotle, Metaphysics V, 2). 3 1 Walter Brueggemann and Davis Hankins, “The Affirmation of Prophetic Power and Deconstruction of Royal Authority in Elisha Narratives,” Catholic Biblical Quartely 76, no. 1 (2014): 58–​76; James Gordon McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology Genesis-​Kings, Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies 454 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 151–​76; Hannelis Schulte, “The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-​Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence,” Semeia 66 (1994): 133–​48; Carol Smith, “Biblical Perspectives on Power,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25, no. 93 (2001): 93–​110.

Narrative Techniques

131

that the examined expression function is a proleptic title. On the other, this observation does not explain the reason why the expression is almost repeated word-​for-​word within the narrative, contrary to other similar proleptic titles. We discovered that, through this internal repetition, the narrator constructs his own time, avoiding external time references. We called this technique sui temporis. The identified technique can be also called the sui temporis proleptic title.

2.2 Repetitions in vv. 1–​6 Apparently, the general structure of Scene I is not complicated, since it consists of repetitions, and, overall, there are no major difficulties to understand the plot.32 Things become more complex if we look at the scene more closely. Is there any reason that some repetitions are verbatim, and others are not?33 Does it matter that some repetitions occur twice, and others three or four times? Are some repetitions more important for the construction of the plot than others? It becomes clear that this is exactly the “simple” repetition which poses a major problem with precise understanding. To describe the reality of the biblical repetitions, we apply the typology of Sternberg, which will be simplified to the

32 In our dissertation, we will focus on the intratextual description of the style of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. We would like, however, to have an insight into intertextual research. An example important for an understanding of the genesis of the style of the examined episode is the usage of repetitions in ANE. The intertextual analysis provides us information that this style is typical for Mesopotamia (cf. Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish) and Ugarit. It is not, however, characteristic of the Egyptian ancient texts (cf. Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts). Additionally, Hoffman suggests that verbatim repetitions are typical for the pre-​exilic biblical literature and that variant repetitions are developed in its post-​exilic stage. This would correspond to the changes in the Mesopotamian literature in general. Yair Hoffman, “Between Conventionality and Strategy: On Repetition in Biblical Narrative [‫על החזרה בסיפור המקראי‬: ‫]בין קונוונציה לאסטרטגיה‬,” Hasifrut 28 (1979): 89–​99. Hoffman’s theory is an answer to Sternberg’s theory of repetition, cf. Meir Sternberg, ”Repetition Structure in Biblical Narrative: Strategies of Informational Redundancy,” Hasifrut 25 (1977): 109–​50; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 130. Sternberg suggested that the biblical structure of repetition can be classified as “one of the most context-​sensitive arts of perspective in literary history.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 409. Cf. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, 15–​19; Jeffrey H Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Wauconda: Bolchazy-​Carducci Publishers, 2002), 1–​22. 33 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 419 ff.

132

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

triple-​axis system. Firstly, the first axis, useful for the analysis of repetitions is the one which opposes the verbatim with the variant. As we will see, the frontier between the two is often very thin. The second axis opposes nonverbal and verbal objects of repetitions. Examples of nonverbal objects include: an event or a state of affairs; whereas examples of verbal objects include: monologue, dialogue, or interior speech. Nonverbal objects can serve to oppose different perspectives at a single point in time and to trace their development, cf. 1Sam 30:1–​4; Judg 6:25–​29. The third axis opposes deliberate and nondeliberate variation. It concerns the speaker’s awareness that the account of the object is precise or variant. Principally, however, we will follow the general advice of Sternberg, who writes that it is important not to apply the literary ideology to the interpretation of the biblical repetitions, but “to take the bull by the horns” and try to understand the variety of biblical literal norms.

2.2.1 The Four Speeches of the Narrator The four analogical structures in the discourse of the narrator within our scene can be classified as repetitions as follows.34 We will keep the Hebrew order of the sentence:

34 The essence of the repetition, as such, is well-​highlighted by the remark of Genette: “The repetition is in fact a mental construction, which eliminates from each occurrence everything belonging to it that is peculiar to itself, in order to preserve only what it shares with all the others of the same class, which is an abstraction: ‘the sun,’ ‘the morning,’ ‘to rise’.” Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 113. The objects that remain in this analysis come from the observation of the world of nature. Referring to the terminology given with the prolepsis issues, let us note that repetition can regard an operation on narrative time and/​or narration time. We will call the common wording of the same series of repetitions ‘the core.’ Now, let us introduce other terminology facilitating the analysis of the biblical repetitions. Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 101–​39.

133

Narrative Techniques How? (verb) ‫וילך‬ was walking ‫וירדו‬ went down ‫ויבאו‬ came ‫וילכו‬ walked on

Who? (subject) ‫אליהו ואליׁשע‬ Elijah with Elisha (they) (they) ‫ׁשניהם‬ the two of them

Where? (place) ‫מן־הגלגל‬ from Gilgal. ‫בית־אל‬ to Bethel. ‫יריחו‬ to Jericho. (-​)

v. 1b v. 2b v. 4b v. 6b

Figure 14-​III.  The Four Speeches of the Narrator

Firstly, these four statements have the same structure (following the Hebrew order: verb +​ subject +​ place). We see that there is a problem with v. 6b, since any place is mentioned here. We know, however, that the narrator speaks about Elijah and Elisha in each case (subject) and that the verb which modifies the subject belongs in each case to the category of the movement verbs. Secondly, the repetitions in vv. 2b, 4b are variant paradigmatic ones, if we want to classify the repetitions according to Sternberg’s typology. The repetition in v. 6b is a variant paradigmatic and syntagmatic one.35 The most recurrent lexical subject is “they,” and the most recurrent verb is “to walk” (past): vv. 1b, 6b. The core of the repetition would be then: “they walked.” We cannot, however, forget the specificity of these verses. In v. 1b, the verb is singular (refers to Elijah) and, in v. 6b, it is in the plural. Now, this repetition is 35 Thirdly, the variant repetitions with variation also produce psychological, moral, and dramatic effects. They also play a different role from the one from ordinary communication. In the case of variations, however, the syntax changes provide clear characteristics. On the one hand, they can be characterized by expansion or addition, as in Gen 2:16–​17; 3:2–​3 or 27:2–​7; truncation (omission) or ellipsis, as in Exod 2:9 or 1Sam 3:9–​10; change of order as in 1Sam 22:9–​13; 1Kgs 20:5–​7; grammatical transformation as in Gen 2:1–​2; substitution as in Gen 31:14–​17 or 37:29–​30. On the other hand, we can distinguish the threefold typology: syntagmatic (e.g. expansion, ellipsis, change of order), paradigmatic (lexical substitution), and contextual (narrative transformations). The expression, which is the source of the repetitions, will be called “the source variant.” Sternberg identified more typologies of the members of repetitions, e.g. the sequence may contain a “prosaic” and a “poetic” member, as with Sisera’s defeat and Deborah’s song of victory. It may also shift from a “realistic” to a “symbolic” member (from Abimelech’s massacre to Jotham’s parable). Or from a “realistic” to “pseudo-​realistic” but, in fact, “symbolic” (the Poor Man’s Ewe-​Lamb).

134

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

evenly distributed. It is the only repetition within the scene which occurs four times. Additionally, it refers to the crucial geographical names. For these reasons, we will call it the “backbone” of the scene.

2.2.2 The Three Requests of Elijah The second repetition structure is threefold: Who? ‫ויאמר אליהו אל־אליׁשע‬ Elijah said to Elisha: ‫ויאמר לו אליהו‬ Elijah said to him: ‫ויאמר לו אליהו‬ Elijah said to him:

What? ‫ׁשב־נא פה‬ Stay here, ‫אליׁשע ׁשב־נא פה‬ Elisha, stay here, ‫ׁשב־נא פה‬ Stay here,

Why? ‫כי יהוה ׁשלחני עד־בית־אל‬ for Yhwh has sent me as far as Bethel. ‫כי יהוה ׁשלחני יריחו‬ for Yhwh has sent me to Jericho. ‫כי יהוה ׁשלחני הירדנה‬ for Yhwh has sent me towards the Jordan.

v. 2 (aα) v. 4 (aα) v. 6 (aα)

Figure 15-​III.  The Three Requests of Elijah

The “Who?” member of these verses we might call near-​verbatim variants.36 The “What?” and “Why?” members are different. Firstly, the name Elisha 36 The verbatim-​variant axis is the most basic one for modern narratological research. To understand the importance of this axis, it is helpful to quote Robert Alter: “One of the most imposing barriers that stands between the modern reader and the imaginative subtlety of biblical narrative is the extraordinary prominence of verbatim repetition in the Bible.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 111. A great example of repetition in the Bible is Num 7:12–​83, where each of 12 tribes offers an identical series of gifts. Of course, the repetition as such did not disappear also from modern culture, cf. Bruce F. Kawin, Telling it Again and Again: Repetition in Literature and Film (Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1989), 1–​8. How should we understand such repetition? We need to notice that it is impossible to build the typology of the verbatim repetition based on syntax changes. We need to refer then to the content of the repetition and its context. The exception would be a repetition which is quasi-​verbatim. Referring to the latter, Alter writes: “Many of the psychological, moral, and dramatic complications of the biblical narrative are produced through this technique. This is an original and often quite subtle narrative device developed by the biblical writers that as far as I know is not used in other literatures.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 123. Let us summarize Stenberg’s investigation in the

Narrative Techniques

135

is added at the beginning of the first repetition (v. 4). It does not occur at the beginning of the second one (v. 6). Secondly, the expression of direction changes each time: “as far as” disappears in the second variant. In the third variant, the author uses “towards” (final ‫)ה‬. Thirdly, the name of the destination place changes each time, i.e. instead of Bethel, we have, respectively, Jericho and the Jordan. Referring to the rule highlighted by Genette (cf. 2.2.1), we will try to localize the “core” of the repetitions. The elements which are present in each of the variants are the following:

Who? Elijah said (to him)

What? Stay here

Why? for Yhwh has sent me (there).

Figure 16-​III.  The Core of the Three Requests of Elijah

field of the verbatim repetition: a) The verbatim repetitions are used to prolonged suspense and dramatization; (In 1Sam 14:9–​12, the equivalence is “unrealistic.” In fact, it dramatizes in action the omnipotence of God.); b) They bind together what looks like miscellany; c) They delimit various episodes or stages; d) They serve to expose characters. They can also validate the auto-​characterization of a character; e) They foreground the variations which follows them; f) They are used to build up the coherence between the statement and the narrative process. Alter adds that mechanical repetition can be a source of comedy: “Now, a sequence of repeated actions in such a folktale pattern is of course a mechanical thing, and part of the genius of the biblical author here is to realize, three millennia before Bergson’s formulation of the principle, that the mechanical in human affaire is a primary source of comedy,” cf. Balak and Balaam and the ass in ibid., 134.

136

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

We see that the name “Elijah” belongs to the core of this repetition.37 The name “Elisha” is substituted by “him.”38 This is Elijah who speaks (Who?). His imperative speech is expressed by the command to remain (What?). At the same time, Elijah says that Yhwh sends him elsewhere (Why?).

37 Elijah is somehow defined by Yhwh, by the relation to him. There are two etymo� logical members of this name which must be somehow interconnected: “Eli” and “Yah.” The traditional explanation defines the relation between these two members, giving the meaning “Yah is Eli” –​Yhwh is my God. Nevertheless, the reader is free to interpret it by himself because the precise meaning is neither clear nor given in the text as in is the case of Moses. “Elijah’s name seems to be symbolic of his special mission, which is to confess that Yahweh (Jah) in his God (Eli).” DeVries, 1 Kings, 216. We should also imagine the solution: “Eli is Yhwh,” which would correspond to the etymology of the name of Elisha and, in the larger context, to the idea of poly-​Jahvism, cf. André Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007), 127–​ 38; Angelika Berlejung, ”The Origins and Beginnings of the Worship of YHWH: The Iconographic Evidence,” in The Origins of Yahwism, ed. Jürgen van Oorschot and Markus Witte, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 484 (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2017), 67–​92. It is rather simply: “Elijah: Because the name means ‘Yah is God’, which is also the theme of the Mount Carmel scene (1 Kg. 18:39), there must be some connection between the prophet’s name and his mission.” Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 1–​2, 303. 38 The two parts composing the name “Elisha” are: “El” and “Yashav.” Some authors suggest that the name Elisha exist in orthographic variants in 2Kgs 4:1–​37 and in 2Kgs 6:8–​23. Our research does not confirm this observation. Cf. Łach, Bóg-​ Zbawca w biblijnych opowiadaniach o Elizeuszu, 6; Schweizer, Elischa in den Kriegen: Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von 2 Kön 3, 6, 8–​23, 6, 24–​7, 20. Firstly, traditionally, the name of Elisha is explained as “God is salvation.” Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 412; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 1–​2, 335. The existence of his name is confirmed by the so-​called Ammonite Elisha Seal, cf. Philip C. Hammond, ”An Ammonite Stamp Seal from Amman,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 160, no. 1 (1960): 38–​41; Henry O. Thomson, ”Commentary on the Tel Siran Inscription,” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2, no. 3 (1974): 125. (Elisha from Kgs can be also confused with a figure from Gen 10:4 ‫ובני יון אליׁשה‬ ‫)ותרׁשיׁש כתים ודדנים‬. Secondly, if we apply the Elijah name pattern to explain the name of Elisha, we obtain: “My god is Sha.” It might be a reference to El Shaddai, if we accept misspellings, cf. Ernst Axel Knauf, ”From History to Interpretation,” in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement series 127 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 26–​64. Elisha in his very first exposition is introduced as a son –​Son of Shaphat in 1Kgs 19:19.

Narrative Techniques

137

Our understanding of these repetitions depends on how we can treat the occurrence or the absence of proper names and prepositions.39 Now, the narrator mentions the name of Elisha first, but later it is substituted. Apparently, the reason is practical: he wants to say the same thing without monotony.40 We would accept this idea without problem, but why does he repeat the name “Elijah” and substitute only the name of Elisha? Apparently, the answer is in the strategy of the narrator. He may focus our attention on the name of Elijah, who continues to be the “backbone” of the scene.

2.2.3 The Three Answers of Elisha Elisha answers to the request of Elijah three times: Who? ‫ויאמר אליהו‬ But Elisha said: ‫ויאמר‬ But he said: ‫ויאמר‬ But he said:

Why? ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬ Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬ Living Yhwh with the life of your breath, ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬ Living Yhwh with the life of your breath,

What? ‫אם־אעזבך‬ I will not leave you

v. 2aβ

‫אם־אעזבך‬ I will not leave you

v. 4aβ

‫אם־אעזבך‬ I will not leave you

v. 6aβ

Figure 17-​III.  The Three Answers of Elisha

39 To understand this phenomenon of repetitions, additions, and substitutions of names, let us propose a typology of the role of the name in general. When we call someone by name, we want to: a) Let him/​her/​others know that we are talking to him/​her; b) Change the mode of the conversation: to make it less/​more formal; less/​more private; (cf. Agustinus Gianto, “Variations in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblica 77, no. 4 (1996): 493–​ 508. Gianto shows how the social context and position influence the usage of the BH); c) Improve the reception of the content of our speech. In this case, we often use the imperative; d) Communicate something that is not connected to the content of the conversation, e.g. to strengthen/​weaken your relationship; to show your supremacy/​ dependence, etc. The intonation normally plays a crucial role in this case. 40 Alter writes that variations in the pattern of repetitions could serve the purposes of commentary, analysis, foreshadowing, thematic assertion, “with a wonderful combination of subtle understatement and dramatic force.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 115.

138

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

The only variation that we perceive is in the narrator’s introduction: the word “Elisha” is canceled. The cancelation is completely justifiable by ordinary communication practices and, overall, it does not belong to the Elisha speech. Since it is a verbatim repetition, there is no problem with the determination of the core: Who? Living Yhwh

How? with the life of your breath

What? I will not leave you

Figure 18-​III.  The Core of the Three Answers of Elisha

The expression “But Elisha said” /​ “But he said” is the only variable. We see already that What? is a result of pronouncing Who? and How? It is important for our exegesis to precisely understand the nature of these relations. To understand the meaning of these repetitions, we might refer to their context, i.e. the movement of Elijah from Gilgal, to Bethel, to Jericho and to the Jordan. Nevertheless, the change of the places and the movement verbs does not necessarily determine the function of the verbatim expression. That is why we need to understand its particularity. In the case of our expression, it is a characteristic of a promise.

2.2.4 The Two Speeches of the Narrator There are two movements of the Sons of the Prophets41 described by the narrator in our scene: How? ‫ויצאו‬ came out ‫ויגׁשו‬ approached

Who? ‫בני־הנביאים‬ the Sons of the Prophets ‫בני־הנביאים‬ the Sons of the Prophets

Where? ‫אׁשר־בית־אל‬ who were (in) Bethel ‫אׁשר־ביריחו‬ who were in Jericho

To whom? ‫אל־אליׁשע‬ to Elisha ‫אל־אליׁשע‬ to Elisha

v. 3aα v. 5aα

Figure 19–​III.  The Two Speeches of the Narrator

41 Weingart remarks that ‫ בני הנביאים‬occurs in Elisha’s stories but never in Elijah’s. Weingart, ““My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!”(2 Kings 2:12 //​ 13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,” 262.

139

Narrative Techniques

These variants occur twice in our scene. Similar ones occur, however, in the following two scenes, cf. vv. 7 and 15: fifty men of the Sons of the Prophets saw

went and stood

opposite them at a distance,

while the two of them stood at the Jordan

v. 7

the Sons of the Prophets

him

who were at Jericho

v. 15

Figure 20-​III.  Variants of the Two Speeches of the Narrator

As we see, the Sons of the Prophets occur in all four variants. The name of Elisha, however, occurs only in the first two. In the third variant, the order is different and, in the fourth, there is no verb of movement. That is why the connection between the first and the second variant is stronger. They form a separate class which will be analyzed in this chapter. The differences in the vocabulary are pertinent. In the first variant, the Sons of the Prophets from Bethel “come out” to Elisha and, in the second, the Sons of the Prophets from Jericho “approach” him.42 Another detail is significant. The Sons of the Prophets in v. 3 “are Bethel” (!) and, in v. 5, they “are in Jericho.”43 The lack of a preposition in the first case may express a simple linguistic practice which has been discussed a few times in this dissertation, cf. Chapter I. The core of the variants is the following: Who? the Sons of the Prophets

Where? who were in

to Whom? to Elisha

Figure 21-​III.  The Core of the Two Speeches of the Narrator

The element Where? is secondary. The core reveals the confrontation between Who? and Whom?, i.e. the Sons of the Prophets and Elisha. It is confirmed by the contextual analysis. V. 2 finishes with the walk of Elijah and Elisha, while v. 3 starts with the information that the Sons of the Prophets come to Elisha. Elijah is not mentioned.

4 2 The difference between the verbs is also marked in LXX: ἦλθον /​ἤγγισαν. 43 LXX does not make this difference: οἱ ἐν Βαιθηλ /​οἱ ἐν Ιεριχω.

140

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

We have established two important things. Firstly, the narrator uses the verb of distance, “to go out,” with reference to Bethel. The verb of closeness, “to approach,” is used in reference to Jericho.44 The distance can be interpreted in several ways. It can express fear and/​or respect. It can be interpreted in geographical terms. In our case, it is rather a narrative choice, since, in both cases, the subjects speak to each other. The closeness can express the intimacy and/​or good relationship.

2.2.5 The Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets The two questions of the Sons of the Prophets to Elisha are as follows: What? ‫הידעת כי‬ Do you know that Do you know that

When? ‫היום‬ today

Who? ‫יהוה‬ Yhwh

What? ‫לקח‬ is going to take

today

Yhwh

is going to take

Whom? ‫את־אדניך‬ your master your master

How? ‫מעל ראׁשך‬ from over your head? from over your head?

v. 3aβ v. 5aβ

Figure 22-​III.  The Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets

The introduction to these questions “and said to him” is identical in both cases. The repetition is then totally verbatim. Let us characterize this repetition by its content. Firstly, the question starting by the expression “do you know that” is posed by two different groups of the Sons of the Prophets.45 They also repeat the idea that it is Yhwh who is going to act. Secondly, the continuity of the day is underlined by the expression “today.” Thirdly, the two groups affirm that Elijah is the master of Elisha. They do not say “our master.” Fourthly, the expression “from over your head” is curious. Its first meaning is literal, i.e. Elisha is going to be present when Yhwh leads Elijah up.

44 Cf. Joseph Shimron, Reading Hebrew: The Language and the Psychology of Reading It (Mahwah; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008), 1–​8; Peter Emerson and Stephen Frosh, Critical Narrative Analysis in Psychology: A Guide to Practice (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 1–​23. 45 Questions regarding understanding and knowledge are at the heart of the prophetic activity of Micaiah (cf. 1Kgs 22) and Elisha (cf. 1Kgs 13). Elijah is rather one who himself acts in the name of Yhwh, cf. 1Kgs 17:1, 18:37 or 2Kgs 1.

Narrative Techniques

141

The second meaning can be metaphorical, i.e. Elisha will lose his supervisor. The second understanding is probably the most popular among scholars.46 To understand this repetition, we need to ask if it is possible that two groups of people pose the same question to someone. We can, of course, suppose that it is someone from the group who does it, but can it happen, however, twice in two different places, exactly with the same wording? This is almost improbable. This part of the narrative does not, then, imitate reality. On the one hand, it is a way of telling stories in general.47 On the other, 46 Cf. (Exod 18:25) “Moses chose able men from all Israel and appointed them as heads over the people, as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.” The analogue expression is used in the context of unction, e.g. Exod 29:7, 1Sam 1:10, cf. the trans-​biblical repetition regarding the establishment of the pillar in Bethel by Jacob: Gen 28:18; Num 6:7; Eze 1:25 and in the story of Joseph, Gen 40:7. Cf. Herbert Chanan Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 161–​62; Ira M. Price, “The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets,” The Old Testament Student 8, no. 7 (1889): 244–​49; Gene Rice, “Elijah’s Requirement for Prophetic Leadership (2 Kings 2: 1–​18),” Journal of Religious Thought 59/​60, no. 1 (2006): 1–​12. 47 Cf. Axel Olrik, “Episke love i folkedigtningen,” in Danske Studier, ed. Marius Kristensen; Axel Orlik, Universitets-​Jubilæets danske samfunds skriftserie (Kobenhavn: Det Schubotheske Forlag, 1908), 69–​89; ”Epic Laws of Folk Narrative,” in The Study of Folklore, ed. Alan Dundes (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1965), 129–​41. Olrik observed that there are 18 laws which rule folktales, at least in Nordic, Greek and Celtic mythologies. Some laws are largely discussed, as are those regarding dialog limited to two subjects or the twin-​law (dan. tvillingelov). Several laws from this setting are particularly significant. Let us start with the third law, regarding the tendency to schematize the story –​dan. sagnet–​by its author. This schematization is expressed, for example, by repetitions. The following law, that is number 4, regards the imagery of the story. The events within the story must express clear images. That is why folk stories prefer suspense to short ephemeris incidents. Next, law number 5 regards the selection of motifs. The author of the story does not introduce motifs which do not have any direct influence on the flow of events. Law number 6 says that the plot of the folk story regards one event and, by consequence, the other elements lead to this crucial event. Number 7 says that the reader can foresee the ending of the folk story, just after the lecture of the very first incidents of the plot. Number 8 tells us that the plot is linear, which means that the storyteller does not interrupt the timeline to introduce some past or future events. Let us now go directly to number 17, which regards the beginning of the stories. The author starts with simple and stable things. Only later does he move to complex and unstable elements. Finally, number 18 says that the plot does not finish suddenly after the crucial event, since the audience needs time to calm down. That is why, we find at the end, e.g. some information about the further happy life of the main characters, or about their death.

142

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

repetitive language is also typical of prophecies in general, poems and, moreover, liturgies.48 Let us specify this repetition. Firstly, the verbatim repetition, pronounced by two different groups, seems to be used to convince the reader immediately that the information is true. Secondly, each piece of information seems to be underlined, thanks to the repetition: Elijah is master only of Elisha; Yhwh is going to act; it is going to happen today; Elisha is going to be present at this very moment. Thirdly, thanks to this verbatim repetition, the story engages both the intellect and the affectivity of the participant/​reader.

2.2.6 The Two Answers of Elisha Elisha answered twice to the Sons of the Prophets: Who? ‫ויאמר‬ And he answered, And he answered,

What? ‫גם־אני ידעתי‬ “Yes, I know; “Yes, I know;

What else? ‫החׁשו‬ be quiet.” be quiet.”

v. 3b v. 5b

Figure 23-​III.  The Two Answers of Elisha

Both answers are verbatim. The narrator’s part (Who?) in Hebrew is limited to one word, as we saw above. In B, we translated the Hebrew “gam” by “yes.” It underlines the aspect of the affirmation. The descriptive translation would, however, be: “I too know it.” Although the answer of Elisha is short, it contains two pieces of information: the affirmation and the request of silence.

2.2.7 A Nonverbal Phenomenon The presented structure encourages us to examine the relation between the Initial (vv.1–​2) and Bethel1–​Jericho1(vv. 3, 5) incidents (cf. 1.3). Let us juxtapose the information which the reader receives:

48

Alonso-​Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, 75–​84; Israel Eitan, “La répétition de la racine en hébreu,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 1 (1921): 171–​86.

143

Bethel1–​ Initial Jericho1

‫ויהי‬ ‫בהעלות‬ was about to lead up

‫יהוה‬ Yhwh ‫היום‬ today

‫את־אליהו‬ Elijah

‫יהוה‬ ‫לקח‬ ‫את־אדניך‬ Yhwh is taking your master?

Where?

How?

Whom?

What?

Who?

What?

When?

Narrative Techniques

‫בסערה‬ in the whirlwind

‫הׁשמים‬ to the sky

‫מעל ראׁשך‬ from over your head

Figure 24-​III.  A Nonverbal Phenomenon in vv.1a vs. 3aβ, 5aβ

Jericho1 Bethel1 Initial2 Initial1

The wordings of the examined expressions are not similar, even if we find there some common elements: ‫ יהוה‬and the particle ‫את‬. Nevertheless, the content of verses is similar: Elijah is going to be taken up. In fact, it is another type of repetition, which Sternberg calls nonverbal repetition. Furthermore, it seems that the Two Speeches of the Sons of the Prophets are a kind of echo of the prolepsis introduced by the narrator. If we compare v. 1a with vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα, we will notice another nonverbal repetition. Let us display it in the simplified table: What? ‫ויהי בהעלות‬ was about to lead up ‫ׁשלחני‬ has sent

Who? ‫יהוה‬ Yhwh

Whom? ‫את־אליהו‬ Elijah

How? ‫בסערה‬ in the whirlwind

‫יהוה‬ Yhwh

‫ׁשלחני‬ me (Elijah)

‫ׁשלחני‬ has sent

‫יהוה‬ Yhwh

‫ׁשלחני‬ me (Elijah)

‫יריחו‬ to Jericho

‫ׁשלחני‬ has sent

‫יהוה‬ Yhwh

‫ׁשלחני‬ me (Elijah)

‫הירדנה‬ towards the Jordan

Figure 25-​III.  A Nonverbal Phenomenon in vv. 1a vs. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα

Where? ‫הׁשמים‬ to the sky ‫עד־בית־אל‬ as far as Bethel

144

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

There is only one word which is common for all the records: Yhwh. We notice, however, that the action of Yhwh is underlined in all cases. He is “about to lead” up or “has sent.” Also, the object of action is common: Elijah. Moreover, we have different destination places. The geographical places are indicated with various prepositions. We have discussed this issue in I 2.1. Let us move to a brief conclusion.

2.2.8 Section Conclusions The repetitions presented above form a larger structure which can be called the Framework of Repetitions.49 After analysis, we can characterize it in a few points. Firstly, we observed different types of repetitions. The verbal verbatim ones: Three Answers of Elisha in vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ; Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets in vv. 3aβ, 5aβ; Two Answers of Elisha in vv. 3b, 5b. The verbal nonverbatim ones: Four Speeches of the Narrator in vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b; Three Requests of Elijah vv. 2aα, 4aα, 4aα; Two Speeches of the Narrator in vv. 3aα, 5aα. The nonverbal ones: vv.1a vs. 3aβ, 5aβ; vv. 1a vs. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα. We have called the structure of the Four Speeches of the Narrator, the “backbone” of the narrative. Secondly, Sternberg determined different types of frameworks of repetitions.50 Our scene is characterized by actional dynamics, since it is indicated by the geographical movements of characters, visited places and dialogues. Nevertheless, the presentational dynamics are even more present in this framework, since the figures and places mentioned are exposed for the first time in the narrative. Finally, the rhythm, symmetry and precise wording indicate the aesthetic and poetic aspects of the framework. Thirdly, it became clear that these repetitions are not oriented towards lifelike coherence. The priority of the communication between the world of the text and the reader is confirmed by the verbatim 49 Sternberg pertinently remarks: “coexists with and overlies another logic of motiva�tion, which establishes aesthetic of rhetorical rather than lifelike coherence. Hence it explains the features of repetition (…) not in terms of the relations between characters but between text or author and reader (…) like the rise and fall of expectation, indirect character-​drawing, viewpoints exposed and juxtaposed, tacit commentary or the control of attitude.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 411. 50 Typology of Sternberg: a) the framework of actional dynamics; b) the framework of presentational dynamics (twist given to the expectation); c) the perspectival framework (change of viewpoint); d) the framework of judgment (evaluation); e) the compositional framework (e.g. movement from general to the particular); f) the generic framework (poetry, parable, dream); g) the poetic or aesthetic framework. Ibid., 438.

Plot Stages

145

repetitions namely: The Three Answers of Elisha to Elijah; The Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets; The Two Answers of Elisha. Additionally, the figures of agents are drawn through repetitions. The logic of motivation is indeed established behind these structures, i.e. Elisha seems to be determined because he repeats himself (the usage of the verbatim repetitions).

3. Plot Stages The theory of Tzvetan Todorov is essential for our reasoning regarding plot analysis.51 It suggests that the complete sequence of the narrative is composed of five stages, i.e. minimal units:52 a) the state of the first equilibrium; b) the perturbation; c) the state of disequilibrium; d) the action of the re-​establishment of the equilibrium; e) the state of the second equilibrium. Todorov’s proposal is clear. We need only to find correspondence between his typology and the terminology used by biblical scholars. A precise analysis of this terminology was made by Jean Luis Ska. Basically, he distinguished the following stages of the plot:53 51 Aristotle gives a clear definition of the plot. Firstly, “the plot (mythos) is the mimesis of the action –​for I use “plot” to denote the construction of events (pragmatôn)” (Poetics VI 1450a2–​7). Furthermore, Aristotle underlines that plot is the most important element (other elements include spectacle, character, diction, lyric poetry, and thought) of the dramatic work: “The most important of these things is the structure of events, because tragedy is mimesis not of persons but of action and life.” (1450a 12–​16) 52 Todorov, Introduction to Poetics, 51. Todorov supposes that there is an equilibrium at the beginning of the narrative, without opening discussion on the issue if we can use this name for the beginning of some stories. He underlines that the initial equilibrium is similar to the second one, but they are not identical. Finally, Todorov distinguishes two types of minimal narrative units: those that describe a state and those that describe the transition from one state to another. The equilibrium and disequilibrium are states. Of course, the number of approaches regarding the structure of the plot is high. Let us also mention the semiotic model based on Propp’s theory: Pamela J. Milne, “Folktales and Fairy Tales: An Evaluation of Two Proppian Analyses of Biblical Narratives,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11, no. 34 (1986): 35–​60. 53 Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 20–​ 30. Scholars differ on the understanding, localization, and importance of dénument,

146

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

a) exposition; b) inciting moment; c) complication; d) climax, turning point, resolution; e) denouement, conclusion. The term exposition occurs widely among biblical scholars.54 It regards the same stage of the development of the plot as Todorov’s idea of the state of the first equilibrium. The exposition, however, underlines the fact of building up characters, time references, etc. The inciting moment corresponds to the perturbation. They can be used interchangeably. The same thing regards the state of disequilibrium and the complication, even if the latter does not call the corresponding stage of the plot a state, underlining the dynamic change which takes place within this stage. The last stage of Ska’s typology needs to be divided into two. Climax, turning point and resolution correspond to the action of the re-​establishment of the equilibrium. The denouement and the conclusion regard the state of the second equilibrium.

3.1 The First Equilibrium Now, the exposition will be treated in our dissertation as the first state of equilibrium. We will try to understand the specificity of the exposition mainly in the light of the literary analysis of Bar-​Efrat.55 Basically, we can distinguish two types of exposition: initial and gradual.56 We shall also make a distinction between cf. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, 43. 54 Cf. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 101–​10; Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 111–​21; Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction; The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 337–​41. 5 5 The definition of exposition given by Shimon Bar-​Efrat: “The situation existing at the beginning of the action is presented in what is usually called the exposition.” Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 111. 56 Bar-​Efrat suggests that there are two methods for organizing narratives. One is to give the expositional material to the reader’s knowledge at the beginning. The second method is to reveal it gradually. The expositional material can regard both the setting in which the action is placed and the introduction of agents. It can be presented in the following table: expo-​sition

initial (I)

gradual (G)

setting (S)

Gen 29:2–​3 (Rachel’s village); Josh 6:1 (Jericho’s closure)

1Sam 3:1, 7 (Samuel’s vision); 1Sam 17 (Goliath’s camp); 1Sam 28:3, 9 (Saul)

Plot Stages

147

the exposition of the setting and agents.57 We shall also introduce a distinction between explicit and implicit exposition.

agents (A)

Gen 16:1 (Sarai’s maid); Judg 11:1–​3 (Jephtah’s exclusion); 1Sam 1:1–​2 (Hannah’s barrenness); 1Sam 9:1–​2 (Saul’s appearance); 1Sam 25:2–​3 (Abigail’s beauty); Job 1:1–​3 (Job’s rectitude)

Gen 24:15–​16 (Rebekah’s presentation); Gen 29:9–​10, 17–​18 (Rachel’s beauty); Judg 3:15–​17 (Eglon’s fatness); Judg 4:12–​18 (Sisera’s rescue); 1Sam 16:11–​12 (Samuel sees Davide); 2Sam 11:2–​3 (a bathing woman); Gen 29:10a,10b, 13 (Rachel’s kinship); 1Sam 25:1, 28:3 (Samuel’s death);

We make acquaintance of Rebekah in Gen 24 only when she appears near the well and talks to Abraham’s servant. In terms of the role of the repetition in this exposition see: Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Canaanite Literatures: Studies on the Bible and Ancient Orient, ed. Studies on the Bible and Ancient Orient1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1972), 31 ff. 57 Aristotle makes a distinction between an agent (pratton), a character (ethos), a speaker (legôn), and a thought (dianoia). Aristotle’s definition: “Character is that which reveals moral choice –​that is, when otherwise unclear, what kinds of thing an agent chooses or rejects (which is why speeches in which there is nothing at all the speaker chooses or rejects contain no character); while thought conveys the parts in which they demonstrate that something is or is not so, or declare a general view.” (Poetics VI 1450b 8–​11) If a “character” is an agent to which certain qualities were ascribed, a “thought” is a part in which a character demonstrates something or declares his view (VI 1450a 2–​7). An essential remark of Aristotle regards the importance of characters with regards to the plot: “Plot, then, is the first principle and, as it were, soul of tragedy, while character is secondary” (VI 1450b 1–​11). In this context, Aristotle speaks about the possibility of plot without characters: “Besides, without action there could be no tragedy, but without character there could be: in fact, the works of most of the recent poets are lacking in character, and in general there are many such poets (as with Zeuxis’ relationship to Polygnotus among painters: Polygnotus is a fine depicter of character, while Zeuxis’ painting contains no character)” (VI 1450a 24–​28). Cf. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 104. Adeline Berlin proposes a threefold division of the biblical characters. Firstly, the full-​fledged character is entirely exposed within the narrative: we do not only know their actions or speeches but also emotions and options (by Edward M. Forster’s scheme, such a character is called the round one). As an example, Berlin points to Michal in 1–​ 2Sam. According to Forster, such characters are paradoxically difficult to describe, even if they may inspire a stronger sense of intimacy. Similar difficulty may regard our friends and family members. Secondly, the type, according to Berlin, is the flat character. Abigail in 1Sam 25 is a good example of the type. According to Forster, such characters are easy to describe, because there is simply less to remember, and

148

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

3.1.1 Initial Exposition Elements In Scene I, we are dealing with the initial exposition elements. Let us characterize these elements using the distinction between setting and agents. The setting exposition in 2Kgs 2:1a regards the “whirlwind” (‫ )סערה‬and the “heaven.” This whirlwind is particular because Elijah is supposed to enter inside it (or he is going to be transported with the use of it, if we translate bet as instrumentalis). Heaven within the story is also specific, because it becomes a place where a man can be sent. Another element of the exposition of the setting is the space under the heaven, which is indicated by the announcement of leading Elijah up.58 Additionally, at the beginning of v. 1, we find the time reference normally these characters are very well structured. Thirdly, the agent is the last category of characters (for Chatman they might be considered as a setting). According to Berlin, Bathsheba in 2Sam 11–​12 is an agent. She is only a part of the plot (she is even not considered guilty of adultery). It is important to notice that one character can belong to one category in one narrative and into another category elsewhere. It is the case of Bathsheba, who in 1Kgs becomes the full-​fledged character, taking care of the succession of Salomon. Sternberg even suggests that, thanks to the development of the biblical narrative, some characters are dramatized beyond the point required by the plot. Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 23–​24; Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 139; Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 329; Edward Morgan Forster, Aspects of the Novel (San Diego; New York; London: Harcourt, 1985), 67–​82. 58 Cf. There are two approaches to the issue of setting. In the first case, the narrative time is treated as a part of the narrative setting. This approach is represented by Fokkelman, who, in the chapter “Space and Time,” offers a synchronized analysis of different biblical episodes. Cf. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 97–​111. Chatman, however, separates the twosome. In our dissertation, we follow the latter approach. The issue of time was already introduced above. Now we focus on the issue of the spatial setting. Chatman also differentiates the story-​space (narrative space) and the discourse-​space (narration space). Such a distinction is not possible for Bar-​Efrat. Of course, there is a certain possibility that the difference between the biblical literature and the rest is so big that such a distinction is not possible. Nevertheless, the definitions of Chatman seem to justify the application of his theory to the biblical narrative. Chatman notices that, in the case of verbal narrative, the story-​spaces are mental projections of the reader. The described objects enjoy only a relative autonomy, not like in the case of the visual narratives, where they enjoy an intense autonomy. The discourse-​space can be defined as “focus of spatial attention.” It is the area where the implied reader’s attention is directed by the discourse. It is a portion of a total story-​space. In verbal narrative, it is directed by the narrator. Let us

Plot Stages

149

(‫)ויהי בהעלות‬, modifying the whole sentence.59 There are two agents exposed in v. 1a: Yhwh and Elijah.60 There are no external details regarding their not forget that, for Chatman, the verbal narrative can be completely non-​scenic, i.e. can happen nowhere in particular, regarding the realm of ideas and not of places. In this case, the distinction surrounding discourse-​space and story-​space is very vague. Cf. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 101; Bar-​ Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 184; Jean Ricardou, Problèmes du nouveau roman, Collection ”Tel Quel” (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1967), 70. The ways in which the biblical narratives construct both narrative-​and narration-​space were characterized by Bar-​Efrat in a few points. Firstly, the narrator mentions places, where the characters go and from whence they come. They do not dwell in territories in between (cf. Gen 12:4–​5). Secondly, the physical environment is not described in the biblical narratives (exception: the description of the king’s garden in Esther 1:6). Thirdly, the biblical space is fundamentally static but also vague (unlike time). We cannot, however, claim that the biblical literature is only a temporal art. Fourthly, it is the narrator who “takes” the reader to the site of each event. There are some exceptions, when a character tells us what is happening elsewhere, e.g. 2Sam 1 (the death of Saul). Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 187. 59 Furthermore, we might risk the statement that time is more important for the characters than any other elements of the narrative. Bar-​Efrat writes that “The past enters the character’s present through memories, the future through expectations and intentions.” Narrative Art in the Bible, 184. On the one hand, the indicators of the future are essential to the creation of narratological tension. On the other, very often indicators of the past develop more the ideological than narratological aspects of the plot. 6 0 The biblical characters pose problems unknown from the classical definitions. Chris Baldick defines character as “a personage in a narrative or dramatic work.” (Baldick develops this definition adding: “(…) also a kind of prose sketch briefly describing some recognizable type of person. As a minor literary genre, the character originates with the Characters (late 3rd century BCE) of the Greek writer Theopharastus; it was revived in the 17th century (…).” Baldick “narrator.”) The first problem with this definition regards the fact that the gods in classical literature are characters both on the narratological and the ideological level. The Bible is a piece of literature, but also a liturgical and prayer text. Therefore, on the one hand, the biblical God is a character on the narratological level; indeed, sometimes the narrator provides us with information about God’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions. On the other hand, for many readers, God cannot be treated only as one of the characters (the ideological level). This problem was clearly visible when we were defining the biblical narrator: a part of the definition related to the features of God. It is only on the narratological level that Fokkelman can write that there is a hierarchical difference between the narrator and the character, since the two parties move on totally different levels: “the narrator is above the narrative material.” Cf. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical

150

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

appearance, profession or other characteristics, which should be explained by the fact that they are known from previous stories. Nevertheless, there is an essential element of exposition. It is the intention of Yhwh concerning Elijah: he was about to lead him up. Furthermore, v. 1b gives us two important elements of the setting. The first one is Gilgal. This element brings the ambiguity to the process of narration. It is the first time when the reader of Kgs encounters the notion of Gilgal. We do not even receive information as to why the agents were moving from there. The second element is the idea of the way (‫)וילך … מן־‬. If the movement towards heaven in v.1a gives the vertical dimension to the story, then the movement from Gilgal in v. 1b gives a horizontal one. As in v. 1a, in v. 1b there is no particular description of the agents. Nevertheless, there are a few important aspects regarding the agents within this exposition. Firstly, this is the first occurrence of Elisha within the story. Secondly, Elisha is presented in the second place, i.e. after Elijah. This is Elijah (‫ )וילך אליהו‬who walks with Elisha (‫)ואליׁשע‬. Thirdly, both of them are presented as agents because actions are attributed to them within the plot.61 Guide, 63. The tension between the narratological and the ideological understanding of the figure of God characterizes then the biblical narrative. 61 On the one hand, according to Aristotle, the plot is of primary value and characters are only secondary. (This view is supposed to be upheld by Vossius, cf. Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” 256. To compare Aristotle’s text [1450a b]: ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν καὶ οἷον ψυχὴ ὁ μῦθος τῆς τραγῳδίας, δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἤθη.) On the other hand, many ancient authors were building up their thinking basing on the typology of figures, cf. the approach of the fathers of the church in Guido Gargano, Il sapore dei padri della chiesa nell’esegesi biblica (Milano: Edizioni San Paolo, 2009), 248–​70. Cf. the modern typological approach in Paul Beauchamp, L’un et l’autre Testament: Accomplir les Ecritures, vol. 2, Parole de Dieu 28 (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 220–​37. Should we then focus our exegesis only on the plot or only on the characters? Thanks to the exposition of the transition between formalism, and structuralism, we can apply both the plot-​and the character-​oriented approaches to our exegesis. (The symbolic year of the creation of post-​structuralism is 1996. It was the year of a conference in Baltimore, entitled ‘The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man.’) Firstly, Russian formalism developed the plot-​oriented approach known from Aristotelian thinking: the characters are products of plots. According to Propp, the characters should be compared principally on the base of their function. Their general descriptions remain secondary. Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale (Bloomington: Mouton & Co., 1958), 18–​23; Tzvetan Todorov, ed. Théorie de la littérature: Textes des Formalistes Russes, Points Essais 457 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2016), 293; The Poetics of Prose (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 66. Boris Tomashevsky, takes a step forward. He speaks about the ‘psyche’ and motivations of

Plot Stages

151

Now, at this moment of the narrative, Yhwh remains a part of the setting, since his action is only announced. We shall call such a figure a quasi-​agent. Analogically, the reader does not know if Elijah and Elisha are only agents or also characters if we want to use the terminology of Aristotle. We will clarify this doubt in the following chapters.

3.1.2 Gradual Exposition Examples According to the examples given by Bar-​Efrat, gradual exposition consists of various types of repetitive structures. Now, Scene I consists of repetitive structures. May we therefore consider it to be exposition as a whole? Or perhaps, the exposition goes beyond Scene I? To answer these questions, we should understand the nature of the gradual exposition on examples. The first example: the gradual exposition in Gen 29:10a, 13a, and its entourage, prepare the reader to follow the proper story regarding the marriage of Jacob and Rachel, i.e. both variants prepare the reader:

the characters. He also underlines the importance of the audience in sharing interests with characters in order to follow the plot. The work of the structuralist gave us the distinction between the plot-​centered narratives (a-​psychological) and character-​ centered ones. The proposition of this dichotomic distinction was made by Todorov. Now, structuralism develops in the post-​modern milieu. The structuralists enter into dialogue with their contemporaries, e.g. Sartre, Derrida, and Foucault. Michel Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013), 3–​22; Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in Writing and Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 351–​70; Jean-​ Paul Sartre, “Replies to Structuralism: An Interview with Jean-​Paul Sartre,” Telos, no. 9 (1971): 110–16; Stephen Priest, ed. Jean-​Paul Sartre: Basic Writings (London; New York: Routledge, 2001), 1–​19. Barthes, “L’effet de réel,” 84–​89; “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” 529. One of the most inspiring examples of this dialogue is that of Barthes. On the one hand, he valorizes the nonfunctional (from a plot perspective) details of description, saying that they are introduced in order to produce an “effect of reality,” which is linked to the realism of the author. On the other hand, he claims that the characters cannot find their meaning (their intelligibility) only on the functional (relation between narrative sections) or actional (analysis of the plot) level. Therefore, the characters must be integrated into the third level of the description, the level of narration. This level regards the communication between the narrator and the reader. In analysis of the characters, we will try to move among these three levels.

152

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

(Gen 29:10a NRS) When Jacob saw (‫ )ויהי כאׁשר ראה‬Rachel, the daughter of his mother’s brother Laban (29:13a NRS) When Laban heard (‫ )ויהי כׁשמע‬the news about his sister’s son Jacob

It is important to underline that, between both verses, there is a story about Jacob rolling the stone from the well. The new pieces of information that the reader gets from the repetitions regard the fact that Laban heard the news about Jacob and that he started to focalize on him. The mutuality of family relations is also underlined. If we want to classify both verses in Sternberg’s terms, they would be enactment members, since they regard situations which take place in the middle of the action.62 The examined repetition is characterized, therefore, by the homogeneity of the repetitive members. The second example comes from the story regarding the calling of Samuel: (1Sam 3:1 NRS) Now the boy (‫ )והנער‬Samuel was ministering (‫ )מׁשרת‬to Yhwh* under Eli. The word of Yhwh* was (‫ )הָ יָה‬rare in those days (‫ ;)בימים ההם‬visions were not widespread. (3:7 NRS) Now Samuel (‫ )וׁשמואל‬did not yet (‫ )טרם‬know (‫ )יָדַ ע‬Yhwh*, and the word of Yhwh* had not yet (‫ )וטרם‬been revealed to him.

Firstly, events in both verses (1Sam 3:1, 7) happen in the past (‘in those days,’ the verbs in qatal), nevertheless we are dealing respectively with a report and then a forecast.63 Secondly, v. 7 provides new pieces of information to the reader: Samuel did not know Yhwh, even if he ministered to him; the specificity of the word of Yhwh is revelation. We clearly see that, gradually, the reader knows more about 62 Sternberg divided repetitions referring to the temporal key into three members. The member of forecast (command, prophecy) is an expectation about the future (e.g. David plots Uriah’s murder). The member of enactment (performance, realization) focuses on the narrative present (e.g. Uriah’s murder). The member of report (about forecast, enactment) defined in terms of retrospection (e.g. the messenger breaks the news about the war to David). Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 376. He applies this typology to the structures of verbal repetitions, saying: “So much for the wielding of verbatim and variant repetition to dramatize the tensions in the human context between forecast and enactment or enactment and report, to highlight the equivalences and smooth the transitions between them in the divine context, and to oppose the two contexts.” Ibid., 416. Repetition can give the effect of the passage between forecast and enactment, c.f. Noah and his sons entering the ark in Gen 6:18 and 7:7. They can also pass from enactment to report, e.g. to generate a favorable attitude to the reporting character, cf. Sara and Hagar in Gen 16. These strings can be much longer as in Pharaoh’s Dream story in Gen 41:1–​32: first rapport -​> second rapport -​> third rapport -​> enactment. 63 The second verse is a member of forecast, cf. the double usage of “not yet.”

Plot Stages

153

the circumstances. He is also supposed to understand more. Thirdly, v. 1 is general information about the word of Yhwh and v. 7 is a particular one. Fourthly, we see then that the rule of gradual exposition is to find verse/​s analogic to the initial exposition which add/​s new information to it. The third example comes from the story about the anointment of David: (1Sam 16:11a NRS) Samuel said (‫ )ויאמר‬to Jesse, “Are all (‫ )התמו‬your sons here?” And he said (‫)ויאמר‬, “There remains (‫ )ׁשאר‬yet the youngest, but he is keeping (‫ )והנה רעה‬the sheep.” (1Sam 16:12a NRS) He sent and brought him in (‫)ויׁשלח ויביאהו‬. Now he was (‫ )והוא‬ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome.

Firstly, v. 12 adds the information regarding the appearance of David to the details in v. 11 regarding his relative age and work. Secondly, in v. 11a, this is the Jesse who is the “giver of the narrative.”64 In v. 12a, this is the narrator who gives us the details regarding the appearance of David: ruddy, beautiful eyes etc. Thirdly, the relation between two verses is the one of forecast and enactment. Similarly, we find a gradual exposition in 1Sam 25–28.65 This exposition prepares the reader to follow the complex story of the death of Saul: (1Sam 25:1a NRS) Now Samuel died; and all Israel assembled and mourned for him. They buried him at his home in Ramah. (28:3a NRS) Now Samuel died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city.

64 Cf. Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” 259–​61. There are different answers to the question: who is the giver of the narrative? Firstly, it is the real author of the text, who speaks both through the narrator and characters. Secondly, it is the omniscient narrator, who is also present inside the characters. Thirdly, there is no one single giver of the narrative. The narrator gives the narration just as the characters do. The latter is typical of the literary approach of Sartre or James. In this book, we will follow this multi-​giver paradigm. All three approaches were criticized by Barthes, who proposes his own theory based on the dichotomy of the personal and apersonal. 65 Cf. the repetition in 1Kgs 18:4, 13: “when Jezebel was killing off the prophets of Yhwh*, Obadiah took a hundred prophets, hid them fifty to a cave, and provided them with bread and water.” (1Kgs 18:4 NRS); “Has it not been told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of Yhwh*, how I hid a hundred of Yhwh’s* prophets fifty to a cave, and provided them with bread and water?” (1Kgs 18:13 NRS). The first variant exposes the figure of Obadiah to the reader after the introductory verses. The second variant occurs in the dialogue of Elijah and Obadiah. Both variants are placed in the first scene of the story.

154

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

As in the case of Gen 29, the space between both verses is used for story telling (David fleeing from Saul). The new piece of information which the reader, gets, thanks to the repetitions, is that Ramah, the place where Samuel was buried, was his own city. Now, the information that he was buried at home is followed by the story about David and Abigail. The information that he was buried in his city is followed by the Philistine war stories. In fact, the narrator chooses a smaller place (home in 1Sam 25) to draw a more individual perspective, and the bigger place (city in 1Sam 28) to draw a large one. Both verses function as reports, referring to Sternberg’s terminology.

3.1.3 Gradual Exposition Elements We are dealing with two questions regarding gradual exposition. Firstly, whether the exposition in our narrative can be characterized by graduality at all. Secondly, where would it start and finish? Now, let us examine the possibility that our hypothetical gradual exposition goes beyond Scene I. Until now, we have identified one single repetitive structure to be verified: 2Kgs 2:1a, 11b (cf. 2.1). We considered 2Kgs 2:1a to be an element of exposition. If we look at the prolepsis in 2Kgs 2:1a, we see that it announces, by a variant repetition, the events which happen in v. 11b. In fact, we are dealing then with two different categories of the repetitive members: v. 1a is a forecast and v. 11b enactment. We have noticed that, in the case of the repetitive expositions (enactment +​enactment in Gen 29; report +​ report in 1Sam 25–​28), we are dealing with the homogeneity of the repetitive members, while,in the case of the gradual expositions (report +​ forecast in 1Sam 3; forecast +​enactment in 1Sam 16), we are dealing with their heterogeneity. 2Kgs 2:1a, 11b might be treated, therefore, as a gradual exposition. 1Sam 16:11–​12 would be the most similar structure to it (forecast +​enactment). The problem is that the exposition of 1Sam starts in 16:1, when Samuel is sent by Yhwh to the house of Jesse to anoint one of his sons. David is anointed only in v. 13 (and not in v. 12). The enactment in 2Kgs 2:11 is, therefore, radically different from the one in 1Sam 16:12, because 1Sam 16:12 only prepares the final solution of the problem posed in the initial exposition. Therefore, we will not treat 2Kgs 2:11b as a part of the exposition. Furthermore, v. 1b is a part of exposition. In 2.2, we identified a verbal repetition built up on this verse. Additionally, the whole structure was called the Four Speeches of the Narrator (vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b). This structure adds new pieces of information, i.e. it enlarges the world of the narrative with Bethel, Jericho, and the idea of the way, of the hills (ups and downs). In fact, the last new piece of information (Jericho) in this structure occurs in v. 4. All the verses examined

Plot Stages

155

are reports. Does this mean, however, that this structure represents a gradual exposition? In fact, this is the form, which is repeated and not the essential information, i.e. the one concerning the location. These pieces of information are a rather integral part of the flow of action. Furthermore, there is a difference between ‘coming from Gilgal’ and ‘coming/​going to Bethel/​Jericho.’ Gilgal is a departure point, which is why it is a part of the explicit exposition, whereas Bethel and Jericho are rather transitional spots. Let us also juxtapose v. 1a with the structure of the Three Requests of Elijah (vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα). We juxtapose, then, the Initial Exposition with the repetitions. We find out that Yhwh was not only going to lead Elijah up, but also that he sent him as far as Bethel, to Jericho and towards the Jordan. Now, firstly, the geography of the world of the narrative is certainly more complete after each repetition, therefore, we might suspect gradual exposition. Secondly, nevertheless, the bits of information regarding the settlements are given within the speeches of Elijah, while the information regarding heaven is given by the narrator. Thirdly, all the discussed verses belong to the category of forecast.66 Finally, we have no reason to say that Elijah’s Requests contain explicit exposition, as does v. 1a. We may suspect, in this case, only an implicit exposition. Another nonverbal repetition was identified by us in 2Kgs 2:1a, 3aβ, 5aβ (cf. 2.2.7). Even if v. 3aβ is a verbatim repetition of v. 5aβ, we are not dealing with repeated exposition when we talk about the variation on v. 1a. The Sons of the Prophets repeat in their own words the idea which we already know from the narrator: Elijah is going to be taken. The new pieces of information in the repetitions are: “today,” “your master,” “from over your head.” Now, all the examples of the gradual exposition, given by Bar-​Efrat, are based on the verbal repetition structures. Here, we explore another dimension of graduality.

3.1.4 Section Conclusions We have identified the explicit exposition of our narrative as the initial one (v. 1). We perceived, however, that the structures of multiple repetitions (referring to v.1), indicate that the explicit exposition is not the only expositional form that is to be considered. The other form was called the implicit exposition and this structure consists not only of verbal repetitions (2Kgs 2:1b, 2b, 4b, 6b would establish the closure of the implied exposition in v. 6) but also of various mixed forms (vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ and vv. 1a, 2aα, 4 aα, 6aα would establish the closure of 66 Verbal structures: wayyiqtol +​ inf. cons. (‫ ; ויהי בהעלות‬LXX: καὶ ἐγένετο) and imperative +​ qatal (‫ׁשב־נא‬, ‫ ;ׁשלחני‬LXX: κάθου, ἀπέσταλκέν).

156

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

the implied exposition somewhere between vv. 5 and 6). Consequently, we propose that the whole of Scene I functions as implicit exposition. Implicit exposition can, however, be longer, for example, if we identify the culmination point in v. 12, which will be inspected in the following chapter. Now, the question is what does the reader get to know as a result of the expositional structures? Thanks to the first element of the initial explicit exposition (v.1a) he gets to know that the principal elements of the setting are the whirlwind and heaven. Because of them, we got the image of the vertical space which is under heaven. The horizontal dimension of the space is drawn in the imagination of the reader by v.1b. This is the way from Gilgal. Let us see that the horizontal dimension is somehow explored by the implicit repetitive exposition (vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b).67 The exploration with Bethel and Jericho provides the image of two new places and routes which connect them in the narrative space. The way to Bethel seems to be particularly long. This repetitive exposition also explores the vertical dimension since the agents go down to Bethel. In that way, the reader creates the image of a hilly area. The setting is only a part of the exposition. The agents are the second part. In fact, we get to know that Yhwh and Elijah are not exposed as agents in v. 1a. This verse functions as a setting exposition. The situation changes for Elijah in v. 1b, when the reader finds out that Elijah was walking with Elisha. At that moment, the reader gets to know that Elijah is an agent just as Elisha is. Therefore, there are two agents who are exposed. Thanks to the mixed exposition structure, the reader gets know that the relation between them is like the one between master and disciple (“your master,” “from over your head”), and that this state is going to come to an end. Let us also stress that other nonexplicit (and abundant) information coming from these structures explores the issue of the characterization of Elijah and Elisha. Furthermore, the exposition of the figure of Yhwh seems to be particularly interesting, because the announcement of his action does not make him an agent yet. Of course, his action is announced not only in v. 1a but also in the whole mixed repetitive structure (vv. 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ). The reader realizes that Yhwh is not only to lead Elijah up but, also, he is leading him to Bethel, Jericho, and the Jordan. Since we do not find there any information that Yhwh is actually acting, we have called him a quasi-​agent.

3.2 From Equilibrium to Disequilibrium We have focused on various elements of the exposition. Now, we need to understand three things. Firstly, how they function together. Secondly, how they are 67 Which would be identified by Bar-​Efrat with the gradual one.

Plot Stages

157

used for the production of the narrative tension. Thirdly, how this narrative tension is fluctuating in the consecutive stages of the plot. These issues will be explored through Todorov/​Ska terminology.

3.2.1 Equilibrium of the Exposition The state of equilibrium in our narrative is not about doing nothing; it is about doing things according to the perspective described in the exposition.68 The first aspect of this perspective regards the realization of those events announced in the exposition. Sternberg observed that “The art of prolepsis systematizes and facilitates the movement from the truth to the whole truth within the plot.”69 It is written referring to the epithets. Sternberg observes that they prefigure the drama of the narrative. We do not have epithets in our narrative, but we do have prolepsis. Prolepsis fulfils the essential role in the scenes’ state of equilibrium. It makes the reader expect that everything is going to happen as is announced.70 68 According to Aristotle, each element of the narrative must obey the law of necessity and/​or the one of probability. It must be highlighted that, on the one hand, events at the beginning of the story are never necessary; nevertheless, normally they must be probable, cf. Poetics VII. On the other hand, the crucial final events of the plot must be necessary and not only probable. Aristotle was also conscious that often the narrative introduces the elements which are rather irrational, cf. Poetics XXIV. Firstly, in this context, he says that “the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities.” Secondly, he suggests that “everything irrational should, if possible, be excluded.” Thirdly, “once the irrational has been introduced an air of likelihood imparted to it, we must accept it despite its absurdity” gr. ὥστε τὸ λέγειν ὅτι ἀνῄρητο ἂν ὁ μῦθος γελοῖον: ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ οὐ δεῖ συνίστασθαι τοιούτους (the alternative translation: “if (a poet) posits an irrationality, and a more rational alternative is apparent, this is an absurdity,” trans. Stephen Halliwell). Do these categories describe adequately the biblical reality and, overall, the reality of the examined narrative? Does the first scene, 2Kgs 2:1–​6, obey the rule of probability? How does it function in the narrative? Before trying to give responses to those questions, we need to understand the specificity of the narrative and the literary devices that have been used in the scene. 69 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 342. 70 Cf. Edward George Newing, “The Rhetoric of Hope: The Theological Structure of Genesis –​2 Kings,” Colloquium 17, no. 2 (1985): 1–​15; Elie Assis, “Moses, Elijah and the Messianic Hope: A New Reading of Malachi 3, 22–​24,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123, no. 2 (2011): 207–​20; James Gordon McConville,”1 Kings 8:46–​53 and the Deuteronomic Hope,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. James Gordon McConville and Gary N. Knoppers, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 358–​69.

158

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

Elijah is going to be led up by Yhwh to the sky and it is going to happen in the following way. Everything will be all right. Everybody is safe. We can call this state a “narrative equilibrium” or a “narrative expectation.” This effect is produced by the narrator just in the beginning. Now, what is the “anatomy” of this equilibrium? In fact, the expectation of the reader is great but complex. Firstly, the reader is informed that Yhwh is going to act. The divinity is a guarantor of the fact that the things will happen, just as is announced by the narrator. Therefore, we speak about the great expectation. Secondly, the reader is meant to think that Yhwh and Elijah are the main figures. The twosome is mentioned in v. 1a. Thirdly, Elijah is to be led up in the whirlwind. Any other object which can serve to lead him up seems to be superfluous, because Yhwh is a divinity. Fourthly, Elijah is going towards heaven, therefore the reader is meant to expect to get know something about heavenly reality. Fourthly, Elisha is someone who is added by the narrator to one of the main figures: Elijah walks with Elisha (cf. the single form of the root hlk in 1.1.2). The reader is meant to expect to get rid of Elisha as quickly as possible, because he is not necessary to fulfil the destiny of Elijah. Another issue is answering the questions which the reader is expected to pose in reading the exposition. Bar-​Efrat observed that “The narrative affects the reader through the combination of ‘what’ and ‘how,’ namely, what is related and how this is done.”71 At the beginning of our narrative, the reader is supposed to be convinced that he knows what is going to happen. We also need to add that the questions who and whom are also answered. The question which he is supposed to ask is therefore: how it is going to happen? We should, however, notice that the question how is not absolute, because the reader is also interested in the when and where questions. Additionally, the information from v. 1b, regarding the way from Gilgal, suggests asking: from whence is he going to be led? Furthermore, the basic question how is composed with other questions: “how is it going to look,” “how is it possible,” “how long is this going to take?”72 Now, we should notice that some of these questions find answers in the very same verse in which we find answers to the what question, i.e. in v. 1a. The answer to how is the following: Elijah is going to be taken in the whirlwind. Of course, the reader

7 1 Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 16. 72 Gunkel commented that a good storyteller cannot reveal at the beginning of the story the crucial point of the narrative. In fact, the original story was supposed to answer the question: how did Elisha become the successor of Elijah? Gunkel, “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​18),” 182–​86.

Plot Stages

159

is supposed to ask how exactly this is going to happen. Similarly, the answer to the question where is short: to the sky. The question from v. 1b, from whence, remains unanswered. The question when is more complicated because, as we have seen in 2.1, the whole of v. 1a corresponds to the issue of time. In fact, the reader does not find in v. 1 the answer to the question: when is Elijah going to be taken? It seems, therefore, that the questions when and from whence remain totally unanswered. The reader, however, is supposed to understand that these are questions which will emerge in the process of reading. Some of them will probably not find their explicit answers within the narrative (one of them is the question why).

3.2.2 Perturbation in the Inciting Moment After the exposition, we need to face the issue of the inciting moment of the story. Ska defines the inciting moment as “the moment in which the conflict or the problem appears for the first time and arouses the interest of the reader.” He adds that “In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish it from the exposition or the beginning of the complication.” We also noticed (cf. Introduction to III 3) that the inciting moment corresponds to Todorov’s perturbation. Now, the explicit exposition of our narrative starts with the narrative itself, i.e. in v. 1. What is, however, the precise localization of the inciting moment? The inciting moment starts in v. 2aα, continues with the answer of Elisha in v. 2aβ and finishes in v. 2b (the occurrence of new agents in v. 3 provokes change in the level of tension). Let us read this fragment with reader-​response tools.73 Elijah is walking with Elisha. Nothing seems strange in the eyes of the reader. The occurrence of a new person (Elisha) and a new place (Gilgal) causes a fluctuation of the narrative tension. Nevertheless, it does not disturb the equilibrium yet, because, at this moment, Elisha is just an agent within the exposition. He is put on the same level as the setting elements (cf. 3.1). Additionally, it seems that Elisha and Gilgal are elements of the description of the departure of Elijah. It is also not vastly different from the beginning of the dialogue between Elijah and Elisha in v. 2aβ. Now, the narratological equilibrium is disturbed in the dialogue of Elijah and Elisha. The reader wonders why Elijah does not let Elisha go with him to Bethel.74 Elijah, however, gives the reason for this: Bethel is far from (‫ )עד־‬the

73 Cf. reader-​response criticism in Introduction 5.1; cf. Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 25. 74 Additionally, the reader does not need Elisha, because he is already informed that it is Elijah who is going to be led to the sky. The demand of Elijah seems to presuppose the demand of the reader: Elisha, we do not need you here, leave our narrative.

160

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

place where they are.75 Therefore, the reader is meant to understand the contrast between the language of Elijah and the real reason for his demand. On the one hand, Elijah seems unwilling to tire Elisha (‫)אם־אעזבך‬.76 On the other hand, the usage of the solemn oath by Elisha (‫( )חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך‬cf. I 2.2) in his answer gives the reader a clue: something else is said between the lines. The reader is meant to realize that they do not understand Elijah-​Elisha’s dialogue. This experience, the inciting moment, introduces the reader to the stage of complication (and disequilibrium).

3.2.3 Disequilibrium of the Complication Let us move to the analysis of the structure of the incidents containing the complication of the plot. First of all, a new figure occurs: the Sons of the Prophets. They come out to Elisha. We need to note that it is not written that they come out to speak to Elijah. The reader is meant to ask the following question regarding Elisha: if the story is about Elijah, why do they speak to Elisha? The reader is not supposed to understand yet why Elisha did not want to obey the order of Elijah. Now, the situation becomes more complicated. Elisha is starting to do things in the world of the narrative without Elijah. Why? For what reason? At this point of the reading, the complication is visible to the reader. The question of the Sons of the Prophets is also strange. The reader does not understand how the Sons of the Prophets know about the scheduled action of Yhwh. The reader does not understand why they ask Elisha if he knows it (cf. A Nonverbal Phenomenon in 2.2.7). In the middle of the confusion, the reader gets important information regarding the agents. Firstly, the announced events are going to happen today. Not this year or this month. It is today. The attention of the reader is supposed to be raised, but

75 In Greek, it would not be so visible because the authors use ἕως +​gen. (GELS: “up to, as far as, giving the endpoint or limit of movement, either local or temporal”) both in v. 2, referring to Bethel, and in. v. 6, referring to the Jordan. 76 Of course, there are many alternative interpretations of this dialogue. Their diversity comes from the application of different methodologies which shape the imagination of the authors, e.g. according to De Vries, Elijah is testing Elisha; O’Brien says that Elijah lies to Elisha in vv. 2–​3 that God has sent him. He wants to be alone. Cf. DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition, 82–​83; O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 7. Elisha expresses the idea that he knows the same thing as the Son of the Prophets. It seems that they do not surprise him. It might also be a lie; we do not have, however, any indication of this. He shows, rather, that at least on this aspect, he is equal to them.

Plot Stages

161

not too much, because it is not said “in a while” etc. Secondly, it is a recording of the fact that Elijah is the master of Elisha. This information is a preparation, it has a “seedlike quality.”77 Thirdly, the information about taking Elijah from over the head of Elisha is ambiguous. The reader is not sure if its sense is only literal, i.e. Elisha will be present at the very moment of the ascent, or also symbolic, i.e. Elisha, as the disciple, will be liberated from his master. The reading tension is possible thanks to the recent usage of the word “your master” (‫)אדניך‬. The reader is meant to understand why Elisha occurs in the story: he will be the witness to the departure of Elijah. In fact, it is a proleptic knowledge which is revealed by the Sons of the Prophets. Elisha follows his master because he is somehow destined to do this.78 The answer of Elisha to the question of the Sons of the Prophets is also revolutionary for the reader. It consists of two parts (cf. 2.2.5). On the one hand, Elisha admits that he knows about the plan of Yhwh. This is new for the reader. The reader is supposed to understand that Elisha is acting consciously. On the other hand, at this very moment of clarity, the reader finds out that Elisha asks the Sons of the Prophets to be quiet (‫)החׁשו‬. Why does he say this? Should the reader be thinking about other listeners to their discussion? Is Elijah present during the discussion in the Bethel1 Incident? Does not Elisha want to hear further questions? The fact is that the Sons of the Prophets are effectively silent in the successive Bethel2 Incident. This provokes other questions. Why do the Sons of the Prophets listen to Elisha? How long does this silence last? At this point, one thing is sure: the curiosity of the reader is aroused. The reader is supposed to remember this silence. With this demand, Elisha seems to give the floor to Elijah. Elijah repeats, almost verbatim, the clause said on the way from Gilgal. This time, however, Yhwh, sends him to Jericho. He does not say, as far as (as in the previous case), but to Jericho. The final event is approaching and the way to go is not far. The tension of the reader is increasing by the usage of the name

7 7 Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” 244. 78 Of course, Elisha might be somehow provoked by his speakers with a lie, however this narrative motive would be possible in modern literature, cf. Christl M. Maier, “Myth and Truth in Socio-​historical Reconstruction of Ancient Societies: Hosea 4:11–​14 as a Test Case,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook, Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies (New York and London: T&T Clark, 2009), 256–​72; Krzysztof Sonek, Truth, Beauty, and Goodness in Biblical Narratives: A Hermeneutical Study of Genesis 21: 1–​21, vol. 395, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 137–​65; O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 7.

162

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

of Elisha as a vocative. It is meant to give the impression that Elijah does really want to stop Elisha. In this context, the answer of Elisha raises the tension. Elisha answers Elijah exactly in the same way as before. The reader is expected to see that Elisha is motivated. With this conviction, the twosome moves to Jericho. At this moment, the Jericho incidents take place. The Sons of the Prophets from Jericho approach Elisha. The reader is expected to perceive the difference between coming out (‫ )ויצאו‬in Bethel and approaching in Jericho (‫)ויגׁשו‬. The fact of approaching makes the situation different from the one in Bethel. The reader should expect then another type of dialogue or action. This expectation, however, is met with exactly the same question as in Bethel. Two different groups of the Sons of the Prophets confirm the coming event. The reader is meant to expect going directly to the point. Nothing else should happen here. The answer of Elisha, the same as before, should confirm for the reader that he is able to foresee the flow of events. When Elijah pronounces his demand of Elisha for the third time, this time in the Jericho2 Incident, the reader is expected to be rather tired of repetitions. This fatigue is meant to give the reader the impression that the tension within the narrative is decreasing and the narrative is about to finish. Is it therefore a moment for reflection? The problem concerning the request of Elijah to go alone would possibly be wrongly interpreted by the reader without the triple repetitive structure. Apparently, thanks to the requests of Elijah, the reader is expected to understand the motivation of Elijah: his request does not necessarily concern one concrete place (the way from Gilgal; Bethel; or Jericho) but the fact of following him in general. At this moment, the narrator uses a smooth expression, which is supposed to be a transitional one: “So the two of them walked on.” The reader should therefore expect the end. One question, however, should be asked by the reader at this moment: why is the narrator no longer talking about Elijah or Elisha, but speaking about the twosome? Just as if he would want to hide what is going to happen and who precisely is going to be the agent. This is the end of our scene. It is not the end of the complication, and we will discuss this issue in the next chapter. It is clearly worth noticing that the narrator uses repetitions as complication. Firstly, the Three Requests of Elijah (cf. 2.2.2), the Three Answers of Elisha (cf. 2.2.3), and the Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets (cf. 2.2.5) give credence to the message from the explicit exposition regarding the action of Yhwh (cf. 3.1.4). Through these structures, the reader is supposed to go back for a while to the state of equilibrium, to the state when Yhwh and Elijah meant everything important for the narrative. Secondly, some of them serve to “cool down” the interest of the reader regarding the figure of Elisha. This is possible thanks to the “backbone” structure of the Four Speeches of the Narrator (cf. 2.2.1; other

Plot Stages

163

repetition structures which help is include: 2Kgs 2:1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; 2Kgs 2:1a, 3aβ, 5aβ; cf. 3.1.3.). The narrator simply repeats the information that Elijah and Elisha walk together. Of course, they are walking together to the point of the departure of Elijah. They need to pass different spots. The reader is expected to think that Elijah will depart as soon as this is possible. The narrator tries there to attract the attention of the reader to Elijah’s ascent and the twosome. In the last variation, the equilibrium seems to be somehow reestablished, although we will see in Scene II that it was only another stage of complication. The narrator speaks about the twosome as if it were one entity. Therefore, the narrator has moved the action center from Yhwh-​Elijah to Elijah-​Elisha. In consequence, Elisha is revealed as an emerging figure of the narrative. In fact, repetitions within Scene I are an air-​conditioning system which stabilizes the temperature of the narrative during the transitions.

3.2.4 Section Conclusions Before passing to the chapter’s conclusions, let us summarize this point. Firstly, we focused on the plot of Scene I. Each of the stages of the plot in Scene I was characterized according to the narratological criteria (Todorov and Ska). They can be listed in the following way: equilibrium/​exposition in v. 1; perturbation/​ inciting moment in v. 2; disequilibrium/​complication in vv. 3 ff. Secondly, we focused particularly on the style and structure of exposition. Bar-​Efrat made a distinction between initial and gradual expositions. In fact, we can identify both types in Scene I. The initial exposition is explicitly identifiable (v. 1). The gradual exposition is identifiable only implicitly, i.e. within the inciting moment–​complication part (v. 2 ff.). It is visible in the structure of repetitions (the repetitions in vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b; 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; and 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ). As we have seen in 3.1.3, the elements of the exposition were ordered according to two aspects: agents and setting. Thirdly, we said that the inciting moment is expressed by the demand of Elijah which is not fulfilled by Elisha (v. 2). On the one hand, the inciting moment is linked to the other two stages of the narrative by the structure of incidents. On the other hand, it is linked to them by the structure of repetitions (vv. 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b). Furthermore, the structure of repetitions recalls the inciting effect within the narrative (vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ). Fourthly, once the inciting moment occurs, the disequilibrium is expressed by the structure of complication. Of course, there is a justified question regarding the nature of the disequilibrium. Is it simply a change to another state within the world of the narrative? In other words, is it another equilibrium? In fact, the disequilibrium is not another equilibrium because of the

164

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6

incising complication of the plot. Furthermore, our narrator uses the structure of repetitions in order to manipulate the narrative tension. Let us see what it looks like concretely. Firstly, the complication uses the structure of the implicit gradual exposition. The implicit gradual exposition is “nourishing” the complication and vice versa. Secondly, some implicit repetitive structures increase the narrative tension (vv. vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ), while others decrease it (vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ; 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b; 3aα, 5aα; 3aβ, 5aβ; 3b, 5b). Thirdly, mixed repetition structures can function differently within the narrative from its components: vv. 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα contain elements decreasing the tension but vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα increase the tension.

4. Chapter Conclusions Summarizing the whole chapter, we distinguished three different structures in our narrative: incidents (cf. III 1); plot stages (cf. III 2); repetitions (cf. III 3), as shown here: Incidents Initial Quasi-​ Incident in v. 1

Stages Exposition in v. 1

Initial Incident in v. 2

Inciting Moment in v. 2

Bethel1 Incident in v. 3

Complication v. 3–​6

Bethel2 Incident in v. 4 Jericho1 Incident in v. 5 Jericho2 Incident in v. 6

Repetitions Prolepsis in v. 1a 4SN Repetition in v. 1b 3REj Repetition in v. 2aα 3AEi Repetition in v. 2aβ 4SN Repetition in v. 2b 2SN Repetition in v. 3aα 2QSo Repetition in v. 3aβ 2AEi Repetition in v. 3b 3REj Repetition in v. 4aα 3AEi Repetition in v. 4aβ 4SN Repetition in v. 4b 2SN Repetition in v. 5aα 2QSo Repetition in v. 5aβ 2AEi Repetition in v. 5b 3REj Repetition in v. 6aα 3AEi Repetition in v. 6aβ 4SN Repetition in v. 6b Repetition of v. 1a in v. 11a

Figure 26-​III.  Incidents, Stages, Repetitions in Scene I

Chapter Conclusions

165

There are six incidents in Scene I. Each corresponds to one of its six verses. They were distinguished on the basis of verbal structures (cf. 1.1; 1.2). The first incident is used as a reference of time, which is why we called it ‘quasi-​incident.’ The first and the last incident contain the same verb ‫ הלך‬used first in sg. and then in pl., always referring to the same twosome. There are three groups of incidents, which can be presented in the following way: initial incidents (v. 1 +​v. 2); Bethel incidents (v. 3 +​v. 4); Jericho incidents (v. 5 +​v. 6). The first structure of repetition, in vv. 1a, 11b, is also a prolepsis. In fact, the beginning of the narrative functions as a proleptic title. Furthermore, it functions as an internal time reference (in this sense, it is in opposition to the regnal resume structure in Kgs, which is supposed to reflect the chronicle type references, cf. 2.1.3). We called this technique sui temporis. Other repetitions can be ascribed to two groups. The group of verbal repetitions: Four Speeches of the Narrator in vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b; Three Requests of Elijah in vv. 2aα, 4aα, 4aα; Three Answers of Elisha in vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ; Two Speeches of the Narrator in vv. 3aα, 5aα; Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets in vv. 3aβ, 5aβ; Two Answers of Elisha in vv. 3b, 5b. The group of nonverbal repetitions is the following: vv. 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ. The style of the nonverbal repetitions is characteristic, because only the relation between the first and the second element is nonverbal. We distinguished three plot stages within Scene I, described by the double terminology: exposition/​equilibrium in v. 1; inciting moment/​perturbation in v. 2; complication/​disequilibrium in vv. 3 ff. We also identified the whole Scene I as an implicit exposition which has a gradual character. The inciting moment is in v. 2. The complication starts in v. 3 and continues beyond Scene I. The examined repetition structures (we might call it the “cross-​repetition-​ structure” because of its regularities) do not correspond directly to the stages (cf. Introduction to III 3). Moreover, they do not follow the scene division based on the narratological criteria (cf. II 2.3). In fact, the narratological structures use repetitions as connective threads within the narrative. This is even more visible thanks to the phenomenon of nonverbal repetitions (Figure 16-​III; cf. 3.1.3; 2.2.7). We can display the correlation between repetitions and the narrative stages in the following table:

166 Repetitive Structures vv. 1a, 11b

THE FIRST SCENE: VV.1–6 Function in Exposition

Function in Inciting Moment -​

Function in Complication The expositional v. 1a material: Yhwh; Elijah; precedes the whirlwind; heaven; intention to complication lead up. The enactment of the and v. 11b goes prolepsis in not an exposition. beyond it. vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, It is a “back bone” of the Connection with Decreases 6b implicit exposition. The other two stages, the narrative expositional material: Elisha; with the backbone tension. Gilgal; way; down to Bethel. of the narrative vv. 2aα, 4aα, The expositional Reminding the Increases 6aα material: distance, Jericho, the inciting effect the narrative Jordan. tension.* vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, Character’s exposition Yhwh is Reminding of the Increases the 6aβ with Elijah. inciting effect tension. vv. 3aα, 5aα The expositional material: Sons -​ Decreases the of the Prophets. Characters’ tension. exposition: Elisha knows. vv. 3aβ, 5aβ The expositional -​ Decreases. material: master; today; Elisha will be present. vv. 3b, 5b Characters’ exposition: Elisha -​ Decreases. knows. vv. 1a, 2aα, The expositional Connection with It contains 4aα, 6aα material: Yhwh; Elijah; other two stages elements whirlwind; heaven; intention decreasing to lead up; Bethel, distance, the narrative Jericho, the Jordan. tension.* vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ The expositional -​ Decreases. material: Elijah; whirlwind; heaven; intention to lead up; master; today; Elisha will be present. Figure 27-​III.  Repetitions vs. Stages in Scene I

Yhwh, Elijah and Elisha are introduced in the explicit exposition. The exposition of the threesome is continued in the inciting moment and the complication. We called this phenomenon the implicit exposition. The Sons of the Prophets are introduced in the complication. If we had to indicate the main figure for each plot stage, it would be:

Chapter Conclusions

167

–​ Elijah for the exposition (cf. 1.2.1); –​ Elisha for the inciting moment (cf. 1.2.2); –​ the Sons of the Prophets for the complication (cf. 1.2.3). We called Yhwh a quasi-​agent because, each time, he is only mentioned (cf. 3.1.1). His action is announced, but it is Elijah who takes the initiative in the initial incidents. Furthermore, the relation between Elijah and Elisha is particularly interesting. At the beginning, Elijah is the main agent, yet in the Bethel1 Incident, the text does not even mention what happens with him. We read about Elijah only in Bethel2 incident, but only in the conversation with Elisha. Elisha becomes the crucial agent. Elijah is less active. Summing up, one agent is used to introduce another one. We may call the phenomenon of the narrative transition between the agents the “characters’ gliding.” Furthermore, we noticed that an important part of the exposition is the phenomenon that we called the narrative expectation (cf. 3.2.1). It is the type of expectation which says that everything is going to happen as announced. In our case, it is that Yhwh will lead Elijah to the sky. The reader is meant to ask, where, when, and how this is going to happen. He is meant to expect that the action is flowing directly to the heavenly ascent. In this context, the occurrence of Elisha and the fact that he does not want to leave Elijah disturbs the equilibrium, i.e. it is a play on the narrative expectation. At this moment, the reader is expected to ask many questions: What is the role of Elisha? Why does he occur in the story? What else is going to happen? On the one hand, the occurrence of the Sons of Prophets also disturbs equilibrium; on the other, they answer some of the preceding questions. The reader finds out that it is going to happen today and that Elisha is in the story because he will be present at the ascent. The crucial questions which remain in the reader’s mind are twofold: From whence is Elijah going to be taken? And what else will happen? Both of these are reinforced by the structure of repetitions. Finally, the proleptic title, the cross-​repetition-​structure, the verbally structured incidents, and the implicit exposition are the elements of Scene I which constitute the sketch of the characteristics of the style of the narrative. As we will see in the following chapters, they are also essential for its symbolism and identification of the associated oral traditions.79

79 Cf. Antony F. Campbell, “The Reported Story, Midway, Between Oral Performance and Literary-​Art,” Semeia, no. 46 (1989): 77–​85.

Chapter IV. The Second Scene: vv. 7–​14 “At the Jordan River” This chapter presents a narratological analysis of Scene II, i.e. vv. 7–​14 of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. The general structure of the chapter is the same as of the former one, i.e. verbal structures, narrative techniques, plot stages and chapter conclusions. We will check how identified structures and techniques influence the flow of events. In particular, we will focus on the question of how the techniques of simultaneity and points of view influence incidents and stages of the plot within this scene.

1. Verbal Structures To identify the structure of the scenes, we provide a detailed analysis of the verbs. In this dissertation, we distinguish two basic types of verbs (cf. III 1): those which occur in the narrator’s text and those which occur in the character’s text. On the basis of these verb characteristics, we will distinguish incidents within Scene II, and we will try to identify the problems to be dealt with during the further exegesis.

1.1 Narrator Verbs In Scene II, we will distinguish four types of verb structures: time verb structures, space verbs, deed verbs and speech verbs. Deed verbs is a new category, which did not occur in Scene I and which we will specify below.

1.1.1 Time Verbal Structures The first structure of verbs which indicate time within the narrative is composed of two elements. The first one is an apocopated form of the root ‫היה‬: ‫( וַיְ הִ י‬v. 9a)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg.

The second is a prefixed and suffixed inf. cons.: ‫( כְ עָבְ ָרם‬v. 9a)

prcl. ‫ כ‬+​qal, inf. cons. +​suf. m. pl.

This kind of structure occurs widely in HB, e.g. we find it in 1Kgs 18:17: “When Ahab saw (‫ )ויהי כראות‬Elijah, Ahab said to him, “Is it you, you troubler of Israel?””

170

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

The roots ‫ ראה‬and ‫ ׁשמע‬are the ones most used, with this structure, in the Elijah and Elisha stories, cf. 1Kgs 19:13; 21:27; 2Kgs 4:25; 6:30. Another example comes from: 1Kgs 18:29: “As midday passed (‫)ויהי כעבר הצהרים‬, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice, no answer, and no response.” One thing is essential in all these examples. This time verb structure introduces a subordinate clause informing the reader about an event which happens before the one in the main clause. Therefore, the translation of our expression, ‫ויהי כעברם‬, is: “when they had crossed.” A problem occurs if we take the beginning of our narrative, where we find a similar construction using bet instead of kaph to make the time reference. Waltke –​O’Connor write that “With the inf. cons., bet denotes in general the temporal proximity of one event to another, kaph more specifically the more immediately preceding time.” (IBHS 36.2.2b).1 The conclusion of IBHS is therefore coherent with the results of our investigation: the expression ‫ ויהי כעברם‬has a consecutive character. Another time verb structure seems to be similar to the previous one, but it is based on ptc. and not on inf. cstr. It occurs in v. 11: ‫( וַיְ הִ י‬v. 11)

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg.

‫הֵ ּמָ ה‬

pron., 3 m. pl.

‫הֹ לְ כִ ים‬

qal, ptc., m., pl.

‫הָ לֹוְך‬

qal, inf. abs.,

‫וְ דַ ּבֵ ר‬

prcl. ְ‫ ו‬+​ piel, inf. abs

How should we treat the chain wayyiqtol +​ ptc. +​ inf. abs +​ ptc.? Waltke –​ O’Connor call this structure a minor pattern of adverbial complement (cf. IBHS 35.3.2 n. 39). They also write that: “Hebraists are not agreed about the meaning of the two infinitives in this kind of construction. Some think the compound invariably expresses continuance, continuous action, or repetition of action denoted by the main verb (…).” (cf. IBHS § 35.3.2b) According to Joüon these infinitives express the idea of simultaneity (cf. J-​M §123m). The idea of continuity/​repetition would be expressed in Josh 6:13: The seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of Yhwh* passed on (‫)הלכים הלוך‬, blowing the trumpets continually. The armed men went before

1

Ernst Jenni, Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, Neubearbeitung des “Hebräischen Schulbuchs” von Hollenberg-​Budde (Basel: Helbig & Lichtenhahn, 1981), 119.

Verbal Structures

171

them, and the rear guard came after the ark of Yhwh*, while the trumpets blew continually. (NRS)

We find the idea of simultaneity in Judg 14:9: He scraped it out into his hands, and went on, eating as he went (‫)וילך הלוך ואכל‬. When he came to his father and mother, he gave some to them, and they ate it. But he did not tell them that he had taken the honey from the carcass of the lion. (NRS)

In the case of our narrative, the idea of simultaneity in v. 11 is confirmed by the occurrence of ‫והנה‬.2 In conclusion, the participle ‫ הלכים‬expresses the idea of continuity, the idea of simultaneity comes with ‫הלוך ודבר‬.

1.1.2 Space Verbs Seven different roots are used to express the movement of the agents in space. The first root, ‫הלך‬, occurs in three forms. All of them are widely used in DH: ‫( הָ לְ כּו‬v. 7a) (they) went

qal, qatal, 3 c., pl. cf. Josh 2:5; 5:6; Judg 2:17; 9:8; 1Sam 6:12; 8:3, 5; 14:46; 17:13, 14; 30:22; 2Sam 2:29; 7:23; 15:11; 1Kgs 11:33

‫( הֹ לְ כִ ים‬v. 11a)

qal, ptc., m., pl. cf. Exod 33:15; Josh 6:13; Judg 18:5; 1Sam 6:12; 2Sam 3:1; 13:34; 17:11; 2Kgs 1:3; 2:11; Eccl 1:7; 10:7; Jer 16:12; Ezek 13:3 (†)

‫( הָ לֹוְך‬v. 11a)

qal, inf. abs. cf. Josh 6:9, 13; Judg 4:24; 9:8; 14:9; 1Sam 14:19; 19:23; 2Sam 3:16, 24; 5:10; 13:19; 16:13; 18:25; 24:12; 2Kgs 5:10

The root ‫ הלך‬not only opens Scene II, but it also opens and closes the previous scene (cf. vv. 1, 6). The verb occurring in the first verse of Scene I is sg. The other mentioned verb forms are pl. Both occurrences of ‫ הלך‬in Scene II will indicate the beginning of particular incidents (cf. 1.3). The root ‫ עמד‬occurs three times in Scene II. It is also used by the author of DH, especially in the sg. wayyiqtol form. The plural form of the root occurs more often in 2Kgs than in:

2

We discuss the issue of simultaneity in IV 2.1.

172

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

‫( ַו ַּיע ְַמדּו‬v. 7a) (they) stood

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl. cf. Josh 3:13, 16, 17; Judg 7:21; 9:44; 1Sam 30:10; 2Sam 2:23, 25, 28; 15:17; 2Kgs 2:7; 3:21; 11:11; 18:17

‫( ע ְָמדּו‬v. 7b) (they) stood

qal, qatal, 3 c., pl. cf. Josh 20:6, 9; Judg 6:31; 1Sam 30:9; 2Kgs 2:7; 10:4

‫( ַו ַּיעֲמֹ ד‬v. 13b) (he) stood

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. Deut 31:15; Josh 10:13; Judg 9:7, 35; 1Sam 16:21; 17:8, 51; 26:13; 2Sam 18:4, 30; 1Kgs 3:15; 8:22, 55; 19:13; 20:38; 22:21; 2Kgs 4:6; 5:9, 15, 25; 8:9, 11; 10:9; 13:18; 18:28; 23:3

This root is especially important for the structure of the scene. It occurs in its first verse and in its penultimate verse in wayyiqtol. The verbs pass from the pl. in v. 7 to the sg. in v. 13. The former modifies the expression “two of them” (‫)ׁשניהם‬, which also occurs in the last verse of Scene I. In fact, the occurrences of the root ‫ עמד‬in Scene II initiate events which form separate incidents. The second verb root which is repeated in Scene II is ‫עבר‬. Its pl. wayyiqtol form is rather characteristic of Sam, while it occurs only twice in Kgs. The inf. cons. is original. These are the forms: ‫( ַו ַּיעַבְ רּו‬v. 8) (they) crossed

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl. cf. Josh 2:23; 3:2; 4:10, 12; 18:9; Judg 6:33; 9:26; 10:9; 18:13; 19:14; 1Sam 9:4; 2Sam 2:15, 29; 17:22; 19:41, 42; 24:5; 2Kgs 18:123

‫( כְ עָבְ ָרם‬v. 9) (when they) crossed

prcl. ‫ כ‬+​qal, inf. cons. +​suf. m. pl. cf. (†)

‫( ַו ַּיעֲבֹ ר‬v. 14) (he) crossed

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. Josh 4:11; 10:29, 31, 34; Judg 11:29, 32; 12:1; 1Sam 9:4, 27; 15:12; 16:9, 10; 26:13, 22; 27:2; 2Sam 10:17; 11:27; 15:22; 18:23; 19:32, 40, 41; 20:14; 1Kgs 6:21; 15:12; 19:19; 22:36; 2Kgs 4:8; 8:21

3

Peter Dubovský, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-​Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–​19, Biblica et Orientalia 49 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 1–​9.

Verbal Structures

173

The first occurrence of the discussed root is modified by the expression ‫ׁשניהם‬ (two of them). The second occurrence was already discussed in 1.1.1. The first occurrence is in sg., which is significant because we are dealing with the transition from the pl. verb object to the sg. We know both phenomena form the root ‫עמד‬. The last verb form which occurs in v. 11 comes from the root ‫עלה‬. It is very frequent in BH and Kgs. It is repeated in v. 23, so at the beginning of the Two Bears Episode: ‫( ַו ַּיעַל‬v. 11) (he) went up

qal/​hiphil, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. 1Kgs 2:34; 3:15; 5:27; 12:32, 33; 15:17; 18:43; 20:1, 26; 22:20, 29; 2Kgs 1:9, 13; 2:23; 4:34, 35; 6:24; 12:11, 19; 14:11; 15:14; 16:9, 12; 17:5; 19:14; 23:2

We know this root from v. 1 (cf. I 2.1 and III 2.1). Its stem was clear in that verse: the verb was in hiphil. It is not the case in v. 11. It can be both qal and hiphil (he led up).4 The text is ambiguous to the reader. The name of Elijah is not preceded by the particle ‫( את‬as is the case in v. 1) which might suggest that it is qal. We know, however, that ‫ את‬is not a clear indicator (cf. GES § 117). The last space verb comes from the root ‫ ׁשוב‬and occurs widely in DH and HB. The same form as v. 13 occurs both in the Ahaziah Death and Shunammite stories. It also occurs in v. 18 of our narrative: ‫( ַוּיָׁשָ ב‬v. 13) (he) returned

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. 1Kgs 1:35; 2:19, 30, 38, 41; 5:5; 12:2, 25; 13:19, 33; 15:21; 17:5; 19:4, 6, 7, 21; 2Kgs 1:11, 13; 4:20, 31, 35; 5:10, 14, 15; 8:29; 9:15; 11:19; 13:25; 14:14; 15:5, 20; 17:3, 6, 24, 28; 19:8, 9, 36; 20:11; 21:3; 22:9; 23:20; 24:1

This verb occurs among those which mark the last incident of Scene II: v. 13 contains four of them. Two of them are space verbs. The second one is ‫עמד‬.

4

Gray, following LXX, suggests the hophal vocalization, cf. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 423. The problem is that this form does not occur in BH in wayyiqtol, cf. Judg 6:28; 2Chr 20:34; Nah 2:8.

174

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

1.1.3 Deed Verbs While space verbs referred to the change of the location of the agents, the category of deed verbs will refer to actions within the same location.5 The first deed verb is ‫לקח‬. Its qal, wayyiqtol form occurs widely in HB, Kgs and in our Triple Cycle: ‫( וַּיִ ּקַ ח‬v. 8, 14) (he) took

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. 1Kgs 1:39; 3:1; 7:13; 14:26; 15:18; 16:31; 17:23; 18:4, 31; 19:21; 2Kgs 3:26, 27; 5:5, 24; 8:9, 15; 11:4, 19; 12:10, 19; 13:15, 18, 25; 15:29; 16:8; 19:14; 23:16, 30; 24:12; 25:18, 20

This form occurs twice in our text. Both occurrences take place in Scene II. V. 14 is a variant repetition of v. 8, i.e. we speak about the end and the beginning (almost) of the scene. Both occurrences open the corresponding verses. The following deed verb, ‫( וַּיִ גְ ֹלם‬rolled up), occurs only once in the whole HB. This root is also known from Ps 139, where it is used to form a noun ‫ּגֹ לֶם‬, meaning a “formless mass, incomplete vessel” (HALOT, “‫)”גלם‬.6 The form ‫וַּיִ גְ ֹלם‬ occurs twice: in 2Kgs and 1Chr (†). It comes from another root: ‫( גלה‬cf. HALOT, “‫)”גלה‬. It is curious that, in both cases, we are dealing with an Assyrian invasion background.7 The first occurrence, in 2Kgs 15:29, refers to the Assyrian Kings Tiglath-​pileser III (reigned 744–​727 BCE), who is also known as King Pul (cf. 2Kgs 15:19):8 “In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-​pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-​beth-​maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria.” 5

6 7 8

We propose our own terminology, which should not be confused with that of Austin, who speaks about performative acts, cf. John Langshaw Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 141. The motive of golem occurs widely in the post-​biblical literature, cf. MHb and Elie Wiesel, The Golem: The Story of a Legend (New York: Simon & Schuster Trade, 1983), 92–​97. Both roots occur in Akkadian in similar senses, cf. CAD “gallû(m)” vs. “gallu.” Does this indicate a trace of Akkadian influence in MT? Peter Dubovský, “Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734–​732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7, 2 Kgs 15–​16 and 2 Chr 27–​28,” Biblica 87, no. 2 (2006): 153–​70; “Neo-​Assyrian Warfare: Logistics and Weaponry during the Campaigns of Tiglath-​ pileser III,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium: Arms and Armour Through the Ages, ed. M. Novotná, et al. (Trnava: Trnavská Univerzita, 2006), 61–​67; “Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?,” Biblica 95, no. 3 (2014): 321–​46.

Verbal Structures

175

The second occurrence refers the reader to the same king: “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of King Pul of Assyria, the spirit of King Tiglath-​pileser of Assyria, and he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-​tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan, to this day.” Let us now move to the verb form encountered in our narrative: ‫( וַּיִ גְ ֹלם‬v. 8) (he) rolled up

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. Ps 139:16

This is the second element of the verb chain of v. 8. The verb is not repeated in v. 14, which is a variant repetition of v. 8. The following verb root is ‫נכה‬. The hiphil, wyyiqtol form is typical of DH and of prophets. There are four occurrences of 3 m., sg. with the final -​‫ ה‬in the description of the conquests of Joshua. It occurs, however, more frequently without the final -​‫ה‬. This is our verb form: ‫( ַו ַּיּכֶה‬vv. 8, 14a, 14b) (he) struck

hiphil, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. Josh 10:28, 30, 32, 40; 1Kgs 22:24, 34; 8:21; Isa 37:36; Jer 20:2; 52:27 (†)

The disposition of our verb is almost the same as the one of ‫לקח‬. The difference is that it occurs twice in v. 14. In fact, this verb is the most frequent deed verb in Scene II. In vv. 8, 14a, 14b, the verb modifies the noun ‫המים‬. The last verb which occurs both in v. 8 and v. 14 is ‫חצה‬. These are the only occurrences of this root in Kgs. Its niphal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl. form does not occur elsewhere in HB at all.9 The form used in our text is: ‫( ַוּיֵחָ צּו‬vv. 8, 14) (they) were divided

niphal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., pl. cf. –​(†)

In the case of both occurrences, the verb modifies the double structure of the particle ‫הנה‬, which we have translated as “here and there.” Another deed verb occurs only once in Scene II. The root ‫ פרד‬is mainly known from Gen. Moreover, the same form as in our narrative occurs only in Gen 13, i.e. in the story about the separation between Abraham and Lot: “So Lot chose 9

Cf. Akkadian: CAD “ḫapû,” “ḫabû.”

176

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward; thus they separated (‫ )ויפרדו‬from each other.” (Gen 13:11 NRS). This is the discussed verb form: ‫( ַוּיַפְ ִרדּו‬v. 11) separated (them)

qal, wayyqtol, 3 m., pl. cf. Gen 13:11 (†)

This verb modifies the expression ‫ׁשניהם‬. It is the last occurrence of this expression. The next time, it occurs only in 2Kgs 4:33 (NRS): “So he went in and closed the door on the two of them (‫ )ׁשניהם‬and prayed to Yhwh*.” ‫ פרד‬is one of the seven verbs occurring in v. 11. The verb ‫ צעק‬opens another series of deed verbs. It occurs in v. 12 as piel participle, which makes this form unique in HB, even if the application of this root in other forms is widely spread. If it occurs in participle, it is in qal: Gen 4:10; Exod 5:8; 2Kgs 8:5. This is our verb form: ‫( ְמצַ עֵק‬v. 12) (he) was crying out

piel, ptc., 3 m., sg. cf. –​(†)

The fact that the verb occurs in participle is probably due to the repetitive structure within v. 12.10 The analogous verb is ‫ראה‬. The piel form gives it an idea of intensity (GES §52 f). The next verb ‫ חזק‬occurs in various places in Kgs, e.g. it is used to express the idea of keeping the horns of altar by Adonijah and Joab. ‫( ַו ַּי ֲחזֵק‬v. 12) (he) took hold

hiphil, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. 1Kgs 1:50; 2:28; 16:22; 2Kgs 25:3

Our verb modifies the noun ‫בגד‬, preceded by the particle ‫ב‬. With its hiphil form, it corresponds to the idea of “seizing,” “grasping,” “keep holding” (cf. HALOT, “‫חזק‬,” hiphil). Another verb root form v. 12, ‫קרע‬, occurs widely in HB. The situation is different with the encountered verb form with suffix. It occurs elsewhere only in 2Sam 1:11 in a similar phrase to this: “Then David took hold of his clothes and

10 Cf. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 170 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 258–​61.

Verbal Structures

177

tore them (‫ ;)ויקרעם‬and all the men who were with him did the same.” This juxtaposition can be important for the interpretation of the symbols. Our verb form is the following: ‫( וַּיִ קְ ָרעֵם‬v. 12) (he) tore them

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. +​suf., 1 c., sg. cf. 2Sam 1:11 (†)

The meaning of this verb in qal is “rip to pieces,” “cut up,” “tear away,” cf. HALOT, “‫קרע‬.” Even if this is the last verb form in v. 12, the root ‫ קרע‬is repeated in the same verse in the noun modifying our verb. The noun occurs with the cardinal number ‫ׁשנים‬, which is used five times in Scene II and occurs in the last verse of Scene I. The following verb form does not occur in other parts of the Triple Circle. The form of the root ‫רום‬, encountered in v. 13, occurs also in the Assyrian capture context of Kgs: “Send there one of the priests whom you carried away (‫ )וירם‬from there; let him go and live there, and teach them the law of the god of the land” (2Kgs 17:27). It also occurs in the context of the rebellion of Jeroboam son of Nebat: “Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow, rebelled (‫ )וירם יד‬against the king” (1Kgs 11:26). Our verb form is the following: ‫( ַוּי ֶָרם‬v. 13) (he) picked up

hiphil, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. cf. 1Kgs 11:26; 2Kgs 17:27

It is an apocopated form. The root in hiphil means “lift high,” “raise high,” “erect,” “revoke,” “take away,” “select,” “lift up,”cf. HALOT “‫וירם‬.”11 This root does not occur elsewhere in our narrative. It modifies the construct expression ‫אדרת‬ ‫אליהו‬, i.e. the mantle of Elisha. Our verb form finds its equivalent in verb ‫ לקח‬in v. 14. Both verbs are followed by identical chain of words. One of the words from the mentioned repetitive chain is ‫נפל‬. Even if the root occurs widely in HB, the number of occurrences of the form encountered is visibly limited. It does not occur in other verses of Kgs:

11 burūmû is an example of the usage of the corresponding root in Akkadian. It means “sky, heaven, stars” cf. CAD, “burūmû,” a) b).

178 ‫( נָפְ לָה‬vv. 13, 14) (she) had fallen

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

qal, qatal, 3 f., sg. cf. Gen 15:12; Josh 2:9; Judg 18:1; 1Sam 26:12; 2Sam 24:14; Job 1:16; Isa 21:9; Jer 51:8, 44; Lam 5:16; Dan 10:7; Amos 5:2 (†)

The feminine form of the verb indicates the gender of the noun it modifies, i.e “mantle.” Another noun which occurs in feminine is ‫ רוח‬in v. 9. The last two verb forms would be assigned to a category which might be called perception verbs. Nevertheless, the fact of seeing, or not seeing, things is also a type of action of an agent, i.e. it is, then, different from thinking, often connected to the root ‫אמר‬. Therefore, we have classified these verbs as deed verbs. The first occurrence of the root ‫ ראה‬in the narrator’s text is in v. 12aα (it supposes the occurrence of this root in the character’s text, cf. 1.2). The form that the reader encounters is typical for Deut, Sam and Kgs. It is also important that the examined verb form occurs one verse after our narrative, i.e. v. 19. ‫( רֹ אֶ ה‬v. 12) (he) was looking

qal, ptc., 3 m., sg. cf. Deut 1:8, 21; 2:24, 31; 4:5; 11:26; 30:15; Josh 6:2; 8:1; Judg 9:36; 20:41; 1Sam 1:11; 9:17; 24:12; 26:12, 16; 2Sam 7:2; 14:24, 28; 15:3; 17:23; 18:27; 20:12; 24:22; 1Kgs 12:16; 22:25; 2Kgs 2:19; 7:2, 19; 9:17, 27; 13:4; 14:26; 23:17;

The encountered verb forms a participle structure with the proper noun ‫אליׁשע‬, and also with an analogous participle structure based on verb ‫צעק‬. In both structures, the subject is put in first place, which is typical for participles. Participles, however, are used quite rarely in BH, therefore the reader is meant to perceive the change by the rhythm of telling the story. We translate both participles using a past tense because the preceding verse was translated in that way. The next verb form of the same root occurs only twice in HB. The other occurrence is in 1Sam in the dialogue about the fleeing David. This is our verb form: ‫( ָראָ הּו‬v. 12) (he) saw him

qal, qatal, 3 m., sg. +​suf. 3 m., sg. cf. 1Sam 23:22 (†)

Verbal Structures

179

It is worth noticing that our verb is preceded by the negation ‫לא‬. In the previous discussion between Elijah and Elisha, in v. 10, an analogous structure expressed the idea of condition of receiving the double portion.

1.1.4 Speech Verbs The last group of the narrator verbs is speech verbs. Since we have defined them in III 1.1.3, let us treat them briefly: ‫( אָ מַ ר‬v. 9) (he) said

qal, qatal, 3 m., sg. 1Kgs 17:14; 18:8, 11, 14, 44; 20:3, 5, 13, 14, 28, 32, 35, 42; 21:19; 22:11, 20, 27, 50; 2Kgs 1:4, 6, 11, 16; 2:21; 3:16, 17; 4:13, 43; 5:13; 6:10, 32; 7:1; 8:10, 14, 19; 9:3, 6, 12, 18, 19; 11:15

‫( ַוּי ֹאמֶ ר‬v. 9, 10, 14) (he) said

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., s. cf. 2Kgs 1:2, 5, 6, 8; 2:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21

While wayyiqtol represents the basic narrative chain of our narrative, the presented qatal form occurs only once in the narrator’s text. It makes the introduction of the speech of Elijah in v. 9 exceptional and important.

1.2 Character Verbs The specificity of Scene II regards nominal phrases pronounced by agents. After describing character verbs (III 1.2), we will comment briefly on phrases where verbs are only implicit.

1.2.1 Elijah’s Verbs (I) The first character verb is used in Elijah’s text. Its form is quite frequently used in HB and especially in DH. Let us, however, notice that elsewhere it occurs only once, in 1Kgs, i.e. in God’s conversation with Solomon. This conversation is one of the texts parallel to ours. Our verb form comes from the root ‫ׁשאל‬: ‫( ְׁשאַ ל‬v. 9) ask

qal, impv., 2 m., sing. cf. Deut 4:32; 32:7; Judg 18:5; 1Sam 17:56; 25:8; 1Kgs 3:5; 2Chr 1:7; Job 8:8; 12:7; Ps 2:8; Isa 7:11; Hag 2:11 (†)

180

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

It is worth noticing that this is not the first time in our narrative when Elijah’s text contains an imperative. In fact, his order to stay opened the series of dialogues in Scene I and was repeated twice. The next verb form occurs widely in HB. In Kgs it occurs four times. It occurs once in the Elisha cycle in the question to one of the wives of the Sons of the Prophets: “Elisha said to her, “What shall I do for you (‫ ?)מה אעׂשה־לך‬Tell me, what do you have in the house?” She answered, “Your servant has nothing in the house, except a jar of oil”” (2Kgs 4:2). The discussed verb form is the following: ‫( אֶ עֱׂשֶ ה‬v. 9) should I do

qal, yiqtol, 1 c., sing. cf. Deut 9:14; 12:30; Judg 7:17; 1Sam 10:2; 24:7; 28:15; 2Sam 2:6; 3:8, 9; 9:1, 3, 7; 10:2; 11:11; 12:12; 18:4; 19:39; 21:3, 4; 1Kgs 1:30; 5:22; 18:23; 20:9; 2Kgs 4:2;

As in 2Kgs 4:2, our form is followed by the particle: ‫־לך‬. One may wonder if the form is a yiqtol or a coh. Firstly, we do not speak about coh. of 3–​‫ ה‬verbs (cf. IBH § 122; J-​M § 45). Secondly, the modal translation of yiqtol fits the context. The last verb form of this speech occurs only in our narrative, and only once, even if the root ‫ לקח‬occurs widely in HB and in our narrative (6 occ.): ‫( אֶ ּלָקַ ח‬v. 9) I am taken

niphal, yiqtol, 1 c., s. cf. –​(†)

We need to ask if this yiqtol should be translated differently, e.g. in the modal way. Firstly, there is no reason to translate it modally. Secondly, the spectrum of possibilities of the yiqtol translation should remain in our mind also after the translation. Let us also notice that we find the discussed root both in the narrator’s text and in Elijah’s one.

1.2.2 Elisha’s Verbs (I) The verbal form which occurs in Elisha’s text is known from different verses of HB. Nevertheless, it is less known than wayyiqtol from the same root ‫היה‬. Our verb form occurs in the opening verse of the story of Naboth’s Vineyard: “And Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Give me your vineyard, so that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; I will (‫ )ויהי‬give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.’ (1Kgs 21:2)” This is the form:

Verbal Structures

‫( וִ יהִ י‬v. 9b) Let be

181

waw +​juss., 3 m., s. cf. 1Kgs 13:33; 14:5; 21:2

It is, then, a juss. form preceded by waw. Since it is followed by the particle ‫נא‬, the verb does occur in the juss. form, but also expresses its imperative meaning (J-​M § 46).

1.2.3 Elijah’s Verbs (II) As we see, there are not many verbs in the Elisha text. This is not the case of Elijah’s. The first verb form, which we encounter in v. 10, does not occur in HB, even if the root is widely spread: ָ‫( הִ קְ ִׁשית‬v. 10)

hiphil, qatal, 2 m., sg. cf. –​(†)

This verb modifies the inf., which follows it. The root ‫ קׁשה‬is more frequent in qal. Its meaning in hiphil is “make hard,” “harden,” (cf. HALOT, “‫)”קׁשה‬. Nevertheless, it is impossible to make the correct translation without analyzing its connection to the following word. The following verb form of the root ‫ ׁשאל‬occurs widely in HB and DH, but it does not occur in Kgs of v. 10 of our narrative. It especially occurs in 1Sam. Eventually, the closest structure, on the wording level, is Jer 30:6a “Ask now (‫)ׁשאלו־נא‬, and see can (‫ )וראו אם‬a man bear a child?” This is the form: ‫( לִ ְׁשאֹול‬v. 10) a request

prcl. ‫ ל‬+​ qal, inf. cons. cf. Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14; 1Sam 12:17; 13:22; 14:16, 33; 16:23; 17:8; 18:8, 20; 19:19, 21; 21:8; 22:15, 22; 23:7; 24:5, 6, 10, 23; 27:4; 31:11; 2Sam 2:8; 9:9; 21:8; (†)

The verb form that we have analyzed above, ‫הקׁשית‬, is modified by ‫לׁשאול‬. In fact, our inf. cons. is functioning as a noun. Other example: “Because from Yhwh* was the hardening (‫ )לחזק‬their heart” (Josh 11:20 (NRS), cf. IBHS 36.2.3) The next verb form is not very original in the HB context. It does not, however, occur in Kgs besides the single occurrence in our narrative. It is more typical of Deut:

182 ‫( ִּת ְראֶ ה‬v. 10) (if you) see

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

qal, yiqtol, 2 m., s. cf. Deut 3:28; 12:13; 22:1, 4; 28:34, 67; 32:52; 1Sam 1:11; 2Sam 3:13

Our verb is preceded by ‫אם‬, which introduces a conditional clause. The second occurrence of ‫ אם‬in the sentence, i.e. the second protasis (cf. IBHS 38.2), introduces the alternative solution, i.e. “otherwise” (‫)ואם־אין‬. The next verb form of v. 10 comes from the well-​known root ‫לקח‬. It occurs in qal pass. It occurs only in five places in HB. There is an interesting link to Isa 53:8: “By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off (‫ )לקח‬from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.” Our form, then, is applied by Isaiah to the suffering servant. Here there are other details: ‫( לֻּקָ ח‬v. 10)

qal pass., ptc., m., sg. Gen 3:23; Judg 17:2; Isa 52:5; 53:8 (†)

We might wonder if it is pual or qal pass. form. We would expect the letter mem in the first place of the word in pual ptc. Therefore, it can be also called pual prt. without the preformative mem (cf. GES §52s), but it is more correct to call it qal pass. ptc. The next verb form of v. 10 resembles the well-​known wayyiqtol ‫ויהי‬, cf. 1.2.2. The root ‫ היה‬in juss. is more used in 1Kgs than in 2Kgs. It is not, however, used in Elijah-​Elisha’s stories with the exception of this occurrence: ‫( יְ הִ י‬v. 10) (it) shall be

qal, juss., 3 m., sg. cf. Deut 32:38; 33:24; Judg 6:39; 2Sam 14:17; 1Kgs 1:37; 8:57; 10:9; 22:13

The examined form is linked with ‫ לך‬by maqqeph, which should be translated as “to you.” The last verb form of v. 10 is more used in Kgs than the previous one. It also occurs in the Elijah and Elisha stories, even in the very: “Now Elijah the Tishbite, of Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, ‘As Yhwh* the God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall be (‫ )יהיה‬neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word’ ” (1Kgs 17:1 NRS). Our verb form is the following:

Verbal Structures

‫( יִ הְ יֶה‬v. 10)

183

qal, yiqtol, 3 m., sg. 1Kgs 1:37, 52; 2:33, 37, 45; 3:26; 4:7; 5:8; 8:29, 35, 37; 9:8; 11:32; 13:32; 14:3; 17:1; 18:31; 2Kgs 2:21; 7:18; 16:15; 20:19; 23:27

This verb form closes both v. 10 and the conditional clause, started with the second occurrence of ‫אם‬. In apodosis, we might expect waw, but our author choses yiqtol as indicator of the final part of the conditional clause (cf. IBHS § 38.2).

1.2.4 Elisha’s Nominal Expressions There are no verbs in Elisha’s text in v. 12: “My father, my father, (you are) chariotry of Israel and its horsemen!” The default verb is “(you) are.” We find the verbatim expression in 2Kgs 13:14. Waltke-​O’Connor call the type of the phrase in v. 12 a “Nominal Exclamation” (cf. IBHS § 40.2.3; J-​M §162c). We can meet this type of exclamation in 2Kgs 4:19a: “He complained to his father, ‘Oh, my head, my head!’.” They do not necessarily respect the grammatical order within Hebrew phrases, e.g. 1Kgs 12:16b: “To your tents, O Israel!”12 The lack of verbs should also be noticed in Elisha’s text in v. 14: “Where (is) Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?” (cf. I 2.3). This is a standard type of question in BH, known from Gen 18:9, Isa 33:18, 1Sam 19:22, Jer 3:2 (cf. IBHS § 18.4c).

1.3 Incidents Let us try to understand what incidents can be proposed on the basis of the narrator and character verb structures. To which type of verbs should we give the priority? The frame of the narrative is given by the narrator verbs; therefore, we will look for the priority structures in this group. Let us start with time verbs, which are rare, and they introduce the new time within the narrative. They would divide our narrative into three units: a) vv. 7–​8 which describe the twosome going through the river; b) vv. 9–​10 which describe the discussion on the succession of Elijah; c) vv. 11–​14 which describe the moment of ascent and the crossing over the river by Elisha;

12 Cf. William J. Martin, “Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32 (1957): 315–​19.

184

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

The two last units will correspond to the idea of Foresti.13 We will keep the threefold structure of this incident. At the same time, some points need further divisions into incidents. Now, since space verbs are already used by time verbs structures (‫הלכים‬, ‫)הלוך‬, we will use deed verbs for further divisions. The first deed verb form opening a verse is ‫ ויקח‬in v. 8. It is followed by other verbs from the same group. This series distinguishes v. 7 from v. 8. The first incident we may, therefore, distinguish is the one in v. 7: [v. 7] The Introduction Incident –​ Space verb(s): ‫הלכו‬, ‫ויעמדו‬, ‫עמדו‬.

This is the shortest and the simplest incident, composed only with space verbs. The next incident starts in v. 8 with a series of deed verbs and finishes with a space verb: [v. 8] The First Crossing Incident –​ Deed verbs: ‫ויקח‬, ‫ויגלם‬, ‫ויכה‬, ‫ויחצו‬ –​ Space verb(s): ‫ויעברו‬

The following incident is the longest one (15 verb forms). It starts with a series of time verbs and continues with the Elijah and Elisha speeches. It is the only incident which does not finish with a space verb: [vv. 9–​10] The Request Incident –​ Time verb(s): ‫ויהי‬, ‫כעברם‬ –​ Speech verb(s): ‫ ;אמר‬+​Elijah’s verb(s): ‫ׁשאל‬, ‫אעׂשה‬, ‫;אלקח‬ –​ Speech verb(s): ‫ ;ויאמר‬+​Elisha’s verb(s): ‫;ויהי‬ –​ Speech verb(s): ‫ ויאמר‬+​Elijah’s verb(s): ‫הקׁשית‬, ‫לׁשאול‬, ‫תראה‬, ‫לקח‬, ‫יהי‬, ‫יהיה‬.

As we see, Elijah’s speeches are rich in verbs. The next incident happens without any speech. It starts in v. 11 with a serious of time verbs: [v. 11] The Separation Incident –​ Time verb(s): ‫ויהי‬, ‫הלכים‬, ‫הלוך‬, ‫;ודבר‬ –​ Deed verb(s): ‫;ויפרדו‬ –​ Space verb(s): ‫ויעל‬.

This incident contains both the time and deed verbs. Should we not, then, divide it into two? In fact, as we have remarked, these time verbs have simultaneous

13 Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 265.

Verbal Structures

185

character, the proper action is described by the following verb. As they form a unity, the scene is not divided into two in v. 11. The following series of deed verbs starts in v. 12 with the verb form ‫ראה‬. The deed verbs chain continues in v. 13, which starts with ‫וירם‬. This form is followed by ‫נפלה‬. The chain is interrupted by a space verb: [vv. 12–​13] The Scream Incident –​ Deed verb(s): ‫ראה‬, ‫מצעק‬, ‫ראהו‬, ‫ויחזק‬, ‫ויקרעם‬, ‫וירם‬, ‫נפלה‬ –​ Space verb(s): ‫ויׁשב‬

Finally, the verb form ‫ ויקח‬opens the description of the last incident in v. 14. Again, the chain is interrupted by a space verb: [v. 14] The Second Crossing Incident –​ Deed verb(s): ‫ויקח‬, ‫נפלה‬, ‫ויכה‬, ‫ויחצו‬ –​ Space verb(s): ‫ויעבר‬

In fact, the last incident is a miscellany of verb forms which are used in previous incidents (vv. 8 and 13).

1.4 Section Conclusions The narrator verbs are the core bone of Scene II. We have divided them into four groups: time verb structures, space verbs, speech verbs and deed verbs. The last group did not occur in Scene I, whereas it is the largest group in Scene II. This group consists of the verbs describing actions of agents which do not imply moving to another geographical location. Change of location characterizes space verbs. They are used by both identified time verb structures. We noticed that the first structure (v. 9, ‫ )ויהי כעברם‬has a consecutive character, whereas the second has the simultaneal one (v. 11, ‫)ויהי המה הלכים הלוך ודבר‬. Other observations on the narrator verbs are as follows. Space verbs are repeated in the scene only with form modifications: ‫הלכו‬, ‫הלכים‬, ‫( הלוך‬vv. 7a, 11a, 11a), ‫ויעמדו‬, ‫עמדו‬, ‫( ויעמד‬vv. 7a, 7b, 13b), ‫ויעברו‬, ‫כעברם‬, ‫( ויעבר‬vv. 8, 9, 14). Only two space verbs are not repeated in Scene II: ‫ויעל‬, ‫( ויׁשב‬vv. 11, 13). Let us remember that the first one occurred in v. 1. Now, only deed verbs are repeated verbatim in the scene: ‫( ויקח‬vv. 8, 14); ‫( ויכה‬vv. 8, 14a, 14b); ‫( ויחצו‬vv. 8, 14); ‫( נפלה‬vv. 13, 14). Many of them are not repeated: ‫( ויגלם‬v. 8), ‫( ויפרדו‬v. 11), ‫( מצעק‬v. 12), ‫( ויחזק‬v. 12), ‫( ויקרעם‬v. 12), ‫( וירם‬v. 13). One verb form of deed verbs is a variant repetition: ‫( ראה‬v. 12) is repeated as ‫( ראהו‬v. 12). The last pair of verbs needs a special remark. We noticed that these verbs might form a separate category. ‫ ראה‬is also the only root which occurs both in the narrator’s and character’s text of Scene II. It is, therefore, special, and it needs special attention in further exegesis. Another particular verb form

186

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

is ‫נפלה‬. It is the only feminine verb in Scene II. It modifies the feminine noun “mantle” (‫אדרת‬, vv. 13, 14).14 Finally, we noticed some connections of the vocabulary (‫ויגלם‬, ‫ )וירם‬with the text describing the consequences of King Tiglath-​ pileser of Assyria’s invasion of Israel. This may eventually give us some hints for the dating of the text. The narrator’s and Elijah’s texts provide Scene II in verbs. On the basis of dialogues, we distinguished two Elijah’s verb groups (I, II). Elijah uses both original verb forms (group I: ‫ ;אלקח‬II: ‫ ;)הקׁשית‬forms known from other parts of Kgs (group I: ‫אעׂשה‬, ‫ ;ׁשאל‬II: ‫ ;)יהיה יהי‬and forms not used in Kgs but used in other parts of DH (group II: ‫לֻּקָ ח‬, ‫תראה‬, ‫)לׁשאול‬. It is worth noticing that both impv. “ask” (‫ )ׁשאל‬and yiqtol “shall do” (‫ )אעׂשה‬refer us to the Widow’s Oil Episode in 2Kgs 4:1–​7. Now, there is only one verb which occurs in Elisha’s text. We translated this juss. as “let be” (‫)ויהי‬. This one verb might be crucial for further exegesis, just as the nominal structures pronounced by Elisha: “My father, my father, chariotry of Israel and its horsemen!” and “Where (is) Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?” Except from the historical-​critical questions (cf. I 2.3), we need to ask the question regarding the influence of nominal expressions on the flow of the narrative, e.g. if they develop the consecutive or simulating aspect of the narrative. Finally, we divided Scene II into six incidents. The criterion of division was firstly, time verb structures, and secondly, deed verbs: [v. 7] The Introduction Incident (beginning of the scene) (cf. II 2.3.4) [v. 8] The First Crossing Incident (distinguished by deed verbs) [vv. 9–​10] The Request Incident (by time verb structure) [v. 11] The Separation Incident (by time verb structure) [vv. 12–​13] The Scream Incident (by deed verbs) [v. 14] The Second Crossing Incident (by deed verbs)

We have also noticed that the time verb structures are constructed with space verbs, which gives an important time-​space connection. These time structures can function as continuity or simultaneity of the preceding text.

2. Narrative Techniques In this section, we will examine two narrative techniques. The first one regards the issue of time. While Scene I is characterized by the prolepsis technique, the 14 Other feminine nouns of the scene are: “spirit,” (‫רוח‬, v. 9) “whirlwind,” (‫סערה‬, v. 11) “dry-shod” (‫חרבה‬, v. 8), cf. Janusz Lemański, ”Standardowe i specyficzne rozumienie slowa rûªh w tekstach Ksiegi Rodzaju i Ksiegi Wyjscia,” Verbum Vitae 37, no. 1 (2020): 11–​34.

Narrative Techniques

187

technique of simultaneity is used to construct Scene II. The second technique to be considered is the issue of points of view. We try to identify not only particular points of view, but also different systems of viewpoints used within the scene.

2.1 Simultaneity The character of Scene II is shaped by the phenomenon of simultaneity. Bar-​ Efrat writes that narrative time stops in two situations: a) “when interpretations, explanations, conclusions or evaluations are given by the narrator”; b) “when depictions are given within the narrative.”15 Let us ask: what about the situations in which the narrator speaks about two events taking place simultaneously? Does the time flow or stop? Or it is an interplay between synchronicity and simultaneity?16 Let us see how it works in Scene II.

2.1.1 Types of Simultaneity To understand its specificity, we need to identify basic types of simultaneity in Sam-​Kgs. The basic classification of various simultaneities will regard the category of time. In this way, we get time-​oriented simultaneity and non-​time-​oriented simultaneity. Moreover, the time-​oriented simultaneity will be divided into the overlapping and non-​overlapping ones. The overlapping simultaneity regards the situation when the narrator goes back in narrative time to skip to the simultaneous subplot. The non-​overlapping simultaneity regards events which happen simultaneously, but the narrator does not go back in narrative time to skip to

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 146. Bar-​Efrat speaks also about the psychological sensation of time, just as he does here: “Thus far, matters connected with the duration of time and its varying speeds have been discussed. In addition to calendar time, however, psychological time is also found in narrative. This does not refer to psychological time as experienced by the characters, even though this also exists in biblical narrative (for example, in Gen 29:20: ‘And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her’); what is meant is the pace of time, the rate at which it proceeds with regard to the reader’s subjective feeling.” Ibid., 160. 16 It was examined by a Polish-​born scholar: Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narrative,” in Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art Throughout the Ages, ed. Joseph Heinemann and Samuel Werses, Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1978), 9–​26. Cf. Ghelly V. Chernov, Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-​Prediction Model (Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2004), 11–​14. 15

188

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

simultaneous plot. Let us present some examples explaining the presented types of simultaneity. Firstly, a good example of overlapping simultaneity in Kgs is the regnal resumé formulas (cf. II 2.3.3; III 2.1.1). When the events take place in the kingdom of Judah, the narrator refers to a year of reign of Israel’s king. It happens analogically when the events take place in the kingdom of Israel. These are some detailed examples: In the eighteenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehoram son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria; he reigned twelve years. (2Kgs 3:1 NRS) In the fifth year of King Joram son of Ahab of Israel, Jehoram son of King Jehoshaphat of Judah began to reign. (2Kgs 8:16 NRS)

Despite the fact that it is difficult to understand the precise dating of the reign of particular kings of Judah and Israel, one thing is sure: the narrator (and the authors) tries to synchronize the events which take place under each reign.17 An important feature of this synchronization is the fact that sometimes the narrator goes back and forth in time to present various data, cf. 1Kgs 22: Jehoshaphat slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of his father David; his son Jehoram succeeded him. (v. 50 NRS) Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah; he reigned two years over Israel. (v. 51 NRS)

From v. 50, we find out that Jehoshaphat is dead and Jehoram succeeded him. From the next verse, v. 51, we find out that Ahaziah began to reign in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat. It describes, then, an event which takes place before the 17 Cf. Gershon Galil, “The Last Years of the Kingdom of Israel and the Fall of Samaria,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, no. 1 (1995): 52–​64; The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–​11; Gershon Galil, Moshe Weinfeld, and Zecharia Kallai, Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 406–​14; John H. Hull, “King Lists as a Structuring Principle in the Book of Kings,” in Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney, ed. Shelley L. Birdsong Serge Frolov (Claremont, California: Claremont Press, 2017), 133–​ 46; Jacobus A. Naudé, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Chronology and Typology Debate,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36, no. 2 (2010): 1–​22; Lester L. Grabbe, 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Study Guide. History and Story in Ancient Israel, T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament (London: Bloomsbury; T&T Clark, 2016), 45–​81.

189

Narrative Techniques

death of Jehoshaphat. Therefore, the narrator does not respect the chronological timeline in this case. There are cases when he respects the chronological time flow perfectly, e.g. as he presents events common to both kingdoms, just as in 2Kgs 3:9: So the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom set out; and when they had made a roundabout march of seven days, there was no water for the army or for the animals that were with them. (2Kgs 3:9 NRS)

This and other common kings’ stories fulfil a synchronic function, cf. the joint campaign of Israel and Judah against Aram in 1Kgs 22.18 Secondly, a good example of non-​overlapping simultaneity is the David’s succession story in 1Kgs 1. The action alternates between two places, i.e. Jerusalem and En-​rogel. Bar-​Efrat shows this alternation in a very accessible way:19 En-​rogel: The City:

vv. 9–​10;

vv. 41–​50; vv. 11–​40;

vv. 51–​53.

The scenes showing Adonijah’s attempts to gain power over the kingdom of David take place in En-​rogel. The scenes describing the reaction of David’s court (the prophet Nathan, queen Bathsheba, king David, Solomon) take place in the city of Jerusalem, principally, in the king’s palace. The reader is invited by the text to imagine alternately one of these places. It is important to underline that narrative time does not turn back when the narrator speaks about the other place. We are dealing rather with a smooth passage to the next subplot. Let us quote these passages: Then Nathan said (‫ )ויאמר נתן‬to Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, ‘Have you not heard that Adonijah son of Haggith has become king and our lord David does not know it?’ (v. 11 NRS); Adonijah (‫ )ויׁשמע אדניהו‬and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished feasting. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, “Why is the city in an uproar?” (v. 41 NRS); Solomon was informed (‫)ויגד לׁשלמה‬, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon; see, he has laid hold of the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword’.” (v. 51 NRS)

18 DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition, 93–​111; Keith Bodner, “The Locutions of 1 Kings 22:28. A New Proposal,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 3 (2003): 533–​43. 19 Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 168.

190

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

There are no traces that the narrator goes back in time to describe the parallel subplot scene. In fact, the time passes in the other place, which gives the effect of simultaneity. Another type of simultaneity is the non-​time-​oriented one. A good example of this orientation comes from the presentation of Adonijah at the beginning of Kgs: Now Adonijah son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, “I will be king”; he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. (1Kgs 1:5 NRS)

The verse itself perfectly respects the chronological order. Firstly, Adonijah proclaims his pretensions to the throne, then he prepares soldiers for himself. The following verse, however, seems to go back in time: His father had never at any time displeased him by asking, “Why have you done thus and so?” He was also a very handsome man, and he was born next after Absalom. (1Kgs 1:6 NRS)

Here we find the information about the birth of Absalom after the previous descriptions of his throne’s pretentions. The question is why the narrator put this before all other described issues? The answer of Bar-​Efrat is that v. 5 fulfils many essential functions in the narrative simultaneously. Let us list these functions:20 –​ Highlighting the contrast between the styles of Adonijah and David; –​ Explaining the arrogance of Adonijah; –​ Showing contrast between Adonijah and Absalom; –​ Inviting the reader to consider Adonijah’s right to the throne. On the one hand, this type of simultaneity is widespread in HB. On the other, verses such as v. 5 fulfil more functions than others. It is important to notice that this type of simultaneity functions on a different level to the time-​oriented one. We are not dealing here with simultaneity in time. It rather reveals the art of narrating. Fokkelman’s remark is thus perfectly accurate here: A good narrator does not want to make things easy for us by sermonizing himself all the time. He knows that in that case his text would be reduced to the level of didactics. He also wants to make us think, and the best way to do this is to speak indirectly and implicitly. This is why in many stories we are forced to be patient, to read and re-​read sensitively. We must first get plot and structure clear before it transpires, or before we can tentatively point to, where the ideological focus is or where a judgment has been incorporated.21

2 0 Ibid., 176. 21 Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 149.

Narrative Techniques

191

Even if the non-​time-​oriented simultaneity regards, in many cases, the re-​reading process, it is essential for the understanding of the narrative.

2.1.2 Phenomenon of v. 7 The question which is essential for us regards the simultaneity in our scene. Can it be identified as such at all? If yes, how can we characterize it? This is the verse to be examined: ‫יאים הָ לְ כּו ַו ַּיע ְַמדּו ִמ ֶּנגֶד מֵ ָרחֹוק‬ ִ ִ‫וח ֲִמ ִּׁשים ִאיׁש ִמּבְ נֵי הַ ּנְ ב‬ ‫ּוׁשנֵיהֶ ם ע ְָמדּו עַל־הַ ּי ְַרּדֵ ן׃‬ ְ Fifty men of the sons of prophets went and stood opposite them at a distance, while the two of them stood at the Jordan. 2Kgs 2:7

Figure 28-​IV.  Structure of v. 7

Let us pay attention to the waw +​ noun +​ (…) verb constructions. There are two of them: a) fifty (‫ )וחמׁשים‬went (‫( )הלכו‬v. 7a –​the first member) b) two of them (‫ )וׁשניהם‬stood (‫( )עמדו‬v. 7b –​the second member). These constructions disturb the normal flow of the narrated events. Now, the general rule of GES would be an argument against the simultaneity phenomenon in this complex clause: According to what has been remarked above, under a, the natural order of words within the verbal sentence is: Verb-​Subject or Verb-​Subject-​Object. But as in the noun-​clause so also in the verbal-​clause, a variation of the usual order of words frequently occurs when any member of the sentence is to be specially emphasized by priority of position. (GES §142f)

According to this logic two (here: noun) and fifty (here: adjective), modifying subjects, are emphasized by the biblical authors.22 If the emphasis means importance, there is no reason to consider occurrence of simultaneity in our verse. In fact, this is the argument of Joüon, which is illuminating on this issue:

22 The order Subject-​Object-​Verb is frequent in Aramaic, cf. GES §142 f.

192

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

This feature of succession characteristic of the wayyiqtol construction becomes particularly evident when biblical writers, when they do not want to express succession, deliberately avoid wayyiqtol and replace it with w-​..qatal. J-​M §362d.

In our verse, we are not dealing with a simple change of order in the clause. We are dealing with a special structure, which Joüon named a w-​..qatal structure.23 He gives four major reasons why the biblical authors use this structure: A) When the second action comes before the first: 1Kgs 22:23 (NRS): “So you see, Yhwh* has put (‫ )נתן‬a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; [for] Yhwh* (‫ )ויהוה‬has decreed disaster for you.” W-​..qatal preceded by a qatal or wayyiqtol, corresponds to the pluperfect or past perfect in some European languages. B) When the subsequent action is not represented as such, it is represented as an opposed one, cf. 1Kgs 2:8 (NRS): “There is also with you Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a terrible curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down (‫ )והוא־ירד‬to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by Yhwh*, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword’.” C) When the second action is simultaneous or represented as such. This issue is common in the case of the opposition, cf. 1Sam 15:34 (NRS): “Then Samuel (‫ )וילך‬went to Ramah; [while] Saul (‫ )וׁשאול‬went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul.” D) When they want to express a repetition of the action, cf. 2Sam 3:23 (NRS): “[So] Joab [‫ ויואב … באו‬repetition, cf. v. 22] and all the army that was with him came, it was told Joab, ‘Abner son of Ner came to the king, and he has dismissed him, and he has gone away in peace’.” Now, our difficulty regards the fact that there are no rules allowing us to classify our verse as one of the four cases. Therefore, we need to go through the possibilities step by step: [Ad A] The first possibility given by Joüon would function when the two arrive at the Jordan before the fifty. The previous verse finished with the information that the two walked on. In consequence, they arrive when the fifty are already there. In the example from 1Kgs 22:23, the second member of the clause (after w-​..qatal) is the reason d’être for the first one, therefore the chronological order is different to the narrative one. Since in 2Kgs 2:7, there is not such

23 Generally, Joüon distinguishes three types of temporal clauses: expressing succession, expressing simultaneity and, finally, expressing anteriority, cf. J-​M §115a.

193

Narrative Techniques

a reason, we do not opt for the first possibility. [Ad B] Secondly, could we say that the second member is not represented as subsequent, but as an opposition to the first member? We do not have any additional information to confirm the opposition of two actions: in the example from 1Kgs 2:8, the promise of not killing is in opposition to the fact of not being cursed. In 2Kgs 2:7, we find only two movements of the agents. [Ad C] Thirdly, when fifty men stood opposite the two, it is an opposition par excellence. Opposition is emphasized by the analogous position of the fifty and the two in the verse. It seems, therefore, that we are dealing with the case of simultaneity. Let us, however, look at the last possibility. [Ad D] Finally, we have many repetitions in our narrative, but it does not seem that the structure of v. 7 is a repetition of any previous verse. On the contrary, its word order does not respect the order in verses with similar words, cf. vv. 3, 5, 6b. The third option (C) is, therefore, the best one, i.e. v. 7 describes two simultaneous events. The observation of Bar-​Efrat will help us to pass from the grammar level to the narratological one: When the narrator does not use the form of the verb with the consecutive waw this usually, though not invariably, means that the action referred to does not follow chronologically after the previous one. (…) When does the author do this? Does this happen, for example, when an author wishes to recount different events which occurred simultaneously?24

The answer for the last question is therefore yes. It is visible in v. 7 and also in Bar-​Efrat’s investigation. How can we describe, then, the examined simultaneity? We are dealing with a number of parallel elements: vv. 7a

7b

Who? What? ‫יאים‬ ִ ִ‫וח ֲִמ ִשים ִאיׁש ִמבְ נֵי הַ נְ ב‬ ‫הָ לְ כּו‬ ‫ַו ַּיע ְַמדּו‬ Fifty men went and stood of the sons of prophets the two of them stood ‫ּוׁשנֵיהֶ ם‬ ְ ‫ע ְָמדּו‬

How?

‫ִמ ֶּנגֶד מֵ ָרחֹוק‬ opposite them at a distance at the Jordan ‫עַל־הַ ּי ְַרּדֵ ן‬

Figure 29-​IV.  Two Events in v. 7

There are a few curious elements. Firstly, the fifty men went and then they stand. How should we treat the verb to go in this case? Let us note that it is a 24

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 166.

194

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

parallelism to v. 6b “The two of them walked on (‫)וילכו‬.” The narrative would be more fluent, however, if v. 7b were put directly after v. 6b. In this case, the reader would get the full information regarding the two. Subsequently, he could see that regarding the fifty. The miscellany of data shows that the narrator wants to juxtapose the two and the fifty. We can call this opposition structural, because it involves the interplay of the order of the textual elements. Secondly, the reader gets the information about (op)position (‫)מנגד מרחוק‬ before getting the information about the location of the agents (‫)על־הירדן‬. Again, the reader is dealing with an unexpected order of verse elements. It is clear, then, that he wants to emphasize the opposition of both groups. We can call this opposition spatial, because it regards putting in the mind of the reader two groups, one in opposition to the other in the space of the narrative world. The opposition has, therefore, both structural and spatial character. It is not, however, the whole truth. The third element which makes the opposition complete is the issue of time. The time of the fifty is juxtaposed with the time of the two by usage of the grammar tools, which we discussed above. This kind of opposition can be called simultaneous. In the last part of this chapter, we will look more closely at the functioning of this simultaneity (cf. 3.2). Now, we can be more precise about the type of this simultaneity. In order to get this precision, let us remind ourselves that, according to Joüon, clauses which express simultaneity can be divided into four categories (cf. J-​M §166c-​i).25 We will also use this classification in other parts of this dissertation: 1) In the clause qatal… w-​..qatal, we are dealing with two instantaneous actions, e.g. 1Sam 9:17: “When Samuel saw (‫ )וׁשמואל ראה‬Saul, Yhwh told him (‫ויהוה‬ ‫)ענהו‬, “Here is the man of whom I spoke to you. He it is who shall rule over my people.”” 2) In the clause type qotel.. w-​..qotel, we are dealing with two durative actions, e.g. 1Sam 9:14: “So they went up to the town. As they were entering (‫המה‬ ‫ )באים‬the town, [they saw?] Samuel coming (‫ )והנה ׁשמואל יצא‬out toward them on his way up to the shrine.” 3) The clause type qotel.. w-​..qatal, where qotel provides background information, we are dealing with a durative action followed by an instantaneous

25 Cf. “The noun-​clause connected by wāw copulative to a verbal-​clause, or its equivalent, always describes a state contemporaneous with the principal action, or (when the predicate is a transitive participle) an action represented in constant duration (…)” (GES §141e).

195

Narrative Techniques

one, e.g. 2Kgs 13:21 “As a man was being buried (‫)והנה ׁשמואל יצא‬, a marauding band was seen (‫ )והנה ראו‬and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.” 4) The clause type wayyiqtol(qatal)… w-​..qotel is used when the second member (durative) is supposed to be a pure circumstance, e.g. 1Kgs 19:19: “So he set out (‫ )וילך‬from there, and found (‫ )וימצא‬Elisha son of Shaphat, who was ploughing (‫)והוא חרׁש‬. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him.” In other cases, when the text passes from an instantaneous action to a durative one, we apply a scheme analogous to the one from point 3. The structure of v. 7 is w-​..qatal .. w-​..qatal (‫)וׁשניהם עמדו ;וחמׁשים … הלכו‬. It means that it should be classified as the first type. Both members of the clause express, therefore, instantaneous actions, which are juxtaposed. In other words, the reader is meant to be dealing with two short moments bonded together.

2.1.3 Phenomenon of v. 11a Another verse in our scene which copes with the phenomena of simultaneity is v. 11 and, more properly, v. 11a. As was the case of the previous point, we are dealing here with two essential members which correspond to v. 11aα and v. 11aβ: In the case of the first member, we are dealing with a wayyiqtol.. qotel type of 2Kgs 2:11 aα

‫וַיְ הִ י הֵ ּמָ ה הֹ לְ כִ ים הָ לֹוְך וְ דַ ּבֵ ר‬ ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה ֶרכֶב־אֵ ׁש וְ סּוסֵ י אֵ ׁש‬ As they were walking on, talking (v. aαI –​first member) chariotry of fire and horses of fire (appeared)(v. 11aαII –​second member)

Figure 30-​IV.  Structure of v. 11a

clause. The second member is a nominal clause, preceded by wehinneh. Let us start our analysis with an attempt towards the proper understanding of wehinneh. Joüon, referring to 2Kgs 2:11, writes about hinneh as a buffer word. It necessarily means that this word would be meaningless outside of its syntactic function. Now, firstly, it is important that Joüon is referring here to hinneh and not to wehinneh, which we find in our verse. Today, scholars mark the clear

196

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

distinction between the two. Tamar Zewi showed that their difference becomes clear when we analyze the context in which they are used.26 Hinneh is basically used after the speech words, introducing the direct speech. Let us give some examples: And when Gaal saw them, he said (‫ )ויאמר‬to Zebul, “Look, people (‫ )הנה־עם‬are coming down from the mountain tops!” And Zebul said to him, “The shadows on the mountains look like people to you.” (Judg 9:36 NRS) The king was told (‫)לאמר‬, “Here (‫ )הנה‬is the prophet Nathan.” When he came in before the king, he did obeisance to the king, with his face to the ground. (1Kgs 1:23 NRS) He answered (‫ )אמר‬him, “It is I. Go, tell your lord that Elijah is here (‫)הנה‬.” (1Kgs 18:8 NRS, cf. vv. 11, 14)

The usage of wehinneh is more complex. Zewi observed that it is preceded by verbs of sight, or descriptions of dreams, visions, revelations etc.27 Here are a few examples: Once when Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up (‫ )וישא עיניו וירא‬and saw a man (‫)והנה־איׁש‬ standing before him with a drawn sword in his hand. (Josh 5:13 NRS) After a while he returned to marry her, and he turned aside to see (‫ )לראות‬the carcass of the lion, and [there was] (‫ )והנה‬a swarm of bees in the body of the lion, and honey (‫עדת‬ ‫)דבורים בגוית האריה ודבׁש‬. (Judg 14:8 NRS) When I rose in the morning to nurse my son, I saw that he was dead; but when I looked at him closely (‫ )ואתבונן‬in the morning, clearly (‫ )והנה‬it was not the son I had borne. (1Kgs 3:21 NRS) He looked (‫)ויבט‬, and there (‫ )והנה‬at his head was a cake baked on hot stones, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and lay down again. (1Kgs 19:6 NRS) Yhwh* opened their eyes, and they saw (‫ )ויראו‬that they were (‫ )והנה‬inside Samaria (‫בתוך‬ ‫)ׁשמרון‬. (2Kgs 6:20b NRS)

26 Tamar Zewi, “The Particles ‫ הנה‬and ‫ והנה‬in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 37, no. 1 (1996): 21–​37; cf. Simcha Kogut, “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ‫ הנה‬in Biblical Hebrew,” in Studies in Bible, ed. Sara Japhet, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (Jerusalem: Magnet Press, The Hebrew University, 1986), 133–​54; Tamar Zewi, “The Particles ‫ הִ ֵנּה‬and ‫ וְ הִ ֵנּה‬in Several Bible Translations,” Hebrew Studies 47 (2010): 181–​91. 27 wehinneh is determined by what follows our particle. We have already noticed that in 2Kgs 2:11 it introduces a nominal clause. It could, however, introduce a verbal clause; a clause with a participle; a one-​member clause; a one-​member clause with a participle as a predicate.

Narrative Techniques

197

The complexity of the usage of wehinneh regards not only the variety of sight, dreams, visions, and revelations of verbs which can precede it. Wehinneh can occur before verbs which have nothing to do with the mentioned categories, e.g.: Then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation (‫)וׁשאלת‬. If (‫ )והנה‬the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you (Deut 13:14 NRS) When David and his men came to (‫ )ויבא‬the city, they found (‫ )והנה‬it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. (1Sam 30:3 NRS) When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood (‫)ויעמד‬ at the entrance of the cave. Then there came (‫ )והנה‬a voice to him that said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” (1Kgs 19:13 NRS)

It is clear that 2Kgs 2:11 has to be put in the last presented group of examples. None of the verbs (‫היה‬, ‫הלך‬, ‫ )דבר‬which precede wehinneh in this verse refers to sight, dreams, visions, revelations. Identifying the contextual function of our wehinneh as varia is very vague. Can we therefore identify it in different manner? McCarthy’s research can help us to name the specificity of our wehinneh. He distinguished nine types of its function in a clause:28 a) Excited perception, cf. 1Kgs 10:6–​7; 2Kgs 7, 5b (+​nominal clause): “but when they came to (‫ )ויבאו‬the edge of the Aramean camp, there was no one there at all (‫)והנה אין־ׁשם איׁש‬.” b) Cause, cf. Judg 18:9; 1Kgs 2:8a (+​ nominal clause): “There is also with you (‫ )והנה עמך‬Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a terrible curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim.” c) Occasion, cf. 2Sam 18:11; 1Kgs 19:11aα (NRS): “He said, “Go out and stand (‫ )צא ועמדת‬on the mountain before Yhwh*, for Yhwh* is about to pass by (‫)והנה יהוה עבר‬.”” d) Condition, cf. 1Sam 9:7; 20:12 (NRS): “Jonathan said to David, “By Yhwh*, the God of Israel! When I have sounded out my father, about this time tomorrow, or on the third day, if he is well disposed toward David (‫והנה־טוב‬ ‫)אל־דוד‬, shall I not then send and disclose it to you?”” e) Concession, cf. 1Sam 9:7; 2Kgs 7:19a (NRS): “the captain had answered the man of God, ‘Even if Yhwh* were to make (‫ )והנה יהוה עׂשה‬windows in the sky, could such a thing happen?’ ”

28 Dennis J McCarthy, “The Uses of wehinnēh in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblica 61, no. 3 (1980): 330–​42.

198

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

f) Time, cf. 1Sam 3:10; 1Kgs 13:25 (NRS): “[When] People passed by (‫והנה אנׁשים‬ ‫ )עברים‬and saw the body thrown in the road, with the lion standing by the body. And they came and told it in the town where the old prophet lived.” g) Purpose, cf. 2Sam 15:32; 1Kgs 18:7 (NRS): “As Obadiah was on the way, Elijah met him (‫ ;)והנה אליהו לקראתו‬Obadiah recognized him, fell on his face, and said, ‘Is it you, my lord Elijah?’ ” h) Result, cf. 2Sam 14:7; 1Kgs 19:13 (NRS): “When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood (‫ )ויצא ויעמד‬at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him (‫ )והנה אליו קול‬that said, ‘What are you doing here, Elijah?’ ” i) Adversaries, cf. Is 22:12; 1Sam 25:36a (+​ nominal clause) (NRS): “Abigail came (‫ )ותבא‬to Nabal; he was holding (‫ )והנה־לו‬a feast in his house, like the feast of a king.” The classification of wehinneh to one of these categories seems to be quite arbitrary, cf. McCarthy’s reflection of the purpose category.29 This problem is resolved by the author’s noticing that the categories can overlap. Let us notice that excited perception wehinneh occurs after a motion verb in 2Kgs 7:5b (category a). Therefore, we see that the preceding verbs do not necessarily define the function of wehinneh, as might be inferred from Zewi’s article. The observation that we have made refers to an example where wehinneh is followed by a nominal clause (a).30 We are dealing with the same construction (motion verb +​ wehinneh +​ nominal clause) in 1Sam 25:36a, an example of the function called adversaries (i). Let us analyze another example of this construction: When it was told (‫ )ויגד‬King Solomon, “Joab has fled (‫ )נס‬to the tent of Yhwh* and now (‫ )והנה‬is beside the altar (‫( ”)…( )אצל המזבח‬1Kgs 2:29a NRS)

As we see, wehinneh is preceded here by a motion verb (‫)נס‬. This clause, however, can neither be classified as excited perception nor adversaries, because it regards a result and not a surprise or juxtaposition. It can be ascribed to the result (h) or time (f) categories, remembering the remark that such categories can overlap.

2 9 Ibid., 339. 30 According to Joüon, the standard function of a nominal clause in such a verse is expressing a state instead of an action, e.g. Judg 18:13 “While they were at Micah’s house (‫)המה עם־בית מיכה‬, they recognized the voice of the young Levite; so they went over and asked him, “Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? What is your business here?””

Narrative Techniques

199

Now, the issue of 2Kgs 2:11a can probably be resolved in the same manner. On the one hand, the occurring wehinneh belongs to the category of excited perception (a); on the other, it can be explained by the category of time (f). The major difficulty with our verse regards the fact that, after a motion verb (ptc.: ‫)הלכים‬, a verb of speech (ptc.: ‫ )ודבר‬occurs. The latter is typical for the usage of hinneh, as was presented above. Let us notice, however, that we have not yet dealt with the question of the usage of participles yet. It becomes evident that, after analyzing the usage of different roots, we need to look at the usage of participles. Let us remind ourselves of the clause structures expressing simultaneity (cf. 2.1.1; cf. J-​M §166c-​i): 1) 2) 3) 4)

qatal… w-​..qatal; qotel.. w-​..qotel; qotel.. w-​..qatal; wayyiqtol(qatal)… w-​..qotel.

The form qotel (ptc.) is to be found in points 2), 3) and 4) of the classification. In order to choose the proper option, we must address the problem that there is no verb in the second member of our clause. Joüon notices that, occasionally, a nominal clause is used instead of perfect –​ that which would correspond to qatal, if we want to use European terminology.31 Here, he indicates two biblical verses: 1Kgs 18:7 and 2Kgs 2:11. Let us look first at 1Kgs 18:7. There are two nominal clauses in this verse: “As Obadiah was on the way (‫)ויהי עבדיהו בדרך‬, Elijah met him (‫ ;)והנה אליהו לקראתו‬Obadiah recognized him, fell on his face, and said, ‘Is it you, my lord Elijah?’ ” In fact, this verse is more complex, because we are dealing with two nominal clauses in a row. This is the clause “Elijah met him,” which is meant to contain a default perfect but, in fact, we are dealing with an inf. cons. used as a regular verb. 2Kgs 2:11a consists of two parts: α) As they were walking, talking β) chariotry of fire and horses of fire (appeared).

[Ad α)] Following the typology of Joüon, we should classify the α) as the type 2), since we are dealing with two verbal forms of qotel. It means, therefore, that we are dealing with two durative members, just as in 1Sam 9:14. The twosome are walking and talking simultaneously. Let us only remind ourselves that we are discussing the temporal aspect of the clause.

31 The problem of the terminology is discussed in J-​M § 42.

200

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

[Ad β)] If the discussed nominal clause should be understood as replacement of qatal, as Joüon suggests, we need to understand the whole discussed structure as the one indicated in 3), i.e. qotel.. w-​..qatal. To be more precise: the microstructure qotel w-​qotel, so 2), is treated by us as qotel. It means that a durative action is juxtaposed with an instantaneous one. To be more precise: two simultaneous actions are juxtaposed with an instantaneous one. That is why Waltke-​ O’Connor translate v.11aβ: “Suddenly (there were) chariotry and horses of fire” (cf. IBHS 33.3.4). [wehinneh in β] The last conclusion regards the occurrence of wehinneh in β. We have noticed that it can be ascribed to two of McCarthy’s categories: excited perception and time. The latter was explored thanks to the observations of Joüon and the results were presented above. We still need to explore the excited perception category. It will take place in the following point of this chapter, in 2.2. For now, let us underline that the clause without wehinneh would deprive this part of the narrative of an important dimension. Wehinneh is, therefore, more than a buffer word.

2.1.5 Phenomenon of v. 12aα Another example of simultaneity is in v. 12aα. This clause is separated from v. 11 by the information that Elijah went up in the whirlwind to the sky, which was largely discussed in Chapters I and III, both from the historical-​critical and narratological perspectives. The clause is the following: 2Kgs 2:12 aα

‫ֶואֱלִ יׁשָ ע רֹ אֶ ה וְ הּוא ְמצַ עֵק‬ ‫אָ בִ י אָ בִ י ֶרכֶב יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל ּופ ָָרׁשָ יו‬ Elisha was looking and crying My father, my father, chariotry of Israel and its horsemen!

Figure 31-​IV.  Structure of v. 12aα

On the one hand, one may notice that v. 12 has a similar structure to v. 7, in which we are dealing with two instantaneous and simultaneous actions. The reason for this supposition might be the identification of the double structure type: w-​noun.. +​ w-​noun.. . The problem is that, in our structure, we find only participles. Therefore, we address this issue as we did in the case of v. 7 (w-​..qatal +​ w-​..qatal). We can neither semantically juxtapose the fact of screaming with the words introducing it, even if, on the syntax level, we might imagine such a situation.

Narrative Techniques

201

On the other hand, apparently, this clause has the same structure as the one in v. 11a, i.e. participle +​ participle +​ nominal clause (cf. 1.1). If the nominal clause is supposed to replace qatal and if the two participles function as one complex action, we would simply obtain: qotel +​ w..qatal. Therefore, we would be dealing with a durative action, which is followed by an instantaneous one. Here, we need to realize that this is not the case and that the lack of wehinneh in this clause is crucial in understanding the whole structure. To identify the proper structure of v. 12aα, we need to understand the nature of the clause: “My father, my father, chariotry of Israel and its horsemen!” From the viewpoint of modern grammar, it is a nominal clause because there are no verbs. We need, however, to ask where this clause starts in Hebrew. The answer needs to respect the syntax system based on waw. It starts, therefore, with the consecutive waw, which precedes the chain of nouns, i.e with the expression ‫והוא מצעק‬. The syntax of this clause is therefore different from that of nominal clauses in European languages (cf. 1.1.3). In BH, we do not find a colon to mark the distinction between clauses. With wehinneh, the nominal clause would be clearly separated, as in v. 11a. Here we are dealing with an integrated structure, which does not make a clear distinction between the introduction of the direct speech and the speech itself.32 If this remark is correct, and we belief that this is the case, it changes our understanding of the verse. We are not dealing with the qotel +​ w..qatal structure but with the qotel.. w-​..qotel one, i.e. with two durative actions. The best translation of the beginning of v. 12 is therefore: “Elisha was looking, he was crying out.” A similar structure occurs in 1Sam 9:14 and 2Kgs 4:5. Let us look at the last example: ‫וַּתֵ לְֶך מֵ ִאּתֹו ו ִַּת ְסּגֹ ר הַ ּדֶ לֶת ּבַ עֲדָ ּה ּובְ עַד ּבָ נֶיהָ הֵ ם מַ ּגִ ִׁשים אֵ לֶיהָ וְ הִ יא מֹוצָ קֶ ת‬ So she left him and shut the door behind her and her children; they kept bringing vessels to her, and she kept pouring. (2Kgs 4:5 NRS) As we see, the problem with the comparison with this is example is that in v. 12a we are dealing with w-​..qotel +​ w-​..qotel structure and not with qotel +​ w-​ ..qotel one as in the case of 2Kgs 4:5.33 The w-​..qotel structure means that there 32 Robert Alter notices the problem with “the strictly formulaic introductions of speech (‘and he said,’ ‘and he answered, and he said’), [which] by the fixed convention of biblical literature, are required to indicate statement and response in dialogue.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 81. 33 One may ask if the vocalization of ‫ ראה‬in v. 12 is correct. It might also be a qatal. LXX, however, confirms the qotel version: καὶ Ελισαιε ἑώρα καὶ ἐβόα. Both ἑώρα and ἐβόα are participles.

202

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

is no verb between waw and qotel. It is always, however, understood by Joüon as expressing the durative time (cf. 2.1.2, points 2 and 4). Therefore, we treat qotel and w-​..qotel structures equally. We identified three structures of simultaneity in our scene: in vv. 7, 11a and 12aα. They can be displayed in the following tables: cf. 2.1.2

v. 7

w-​..qatal

Fifty men … went and stood (‫ )וח ֲִמ ִּׁשים…הָ לְ כּו ַו ַּיע ְַמדּו‬opposite them,

w-​..qatal

while the two of them stood (‫)ּוׁשנֵיהֶ ם ע ְָמדּו‬ ְ …

Figure 32-​IV.  Syntax of v. 7

In v. 7, we dealt with the double w-​..qatal structure. The next simultaneous structure, in v 11, consists of different microstructures: cf. 2.1.3

v. 11aα

wayyiqtol.. qotel

As they were walking on, talking (‫)וַיְ הִ י הֵ מה ה לְ כִ ים הלֹוְך וְ דַ בֵ ר‬

wehinneh.. n.c.

chariotry of fire (‫…)וְ הִ ּנֵה ֶרכֶב־אֵ ׁש‬

a

Figure 33-​IV.  Syntax of v. 11aα a

n.c. in the table stands for nominal clause.

Let us only recall that, according to Joüon, it functions as w-​..qatal also when it starts with wehinneh, as is the case here. We identified two functions of this wehinneh: temporal and excited perception. Eventually, we noticed that our structure functions as qotel +​w..qatal in Joüon’s typology. The next structure was less complex: cf. 2.1.4

v. 12aα

w-​..qotel

When Elisha was looking (‫) ֶואֱלִ יׁשָ ע רֹ אֶ ה‬,

w-​..qotel

he was crying: “My father (…‫”…)וְ הּוא ְמצַ עֵק אָ בִ י‬

Figure 34–​IV  Syntax of v. 12aα

Narrative Techniques

203

We concluded, therefore, that this structure functions as qotel +​ w-​..qotel in Joüon’s typology. The references to the latter were essential because, thanks to them, we were able to examine the aspect of the simultaneous members of verses. We have distinguished two aspects of each action: instantaneous or durative.34 These are the results of this research: v. 7

aspect of simultaneity

w-​..qatal

instantaneous

w-​..qatal

instantaneous

Figure 35-​IV.  Simultaneity in v. 7

We see that the narrator starts Scene II by juxtaposing two events. We noticed that this occurs in three dimensions: structural, spatial, and temporal. The temporal dimension is the most pertinent for us. We are dealing with two instantaneous events which are juxtaposed simultaneously: the arrival of the fifty and the presence of the two at the Jordan. The next verse containing this simultaneity is v. 11: v. 11aα

aspect of simultaneity

wayyiqtol.. qotel

durative

wehinneh.. n.c.

instantaneous

Figure 36-​IV.  Simultaneity in v. 11aα

Here, we have dealt not only with an instantaneous action but also with a durative one. It is, in fact, a kind of a passage between the first verse of the scene and v. 12: v. 12aα

aspect of simultaneity

w-​..qotel

durative

w-​..qotel

durative

Figure 37-​IV.  Simultaneity in v. 12aα

34 Gianto, “Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe,” 202–​04.

204

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

This verse expresses only durative actions. Does it mean that, at this point, the time is meant to flow slower than in any earlier point of the narrative? The answer to this question will be important for the understanding of the change of the narrative tension and the crucial points of the plot.

2.2 Points of View On the one hand, the analysis of points of view in the Bible takes place in the twentieth century.35 On the other, points of view are intrinsic to the biblical narratives. Adele Berlin expresses this issue in the following way: “the Bible uses points of view frequently and effectively as a vehicle for conveying its narrative in a way which is not far different from modern prose fiction.”36 Let us look more closely at the verses of Scene II, in which the points of view play an essential role in understanding the plot.

2.2.1 Points of View in Disequilibrium The opening verse of our scene tells us about juxtaposition between the fifty men and the two along the Jordan river. The simultaneous juxtaposition elements characterize Scene II and we commented on it in 2.1.2. Now, borrowing the terminology of Boris Uspensky, we will speak, in this case, about the shift in the narrative’s point of view on the temporal and spatial plane.37 This shift is accompanied by a shift on the phraseological plane (Uspensky), which we have analyzed above, considering the structure w-​… qatal, i.e. “the two of them stood (…).” Moreover, 35 We can find a corresponding distinction in Plato’s analysis of the narrative. Plato distinguishes between the pure narrative (diegesis) where the poet “himself is the speaker and does not even attempt to suggest to us that anyone but himself is speaking,” and the imitation (mimesis) where the poet “delivers a speech as if he were someone else.” The second case regards this type of narrative where different characters are speaking. Cf. Republic III § 392–​395; Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 162–​69. 36 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 43. 37 Boris Uspensky distinguishes a few levels of the point of view: the ideological plane (the point of view according to which the events are evaluated); the phraseological plane (linguistic features indicating whose point of view is expressed); the spatial and temporal plane (location in time and space of the narrator vs. narrative, e.g. he may be attached to one of the characters etc.); the psychological plane (viewpoint from which actions are perceived: objective, external etc.) Boris Uspensky, A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form, trans. Valentina Zavarin and Susan Wittig (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 1–​7.

Narrative Techniques

205

the apparatus of Uspensky is not the only one which can be applied to this verse. Seymour Benjamin Chatman would speak here about the perceptual point of view.38 Genette, thereafter, would classify this point of view as external focalization, i.e. it is an external description and we know nothing about the feelings, nor thinking, nor destination of the characters.39 Using Sternberg’s terminology, we would speak about the evenhanded strategy of storytelling.40 Although the last three apparatus are not sensitive for the passage between Scene I and Scene II (vv. 6 and 7), we will treat them as an initial point of view for the scene. How does the situation look in v. 8? The story is still told by the narrator.41 Apparently, there is no change of point of view in this verse. Using Chatman’s terms, we would still speak about the perceptual point of view. Genette’s followers would still speak here about external focalization. Now, let us ask if there is any change on the phraseological plane (Uspensky) with the double occurrence of ‫הֵ ּנָה‬ in this verse. Well, this part of speech is different from ‫הִ ּנֵה‬, at least in MT (cf. our comment to v. 12a).42 The construction ‫ הנה והנה‬is used by the biblical authors to express the idea of “hither and thither” (cf. HALOT, ‫)הֵ ּנָה‬.43 It is interesting that 38 Chatman’s typology of points of view: perceptual (the perspective of perceiving events); conceptual (attitudes, worldview) and interest (someone’s advantages and disadvantages). Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 151–​53. 39 Genette’s typology is threefold: zero focalization; external focalization, and internal focalization, cf. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 189. This terminology was adopted into the biblical scholarship of Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 65–​82. 40 Sternberg distinguishes the reader-​elevating, character-​elevating and evenhanded strategies (positions) of storytelling. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 163. This is not an original distinction. It probably comes from: Jean Pouillon, Temps et roman, Jeune philosophie (Paris: Gallimard, 1946). Cf. Tzvetan Todorov, “Les catégories du récit littéraire,” Communications 8, no. 1 (1966): 125–​51. 41 According to Bar-​Efrat, “the narrator’s point of view is the ‘fourth unity’ (after Aristotle’s three: unity of time, place and plot).” Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 15. 42 Types of phrases that shift the point of view are those with: a) a verb of perception; 2) with the verb of perception followed by hinneh; 3) a hinneh clause without the perception verb; 4) the circumstantial clause (cf. 2Sam 13:8; cf. Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua Linguarum: Series Practica 231 (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1980)), 77–​91. It is also important to notice that, usually, hinneh clauses occur singly with exception of the dream reports. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 60–​62. 43 In Ugaritic, the word hn means both “behold” and “here” (DULAT), cf. Jeffrey L. Cooley, “Astral Religion in Ugarit and Ancient Israel,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies

206

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

we can find it only in four places in HB: Josh; 1Kgs; and twice in our narrative. In Josh, we read: So when the men of Ai looked back, the smoke of the city was rising to the sky. They had no power to flee (‫ )ולא־היה בהם ידים לנוס‬this way or that (‫)הנה והנה‬, for the people who fled to the wilderness turned back against the pursuers. (8:20 NRS)

In 1Kgs, we read: While your servant was busy (‫ )ויהי עבדך עׂשה‬here and there (‫)הנה והנה‬, he was gone. The king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.” (20:40 NRS)

Let us comment briefly on these quotations. Firstly, the direction of flying in Josh or the place of activity of the prophet in 1Kgs are spatial categories.44 Secondly, in both examples, the reader might expect the hinneh or wehinneh instead of the examined expression.45 Thirdly, even if he is conscious of the precise meaning of the examined expression, the similarity to hinneh or wehinneh makes him think about the possibility of the change of point of view. Therefore, we are dealing here with a kind of bluff in the storytelling.46

70, no. 2 (2011): 281–​87; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–​26; The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. vol. 1–​2 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994; 2009), 1–​68. In Arabic, hâhuna means “here” and “there.” Francis Joseph Steingass, The Student’s Arabic-​English Dictionary (London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1884), 1161. 44 An interesting remark on the spatial point of view is made by Adele Berlin: “In the theatre as compared to a televised version of the same play. In the theatre the viewer sees all of the action from the same perspective. He can focus on anything and everything in a given scene, but he cannot leave his seat. So his point of view is, on the one hand, restricted by his physical location, and on the other, is completely uncontrolled.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 44. 4 5 Berlin underlines the distinction between the reader and the narratee: “When one speaks about the reader’s point of view, perceptual or conceptual, one really means the narratee’s point of view, for the biblical text assumes a certain conceptual point of view on the part of the narratee.” Ibid. 46 Fokkelman speaks also about the conceptual and emotional points of view: “The most important window on the characters’ emotional and conceptual perspectives is their own words, at least if they are not deceiving us or their conversation partner.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 144.

Narrative Techniques

207

2.2.2 Points of View in Re-​establishment of Equilibrium The following verse starts with the narrator’s voice: it is a so-​called circumstantial clause. Adele Berlin notices that some clauses of this type can introduce a change of point of view (i.e. on the phraseological plan). In our case, we are dealing with a clause preceded by the construction …‫ויהי כ‬. Unlike the construction …‫ויהי ב‬, it serves to present an activity which happened radically before that presented in the main clause (cf. 1.1.1). This construction also disturbs the chain of consecutive waw. Therefore, on the one hand, it introduces a new time space (Uspensky), and on the other, it underlines the time gap between the clause “When they had crossed” and the clause “Elijah said to Elisha.” The reader cannot be sure what the time gap is between the events narrated before the moment when they crossed the Jordan and after it, but, for some reason, the construction is introduced in the narrative. Therefore, we are dealing rather with a fluctuation than a change of point of view. The shift of point of view is, however, connected with the function of the phrase “Elijah said to Elisha” (cf. speech verbs in 1.1.4). It is the event to which the beginning of the verse refers. We get the information that Elijah said something to Elisha. Right, it is therefore said. Where should we, then, put the content of Elijah’s words (“Ask what I shall do (…)?”) on the timeline? In fact, we are intended to perceive the temporal simultaneity between the narrator’s information that he said it and the words of Elijah. Therefore, we are dealing with a shift of the point of view on the temporal plane (Uspensky). We find a similar change of point of view occurs in v. 9aβ. Firstly, we find there the information: “And Elisha answered.” Secondly, we find the content of Elisha’s request: “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” We are dealing with simultaneal events, therefore, the words of Elisha represent a shift of the temporal plane. There is no change of external focalization (Genette) and everything is seen from the perceptual point of view (Chatman).47 We are also dealing with an evenhanded strategy 47 We might ask if we are dealing here with any shift from the perceptual to interest point of view. Elisha reveals here the interest to receive the double portion of the spirit. A non-​biblical, example of the interest point of view which Chatman gives is the following: “Though he didn’t realize it at the time, the divorce was a disaster from John’s point of view.” In fact, the reader of 2Kgs 2 does not really find out what is the interest of Elisha to say “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” He might find out about it from the narrator’s comment. According to Chatman, we are dealing with the interest point of view only when the narrator is or was also a character. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 158. In fact, in BH it happens very rarely, e.g. when a messenger informs David about the death of Saul in 2Sam 1.

208

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

of storytelling (Sternberg). We see, therefore, that the apparatus of Uspensky is particularly sensitive to the shift of the point of view. The following verse, v. 10, is special because it seems to contain an announcement of the change of point of view: “If you see me when I am taken from you (…) otherwise (…).” The reader has here three principal possibilities: a) the condition is pronounced by an agent, but the narrator will not refer to the issue anymore; b) the narrator or an agent will inform us about the fact if Elisha is seeing Elijah taken from him; c) we will see Elijah taken from Elisha with the eyes of Elisha. The first possibility would be against the economy of the plot, the rule implicitly used by storytellers.48 The biblical narrator does not construct subplots misleading the reader. The reader is right to think that there is no reason why this intrinsic rule would be broken here.49 The second possibility means that the narrative tension, produced with the expression of the condition of receiving the double portion, would be wasted if the narrator simply informs the reader about the result (external focalization). An expected possibility of dealing with this narrative tension is a change of point of view to the agent’s (internal focalization). We have seen the grammatical side of v. 11 in 2.1.3. We concluded that wehinneh in this verse conveys at least two ideas (McCarthy): simultaneity (temporal) and excited perception. We have not developed the idea of excited perception yet. At this point in the dissertation, we are not interested in the level of excitement; the crucial thing for us is that it is a perception.50 Perception of what and of whom does the wehinneh express? The answer for the first part of the question is quite clear. It can be found in v. 11aβ: “chariotry of fire and horses of fire (appeared).” But who is perceiving these things? If we treat wehinneh as a vehicle

4 8 Cf. Eco, The Limits of Interpretation, 219. 49 Ibid., 45–​66. 50 Fokkelman notices that: “The term point of view covers different perspectives. One of the simplest forms has directly to do with ‘seeing.’ A character looks up and suddenly realizes, ‘Why, there goes X’ or ‘What do you know, such-​and-​such is going on here.’ The interjection is the signal that the spectator’s discovery and amazement are being introduced.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, 140. Berlin’s observation on the issue of perception is as follows: “Often a statement of perception includes the word hinneh, which is known to sometimes mark the perception of a character a distinct from that of the narrator.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 62.

Narrative Techniques

209

which connects two clauses, we need to suspect that the twosome perceives the chariotry of fire and the horses. Just before, the reader was observing them “directly”; now, they “observe” the action through their eyes. Ska provides a few biblical examples of such a change: In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw (‫ )והנה‬that the face of the ground was drying. (Gen 8:13 NRS) As he looked, he saw (‫ )והנה‬a well in the field and three flocks of sheep lying there beside it; for out of that well the flocks were watered. The stone on the well’s mouth was large. (Gen 29:2 NRS) There the angel of Yhwh* appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked (‫)והנה‬, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. (Exod 3:2 NRS)

The best apparatus to describe this phenomenon is provided by Genette.51 With this occurrence of wehinneh, we are dealing with the passage from the external focalization to the internal one.52 It is a change of point of view par excellence. Our verse resembles Exod 3:2 the most, because there also wehinneh is not preceded by a verb of perception.53 Now, we know when we start to perceive the world with the characters.54 The question is where we stop perceiving the world through their eyes. One solution would be to say that the next occurrence of wayyiqtol finishes the internal focalization. In our case, it would be the word fire (‫ )אׁש‬which occurs before wayyiqtol, i.e. the world separated (‫)ויפרדו‬. Even if wayyiqtol seems to be a very vague indicator of the shift of point of view, it would be awkward to transmit the information about the separation of the twosome looking through their eyes without any additional indicator. Additionally, in v. 11b, the narrator speaks only about the whirlwind. He does not mention the chariotry and the horses. We read in this verse: “Elisha was looking and (he was) crying (…)” (cf. 2.1.4). Does the narrator inform us for the second time about the fact that Elisha saw

5 1 Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 189–​94. 52 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 43–​82; Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 67–​76. 53 Georg Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzähltechnik in der Berufung des Mose (Ex 3–​4), Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 91 (Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 99–​121. 54 Berlin notices that: “It is much easier to distinguish the viewpoints of the narrator and/​or reader from that of the characters.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 53.

210

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

the chariotry? What kind of focalization are we dealing with? Is it external or internal? Information about looking and crying can be perfectly external. Ska notices that “verbs of perception (to see, to hear, to know), can be important indicators of specific focalizations. But here, as elsewhere in Biblical exegesis, the context is decisive.”55 In fact the verb looking (‫ )ראה‬is used here as a non-​transitive one. Therefore, the reader does not know what Elisha is seeing. Using the Sternberg terminology, we would say that we are dealing here with the character-​elevating strategy: Elisha knows more than the reader. Now, what is the function of the expression “And he saw him no more”? Does it mean that the narrator informed us that we were dealing with an internal focalization? Were we seeing the world through the eyes of Elisha? We cannot be sure. Therefore, we are dealing with a quasi-​change of point of view. What is sure is that the phrase “and he saw him no more” reintroduced an evenhanded perspective, i.e. neither the reader nor the character is in elevated position.56 This, however, is everything that should be said about the change of point of view in this verse. We need to note an important interplay between the perceptual and conceptual points of view. The voice of the narrator (Elisha was looking and crying) expresses the perceptual one. The voice of Elisha moves the reader also to the conceptual one: my father, my father.57 At the same time, the reader should think about the interest point of view, because Elisha may want by this scream to prove that he sees Elijah being taken. It is an extremely positive evaluation of Elijah. If we treat the second part of this expression (chariotry of Israel…) as a title of Elijah, it is another part of evaluation.58 The end of v. 12 and v. 13 are the most stable moments of Scene II on the level of the change of points of view, at least on the phraseological level, even if we are

5 5 Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 68. 56 O’Brien notices that the ambiguity is characteristic for this narrative and the pro�noun “him” in the expression “and he saw him no more” can refer to both Elijah and chariotry, cf. O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 10. 57 Apart from the direct speech, repetitions can mark the shift of the point of view, e.g. the rod ‘dancing’ in 2Sam 6; the phrase ‘the waters dried up’ in Gen 8:13; the repetitions regarding Tamar in Gen 38. 58 We may also pose a question about the change of the planes of the point of view. Uspensky writes that: “Irony occurs when we speak from one point of view, but make an evaluation from another point of view; thus for irony the nonconcurrence of point of view on the different planes is a necessary requirement.” Uspensky, A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form, 103.

Narrative Techniques

211

dealing with vocabulary expressing emotions (took hold of his clothes; tore them into pieces, cf. 1.1.3). Apparently, these events take place only on the external focalization level. Nevertheless, we may also speak about the conceptual point of view (Chatman), because the fact of expressing emotions indicates that Elijah was somehow important for Elisha. Moreover, we do not know the motivation of Elisha to go to the bank of the Jordan river. Therefore, we should speak here about the character-​elevating viewpoint. By the same token, v. 14 is a continuation of telling stories with external focalization. As previously, the nominal clause put in the mouth of Elisha disturbs somehow the equilibrium of the point of view. The meaning of the words “Where is Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?” is not clear and we commented on this at the text critical level (cf. I 2.3). But even if we cut the expression “he also,” the rest is not crystal clear either. The one who knows the precise meaning of these words is Elisha himself. We are dealing, therefore, with a character-​elevating strategy. Are the words “he also” (‫ )אף־הוא‬a type of evaluation? If we are right and the question tag is translated correctly, the examined expression “he also” is an attempt to introduce the reflection on the absence of Yhwh. Using Uspensky’s terminology, we should therefore speak about the ideological level of the point of view. In Chatman’s typology, this phenomenon is called the interest point of view of the character. This question tag gives the interest/​ideological spin to the whole question, which is in contrast to the beginning of the verse told with the perceptual point of view as in most of the clauses of the scene.

2.3 Section Conclusions We identify a frequent change of point of view on the temporal plane, e.g. in v. 7 (juxtaposition); in vv. 9, 10, 12, 14 with all the direct speeches preceded by speech verbs. We also observed a phenomenon of playing with the possibility of the change of point of view, e.g. on the phraseological plane in v. 8 (here and there); on the temporal plane in v. 9 (circumstantial clause); as a possible announcement in v. 10 (if you see me…). The last possibility was described thanks to Genette’s focalization terminology. The same apparatus helped us to deal with the internal focalization introduced by wehinneh in v. 11. This focalization shifts again to the external one just before the information regarding the division of the twosome (… separated the two). The same time of focalization is expected in v. 12, because of the announcement in v. 10 and the occurrence of the perception verb (looking). Nevertheless, the focalization in v. 12 is rather external. The accent is instead put on the conceptual point of view (my father; chariotry of Israel) than on the perceptual one. Furthermore, in vv. 12b–​13, the vocabulary

212

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

expressing emotions is contrasted with no change on the point of view level. Finally, the character-​elevating strategy (Sternberg terminology) was identified in v. 14: the question tag (he also) opens a large possibility of interpretations and only Elisha is intended to be sure what it really means. We are probably dealing with an ideological reflection which is used as a plot component. Let us also notice that we have not identified the reader-​elevating strategy in Scene II, which is in contrast to the reader-​elevating strategy in Scene I, in which we are informed at the beginning about the destination of Elijah.

3. Plot Stages In this section, we will pay attention to two things in particular regarding Scene II. Firstly, we will identify the fluctuation of the narrative tension in the consecutive stages of the plot. Secondly, we will try to understand how the narrative tools which we have introduced until now are used for the production of narrative tension.

3.1 Extended Disequilibrium There are two main questions which should concern the reader after reading Scene I. The first question regards v. 1, the structure that we called the explicit exposition: How (when and where) is Elijah going to be led up to the sky? The second question regards the same v. 1: What is Elisha doing in the narrative at all? Elisha refuses to leave Elijah (inciting moment in v. 2). This issue is repeated in vv. 4, 6. These unanswered questions are the source of the narrative tension. At the same time, at the end of Scene I, the reader discovers a peaceful image of the twosome, walking together in unity, a while before Elisha was clearly confronted with Elijah. Now, the plot enters into the state of disequilibrium (complication) in vv. 3–​6 of Scene I. Moreover, the extension of the disequilibrium constitutes the initial tension of Scene II. We will find this extended disequilibrium in vv. 7–​8, i.e. Introduction and First Crossing Incidents (cf. 1.3). Without this initial tension, Scene II could not effectively exist, i.e. it must have been replaced by another type of narrative anxiety. The particularity of Scene II starts to be visible already in v. 7 (Introduction Incident), during which we deal with a contraposition of the fifty and the twosome (cf. 2.1.2; 2.2). What is the nature of this tension? On the one hand, the reader is intended to be in peace when he thinks about the twosome. On the other hand, he is intended to understand that the figure of the Sons of the Prophets is elevated by the juxtaposition with the twosome to a new status. A few narrative

Plot Stages

213

tools are used for this purpose: simultaneity (2.1.2), shift of the point of view on the phraseological, temporal, and spatial planes (2.2). Now, one may pose the following questions: Is it a new group of the Sons of the Prophets? A group based at the Jordan? Is it a mixed group? Is it the one from Jericho, so the last place the twosome visited before coming to the Jordan river? Now, neither in Bethel, nor in Jericho was the number of the Sons of Prophets given. Therefore, we can imagine that, or we are dealing with a new group, or with an old group, restricted in some way. For some reason, the reader is left without certainty regarding the image of the fifty. Furthermore, this image is noticeably clear since the number fifty is the first word of the scene (cf. vv. 16, 17). At the same time, the narrator does not want to construct any durative incident here (w-​..qatal construction meaning, cf. 2.1.2). The instantaneous type of simultaneity indicates that the most important incidents are still ahead of the reader and that he is in tensional suspension only for a while. A good moment for Yhwh to take Elijah to the sky was when the twosome was standing at the Jordan, so just after v. 7. The disequilibrium would finish there. Therefore, the action described by the narrator in v. 8 is not intended to be foreseen by the reader. Nevertheless, a new element of this narrative is put into action: the rolled-​up mantle. It is used by Elijah to strike the waters of the Jordan. When the waters are divided, the reader may expect anything, e.g. leading Elijah up. The wording of dividing the waters here and there may suggest (cf. bluff in 2.2) a change of point of view leading to a re-​establishment of the disequilibrium. It does not happen at this moment. When the twosome crossed the river dry-​shod, the reader may have an impression that they flee from the fifty.59 Do they cross the Jordan river because of them? At the same time, there is no trace of pursuit. The reader is intended to be confused at this moment. He does not understand the function of the fifty. He does not understand their juxtaposition with the twosome. Nothing seems to be clear. In fact, it is the climax of the disequilibrium. In Scene I, the narrator was diminishing the narrative tension by the usage of repetitions; here, the narrative tension seems to be out of control. The reader is ready to hear crucial information for this narrative dialogue.

59 Of course, we are dealing here with a larger symbolism, referring to Exod 14–​15 and Josh 3. This subject is largely discussed in various commentaries: Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, 353–​54; Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 475; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 20.

214

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

3.2 Re-​establishment of the Equilibrium The First Crossing Incident (v. 8) is clearly separated, on the phraseological level (‫ויהי כ‬, cf. 2.2), from the following one, i.e. the Request Incident (v. 9). The reader is intended to feel that the twosome enter a new stage. Additionally, the non-​initial position of the verb to speak (cf. 1.1.4) highlights the importance of the words to be said by Elijah. The reader should not be surprised that Elijah speaks using imperatives. In fact, his every single speech until now starts with an imperative. Here we have: “Ask (‫ )ׁשאל‬what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” In fact, Elijah is making the demand which corresponds to the one that should be put forward by the reader at the beginning of the narrative: What is Elisha doing in this narrative at all? The speech of Elijah is also the first acknowledgement that he knows that he is going to be taken from Elisha (cf. 1.2.1). The reader is intended to know that, in each speech, Elijah was indicating his next destination (the structure of repetitions, cf. III 2.2.2). For that reason, the expectation of the reader is clear: Elijah will be taken from Elisha very soon. The reader is therefore intended to think that the answer of Elisha would be crucial for the narrative. The answer of Elijah starts with a jussive form (cf. 1.2.2): “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” As in many other moments of this narrative, the intertextual competencies of the reader are very important for understanding what Elisha and other givers of the narrative are saying (cf. III 3.1.2). Nevertheless, the reader is overall intended to understand the meaning of the expressions following the flow of the events within the narrative. This is essential for interpreting the narrative tension. The reader is not intended to go over the intertextual references before finishing the process of the reading of the episode and that should produce an additional creative tension in him. The events within the narrative will explain what it means that Elisha wants to receive a double portion of the spirit.60 The Request Incident continues in v. 10. Elijah says to Elisha that he made a difficult request. At the beginning, the reader is intended not to be sure if Elijah has understood the sense of the words of Elisha. But when Elijah poses the condition to make it happen, the reader gets to know that the twosome understand each other. The condition opens before the reader a spectrum of possibilities. Firstly, the condition is based on seeing (‫אם־תראה‬, cf. points of view in 2.2): If Elisha gets 60 The most quoted fragment with this expression is the following one: “He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.” (Deut 21:17)

Plot Stages

215

to know about taking Elijah in any other way, he will not get the double portion of his spirit. This condition is intended to be strange for the reader. If someone is taken from another person, how is he not able to see it? In fact, the reader is meant to understand that Elisha is fulfilling this condition from the beginning of the narrative. Elijah requested him a few times to leave him alone. If he had left him alone, he would not be able to get the double portion. Somehow, Elisha must have known or felt the condition of getting what he wanted. The reader should pose the question regarding the intention of Elijah to put this condition: Is it something connected with the nature of the double portion of his spirit? The reader does not know why this condition is made. This should increase his curiosity radically, which results in a rise of the narrative tension. In fact, the reader is dealing with the turning point of the narrative.61 Elisha expresses his will and Elijah states the condition to get it. Now the reader understands what Elisha is doing in the narrative. They may also suspect that, for the same reason, Elijah wanted to leave Elisha on the way. When the reader finds out that the chariotry of fire and the horses of fire separate the two, he should start to understand that Elijah can be taken from Elisha separately. The chariotry and horses function as a kind of curtain or smokescreen, separating the twosome. Effectively, Elijah may be taken without being seen. The series of participles gives this part of the narrative a durative character (cf. 2.1.3). The image of the chariotry, no matter what the details are, is intended to stay for a while in the mind of the reader. Additionally, the wehinneh structure opens before the reader the possibility to see the events with the eyes of the agents. This image is juxtaposed with the quick (wayyiqtol structure, cf. 2.1.3) separation and replacement of Elijah towards heaven. The separation and the replacement take place at the same time. Such elements as separated the two, went up, the whirlwind and the heaven are not particularly highlighted at this point, but the reader knows that all these elements, except for the separation, are important because they were announced in prolepsis in v. 1 (cf. III 2.1). The reader may be quite sure that the twosome saw the chariotry and the horses, but he cannot be sure if Elisha saw Elijah taken in the whirlwind to the sky. This is the masterpiece of the shift of the points of view. He cannot know where the internal vision of the twosome finishes (cf. 2.2).

61 Cf. “Turning point normally inaugurates the falling action. At this point an element appears that will lead the movement of the narrative to its conclusion.” Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 27.

216

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

The reader passes now to the Scream Incident. As we noticed, the best translation of the beginning of v. 12 is “Elisha was looking and crying.” We identify this type of simultaneity as bilaterally durative, i.e. the fact of watching, on the one hand, and screaming, on the other, take their time, at least in terms of the time sensation. Someone may say that, for a while, time stops and that we are dealing with certain freeze-​frame (cf. 2.1.4). It is intended to be frustrating for the reader because he is conscious of the condition imposed by Elijah and, at the same time, he does not know what Elisha is seeing. The cry of Elisha, “My father, my father,” highlighted by the contrast with the previous requests of silence, addressed to the Sons of the Prophets (cf. III 1.2.4), fulfills the function of recognition, i.e. anagnorisis.62 It does not necessarily mean that he is seeing Elijah; it means that he is recognizing (or wishes to recognize) in Elijah his father. The word father does not occur in the previous conversation of the narrative. It is in contrast to the overused word sons. Now, the second part of the cry of Elisha, chariotry of Israel and its horsemen, does not help to solve the problem of the vision. The used expression may mean that: (A) Elisha is using the memory of the recent event as a title; or (B) he is still seeing the chariotry. If option (A) is correct, the reader is probably dealing with an extension of anagnorisis. One of the problems of this solution regards the plural form of the horsemen: What would be the reason for giving the plural title to a single person? If option (B) is correct, Elijah can be informed for some reason that the chariotry is still there. The motivation for giving this information is not, however, given directly to the reader. While the reader is dealing with these possibilities, the narrator seems to clarify things, saying “And (he) saw him (‫ )ראהו‬no more.”63 The reader is intended to be conscious that the Hebrew suffix him refers to Elijah, because the preceding expression also refers to him (‫)אבי אבי‬. This suffix is crucial for the whole narrative because it is showing the fulfillment of the condition of the transmission of the double spirit. Technically speaking, it is the peripeteia (resolution) of the 62 Recognition (anagnôrisis) is “a change from ignorance to knowledge, leading to friendship or to enmity, and involving matters which bear on prosperity or adversity. The fine recognition is that which occurs simultaneously with reversal (…).” (1452a 23–​33). We are dealing with a change (ignorance to knowledge) –​Aristotle refers to Sophocles’ Oedipus. 63 We classify verbal suffix waw as the direct object (him), because it is not a circumstantial clause with an inf. cons. Additionally, as we have already mentioned in 1.1.3, in BH this verbal form (‫ )ראהו‬occurs only in 1Sam 23:22, where it is used as the direct object, cf. 2Kgs 2:15.

Plot Stages

217

narrative.64 Of course, the reader can have some doubts based on the unclear change in point of view (cf. 2.2). This doubt gives him some incentive for further reading. The Scream Incident continues in v. 12b, even if the action goes beyond the peripeteia. Elisha takes his clothes and tears them into two pieces. The reader is intended to ask the question: Why is Elisha tearing his clothes at all? It certainly expresses great emotions, but is Elijah dead? This question remains unanswered, at least at this moment of the narrative. Elisha tears his clothes into two pieces. What does it mean? On the one hand, it is a normal way of tearing clothes. On the other hand, it can mean that Elisha is communicating that he has received the double portion of Elijah’s spirit. The reader cannot be sure of it, but the word two in the absolute state has occurred earlier only in the expression the double portion. Therefore, even if the reader is dealing with the character-​elevating strategy, he is intended to take this option seriously into consideration. The reason for tearing the clothes would then be connected to the excitement of getting what was asked. The reader knows that the other possibility is somehow connected to the departure of Elijah. He will get more details to understand this event in Scene III. Let us also notice that, according to the typology of Aristotle, the motive of suffering (pathos) was an integral part of the ancient drama plot (along with peripeteia and anagnorisis).65 Should we, therefore, treat our narrative as a dramatic one? Although it is difficult to answer this question now, we are right to identify the reaction of Elisha as a kind of suffering, therefore pathos. At this moment in the scene, the reader finds out that Elijah’s mantle had fallen from him. The reader finds out about the issue when Elisha is picking it up. The reader is intended to be assured that he was dealing with the character-​elevating strategy, because Elisha must have seen it before picking it up. We would expect that Elisha would wear this mantle instead of the torn clothes. Surprisingly, he returns to the Jordan bank immediately. The reader should realize that he is dealing with a variant repetition of v. 7b, where he is depicted with his master, 64 The concept was formulated and defined by Aristotle in his Poetics. For him, peripeteia is “a change to the opposite direction of events, as already stated, and one in accord, as we insist, with probability or necessity.” (Poetics X 1452a 22–​25). Cf. gr. ἔστι δὲ περιπέτεια μὲν ἡ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν πραττομένων μεταβολὴ καθάπερ εἴρηται, καὶ τοῦτο δὲ ὥσπερ λέγομεν κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ ἀναγκαῖον, οἷον ἐν τῳˆˊ . We have adopted a very narrow understanding of peripeteia, i.e. the exact point of reversal. 65 Ska and other scholars apply only two of them to biblical exegesis, putting the issue of suffering aside. Suffering (pathos) is understood by him as “a destructive or painful action, such as public deaths, physical agony, wounding, etc.” (Poetics XI 1452b 8–​10).

218

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

staying at the Jordan. Elisha not only returns to the river but also to the first incident of the scene. The reader still does not know what it means to receive the double portion of Elijah’s spirit. He may also have some doubts if Elisha has received it at all, because there was no shift to the internal point of view, so the reader did not see Elijah with the eyes of Elisha.66 The question is whether it is the beginning of the denouement of the narrative. Yes, if we treat denouement as a precipitation of the final scene.67 Let us move to the final verse of the scene. The beginning of the v. 14 (“He took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him”) is a variant repetition of the beginning of v. 13. The mantle of Elijah is again in the center of focus. In v. 13, the mantle was picked up (‫וירם‬, cf. 1.1.3), now it is taken (‫)ויקח‬. Just after it, the reader encounters a new repetition. The expression “and struck the waters” can be found both in v. 8 and v. 14. These repetitions resemble the exposition of our narrative in Scene I (cf. III 2.2). Therefore, the reader is intended to feel, at the end of Scene II, as if it were a new beginning. The person who strikes the waters changes. Now it is Elisha. It seems that the new equilibrium is established and that the reader observes the very last moments of the narrative. Everything seems to be fine. At this point, the words of Elisha disturb this sensation of peace: “Where is Yhwh, the God of Elijah?” We are dealing with the character-​elevating strategy (cf. 2.2). The reader is intended to ask why Elisha, striking the waters, is asking about Yhwh. Why is Yhwh associated with the striking? Again, the intertextual answer is very tempting, but let us see if any answer is provided by the narrative itself. The name of Yhwh was mentioned for the last time at the end of Scene I. Yhwh was believed to be taking Elijah from Elisha. He was believed to send Elijah to the Jordan. He was believed to be living and to be with the breath of Elijah (cf. I 2.2). From the beginning of the narrative, Yhwh is the motor of events (cf. the ideological level in 2.2.3). At the same time, he seems to be somehow attached to Elijah. The reader is, therefore, intended to understand that the more precise sense of the question of Elijah is the following: Has Yhwh, the God of Elijah, departed with him? This is not, however, the end of the process of adjusting the sense of this question. The end of v. 14 provides the reader with another item of important information. He finds there a repeated expression regarding striking the waters. Now, the

66 At this moment, the words of Thomas in the Gospel of John seem to be relevant: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). 67 Cf. Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 28; Abrams and Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 141.

Plot Stages

219

reader has two possibilities: (A) Elisha may strike the waters twice in v. 14; (B) the narrator can refer twice to the same act of striking. The latter possibility indicates two options: firstly, the reference to striking in v. 14a is a prolepsis; secondly, the reference to striking in v. 14b is an analepsis. The reader is intended to ask what the difference is between (A) and (B) from his point of view. In the (A) possibility, the reader is assured that Yhwh stayed with Elisha because, thanks to him, he can effectively strike the waters. The possibility seems to explain the meaning of the double portion of Elijah. The double portion would assure the presence of Yhwh, who is the motor of events. In this case, Scene III would be an additional epilogue. In the case of the (B) possibility, Elisha poses an open question. The fact of effectively striking the waters is not explained by the question regarding Yhwh. The force of dividing the waters may come from the mantle or from Elisha or from Yhwh. In this case, the existence of Scene III is necessary for the clarification of the meaning of Scene II. One thing seems to be sure: keeping the two possibilities in mind, the reader is invited to move to Scene III.

3.3 Section Conclusions Firstly, Scene I is connected to Scene II by the state of disequilibrium. In vv. 7, 8, the final tension of disequilibrium is produced with the usage of many narratological tools: juxtaposition, instantaneous simultaneity, shift of the point of view on the phraseological, temporal, and spatial planes, bluff. Secondly, this narrative tension is used to produce the effect of the turning point in vv. 9–​11, where the reader starts to observe the process of re-​establishing the equilibrium. This process starts with the question of Elijah, rendering Elisha’s request possible. The reader is intended to take time to understand the meaning of this request, i.e. the double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Elijah makes a condition on which the request may by fulfilled: seeing Elijah taken away. At this moment, the event, announced from the beginning of the narrative as a prolepsis, takes place. Thirdly, in v. 12, the reader is dealing with a phenomenon of anagnorisis, in which Elijah is called father and possibly, the chariotry of Israel and its horsemen. We are dealing at this point with the character-​elevating phenomenon. A short piece of information “and he saw him no more” gives the reader conviction that the condition imposed on Elisha is fulfilled. The reader is dealing here with the phenomenon of peripeteia. The events described in v. 12 constitute the climax of the narrative, where the emotions of the reader are the strongest. The climax is marked by the phenomenon of the durative simultaneity. Fourthly, in vv. 13, 14, the reader is dealing with a series of the variant repetitions of vv. 7, 8. This narrative tool introduces the reader to the denouement of the narrative, where the

220

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

character-​elevating point of view helps the reader to ask the question regarding the relation between the presence of Elijah and Yhwh.

4. Chapter Conclusions The analysis of verbal forms shows that the narrator verbs are forming the core bone of Scene II. Among them, we distinguished a category which was not identified in the previous scene: deed verbs. We classified here: ‫ראה‬, ‫ראהו‬, ‫ויקח‬, ‫ויגלם‬, ‫ויכה‬, ‫ויחצו‬, ‫ויפרדו‬, ‫מצעק‬, ‫ויחזק‬, ‫ויקרעם‬, ‫וירם‬, ‫נפלה‬. We noticed that, in this largest group of scene verbs, the verbal forms deriving from the root ‫ ראה‬fulfill a special function in the narrative. On the one hand, they are crucial for understanding the action flow (the usage of ‫ ראהו‬and ‫והנה‬, cf. 2.2.2, 3.2). On the other, they are used both by the narrator and the characters (cf. 1.2.3). Another verbal root used by both types of narrative voices is ‫( לקח‬cf. 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.3). On the base of the diffusion of the verbal forms, we distinguished six incidents. The juxtaposition of incidents, plot stages and the simultaneity phenomenon reflect the dynamism of the storytelling in Scene II: Incidents Introduction Incident in v. 7 First Crossing Incident in v. 8 Request Incident in vv. 9–​10 Separation Incident in v. 11 Scream Incident in vv. 12–​13

Stages Complication

Simultaneitya instantaneous/​instantaneous

Turning Point

Anagnorisis & Climax Peripeteia Pathos Second Crossing Incident in v. 14 Denouement

durative/​instantaneous durative/​durative

Figure 38-​IV.  Incidents, Stages vs. Simultaneity in Scene II As we have noticed, the minor effect of simultaneity in BH also occurs between the direct speech and its introduction. a

The complication is marked by the instantaneous simultaneity structure. It prepares the reader for the turning point, in which the reader is dealing with another type of simultaneity, functioning in the durative context (durative/​ instantaneous). The climax of the narrative is announced by the durative/​durative type. It is worth highlighting that the climax is connected with anagnorisis rather

Chapter Conclusions

221

Denouement

Pathos

Peripeteia

Anagnorisis & Climax

Turning Point

Extended Complication

Verse

Stages

than peripeteia. We have also identified the pathos moment, which introduces denouement. Let us then ask, what is the relationship between the plot stages and the points of view? We can juxtapose them in a table:

7

8 9

10 11 12 aα

Discussed Points of View phraseological plane (Uspensky) +​temporal and spatial plane (Uspensky) external focalization (Genette) /​perceptual point of view (Chatman)/​ evenhanded strategy (Sternberg) perceptual point of view (Chatman) /​external focalization (Genette) phraseological plane (Uspensky) phraseological plane (Uspensky) +​temporal and spatial plane (Uspensky) external focalization (Genette); /​perceptual point of view (Chatman); /​evenhanded strategy (Sternberg); external focalization (Genette) internal focalization (Genette) character-​elevating strategy (Sternberg) +​internal/​external focalization (Genette) perceptual +​conceptual +​interest viewpoints (Chatman)

12 aβ

internal/​external focalization (Genette)

12b

external focalization (Genette) /​evenhanded strategy (Sternberg) +​conceptual point of view (Chatman)

13

external focalization (Genette); /​character-​elevating strategy (Sternberg) external focalization (Genette); perceptual point of view (Uspensky) character-​elevating strategy (Sternberg) +​ideological plane (Uspensky); +​interest point of view (Chatman)

14 a b

Figure 39-​IV.  Stages vs. Points of View in Scene II

222

THE SECOND SCENE: VV. 7–14

We observed the following regularities. Firstly, the complication stage is characterized by a clear phraseological plane, indicating change of point of view on the temporal and spatial plane (“fifty men … stood” vs. “the two of them stood” in v. 7), and also by some play on the level of point of view that we called bluff (“here and there” in v. 8). Secondly, in the turning point stage, there are almost the same mechanisms as in the extended complication (vv. 9–​10). There is, however, one crucial difference: the internal focalization used to indicate the moment of arrival of the “chariotry of fire,” and possibly the moment of departure of Elijah. Thirdly, the complication not only prepared (by the usage of the external focalization) the turning point but also anagnorisis (v. 12aα) and peripeteia (v. 12aβ). The latter threesome use the ambiguity of identifying the passages between the external and internal focalization (“He was looking” –​ anagnorisis vs. “he saw him no more” –​peripeteia), on one hand, and that between the evenhanded and character-​elevating strategies on the other. Fourthly, in anagnorisis, there is an interplay between perceptual, conceptual and interest viewpoints (v. 12aα), in which Elisha calls Elijah “my father,” and optionally “the chariotry of Israel and its horsemen.” Fifthly, we also observed that the pathos (“Then he took hold of his clothes and tore them in two pieces,” v. 12b) is intended to be read from the conceptual point of view. Sixthly, a very interesting interplay of viewpoints takes place in denouement (vv. 13–​14), during which we deal with the character-​ elevating strategy juxtaposed with the interest point of view of Elisha’s question, “Where is Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?,” which opens the reader to Scene III.

Chapter V. The Third Scene: vv. 15–​18 “From the Jordan to Jericho” Scene III is the last scene of our narrative. We have entitled this scene “From the Jordan to Jericho.” In order to understand what is going on in this scene, we will use the methodology applied in the two previous chapters. The narrative technique, which will be particularly examined, is analepsis, used in v. 18. The narrative stages to be examined are denouement and conclusion.

1. Verbal Structures In this section, we will work on the specification of the verbs used within the scene. Firstly, we will try to understand the meaning of each verb, referring to its morphology but also to its immediate and large context. Secondly, we will organize verbs in thematic categories. Thirdly, on the basis on the disposition of the categorized verbs, we will propose a division of the scene into incidents.

1.1 Narrator and Character Verbs Our basic division of verbs is the one between the narrator’s and the character’s. Within the unities established on this basis, we will analyze the morphology, meaning and intertextual references of the verbs. We will also try to understand what these verb forms reveal about the style and structure of the scene.

1.1.1 Narrator Verbs in v. 15a Two verb roots used by the narrator at the beginning of Scene III are known from the previous scenes: ‫ראה‬, ‫אמר‬. The verb form ‫( ויראהו‬qal) occurs in two places in HB. These are other details regarding our verb: ‫( וַּיִ ְראֻהּו‬v. 15) (they) saw him

qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m., sg. +​suf. 3 m., sg. Judg 19:3 (†), cf. Deut 34:1; 2Kgs 6:6

The verb form ‫ ויראהו‬refers the reader to ‫ ולא ראהו‬in v. 12. In fact, it is an essential connection between Scene III and Scene II. Analogically, the occurrence of the verb form ‫( ויאמרו‬III 1.1.3) connects Scene III and Scene I. In both scenes, it modifies the expression “the Sons of the Prophets.” Moreover, we find

224

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

a particularly interesting occurrence of the same consonant setting (vocalized, however, as hiphil) in the last chapter of Deut, describing the death of Moses: Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and Yhwh* showed him (‫ )ויראהו‬the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan (Deut 34:1 NRS)

It hints that the comparison between the death of Moses and the departure of Elijah is fully justified.

1.1.2 Sons of the Prophets Verb in v. 15a The first speech of the Sons of the Prophets contains one verb: ‫נחה‬, coming from the root ‫נוח‬: ‫( נָחָ ה‬v. 15) (she) rests

‫נוח‬, qal, qatal, 3 f. s. cf. Isa 7:2; 14:7 (†)

In our scene, ‫ נחה‬modifies ‫( רוח‬spirit) which is feminine. An identical verb form to that of 2Kgs occurs in Isa: When the house of David heard that Aram had allied (‫ )נחה‬itself with (‫ )על‬Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. (7:2 NRS) The whole earth is at rest (‫ )נחה‬and quiet; they break forth into singing. (14:7 NRS)

The first occurrence in Isa is particularly interesting because it brings in the idea of alliance. The examined verb form occurs with ‫על‬, just as in the case in 2Kgs. The perspective of the “alliance” translation will be discussed in the next points of the chapter.

1.1.3 Narrator Verbs in vv. 15b–​16a The following narrator speech contains four verb forms: ‫ויבאו‬, ‫לקראתו‬, ‫ויׁשתחוו‬, ‫ויאמרו‬. Even if we know ‫ ויבאו‬from v. 4 (cf. III 1.1.2), its usage in v. 15b is different. While the former refers to Elijah and Elisha coming to Jericho, the latter refers to the Sons of the Prophets. The context of Jericho is common for both occurrences in question. The next verbal form in v. 15b is:

Verbal Structures

‫( לִ קְ ָראתֹו‬v. 15) to meet him

225

prcl. +​ ‫ קרא‬qal, inf. cons. +​suff., 3 m. sg. cf. Judg 4:22; 11:34; 14:5; 15:14; 19:3; 1Sam 10:10; 13:10; 16:4; 2Sam 15:32; 16:1; 1Kgs 18:7; 2Kgs 4:31; 5:21; 8:9; 9:18; 10:15; 23:29

This verbal form occurs 5 times in our Triple Cycle.1 In 21 of the 22 occurrences in DH, it means “to meet.” Only in the episode with Samson and the lion is it used in its “to roar” meaning (Judg 14:5), which would be closer to “to call,” the meaning suggested by the root ‫קרא‬. As in our case, ‫ קרא‬is very often used instead of ‫קרה‬, “to meet.” The verb form ‫ לקראתו‬introduces : ‫( וַּיִ ְׁשּתַ חֲוּו‬v. 15) bowed themselves

‫חוה‬, hishtaphel, wayyqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. Deut 29:25; Judg 2:12, 17; 1Sam 1:19; 1Kgs 9:9; 11:33; 2Kgs 17:16

It comes from the root ‫חוה‬. In DH, this verb form is always used to express the fact of worshipping a divinity. The occurrence examined is the single exception from this norm, i.e. it describes the act of bowing down before a man. An important reference is the occurrence of the root ‫ חוה‬in inf. cons. in 1Sam: I will raise up for myself a faithful priest (…). Everyone who is left in your family shall come to implore him (‫ )להׁשתחות‬for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread, and shall say, ‘Please put me in one of the priest’s places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.’ (2:35–​ 36 NRS)

1

The references to the Jehu story in 2Kgs 9–​10 make connection with 1Kgs 19:16, where Elijah receives the order to anoint Jehu as the king of Israel. We should also pay attention to the occurrence in the second chapter of the cycle: “As Obadiah was on the way, Elijah met him (‫ ;)לקראתו‬Obadiah recognized him, fell on his face (‫)ויפל‬, and said, ‘Is it you, my lord Elijah?’ ” (1Kgs 18:7). The meaning of the verb form examined is the same as in 2Kgs 2 and 1Kgs 18. The difference would be connected to the fact that, in 1Kgs, it is the more important person (Elijah) who comes to meet the less important one (Obadiah). We might look for a similarity in the act of “falling on face,” but different words are used to express this act in the texts compared. The similarity occurs, however, in LXX: 7 καὶ ἦν Αβδιου ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ μόνος καὶ ἦλθεν Ηλιου εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῦ μόνος καὶ Αβδιου ἔσπευσεν καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν εἰ σὺ εἶ αὐτός κύριέ μου Ηλιου (3βασιλέων 18:7) and 15 καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν οἱ ἐν Ιεριχω ἐξ ἐναντίας καὶ εἶπον ἐπαναπέπαυται τὸ πνεῦμα Ηλιου ἐπὶ Ελισαιε καὶ ἦλθον εἰς συναντὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (4βασιλέων 2:15)

226

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

The people are expected to bow down before the new priest established by Yhwh. The last encountered form, ‫ויאמרו‬, has occurred already in this scene. It occurs in the expression ‫ ויאמרו אליו‬which is known from vv. 3 and 5. In all three cases, the verb refers to the Sons of the Prophets and ‫ אליו‬refers to Elisha. Let us pass to the next group of verbs.

1.1.4 Sons of the Prophets Verbs in v. 16a The speech of the Sons of the Prophets contains four verbs: ‫ילכו‬, ‫ויבקׁשו‬, ‫נׂשאו‬, ‫ויׁשלכהו‬. The details regarding the first form are as follows: ‫( יֵלְ כּו‬v. 16) let them go

‫הלך‬, qal, yiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. Deut 28:41; Judg 5:6; 7:7; 2Sam 17:17; 1Kgs 8:36; 22:50

The verb form ‫ ילכו‬is the fourth occurrence of ‫ הלך‬in qal 3 m. pl. in the narrative. The particle ‫נא‬, located directly after ‫ילכו‬, gives a jussive value to the verb. The imperative character of the clause is introduced in its beginning by ‫הנה־נא‬. The jussive meaning of ‫ ילכו‬gives the purpose value to the following weyiqtol ‫ויבקׁשו‬: (cf. IBHS 33.4): ‫( וִ יבַ קְ ׁשּו‬v. 16) to search

‫בקׁש‬, piel, weyiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. 2Chr 7:14; Ps 83:17 (†)

The verb form ‫( ויבקׁשו‬with the so-​called non-​consecutive waw) occurs only twice in HB: if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek (‫ )ויבקׁשו‬my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2Chr 7:14 NRS) Fill their faces with shame, so that they may seek (‫ )ויבקׁשו‬your name, oh, Yhwh*. (Ps 83:16 NRS)

In both cases, it expresses the idea of seeking Yhwh (face, name). Let us look now at the next verb form: ‫( נְ ׂשָ אֹו‬v. 16) has taken him up

‫נׂשא‬, qal, qatal, 3 m. sg. +​suff. 3 m. sg. cf. 2Sam 18:28; Ezra 9:2; 10:44

The root ‫ נׂשא‬means “to take up” or “to raise up,” just as in the following example:

Verbal Structures

227

Blessed be Yhwh* your God, who has delivered up the men who raised their (‫ )נׂשאו‬hand against my lord the king. (2Sam 18:28b NRS)

In 2Kgs 2:16, the verb form ‫ נׂשאו‬is preceded by ‫פן‬, which normally means “so that not” but which sometimes means “perhaps.” In fact, both meanings are applicable to our narrative. The former would give to it more simultaneous character, i.e. Elijah may still be flying, while they are talking, and the spirit can cast him somewhere. The qatal vocalization (inf. cons. would be with qames under nun) of ‫ נׂשאו‬is a strong argument for the “perhaps” understanding. The last form, ‫ויׁשלכהו‬, is preceded by ‫ רוח יהוה‬which would be the default subject of the clause. The verb form examined is, however, masculine whereas the spirit of Yhwh is feminine. It seems, therefore, that the verb refers directly to Yhwh. The details regarding our verb are as follows: ‫( ַוּי ְַׁשלִ כֵהּו‬v. 16) cast him

‫ׁשלך‬, hiphil, wayyiqtol, 3 m. sg. +​suff. 3 m. sg. (†)

While ‫ויׁשלכהו‬, as a verb form, is not used in any other place of HB, we find in Exod a form which is almost identical: And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw (‫ )ויׁשליכהו‬the staff on the ground, and it became a snake; and Moses drew back from it. (4:3 NRS)

The meaning in Exod is the same as that in 2Kgs.

1.1.5 Narrator Verb in vv. 16b The verb form ‫ ויאמר‬might also be translated as “he answered:” ‫( ַוּי ֹאמֶ ר‬v. 16) But they said

cf. III 1.1.3

The default subject is Elijah because there is no indication that a third party enters the dialogue.

1.1.6 Elisha Verb in v. 16b The Elisha verb form ‫ תׁשלחו‬is not very frequent in HB (seven occurrences): ‫( ִת ְׁשלָחּו‬v. 16) (You shall not) send

‫ׁשלח‬, qal, yiqtol, 2 m. pl. cf. Gen 37:22; Num 5:3; 13:2; 31:4; 1Sam 6:3; Jer 34:14 (†)

228

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

With the exception of our verse, it never occurs with ‫לא‬, but there are some interesting occurrences with ‫אל‬. The first one comes from the story of Joseph and his brothers: Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but lay no (‫ )אל־תׁשלחו‬hand on him”-​-​that he might rescue him out of their hand and restore him to his father. (Gen 37:22 NRS)

The meaning of the verb used by Reuben is “lay no,” while in 1Sam 6:3 it means “to send:” They said, “If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, do not send (‫ )אל־תׁשלחו‬it empty, but by all means return him a guilt offering. Then you will be healed and will be ransomed; will not his hand then turn from you?” (NRS)

The speech is addressed to the Philistines by their priests. We are dealing, therefore, with the priestly context of the usage of the verb.

1.1.7 Narrator Verbs in v. 17a The narrator’s text in v. 17a is based on three verb forms: ‫ ויפצרו‬,‫בׁש‬, ‫ויאמר‬. The first verb form occurs only twice in HB. The first occurrence is in the clause examined and the second is as follows: But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard (‫ )ויפצרו‬against the man Lot and came near the door to break it down. (Gen 19:9 NRS)

We find the “pressed hard” in the examined verse: ‫( וַּיִ פְ צְ רּו‬v. 17) But they persisted

‫פצר‬, qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. Gen 19:9 (†)

It occurs with ‫( בו‬against him). Similarly, in Gen, it occurs with the preposition ‫ב‬. The next verbal form examined, ‫בׁש‬, also occurs only twice in HB. The second occurrence is the following: He [Hazael] fixed his gaze and stared at him [Elisha], until he was ashamed (‫)עד־בׁש‬. Then the man of God wept. (2Kgs 8:11 NRS)

In the verse quoted and in our episode, the verbal form refers to Elisha. What is more, in both cases, it is preceded by the particle ‫עד־‬. The whole expression means “until he was ashamed.” In both cases, the whole expression indicates both emotions and a time limit. The comparison between 2Kgs 2 and 8 implies

Verbal Structures

229

the juxtaposition of Hazael and the Sons of the Prophets. It might be a bridgehead toward a deeper characteristic of this group. Let us only recall that, after the conversation with Elisha, Hazael killed Ben Hadad and became the king of Aram. This refers the reader to the order given to Elijah in 1Kgs 19:15. These are other details regarding the verbal examined: ‫( ּבֹ ׁש‬v. 17) until he was ashamed

‫בוׁש‬, qal, inf. cons. cf. 2Kgs 8:11 (†)

Furthermore, there is one single moment in our episode when we are faced with a verbal form which strictly expresses affectivity, i.e. it is not about doing things. This emotion verbal form is ‫בׁש‬. Let us recall that, in previous scenes, emotions were expressed by repetitions, juxtapositions etc. Another interesting thing regarding this verbal form is repetition of sound. The element ‫ בו‬is followed by ‫עד־בׁש‬. The similarity regards the first letters in ‫ בו‬and ‫בׁש‬. In the stylistic analysis, it is called paronomasia, i.e. repetition of sounds within an expression.2

1.1.8 Elisha Verb in v. 17a The MT vocalization of the next Elisha verb form is unique in BH. In fact, it is a pausal form. The details regarding this verb form are as follows: ‫( ְׁשלָחּו‬v. 17) Send!

‫ ׁשלח‬qal, impv., m., pl. (-​) (†) cf. Gen 42:16; 2Sam 13:17; 17:16; Neh 8:10; Isa 16:1; Jer 2:10; 9:16; Joel 4:13

Let us note that this is the fifth occurrence of a verb with the root ‫ ׁשלח‬in Scene III. In Scene I, the subject of the verb was Yhwh. In v. 16b, the subject was the Sons of the Prophets. Here, the subject is Elisha. A non-​pausal version of this form occurs, i.e. in the story of David: Therefore, send (‫ )ׁשלחו‬quickly and tell David, ‘Do not lodge tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means cross over; otherwise the king and all the people who are with him will be swallowed up’. (2Sam 17:16 NRS)

This occurrence brings, therefore, the idea of sending messengers.

2

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 202.

230

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

1.1.9 Narrator Verbs in v. 17b–​18 The last narrator speech contains six verbs, making this the speech with the highest number of verbs in the scene. The verb forms are: ‫ ויׁשלחו‬,‫ויבקׁשו‬, ‫מצאהו‬, ‫ויׁשבו‬, ‫ יׁשב‬,‫ויאמר‬. The first verb form, ‫ויׁשלחו‬, is the sixth occurrence of the root ‫ ׁשלח‬in our episode. It occurs for the third time in this scene. Its wayyiqtol form represents the result of a larger action. The details regarding the verb are: ‫( וַּיִ ְׁשלְ חּו‬v. 17) so they sent

‫ ׁשלח‬qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. Judg 3:15; 18:2; 20:12; 21:10, 13; 1Sam 5:8, 11; 6:21; 2Sam 10:6; 19:15; 1Kgs 12:3, 20; 21:14; 2Kgs 10:7; 14:19

This verb form is typical for Judg. In Kgs, ‫ ויׁשלחו‬is often used in the kill/​death context: Then they sent (‫ )ויׁשלחו‬to Jezebel, saying, “Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.” (1Kgs 21:14 NRS) When the letter reached them, they took the king’s sons and killed them, seventy persons; they put their heads in baskets and sent (‫ )ויׁשלחו‬them to him at Jezreel. (2Kgs 10:7 NRS) 19 They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But they sent (‫ )ויׁשלחו‬after him to Lachish and killed him there. (2Kgs 14:19 NRS)

It is also worth noticing that ‫ ׁשלח‬is associated with ‫ׁשלך‬, used in v. 16, by its pronunciation. The next verb form of this verse is (cf. v. 16a): ‫( וַיְ בַ קְ ׁשּו‬v. 17) they searched

‫ בקׁש‬piel, wayyiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. Josh 2:22; Judg 6:29; 2Sam 17:20; 1Kgs 1:3; 19:10, 14; Esth 2:21; Zech 6:7 (†)

There is a particular wordplay between the forms of ‫ ויבקׁשו‬in v. 16a (weyiqtol) and v. 17b (wayyiqtol). Using the Sternberg terms, we are dealing here with the passage between the forecast to enactment (cf. III 3.1.2). There is another important element regarding ‫ויבקׁשו‬. It is modified by the time expression “three days.” Moreover, ‫( ויבקׁשו‬wayyiqtol) occurs in two verbatim verses of our Triple Cycle: I alone am left, and they are seeking (‫ )ויבקׁשו‬my life, to take it away. (1Kgs 19:10b =​1Kgs 19:14b NRS)

Verbal Structures

231

We find some other occurrences of this verb form (wayyiqtol) in Kgs in the killing/​death context: 1Kgs 19:10, 14. In another part of Kgs, it occurs, however, in the matrimonial context: 1Kgs 1:3. The next verb form is: ‫( ְמצָ אֻהּו‬v. 17) (did not) find

‫ מצא‬qal, qatal, 3 c. pl. +​suff. 3 m. pl. cf. –​(†)

This verb form is unique in HB but there are a lot of occurrences of its root. The closest occurrences to the one examined would be from Deut: My anger will be kindled against them in that day. I will forsake them and hide my face from them; they will become easy prey, and many terrible troubles will come upon (‫ )ומצאהו‬them. (Deut 31:17a NRS)

This form is, therefore, associated with troubles. The next verb form is: ‫( ַוּיָׁשֻ בּו‬v. 18) they returned

‫ ׁשוב‬qal, wayyiqtol, 3 m. pl. cf. 1Sam 1:19; 6:16; 17:53; 25:12; 2Sam 17:20; 1Kgs 12:24; 20:5; 22:33; 2Kgs 1:5; 3:27; 7:8, 15; 9:36;

The same verb form occurs in the following chapter: Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned (‫ )ויׁשבו‬to their own land. (2Kgs 3:27 NRS)

In the preceding chapter to 2Kgs 2, we find a variation of this verb form: The messengers returned (‫ )ויׁשובו‬to the king, who said to them, “Why have you returned?” (2Kgs 1:5 NRS)

The motive of turning back is, therefore, present in three chapters in a row. The next verbal form is ‫יׁשב‬. Let us look at the occurrences of this form in the Triple Cycle: Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting (‫ )יׁשב‬on the top of a hill (‫)על־ראׁש ההר‬, and said to him, “O man of God, the king says, ‘Come down’.” (2Kgs 1:9 NRS) So he dispatched a man from his presence. Now Elisha was sitting (‫ )יׁשב‬in his house, and the elders were sitting with him. (2Kgs 6:32a NRS)

232

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

This verbal form is therefore used to describe the stable position of the prophet whom someone approaches. The details regarding the examined verbal form are: ‫( יֹ ׁשֵ ב‬v. 18) was staying

‫ יׁשב‬qal, ptc., m. sg. cf. 1Kgs 1:48; 3:6; 8:25; 9:16; 13:11, 14, 25; 15:18; 17:19; 22:19; 2Kgs 1:9; 6:32; 19:15;

There is a characteristic wordplay between the verbs ‫ ויׁשבו‬and ‫ יׁשב‬in v. 18. Their meaning is completely different, but they use the same consonants. Because they are in the neighboring expression, we will speak again about the phenomenon of paronomasia. Another wordplay is between ‫ יׁשב‬and imperatives ‫ ׁשב‬in vv. 2, 4, 6 of Scene I.

1.1.10 Elisha Verbs in v. 18b The last setting of verb forms occurs in the Elisha speech: ‫אמרתי‬, ‫תלכו‬. Some details regarding the first form are as follows: ‫( אָ מַ ְר ִּתי‬v. 18) (Didn’t) I tell

‫אמר‬, qal, qatal, 1 c. sg. cf. Deut 28:68; 32:26; Judg 2:3; 13:13; 15:2; 1Sam 2:30; 9:17, 23; 2Sam 12:22; 19:30; 1Kgs 22:18; 2Kgs 4:24, 28; 5:11; 23:27

Apart from the verse examined, there is another occurrence of the root ‫אמר‬ in qatal in our episode. In Scene II (v. 9), the narrator informs the reader about Elijah who talks (‫ אמר‬in qatal) to Elisha, inviting him to ask a question. We can also refer to two occurrences of the form in Kgs: The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell (‫ )הלוא אמרתי‬you that he would not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only disaster?” (1Kgs 22:18 NRS) Then she said, “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not say (‫)הלא אמרתי‬, Do not mislead me?” (2Kgs 4:28 NRS)

In both cases, our verb form is preceded by the question particle ‫( הלא‬with various spellings) and, in both cases, our verb form is followed by the negation introduced by ‫( לא‬with various spellings). The second verb from is ‫תלכו‬. The root ‫ הלך‬occurs many times in our episode. It is used in v. 16 in the questions of the Sons of the Prophets. It is not, however, used in Elisha’s answer in the same verse: “You shall not send.” Elisha seems to refer to the latter in his answer in v. 18. The details regarding the examined verb form are as follows:

Verbal Structures

‫( ּתֵ לֵכּו‬v. 18) (Do not) go

233

‫הלך‬, qal, juss., 2 m. pl. cf. Jer 25:6; 35:15; Ezek 20:18 (†)

The verb form examined occurs in HB in the following verses: Do not go after (‫ )ואל־תלכו‬other gods to serve and worship them, and do not provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm. (Jer 25:6 NRS) Do not go after (‫ )אל־תלכו‬other gods to serve them, and then you shall live in the land that I gave to you and your ancestors. But you did not incline your ear or obey me. (Jer 35:15b NRS) I said to their children in the wilderness, Do not follow (‫ )אל־תלכו‬the statutes of your parents, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. (Ezek 20:18 NRS)

Only these three verb forms in BH are identically vocalized as the one in the verse examined. What does it mean? Let us notice that, in all three cases, we are dealing with the prohibition of going after idols. Should we, then, read the expression in the verse examined with the same key? Why would Elisha use the idol-​related wording in reference to Elijah? We should keep this question in mind during the later exegesis.

1.2 Functional Verb Groups We will distinguish three functional groups of verbs in Scene III. To offer a few remarks on the issue: firstly, space and speech verbs occur in each scene of the episode. Secondly, deed verbs occur only in Scene II and III. Thirdly, each of these groups will be divided into narrator and character verbs. Fourthly, time verbs do not occur explicitly in Scene III. Let us bring in classifications from the last issue.

1.2.1 Quasi Time Verbs In Scene III, there are two cases of verb forms modified by time expressions. The verb form ‫ בׁש‬is modified by the particle ‫עד‬, meaning “until” (cf. 1.1.7). The verb form ‫ ויבקׁשו‬is modified by the expression ‫ׁשלׁשה־ימים‬, meaning “three days” (cf. 1.1.9). Now, we classify as time verbs those verbs which are part of formal time expressions ‫ ויהי‬+​verbs. Therefore, we will classify the verb form examined only as quasi-​time-​verbs. They will not be used as indicators of new incidents.

234

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

1.2.2 Space Verbs Identifying the space verbs of Scene III (cf. III 1.1.2), we will classify as such two narrator verbs: ‫( ויבאו‬v. 15) and ‫( ויׁשבו‬v. 18); and two character verbs ‫( ילכו‬v. 16) and ‫( תלכו‬v. 18). The latter two forms are used in a speculative way, but this speculation regards movement in space.3

1.2.3 Deed Verbs The second category of verbs, deed verbs, was introduced in the previous scene. Also, in Scene III, this is the largest category. We apply to this category the following narrator verbs: ‫( ויראהו‬v. 15), ‫( לקראתו‬v. 15), ‫( ויׁשתחוו‬v. 15), ‫( ויׁשלכהו‬v. 16), ‫( ויפצרו‬v. 17), ‫( בׁש‬v. 17), ‫( ויׁשלחו‬v. 17), ‫( ויבקׁשו‬v. 17), ‫( מצאהו‬v. 17), ‫( יׁשב‬v. 18). Furthermore, the following character verbs are classified as deed verbs: ‫( ויבקׁשו‬v. 16), ‫( נׂשאו‬v. 16), ‫( תׁשלחו‬v. 16), ‫( ׁשלחו‬v. 17). The question of the classification of the verbs with the root ‫ ראה‬was discussed in Scene II (cf. IV 1.1.3).

1.2.4 Speech Verbs There are six occurrences of speech verbs in Scene III. They occur in three forms: ‫( ויאמרו‬vv. 15, 16), ‫( ויאמר‬vv. 16, 17, 18), ‫( אמרתי‬v. 18). The first two forms are narrator verbs. The character verb ‫ אמרתי‬is a part of five-​words-​narrative within the dialogue.

1.3 Incidents What incident structure can be identified on the basis of the verbs discussed? In Scene I, this structure was based on time verbs and space verbs; in Scene II, on time verbs and deed verbs. The structure of Scene III is based on space verbs. The second criterion is deed verbs. Their occurrence is treated as the introduction of a new incident, unless they directly follow space verbs. There are five incidents distinguished on this basis. The first one starts with a deed verb: [v. 15a] The Proclamation Incident –​ Deed Verbs (narrator): ‫;ויראהו‬ –​ Speech Verbs (nar.):4 ‫ ויאמרו‬+​Character Verbs: ‫;נחה‬

3

4

There are some verbs which might be classified as deed verbs because they give the sensation of the creation of narrative space, i.e. ‫ויבקׁשו‬, ‫נׂשאו‬. Nevertheless, they rather fulfill the space (and time) created by the verbs mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. nar. is the local shortcut for narrator.

Verbal Structures

235

The Proclamation Incident might have started in v. 14bβ i.e. with the space verb ‫ויעבר‬. This is one of the classical examples when the biblical structures interlock and we are expected to divide them. The root ‫ ראה‬is another example of this phenomenon. It occurs in crucial moments of Scene II (cf. IV 1.1) and is the first verb of v. 15. In fact, we are dealing with connectors between the scenes. Now for the second incident based on the structure composed by space verbs +​ deed verbs:

[vv. 15b–​16] The Request Incident –​ Space Verbs (nar.): ‫ ויבאו‬+​Deed Verbs (nar.): ‫לקראתו‬, ‫;ויׁשתחוו‬ –​ Speech V. (nar.): ‫ ויאמרו‬+​Character V.: ‫ילכו‬, ‫ויבקׁשו‬, ‫נׂשאו‬, ‫;ויׁשלכהו‬ –​ Speech Verbs (nar.): ‫ ויאמר‬+​Character Verbs: ‫;תׁשלחו‬

This incident is shaped by the long character’s speech (four verbs). It is also the only incident in Scene III where a dialogue occurs (two speech verbs). Furthermore, the third incident is based on the deed verbs structure: [v. 17a] The Abashment Incident –​ Deed Verbs (nar.): ‫ויפצרו‬, ‫;בׁש‬ –​ Speech Verbs: (nar.): ‫ ויאמר‬+​Character Verbs: ‫;ׁשלחו‬

This incident is meant to be very intense: four of the six words are verbs. Two of them form a quasi-​time-​verb structure (‫ויפצרו‬, ‫ )בׁש‬modified by the time particle. The following, fourth incident is based on deed verbs. It does not contain speech verbs, similar to some incidents in the previous scene: [v. 17b] The Research Incident –​ Deed Verbs (nar.): ‫;מצאהו ;ויבקׁשו ;ויׁשלחו‬

This is the shortest among the scene’s incidents. The verb form ‫( ויבקׁשו‬modified by a time expression) was classified as quasi-​time-​verb. For that reason, the whole incident acquires a specific time value. Next, the fifth incident is based on the structure space verbs +​ deed verbs: [v. 18] The Return Incident –​ Space Verbs (nar.): ‫ ויׁשבו‬+​Deed Verbs (nar.): ‫;יׁשב‬ –​ Speech Verbs (nar.): ‫ ויאמר‬+​Character Verbs: ‫תלכו ;אמרתי‬.

This last incident is connected with various incidents of the previous scenes by the occurrence of the verb ‫ תלכו‬at the end. The crucial connections are the ones with the first incidents of both scenes (putting aside the quasi-​incident in Scene I).

236

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

1.4 Section Conclusions Firstly, one of the stylistic issues in association with verbs is paronomasia (‫בו‬ vs. ‫ בׁש‬in v. 17; ‫ ויׁשבו‬and ‫ יׁשב‬in v. 18). Another similarity of sounds is between ‫ ויׁשלכהו‬in v. 16 and ‫ויׁשלחו‬, ‫ תׁשלחו‬in v. 17. Two wayyiqtol forms express enactment of the forecasts indicated by the preceding verbs (‫ ויׁשלחו‬and ‫ ויבקׁשו‬in v. 17). Secondly, we have observed, for the first time in this episode, a verb strictly expressing emotions: ‫ בׁש‬in v. 17 (before repetitions, high frequency or lack of verbs were used for this purpose). Thirdly, we have identified various narrator and character verbs within the episode. The identified narrator verbs were divided into space (‫ ויבאו‬and others), deed (‫ויראהו‬, ‫ לקראתו‬and others) and speech verbs (‫ ויאמרו‬and others). We have also identified two quasi time verb structures (‫עד־בׁש‬, ‫)ויבקׁשו ׁשלׁשה־ימים‬. Fourthly, we identified a number of connectors between the scenes. The verb ‫ ויראהו‬connects Scene III with Scene II. The verb ‫ ויבאו‬connects Scene III with Scene I. The verb forms ‫​ילכו‬-‫תלכו‬ make connection between all three scenes. What is more, on the basis of deed and space verbs, we identified five incidents within our scene: Proclamation (v. 15a); Request (vv. 15b–​16); Abashment (v. 17a); Research (v. 17b); Return (v. 18). Fifthly, we have made the following intertextual observations. The verb form ‫ ויראהו‬in v. 15a links our episode with Deut 34:1. Both the death of Moses and the departure of Elijah take place near Jericho. The verb form ‫ נחה‬in v. 15a expresses the idea of resting, but also of entering into alliance (cf. Isa 7:2). The verb form ‫ ויׁשתחוו‬introduces the idea of worshiping a divinity (cf. DH) and establishing a new priest (1Sam). The verb form ‫ תׁשלח‬also gives us a reference to the priestly context in 1Sam 6:3. The expression ‫ עד־בׁש‬brings the juxtaposition of Sons of the Prophets and Hazael (cf. 2Kgs 8). The expression ‫ אל־תלכו‬in v. 18 brings the idea of the interdiction (given by God) of worshiping idols (cf. Jer 25:6; 35:15b; Ezek 20:18).

2. Narrative Techniques In this section, we will focus on one narrative technique used in v. 18. The technique of analepsis seems to be crucial to understanding Scene III and the whole episode. Firstly, we will classify it according to narratological criteria. Secondly, we will determine its function within the scene.

2.1 Classification of Analepsis in v. 18b Bar-​Efrat notices: “Apparently, the explicit denotations of time seem to be of only marginal importance. Nevertheless, the scrutiny of the factor of time provides a

Narrative Techniques

237

key for the reader.”5 In the case of Scene III, the reflection on time is necessary to understand the flow and the meaning of the events. It is the key for the reader. Let us, therefore, classify our analepsis according to biblical and narratological criteria.

2.1.1 Formula “Didn’t I tell” The formula “Didn’t I tell” (‫ )הלוא־אמרתי‬introduces a past event.6 The formula may be followed by the particle ‫ אל‬or direct speech. Therefore, we do not include the particle in the wording of the formula. For the first time, it occurs in Gen 42:22: Then Reuben answered them, “Did I not tell you (‫ )הלוא אמרתי אליכם‬not to wrong (‫ )אל־תחטאו‬the boy? But you would not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood.” (NRS)

A few remarks on this formula: firstly, the formula is followed by ‫ אליכם‬just as in 2Kgs 2:18. Secondly, this formula introduces a repetition. It is a non-​verbal repetition of Gen 37:22 (Shed no blood i.e. ‫)אל־תׁשפכו־דם‬. Thirdly, the negative 5 6

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 143. When Jean Louis Ska defines biblical analepsis (cf. III 2.1), he gives the example of analepses in Gen 20: Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 8. The first analepsis mentioned by Ska occurs in the beginning of v. 4 (NRS): “Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent people?”” The information that the king had not approached Sarah fills a gap in the storyline. There is no reason to say that the narrator refers to the time from before the episode. This gap starts just after the information that Abimelech has taken Sarah. The second analepsis occurs in v. 11: “Abraham said, ‘I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife’.” Apparently, the expression “I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place” is just an analepsis as in v. 4. Let us, however, remark that, in v. 4, analepsis occurs in the narrator’s text and, in v. 11, it occurs in the speech of a character. The next verse with the narrative technique examined is v. 18. The last verse of the episode: “For Yhwh* had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.” The analepsis “For Yhwh* had closed (…)” does not have any clear time marker. The question is: When did Yhwh close the wombs? In fact, this phrase explains that Abimelech took Sarah because the women of his house were barren. Yhwh must have closed their wombs before Abraham’s arrival, so before the narrative time of the episode. We are dealing in Gen 20 with three types of analepses. In v. 4, it occurs in the narrator’s text and refers to the narrative time within the episode. In v. 11, it occurs in the character’s speech and refers to the narrative time within the episode. In v. 18., it occurs in the narrator’s text and refers to the time from before the episode.

238

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

particle ‫ אל‬occurs in both compared expressions. Fourthly, Reuben is repeating his own speech given to his brothers in the defense of Joseph. Previously, this speech saved Joseph’s life. This time, it starts reflection on the wicked act of the brothers. Fifthly, the formula functions as a transition between the scenes of the encounter with Joseph (incognito) and the return home. Sixthly, using Genette’s typology, we define this analepsis as internal, homodiegetic and repeating.7 Seventhly, the whole story is not preceded by prolepsis formula, but the future is foretold by Josephs dreams. Following the BHS order of the books, the next occurrence of the formula is in 1Kgs 22:18: The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you (‫)הלוא אמרתי אליך‬ that he would not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only disaster (‫( ”?)לוא־יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם־רע‬NRS)

A few observations on the basis on the usage of this formula. Firstly, the formula is followed by ‫אליך‬. Secondly, it introduces an expression which is almost a verbatim repetition of v. 8 (‫)כי לא־יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם־רע‬. Thirdly, the difference is only in the spelling of the negative particle, ‫ לא‬in v. 8 and ‫ לוא‬in v. 18. Fourthly, the king is repeating his speech to Jehoshaphat to underline that his general thesis (“only disaster”) is true. As we know, the disaster foretold becomes fact very soon. Fifthly, the analepsis occurs in the middle of the scene where Micaiah explains the details of the king’s disaster. This scene follows the prophets foretelling and precedes the battle scene. Sixthly, we classify this analepsis as internal, homodiegetic and repeating. Seventhly, analepsis is not preceded by a prolepsis

7

The classification proposed by Genette will help us to understand the type of analepsis in 2Kgs 2:18. Firstly, Genette introduces the term “first narrative,” with respect to which anachronies (analepsis, prolepsis etc.) are defined as such. Secondly, analepsis can describe an event internal or external with respect to the first narrative. Thirdly, analepsis is heterodiegetic when it is dealing with the different storyline as the first narrative, e.g. when the narrator describes unknown actions of a recently introduced character. Analogically, analepsis is homodiegetic when it is dealing with the same line of action as the first narrative. Fourthly, there are two types of internal homodiegetic analepses. It is completing when it returns to a gap (ellipsis) in the storyline to fill it. It is repeating when it recalls a piece of information which was already presented, e.g. the narrator uses it to reinterpret an important detail from the narrative past. Fifthly, analepsis is partial when it ends on a gap without rejoining the first narrative. Analogically, analepsis is complete when it joins it. Cf. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, 48–​67.

Narrative Techniques

239

at the beginning of the narrative, but the idea of the future is introduced by the announcement of war. The next occurrence of the formula is in 2Kgs 4:28: Then she said, “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not say (‫)הלא אמרתי‬, Do not mislead me (‫( ”?)לא תׁשלה אתי‬NRS)

A few remarks: firstly, the formula is not followed by a preposition. Secondly, the formula introduces an expression whose wording is completely different from its reference expression in 2Kgs 4:16 (‫)אל־תכזב בׁשפחתך‬, where the Shunamite spoke about herself in the third person. It is a non-​verbal repetition. Thirdly, one of the differences is the particles ‫ לא‬and ‫אל‬, just as in 2Kgs 2:18. Fourthly, the Shunamite is repeating her words to make Elisha act. Fifthly, analepsis occurs in the middle of the scene about saving the boy. Sixthly, we classify this analepsis as internal, homodiegetic and repeating. Seventhly, analepsis is preceded by a prolepsis in v. 16 announcing the birth of the boy. There are two occurrences of the formula in Chr. The first one in 1Chr 21:17a: And David said to God, “Was it not I who gave the command (‫ )הלא אני אמרתי‬to count the people (‫( ”?)למנות בעם‬NRS)

Firstly, the formula is followed by ‫ ל‬+​ inf. cons. Secondly, the expression introduced by the formula is a non-​verbal repetition of 1Chr 21:2. Thirdly, the repetition is not a negation. The impv. ‫ לכו‬in 1Chr 21:2 is parallel to 2Kgs 2:18. Fourthly, David is recalling his words to prevent God from acting. Fifthly, analepsis is a connector between the scene of census and the building of the altar. Sixthly, we classify this analepsis as internal, homodiegetic and repeating. Seventhly, analepsis is not preceded by prolepsis. The last occurrence of the formula is in 2Chr 18:17: The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you (‫ )הלוא אמרתי אליך‬that he would not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only disaster (‫”?)לא־יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם־לרע‬ (NRS)

Firstly, the formula is followed by ‫אליך‬. Secondly, it introduces analepsis which is known not only from 2Chr 18 but also from 1Kgs 22. It is a variant repetition of 2Chr 18:7 and a verbatim repetition of 1Kgs 22:8. Thirdly, the negative particle in 2Chr 18:17 is ‫ לא‬and in v. 7 is ‫איננו‬. Fourthly, the king is repeating his thesis in order to defend his general thesis (“only disaster”). Fifthly, analepsis occurs in the middle of the scene with Micaiah. It introduces the proper prophecy on the battle at Ramoth-​gilead. Sixthly, we classify this analepsis as internal, homodiegetic and repeating. Seventhly, the analepsis is not preceded by prolepsis.

240

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

Let us sum up this point. The formula “Didn’t I tell” always introduces an analepsis. This analepsis is often (3/​5 cases) preceded by the preposition ‫ אל‬and a second person pronoun. Often analepsis starts with a negative particle (4/​5 cases). In all cases, analepsis is also repetition: non-​verbal (3/​5 cases), variant (1 case) or verbatim (1 case). There is also the verbatim repetition of an expression from 1Kgs in 2Chr. All analepses were classified as internal, homodiegetic and repeating. All of them occur in a character’s speech. Finally, only in one case is analepsis preceded in the narrative by a prolepsis (2Kgs 4). In two other cases, the idea of the future is introduced at the beginning of the narrative. The examples from Chr follow another time structure pattern.

2.1.2 Phenomenon of v. 18 What do we observe if we look at analepsis in v. 18? On the one hand, it can be classified with the other cases of analepsis presented above. On the other hand, we can specify its character by the analysis of its direct context and structure. Let us start with the structure of v. 18: v. 18a They returned to him while he was staying in Jericho

v. 18bα v. 18bβ1 v. 18bβ2 he said Didn’t I tell Do not go? to them you ‫ַוּיָׁשֻ בּו‬ ‫ַוּי ֹאמֶ ר‬ ‫הֲלֹוא־אָ מַ ְר ִּתי‬ ‫אַ ל־ּתֵ לֵכּו‬ ‫אֵ לָיו וְ הּוא יֹ ׁשֵ ב ּבִ ִיריחֹו‬ ‫ֲאלֵהֶ ם‬ ‫ֲאלֵיכֶם‬

Figure 40-​V.  Structure of v. 18

We distinguished four sections of the phrase. Section v. 18a starts with the idea of returning (‫)ויׁשבו‬. On the story-​line level, it regards the fifty who are returning to Elisha. On the stylistic level, it corresponds to analepsis (returning to some events), which follows the expression examined. Secondly, in all the sections, we find ‫ אל‬vocalized in different ways. In vv. 18a, 18bα, 18bβ1, its vocalization indicates the “to” meaning. In the section v. 18bβ2, the vocalization indicates the “no” meaning. We see, therefore, that, on the stylistic level, the first three occurrences relate specifically to the last one. Let us call the nature of this relation “anticipation traces.” Thirdly, each ‫ אל‬used as a preposition, is related to a different pronoun. In v. 18a, the preposition occurs with the pronoun in 3 m. sg. This particle occurs in the narrator’s text. In v. 18bα, the preposition occurs with the pronoun in 3 m. pl. The whole particle (‫ )אלהם‬is preceded by ‫ויאמר‬. This means

Narrative Techniques

241

that the section v. 18bα is between the narrator’s and character’s text (cf. III 1). In v. 18bβ1, we are dealing with the character’s speech. The particle “to” occurs, therefore, in three different narrative micro-​genres and then we encounter the “no” particle. The particle “no” is, therefore, essential for our understanding of the end of the narrative. In the following points, we will try to understand the meaning of the negation in our scene. Finally, let us ask where does the analepsis start? We see that analepsis is presented progressively. It is anticipated in section v. 18a. It is announced in section v. 18bα, by the introduction to the speech. It is introduced by the formula in section v. 18bβ1. It is clarified by the non-​verbal quotation in section v. 18bβ2. The specification of our analepsis with the criteria applied to the analepses based on the formula “Didn’t I tell” is as follows. Firstly, the formula is followed by the preposition ‫אליכם‬. Secondly, it announces analepsis, which is a non-​ verbal repetition of expression ‫ לא תׁשלחו‬in v. 16b and non-​verbatim repetition of ‫ ילכו נא‬in v. 16a. Let us call this phenomenon “bi-​reference” analepsis. Thirdly, the negative particle in v. 16 is ‫ לא‬and in v. 18 it is ‫אל‬. Fourthly, analepsis fulfils a few functions on different levels which will be explored below. Fifthly, analepsis occurs at the last verse of the episode. Sixthly, we classify this analepsis as character’s, internal, homodiegetic and repeating, according to the Genette typology (cf. 2.1.1). Seventhly, analepsis is preceded by prolepsis occurring in Scene I.

2.2 Functions of Analepsis vv. 18b Classification of analepsis is not enough. We need to understand how it functions in its context. To do this, we need to know what the basic functions of analepsis are, especially if it is expressed as a negative rhetorical question. Let us look first at the results of Bar-​Efrat’s research.

2.2.1 Functions of Analepses Structural classification of analepsis is not enough; we need to understand its function within the narrative. Bar-​Efrat indicates several functions of it in HB.8 Firstly, analepsis can provide background information about a new character, e.g. when Jephthah is mentioned in Judg 11:1, we find out about his past: Now Jephthah the Gileadite, the son of a prostitute, was a mighty warrior. Gilead was the father of Jephthah. (NRS)

8

Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 175.

242

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

Furthermore, we find another analepsis within the same story in v. 7: But Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Are you not the very ones who rejected me and drove me out of my father’s house? So why do you come to me now when you are in trouble?” (NRS)

The function of this analepsis is creating a contrast. Here, the contrast is between the initial rejection and the honor done to him later. Thanks to this contrast, the effect of deliverance from the hands of Ammonites is enhanced. The function of analepsis can also be explicative as in 1Kgs 1:6: His father had never at any time displeased him by asking, “Why have you done thus and so?” He was also a very handsome man, and he was born next after Absalom. (NRS)

This analepsis explains why Adonijah was not close to his father (no emotional contact), why he was so arrogant (no real education) and why he considered himself to be entitled to the throne (next after Absalom). Another function of analepsis is returning to the main storyline, just as in Judg 3:21: Ehud escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the sculptured stones, and escaped to Seirah. (NRS)

The narrator focused for a while on the servants finding their master dead. Analepsis effectuates with focusing on Ehud, the killer, again. Analepsis can serve the function of synchronization as in 1Sam 16:14: Now the spirit of Yhwh* departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yhwh* tormented him. (NRS)

The spirit of Yhwh departs from Saul before its coming upon David, but the narrator puts this information later, because it explains why Saul was tormented by an evil spirit and why David was playing the lyre to Saul. In that way, the narrative about the anointing of David is synchronized with the narrative about David’s service in Saul’s court.

2.2.2 Rhetorical Question It must also be noticed that v. 18bβ forms a rhetorical question.9 It is important that the same technique is used in the episode preceding the one in 2Kgs 2:1–​18, 9 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 240–​41. The issue of the rhetorical question in BH was particularly analyzed in: Adina Moshavi, “Two Types of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue,” Biblica 90, no. 1 (2009): 32–​46; “Rhetorical Question

Narrative Techniques

243

i.e. 2Kgs 1, which is also divided into three acts.10 In 2Kgs 1, we are dealing with the triple repetition of the phrase “You shall not leave the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die” (2Kgs 1:4, 6, 16). It resembles the structure of the triple repetition in the dialogue between Elijah and Elisha in 2Kgs 2. The repetition in 2Kgs 1 focuses attention on the prophecy regarding the dead of Ahaziah. The attention of the reader is focused on the prophecy thanks to the rhetorical question “Is it because there is no God in Israel?” The emphatic function of the rhetorical question is also confirmed by Sternberg, who uses an interesting concept of maximalization of the effect of the denouement regarding the rhetorical question.11 The rhetorical questions also fulfill an ironic function in the biblical narratives. A good example is found in the David and Bathsheba story. Uriah, the husband of the latter, says to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths. (…) Shall I go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?” (2Sam 11:11) The irony regards the fact that this is what David did, not going to the battle and lying with the wife of Uriah. Of course, one can say that almost every element of the narrative text can be used in the ironic function. It seems, however, that the rhetorical question is very suitable for this purpose. Finally, Bar-​Efrat remarks that the purpose of this type of question is “to persuade the audience by implying that the answer is self-​evident or known to

or Assertion? The Pragmatics of ‫ ֲהל ֹא‬in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 32, no. 1 (2017): 91–​105. The rhetorical devices, ranging from the most explicit to the most covert, through which the Bible shapes our response to character and event: 1. Narratorial evaluation of an agent or an action through a series of epithets (or their equivalent). 2.Through a single epithet, e.g. base fellows. 3. Through a choice of loaded language, e.g. abused, defiled. 4. Explicit judgment left ambiguous between narrator and characters, e.g. he had committed an outrage in Israel. 5. As in 1, 2, 3 except that the judgment is delegated to characters. 6. Judgment through a nonverbal objective correlative. 7. Charged dramatization, lingering over and thus foregrounding the plot elements designed for judgment. 8. Informational redundancy. 9. Direct inside view of the characters. 10. The play of the perspectives. 11. Order of presentation. 12. Order of presentation involving the displacement of conventional patterns. 13. Analogical patterning. 14. Recurrence of key words along the sequence. 15. Neutral or pseudo-​objective narration. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 475. 10 Cf. Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 107. 11 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 113. Cf. Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 126.

244

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

everybody and therefore not to be doubted or discussed.”12 For example: “And Jacob became angry with Rachel and said: “Am I instead of God, who has withheld from your fruit of the womb?” (Gen 30:2). The general message which is transmitted by Jacob is the one that God allows the child to be conceived.

2.2.3 Negative Particles in Direct Speech The expression “Do not go” (‫ )לא תׁשלחו‬in v. 18 is a reference to the expression “You shall not send” (‫ )אל־תלכו‬in v. 16. In both expressions, we are dealing with negative particles. In v. 16, it is ‫ אל‬and in v. 18, it is ‫לא‬. The nature of the verbs which follow them is determined by the types of these negatives. Let us see how it concretely functions. Let us start with the particle ‫לא‬. This particle is used before finite forms of qatal and yiqtol. In the second case, it expresses the future indicative (J–​M §160b).13 Therefore, we defined ‫ תׁשלחו‬as yiqtol, expressing the future indicative, and not as juss. The particle ‫ אל‬is a negative of prohibition, which is used with a form of direct volitive (i.e. juss. or coh.) with the exception of impv. (cf. J–​M §160 f).14 Because coh. is always 1 c. sg. or pl., we identified ‫ תלכו‬as juss. Now, let us look at the relative strength of each negative particle. ‫ לא‬is a strong negative particle, e.g. J-​M tells us that ‫ לא‬negates more forcefully than the particle ‫אין‬, cf. the case of nominal predicate in J–​M §160c. For us, the crucial information is given, however, by GES. The negative particle ‫ לא‬followed by yiqtol would express an emphatic prohibition. The negative particle ‫ אל‬followed by a volitive would express a simple warning (cf. GES §107o; J-​M § 160). Therefore, ‫ לא‬seems to be stronger. We also need to specify when one particle can be used alternatively with the other in the same text. According to Joüon, there are two reasons of alternation: a) it can give an energetic nuance for stylistic embellishment, e.g. in the biblical poetry (cf. J–​M §160 f); b) it can indicate that there is no simple juxtaposition (cf. Lev 10:9; J–​M §116j).

1 2 Narrative Art in the Bible, 211. 13 In many cases ‫ולא‬, followed by an indicative, expresses the purpose, cf. Gen 42:2; Lev 10:9; 1Kgs 18:44; 14:2; Is 8:10. 14 There are cases when, ‫ ואל‬followed by a volitive, is expressing purpose: Num 11:15; 1Sam 12:19; Ps 69:15; 2Chr 35:21.

Narrative Techniques

245

2.2.4 Functions of v. 18bβ We have noticed in 2.1.2 that our analepsis is not only a non-​verbal repetition of ‫ לא תׁשלחו‬in v. 16b but it is also a verbal, non-​verbatim repetition of ‫ ילכו נא‬in v. 16a. In fact, at the same time, Elisha repeats his own speech and the speech of his collocutors (it is not, however, an interiorization, because he rejects their ideas). Why? Let us look at the dynamic of verbs used in the series of our contrastive dialogue:15 –​ the Sons of the Prophets suggest to Elisha to let fifty men go (‫ )ילכו נא‬in v. 16aα; –​ at the end of their longer speech, the Sons of the Prophets speculate what might have happened to Elijah; they use the verb “to cast” (‫ )ויׁשלכהו‬in v. 16aβ; –​ in his two-​word answer, Elijah, uses the word “to send” (‫)תׁשלחו‬, the root of which (‫ )ׁשלח‬sounds the same as (or very similarly to, if we claim that het was pronounced differently from kaph) the root of “to cast” (‫)ׁשלך‬. This fact confirms the theory of the primacy of dialogue because, between both speeches, there is a narrator’s verb (‫ )ויאמר‬which sounds completely different. Finally, it explains the choice of the verb used by Elisha in v. 16b;16 15 The analysis of biblical dialogues may reveal complex social, psychological, and political arenas of narrative. To grasp it correctly, we need to understand one more issue regarding dialogue features. This issue is the contrastive technique. The application of this technique is possible thanks to some intrinsic choices of the biblical authors who wrote these dialogues down. In fact, the exchanges in HB always take place between two agents. Sometimes one of the agents is a group speaking with one voice. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 91. The exceptions from this two-​agents rule are rare and marginal. Now, there are many devices of contrastive dialogue (ibid., 227.) One can juxtapose: a) someone’s brief statement with someone else’s verbosity; b) simple with elaborate; c) balanced with asymmetrical; d) perceptive with obtuse, etc. According to Alter, the point at which dialogue emerges should be carefully analyzed, as well as the first words of each agent, because they can be revelatory. Not only the content of the speech, yet how and when should also be analyzed. As we see on the example of the biblical scene examined, the last words of a character can be also crucial to understand the narrative. 16 The phenomenon of the primacy of dialogue in HB was noticed by Leonhard Rost, who analyzed the story of the succession to David’s throne. Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, Reformation Texts with Translation (1350–​1650). Biblical Studies, Historic Texts (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), 16–​21. Cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 64. The theory, however, was elaborated and popularized by Robert Alter, who argues that, in the Bible, the third-​ person narration is often only a bridge between units of direct speech. Alter notes that “many pieces of third-​person narration prove on inspection to be dialogue-​bound,

246

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

–​ Elisha repeats the root ‫ ׁשלח‬when he gives the positive answer in v. 17a; –​ narrator repeats the same root ‫ )ויׁשלחו( ׁשלח‬in v. 17b;17 –​ both in the narrator’s and Elisha’s speeches, we find an interplay of words based on the sequence of letters ‫ אל‬v. 18 (cf. 2.2.3). The sequence of ‫ אל‬is finished by the expression ‫אל־תלכו‬, which contains the same root as the expression from the beginning of the chain which we have described –​v. 18; The usage of analepsis in v. 18b is, therefore, a master technique which provides to the scene an effect of the unity of style between vv. 16–​18. The opening verse of the scene, v. 15, clearly fulfils an introductive function. Let us look at the structure of direct speeches in Scene III:18 –​ Sons of the Prophets Speech in v. 15a –​separate speech; –​ Sons of the Prophets Speech in v. 16a –​part of dialogue; –​ Elisha’s Speech in v. 16b –​part of dialogue; –​ Elisha’s Speech in v. 17a –​part of quasi-​dialogue; –​ Elisha’s Speech in v. 18b –​separate speech. Let us note that the speech in v. 15a is not part of a dialogue. It is rather a commentary on the events in Scene II and an introduction to Scene III. The only dialogue of Scene III takes place in v. 16. The narrator speech in v. 17a replaces the speech of the Sons of the Prophets: “But they persisted until he was ashamed.” Therefore, we talk about a quasi-​dialogue in v. 17a. Elisha’s Speech in v. 18b seems to assume dialogue because Elisha must be somehow informed that they have not found Elijah. The narrator, however, does not make any allusion to dialogue between the agents, as is the case in v. 17. Therefore, v. 18b is a separate speech which might not seem to be connected with the scene, while all previous elements are somehow connected (v. 15 is a commentary and introduction). Here, we arrive at the first function of analepsis in v. 18b. It simply makes the unity of narration, i.e. connection with a preceding element of the story which is being told. Let us also mention that analepsis plays a crucial role in the unification of the whole episode. While prolepsis in v. 1 opens up the episode, orienting its action

verbally mirroring elements of dialogue that precede them or that they introduce. Narration is thus often relegated to the role of confirming assertion made in dialogue (…).” Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 82. 17 It also seems that the word ‫ ׁשלׁשה‬is a lengthening of the same sonic pattern. 1 8 O’Brien examines dialogues in 2Kgs 2: O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 1.

Narrative Techniques

247

towards the future, analepsis in v. 18 closes up the same episode, orienting its last words toward the past. The repetition of ‫( ילכו נא‬v. 16a) and ‫( לא תׁשלחו‬v. 16b) in v. 18b not only fulfils a syntactic function; it also fulfils the semantic one (we are talking about the relation between signs and the world of the narrative). In fact, Elisha interprets his own words in the light of the words of the Sons of the Prophets to produce a certain effect in the world of the narrative. He does it in a few ways: –​ by acting as the narrator (the preceding formula ‫( הלוא־אמרתי‬cf. 2.1.1) indicates the first-​person narrator par excellence); –​ by softening of the negative particle in reference to v. 16b (which can be explained by the fact that the character playing the role of the narrator tends to speak more softly than do the characters);19 –​ by using the quantitative contrast of the length of his speech in v. 18b (5 Hebrew words) with the speech of the Sons of the Prophets in v. 16a (24 Hebrew words) and with his previous speech in v. 16b (2 words). The observation that v. 18b is an interpretation is not enough. Let us ask if any of the five general functions of Bar-​Efrat (2.2.1) can be used to characterize v. 18b. The results of this investigation are as follows. On the one hand, the way of referring in v. 18b to his previous words by Elisha introduces the idea of his prophetic confidence and reliability. This analepsis gives us, therefore, a background information about Elisha. We have also mentioned the difference between the length of his words and the words of the Sons of the Prophets in v. 16a. It is Bar-​Efrat’s contrastive function. On the other hand, this analepsis explains the confidence of Elisha in the following chapters (2Kgs 3–​13), but not necessarily in our narrative. It also helps the reader to return to the storyline focused on Elisha (and not on Elijah or the Sons of the Prophets). It regards the following chapters, however. The analepsis does not seem to fulfill a synchronic function. The expression in v. 18bβ fulfils all three functions of rhetorical questions function mentioned previously. It emphasizes the absurdity of searching for Elijah. The emphasis is stronger thanks to irony (actually, Elisha did not say ‘Do not go?’). Finally, the rhetorical question helps to persuade the reader that the

19 Olga Tokarczuk, “The Tender Narrator,” in Nobel Lecture by Olga Tokarczuk: Nobel Laureate in Literature 2018, ed. Svenska Akademien (Stokholm: The Nobel Foundation, 2019), § 1.

248

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

information about taking Elijah to the sky is obvious. We will see below how the rhetorical question functions (cf. 3.2).

2.3 Section Conclusions We worked on four parts of the verse examined: v. 18a, v. 18bα, v. 18bβ1, v. 18bβ2. The formula introducing analepsis is to be found in v. 18bβ1: “Didn’t I tell you” (‫)הלוא־אמרתי אליכם‬. We noticed that this formula (putting ‫ אליכם‬aside) always introduces analepsis in HB. It also introduces the change of the temporary narrator. This formula also introduces a rhetorical question which fulfills three functions: emphatic, ironic, and explicative. The analepsis “Don’t go” (‫)אל־תלכו‬ is to be found in v. 18bβ2. We observed a few phenomena regarding it. Firstly, the bi-​reference, i.e. it is a non-​verbal repetition of Elisha’s speech in ‫ לא תׁשלחו‬in v. 16b and a non-​verbatim repetition of the expression ‫ ילכו נא‬used by the Sons of the Prophets in v. 16a. Secondly, Elisha interprets his own words by softening the negative particle in the act of the non-​verbal repetition (strong prohibition in v. 16 vs. volitive in v. 18). Analepsis can also be characterized as character’s, internal, homodiegetic and, of course, repeating, using Genette’s terminology. Thirdly, Elisha rejects interiorizing the idea of his collocutors in the speech, containing a negation of an element of their speech (non-​verbatim repetition). In this case, we cannot speak about an explicit analepsis. It is, therefore, an implicit analepsis. Fourthly, the analepsis is for the unification of the style of the scene because it is preceded by a chain of words based on the setting of the letters ‫ אל‬and ‫( ׁשלח‬with a variation of the last letter of the root). We called this phenomenon the anticipation traces. Fifthly, the analepsis helps the unification of the structure of the scene thanks to both the change of the vector of time and the usage of the quantitative contrast in dialogues. Sixthly, the analepsis helps the unification of the structure of the episode by its connection with the prolepsis in v. 1. Seventhly, it helps the unification of the cycle, since it explains the confidence of the prophet Elisha and brings the reader back to the Elisha-​oriented story line, after the focalization on the research of Elijah. Eighthly, other functions of this analepsis involve giving background information and creating contrast (cf. Bar-​Efrat functions).

3. Plot Stages In the previous chapters, we have introduced the notion of equilibrium. Equilibrium was disturbed in Scene I. Later on, we analyzed attempts of establishing the new equilibrium. The beginning of Scene III represents already the second equilibrium. Todorov writes that “the second equilibrium is quite

Plot Stages

249

similar to the first, but the two are not identical.”20 This second equilibrium corresponds in Scene III to the end of denouement and conclusion. Ska writes that “The denouement and conclusion may have different functions: they can summarize the outcome of the narrative or the fate of the main characters after the events recounted. The conclusion can also direct a special message to the reader: a moral lesson, an etiology connecting the world of the narrative with the world of the reader, information about the origin of the story or its relevance, or a reflection of the narrator (common in popular tales) (…).”21 Let us now see how the denouement prepares the conclusion.

3.1 End of Denouement in v. 15 Let us investigate the level of the narrative tension after Scene II. As we have indicated in the previous chapter, the reader is meant to be convinced that Elisha received the double portion of his spirit (‫ ;פי־ׁשנים ברוחך אלי‬cf. IV 3.2). The reader is also meant to understand that that is why Elisha can reproduce the miracle-​act of his master, i.e. dividing waters with the mantle. Is there any narrative tension at the end of Scene II? On the one hand, the reader does not know what Elisha is going to do with this power (after crossing the river). On the other hand, he does not know details regarding this power. This time, therefore, the narrative tension is based on curiosity. Scene III starts in v. 15aα. The reader finds out that the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho (‫ביריחו‬, cf. III 2.2.4) were standing opposite Elisha. This information is meant to rise a series of questions in the reader. Firstly, where are the Sons of Prophets standing (in geographical terms)? At the Jordan river? Or in Jericho? Secondly, are the Sons (of Prophets) from Jericho? Or only the Prophets were from Jericho? Now, an attentive reader is meant to remember that the expression “the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho” was already used in v. 5 when the action was taking place in Jericho (variant repetition of the verse). The reason, however, to think that the incident in v. 15a takes place at the Jordan river is the continuity of action with Scene II. Furthermore, the MT text indicates that the Sons (of the Prophets) were from Jericho because the first maqqeph is between “Sons” and “Prophets” and the second is between “who” and

20 Todorov adds: “Consequently, there are two types of episodes in a narrative: those that describe a state (of equilibrium or of disequilibrium) and those that describe the transition from one state to the other.” Todorov, Introduction to Poetics, 51. 21 Ska, “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, 29.

250

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

“Jericho”: ‫בני־הנביאים אׁשר־ביריחו‬. The beginning of Scene III is intended to attract the attention of the reader. Another element in v. 15 which is meant to attract the attention of the reader is the expression “saw him” (‫לקראתו‬, cf. 1.1.3). The verb “to see” was essential for describing the fulfillment of the condition given to Elisha which was needed to obtain the double portion of Elijah’s spirit. In v. 12, the condition is fulfilled with the expression “And he saw him no more.” Now, three verses later, the Sons of the Prophets see Elisha. The reader, therefore, is meant to understand this incident in the light of the transmission of the double portion of Elijah’s spirit. The question to be asked at this stage of the narration is the following: Have the Sons of the Prophets received any heritage of Elijah? Now, the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho (only) say that “the spirit of Elijah rests over Elisha.” The basic question is how do they know about the spirit? In fact, there are two possibilities. Firstly, they were watching from the border of the Jordan all the events which took place in Scene II. Why does then the narrator use in this verse the expression they “saw him”? Does it mean that they did not see him before crossing the river? Why does then the narrator use the expression “opposite” (‫מנגד‬, cf. IV 2.1.2) as in v. 7? Secondly, they might see Elisha wearing the mantle of Elijah and that makes them understand the transposition of the spirit. In this case, the mantle might be associated with the spirit of Elijah. The storyteller leaves the problem of choice open. That implies a rise in narrative tension. At the same time, the storyteller informs the reader that the Sons of the Prophets know what is going on. The reader should be also reassured in Elisha’s succession. The denouement seems to finish with v. 15b, when the Sons of the Prophets bow down to the ground before Elisha. The reader does not know yet that this is the last literal naming of the Sons of the Prophets in our episode. Until v. 15, the reader is meant to put the Sons of the Prophets and Elisha on the same level. In fact, Elisha seems to do it himself by calling Elijah “my father.” If he identifies himself with the sonship, he might be a son among other sons (of the prophets). The fact of bowing down, however, indicated his supreme importance. This importance needs to be explained. Therefore, the plot goes on and the narrative tension does not disappear.

3.2 Plot’s Conclusion in vv. 16–​18 The curiosity of the reader is meant to be aroused by the unexpected speech of the Sons of the Prophets. The reader starts to understand that he is dealing with a new subplot which is different from denouement. In fact, the plot is heading

Plot Stages

251

for the conclusion. Below, we will examine its character and function within the scene and the episode. Now, there is no indication that the Sons of the Prophets stood upright; therefore, they speak to Elisha bowed down. They say that there are fifty men, sons of power, with the servants of Elisha. At this moment, the reader finds out about the sons of power. Until now, therefore, he/​she has been dealing with the character-​ elevating narrative strategy, i.e. the agents knew more than the reader. The reader is meant to pose questions: Who are the fifty? Where are they from? Does the epithet “sons of power” mean that this is the group which inherits the rest of the spirit of Elijah? These unanswered questions will increase the narrative tension. The narrative tension increases rapidly with the demand of the Sons of the Prophets to let the fifty go to search for the master of Elisha. The expression “your master” (‫ )אדניך‬is the verbatim repetition of the one in vv. 3, 5. Furthermore, the expression “let them go” (‫ )ילכו‬is a variant repetition of the expression “they walked” (‫ )וילכו‬occurring in v. 6.22 The reader is, then, dealing with a series of references to the first scene of the episode (we have labeled this type of narrative technic the anticipatory traces). It gives an effect of lengthening of the tension and prepares the reader for the final solution. The Sons of the Prophets continue their speech in v. 16aβ: “perhaps the spirit of Yhwh has taken him up and cast him (…).” The attention of the reader is meant to be attracted by the expression “the spirit of Yhwh.” This expression occurs for the first time. The expression “the spirt of Elijah” was referring to the expression “the double portion of your spirit” in v. 9. We do not find so clear a reference regarding the expression “the spirit of Yhwh.” Probably, the reference which is intended to appear in the mind of the reader is the one of the “whirlwind,” in which Elijah was led up to the sky. This unclarity builds up an additional tension in the reader. This is not the reference, however, which is important at this point, rather it is the contrast (cf. the contrastive dialogue definition in 2.2.4). The “spirit of Yhwh” in v. 16 is juxtaposed by the same group of the Sons of the 22 We might also call this effect “an echo.” The term, however, refers to the reference in the text to other texts. This meaning was elaborated by Fewell: “Texts echo other texts, and as such can be understood as ‘echo chambers.’ In an echo chamber –​ that is, in a literary context for echoing –​ any text being echoed will sound differently than it has elsewhere.” Danna Nolan Fewell, Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 1992), 21. The theory of echo was developed in: John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After, UC Press Voices Revived (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 62–​132.

252

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

Prophets with the “spirit of Elijah” in v. 15. The reader is invited to go back to the question of Elisha: “Where is Yhwh, the God of Elijah, he also?” If the division of waters is a deictic answer to it, it means that the spirit of Yhwh is explicitly with Elisha. When the reader juxtaposes this fact with the suggestion of the Sons of the Prophets that the spirit of Yhwh took Elijah up, he realizes that it is another contrastive aspect of the dialogue. The reader is also intended to remember that the destination of Elijah was described by the narrator, yet it was not mentioned by the characters even if the Sons of the Prophets knew that Elijah was going be taken “from over Elijah’s head.” Elisha, furthermore, knew that Elijah was going to be “taken from him.” There is not any trace if they knew more. In Scene III, the thing becomes gradually clear. The Sons of the Prophets did not know about the heavenly destination of Elijah. What about Elisha? The reader must wait a few instances to find the most probable answer. The answer of Elisha in v. 16β, “You shall not send,” which does not correspond to the wording used by the Sons of the Prophets (“let them go”), guides the reader to a few possible interpretations. Firstly, Elisha knows that Elijah is not to be found “on one of the mountains or into one of the valleys” because he saw Elijah being taken into very heaven. The words “and he saw him no more,” however, go against this solution. Secondly, he can know this because “the spirit of Elijah rests over” him and, through him, he knows where the body is. It is Elisha’s prophetic power. Thirdly, the division of waters persuaded Elisha that Yhwh remained with him. In this way, he has superior access to the prophetic attributes. The two latter possibilities are meant to seem to be equally possible to the reader. Therefore, the narrative tension rises and the action moves on. The thing which happens at this point is intended to be completely unexpected to the reader. The Sons of the Prophets persist and Elisha is ashamed (‫בׁש‬, cf. 1.1.7). This is the only case of the naming of emotion in the whole episode. Until now, emotions were expressed by repetitions, cumulation of verbs, etc. Even the description of the cry of Elisha or the fact of tearing clothes is not equal to naming the emotions. In this sense, we can speak about the change of narrative style. What does the phenomenon of Elisha being ashamed say to the reader? The reader is meant to suppose that Elisha knows that Elijah was taken to the sky. The fact of being ashamed indicates that the words which follow this information are influenced by the emotions. In this moment, in v. 17a, the reader finds out that Elisha gives an order opposite to his previous one, given in v. 16b. At the same time, it is a variant repetition of his own words. He says “send” (‫)ׁשלחו‬. Using Sternberg’s terms, the reader is dealing with the member of forecast within the structure of repetition (cf. III 3.1.2). By consequence, the first expression used by the narrator afterward, i.e.

Plot Stages

253

“So, they sent” (‫)ויׁשלחו‬, is the member of enactment. There is no spare word between the two members of the structure of repetition. Elisha says, and the fifty men do. Now, the reader is expecting the result of the research. It is the third element of the repetition structure, i.e. the member of report. Here, the narrator provides the effect of passing time: “they searched three days.” The attentive reader is conscious that it is the first time that the passing of time is named explicitly. The action of the previous parts of the episode takes place “today,” i.e. within one day. The time reference within this episode prepares the reader for the solution. In fact, it does not give the clear effect of diminishing the narrative tension, because of the information which follows it, i.e. “but did not find him.” This information given to the reader seems to put him in an elevated position (cf. IV 2.2). With this idea, the reader is intended to move to the next verse, in which the fifty men return to Elisha. Let us remind ourselves of the importance of the word to return in the process of ending the story (cf. 2.1.2). The question of Elisha occurs without any information that the fifty informed him about the result of the research. Of course, the reader can easily imagine that the incidents takes place exactly as it is described i.e. without any dialogue. The attentive reader, however, knows that narrative gaps are very tools in the workshop of the biblical authors. The fragmentary description adds a tension to the narrative and highlights strongly the content of the message. The reader is meant to feel the indisputable authority of Elisha. At this moment, the reader can concentrate on the question of authority: “Didn’t I tell you “Do not go?” In fact, he/​she is dealing with one of the shortest possible narratives.23 For a while, using the rhetorical question (cf. 2.2.4), Elisha changes into the narrator. He obtains at this moment all the possible powers within the narrative: he is the dominant character and the “producer” of the story. It is also curious that Yhwh occurs in this scene only as a reference, in v. 16. The attentive reader will notice that the micro-​narrative in v. 18 has been prepared by various anticipatory traces (‫אל‬, ‫ׁשלח‬, cf. 1.4; 2.2.3). The usage of the variant repetition of “let them go” (‫ )ילכו נא‬as “don’t go” (‫ )אל־תלכו‬instead of his own wording (‫לא‬ ‫ ;תׁשלחו‬cf. bi-​reference) brings the question: Why does Elisha prefer to use the wording of the Sons of the Prophets? The answer shows the power of the technic called the contrastive dialogue (cf. 2.2.4). Firstly, Elisha proves that he knows that Elijah went up to the sky, unlike the Sons of the Prophets. Secondly, he shows his

23 The analogic affirmation “I told you ‘go’ ” would be a good candidate to be the shortest one.

254

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

superiority to the Sons of the Prophets not only within the prophetic hierarchy (cf. v. 15) but also on the prophetic-​competence level. At this point, the reader is meant to face the question regarding the rest of the heritage of Elijah. In fact, it turns out that there is no other clear heir to Elijah. Elisha seems to be the only executor of Elijah’s will and the main heir at the same time. Elisha shows it in the most elegant way, using a soft negative particle (‫אל‬, cf. 2.2.2) instead of the strong one (‫ )לא‬in the analepsis in v. 18.

4. Chapter Conclusions In Scene III, we have identified the following types of verbs corresponding to our narratological criteria (cf. 1.1): deed narrator verbs (‫ויראהו‬, ‫ לקראתו‬and others, cf. 1.2.3), space narrator verbs (‫ ויבאו‬and others, cf. 1.2.2), speech narrator verbs (‫ ויאמרו‬and others, cf. 1.2.4). We have also identified two quasi time verb structures: “until he was ashamed” (‫עד־בׁש‬, cf. 1.2.1) and “they searched for three days” ‫)ׁשלׁשה־ימים) ויבקׁשו‬. In the case of these structures, the temporal value is given to verbs by the temporal expressions, i.e. without the usage of ‫ ויהי‬as in the previous scenes. Let us also mention that we have identified a number of stylistic features based on verbs, e.g. the usage of paronomasia (‫ ויׁשבו‬and ‫ יׁשב‬in v. 18, cf. ‫ בו‬vs. ‫ בׁש‬in v. 17); the similarity of sounds (what we called anticipatory traces) between ‫ ויׁשלכהו‬in v. 16 and ‫תׁשלחו‬, ‫ ויׁשלחו‬in v. 17. Particular attention was paid to the last verse of the scene, i.e. the Return Incident in v. 18. The technique of analepsis used in the second part of the verse is crucial for understanding the scene. Firstly, the formula “Didn’t I tell you” (‫ )הלוא־אמרתי‬introduces the analepsis, as is the case in other examples from HB (cf. 2.1.1). Secondly, the formula also introduces the rhetorical question which fulfills three functions: emphatic, ironic, and persuasive (cf. 2.2.3). Thirdly, the proper analepsis is the following: “Do not go?” (‫)אל־תלכו‬. Fourthly, we have classified this analepsis as character’s, internal, homodiegetic and repeating (cf. 2.1.2). Fifthly, analepsis refers to the words of Elisha in v. 16b (non-​verbal repetition of ‫ )לא תׁשלחו‬and to the words of the Sons of the Prophets in 16a (non-​verbatim repetition of ‫)ילכו נא‬. We called this phenomenon bi-​reference. Reference to v. 16b is an explicit analepsis. Reference to v. 16a is an implicit analepsis (cf. 2.2.4). Sixthly, the temporal change of the narrator to Elisha characterizes this analepsis. Seventhly, the usage of analepsis within the scene (technique of the contrastive dialogue) is used to show that Elisha knew that Elijah went up to the sky unlike the Sons of the Prophets. It is also used to show his superiority to the Sons of the Prophets, not only within the prophetic hierarchy but also on the prophetic skills level. Eighthly, analepsis helps the unification of the structure of

255

Chapter Conclusions

the episode by its connection with the prolepsis. It also helps the unification of the cycle. We observed the regularity of occurrences of deed and space verbs (cf. 1.3). On this basis, we identified five incidents within the scene. Let us juxtapose these incidents with the narrative stages identified within the scene: Incidents Proclamation (v. 15a) Request (vv. 15b–​16) Abashment (v. 17a) Research (v. 17b) Return (v. 18)

Narrative Stages Denouement in v. 15 Conclusion in vv. 16–​18

Narrative Tension Second Equilibrium in vv. 15–​18

Figure 41-​V.  Incidents vs. Plot Stages in Scene III

Firstly, the structure of incidents does not correspond exactly to the structure of the narrative stages, something we already know from the previous scenes. The Request Incident starts in v. 15a in denouement and finishes in conclusion in v. 16. This means that the narrative tension does not disappear with the end of denouement but, thanks to the request of the prophets, is transformed into conclusion. Secondly, narrative tension enters in the state of the second equilibrium at the beginning of the scene. Thirdly, the denouement in vv. 13–​15 links Scene II with Scene III. Fourthly, ‫ ויראהו‬connects Scene III with Scene II. Fifthly, the verb ‫ ויבאו‬connects Scene III with Scene I. Sixthly, the verb forms ‫​ילכו‬-‫ תלכו‬make connection between all three scenes. Firstly, we noticed that the Sons of Prophets (who were in Jericho) did not necessarily see Elijah taken up to the sky and that they might have recognized the heritage of Elisha in another way, i.e. by the recognition of Elijah’s mantle (possibly associated with the spirit of Elijah). Secondly, there is the distinction between the spirit of Elisha (v. 15) and the spirit of Yhwh (v. 16) in the scene. It is made by the Sons of the Prophets. The question is if this distinction is justified in the eyes of Elisha. One of the possible answers is that also the spirit of Yhwh stays with Elisha. Thirdly, the reader does not get any direct answer regarding other possible heirs of Elijah (Elisha asked about 2/​3 of his spirit). Fourthly, for the first time in the whole narrative emotions are described directly in v. 17 (until he was ashamed) and the time range is named in v. 18. Finally, Elisha in his speech in v. 18 plays the role of the narrator summarizing the scene and showing his superiority.

256

THE THIRD SCENE: VV. 15–18

There are a number of intertextual observations to be made on our scene. We will limit ourselves to four. Firstly, ‫ ויראהו‬in v. 15a links our episode with Deut 34:1, i.e. the death of Moses in the area of Jericho, on the other side of the Jordan. Secondly, ‫ ויׁשתחוו‬introduces the ideas of worshiping a divinity and establishing a new priest (1Sam). ‫ עד־בׁש‬refers us to the juxtaposition of Sons of the Prophets and Hazael (cf. 2Kgs 8). Fourthly, ‫אל־תלכו‬, in v. 18, brings the idea of God/​prophets interdicting the idols’ worship (only references occurrences of this expression: Jer 25:6; 35:15; Ezek 20:18, cf. 1.1.10).

Chapter VI. From Narrative to Symbolism Symbol is a frequently used term in biblical exegesis. In this chapter, we will use one of the models of distinguishing symbols from other phenomena. This model was introduced by Johann Goethe and critically discussed by Tzvetan Todorov and Umberto Eco. It is based on the distinction between symbol and allegory.1 Goethe says that a symbol is infinitely operative and unattainable.2 An allegory, by contrast, is circumscribed and completely available.3 Furthermore, the process

1 2

3

We might have thought about using the notion of sign instead of that of allegory. The problem is that, for Goethe, symbols were also signs, cf. Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, 201. The full definition of symbolism given by Johann Goethe is as follows: “Die Symbolik verwandelt die Erscheinung in Idee, die Idee in ein Bild, und so, daß die Idee im Bild immer unendlich wirksam und unerreichbar bleibt und, selbst in allen Sprachen ausgesprochen, doch unaussprechlich bliebe.” Goethe, “Schriften zur Kunst. Schriften zur Literatur. Maximen und Reflexionen,” 470. “Symbolism transforms an object of perception into an idea, the idea into an image, and does it in such a way that the idea always remains infinitely operative and unattainable so that even if it is put into words in all languages, it still remains inexpressible.” Goethe, “Maxims and Reflections.”; no 1113. Let us notice that Goethe does not give definition of symbol (Ger. das Symbol) but the one of symbolism (Ger. die Symbolik). He wrote down his maxims at the end of his life. Different stages of his thinking about symbols are described in: Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, 198–​212. It means that he treats symbols as a part of a larger system. The full definition of allegory is as follows: “Die Allegorie verwandelt die Erscheinung in einen Begriff, den Begriff in ein Bild, doch so, daß der Begriff im Bilde immer noch begrenzt und vollständig zu halten und zu haben und an demselben auszusprechen sei.” Goethe, “Schriften zur Kunst. Schriften zur Literatur. Maximen und Reflexionen,” 471. Allegory transforms an object of perception into a concept, the concept into an image, but in such a way that the concept continues to remain circumscribed and completely available and expressible within the image. Goethe, “Maxims and Reflections”; no. 1112. Goethe does not speak about allegorism, yet about allegory. Allegory is not inscribed, therefore, in a system. Can it be a part of symbolism, as a system? In this chapter, we will show the importance of the allegories which function within the symbolism of the narrative examined in the dissertation. Now, the notion of allegory may be very misleading, because one may evoke its patristic and medieval meaning, applied for example in Augustine of Hippo, “De doctrina christiana,” in Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), IV. We will, however, keep

258

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

of creating symbols/​allegories is to transform objects of perception into images. The object is transformed in the image when a symbol/​allegory is created.4 To identify the nature of each symbol/​allegory we need to understand how this image is interpreted by the narrative. This identification will be possible thanks to a few tools and notions. Firstly, we will use the notions of contiguity elaborated by Eco and indices elaborated by Barthes.5 We shall distinguish between the plot (e.g. flow of events, coherence, change of narrative tension, juxtaposition of plot elements) and the stylistic contiguities (e.g. alliterations, paronomasia, gender, number, indices).6 Secondly, we will order the results of our research in groups as follows: itinerary, heritage and etiological symbolisms. Thirdly, we will distinguish between strong and weak allegory. A strong allegory is not used as a symbol and refers to an object within the narrative. A weak allegory is not used as a symbol and refers to an extra-​narrative object. Fourthly, we will distinguish between strong, weak and proto-​symbols. A strong symbol is interpreted within the narrative on multiple plot and stylistic levels and it is also a strong allegory. A weak symbol is interpreted on the multiple plot and stylistic levels but is not a

4 5

6

this dichotomic distinction of Goethe, because it will help us to describe symbolism within our narrative. Cf. Ingarden, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, 37–​41. A very useful theory, helping with the issue of interpretation, is the theory of indices of Roland Barthes, who, in his “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” states that the narrative is a living organism with different interconnected levels and classes of reading. For him, the process of reading is nothing less than a ‘process of nomination.’ The basic level of this organism is indicated by the class of functions, connected between them consecutively and very often causatively. The ‘soul’ of any function is: “its seedlike quality, which enables the function to inseminate the narrative with an element that will later come to maturity, on the same level, or elsewhere on another level.” Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” 244. Specifically, functions can be larger or lesser than the sentence. Barthes divides functions into the cardinal functions (consecutive and consequential) and the catalyzes (only consecutive). The latter fill in the narrative space separating the former ones. The second class of units, which also construct the level of reading as functions, are indices. They refer to those concepts diffused in the narrative that are necessary to the story, e.g. personality and identity of the characters or notation on ‘atmosphere.’ (ibid., 247). Indices can be “saturated only on the level of characters, or on the level of narration. They are part of a parametrical relation, whose second term, on account of its implicit nature, remains continuously active, affecting a whole episode, a character, or the work as a whole.” Ibid., 249. For the role of the contiguity cf. Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts.; ch. II.

Itinerary Symbolism

259

strong allegory. Proto-​symbol is a reference for the strong symbols but it is not used as a strong allegory.

1. Itinerary Symbolism The type of symbolism which we called the itinerary symbolism seems to be the most intuitive one. Agents move from the beginning of the narrative time to its end. Each place seems to have its own importance for the narrative. In this section, we discuss four locations (Bethel, Jericho, the Jordan, Sky) which are more used within the narrative than the others (e.g. Gilgal or hills). Are these locations used as symbols or as allegories?

1.1 Bethel (‫ )בית־אל‬as an Allegory The itinerary of Elijah and Elisha starts somewhere on the way from Gilgal to Bethel (‫)בית־אל‬.7 While Gilgal (cf. 3.1) is only mentioned, Bethel is the first settlement which Elijah is intended to visit. Let us look at the morphology, function, and symbolism of ‫בית־אל‬.

1.1.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style The proper noun ‫ בית־אל‬is mentioned three times in our narrative, i.e. in vv. 2a, 2b, 3a.8 It is composed of two members ‫ בית‬and ‫אל‬. These members are connected with maqqeph (cf. GES§16a,b; J–​M §13a,b), which is always the case in HB, unless another place is indicated, as in Judg 9:46 (the temple [‫ ]בית‬of El-​berith). The latter example helps us to understand that the first member of ‫ בית־אל‬can not only be translated as “house,” but also as a “temple,” cf. HALOT, “‫בית‬,” A 1 b). The second member can designate “god” in general, or the specific god El, cf. HALOT, “‫אל‬,” V. The latter meaning might create contrast with the occurrences of Yhwh in the narrative.

7

8

Weingart underlines the compositional function of the itinerary. It helps to bind different stories together. Weingart, ““My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!”(2 Kings 2:12 //​ 13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,” 264. Cf. Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-​Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-​Elisa-​ Erzählungen, 224, 35. Effectively, the sanctuary of Bethel was not located on the top of the hill, but probably below it, cf. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [A-​E], ed. Ephraim Stern and Ayelet Leṿinzon-​Gilboʻa, 5 vols., vol. 1 (Jerusalem: The Israel Exloration Society & Carta, 1993), 192–​94.

260

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

The usage of the maqqeph symbol preceding ‫ בית־אל‬in vv. 2a, 3a is specific in the MT context. The frequent usage of maqqeph, however, is typical for our narrative (cf. the only verse without maqqeph is v. 12, the verse where the narrative tension is the highest cf. anagnorisis, peripeteia, pathos in IV 3.2). There are two possible reasons for using maqqeph with the preceding preposition. Firstly, it can facilitate the pronunciation by the transposition of the word accent. Secondly, it can facilitate the process of finding the meaning of the whole verse by grouping its elements. We need, however, to notice that the expression ‫ עד־בית־אל‬does not occur in HB without the maqqeph following the preposition. This expression occurs there only once in general, while the expression ‫ אׁשר־בית־אל‬occurs twice in HB. The second occurrence, without maqqeph, is in the Jehu cycle in 2Kgs 10:29: But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to commit—​the golden calves that were in Bethel (‫ )אׁשר־בית־אל‬and in Dan. (NRS)

Let us make some stylistic remarks on the second member of the expression examined. Firstly, the word ‫ אל‬occurs also in the names of the main characters: ‫אליהו‬, ‫אליׁשע‬. Secondly, the word ‫ אל‬takes part in a chain of words formed with these letters in v. 3, i.e. ‫בית־אל אל־אליׁשע‬. Furthermore, there is an interesting stylistic connection between ‫ עד־בית־אל‬in v. 2 and ‫ עד־בׁש‬in v. 17. These are the only occurrences of ‫ עד־בׁש‬in our narrative.

1.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative The main question of the narrative is as follows: From whence is Elijah going to be taken? “How” is answered in v. 1 (in the whirlwind) and “when” is answered in v. 3 (today), cf. III 3.2. The first function of Bethel is to be the first possible place of the ascent of Elijah. The reader, however, finds out that it is not going to happen when the departure to Jericho is announced in v. 4. The second function regards the fact that, thanks to the change of the action place to Bethel, the Sons of the Prophets are introduced into the story. In v. 3, the prophets are characterized by the expression “who-​were-​in-​Bethel.” The third function is common for all settlements. Mentioning them means presenting the horizontal part of the narrative world, cf. III Conclusions. Bethel as a place is also interpreted subtly within the narrative by the usage of indices. Firstly, Bethel is the place where the name of Elisha is pronounced by Elijah in MT. His name is pronounced only once, and the name of Elijah is not pronounced by a character at all in our narrative. Bethel is, then, a place to which some emotional attitude is revealed. Secondly, the narrator, unlike in the case of

Itinerary Symbolism

261

Jericho (“approached”), uses the verbs of distance in the reference to Bethel: “as far as” (‫)עד‬, “came out” (‫)ויצאו‬, cf. III 2.2.2; III 2.2.4. The reader cannot be sure if their usage is only literal or also metaphorical. In the metaphorical option, the distance would express negative feelings (indices). Thirdly, analogically, the verb “went down” (‫)וירדו‬, in reference to Bethel, might be an element of negative interpretation of this place within the narrative, if we consider the fact of taking Elijah up as a positive one.9 Fourthly, let us also notice that Elisha does not declare the intention of staying in Bethel (or in its neighborhood).

1.1.3 Occurrences in HB We have already evoked some occurrences of ‫ בית־אל‬in 1.1.1 referring to the preceding prepositions. Let us list all the occurrences: Gen 12:8; 13:3; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 6, 7, 15; Josh 8:9, 12; 12:9, 16; 16:1; 18:13; Judg 1:22; 4:5; 9:46; 20:18, 26, 31; 21:2; 1Sam 7:16; 10:3; 13:2; 1Kgs 13:1, 10; 2Kgs 2:2, 3, 23; 10:29; 23:4, 17; 1Chr 7:28; 2Chr 13:19; Ezra 2:28; Neh 7:32; Hos 10:15; 12:5; Amos 3:14; 4:4; 5:5; 7:10; Zech 7:2. The biblical etymology is given in the story of Jacob’s Ladder in Gen 28:11–​19. It is also worth noting that we do not find Bethel in such prophetical books as Isa, Jer, Ezek, Dan or such Writings books as Ps, Prov, Job or Megillot. The occurrences in the Transitional Cycle are the only occurrences in the Elijah-​Elisha cycles. 9

Joel S. Burnett, “ ‘Going Down’ to Bethel: Elijah and Elisha in the Theological Geography of the Deuteronomistic History,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 2 (2010): 281–​97. Cf. the discussion on Gilgal in 3.1. The topographical issue connected to the problem with going down to Bethel from Gilgal was noticed by Thenius. He suggested the necessity of identifying this Gilgal with another location. He inspired many scholars. Cf. Otto Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige, 2nd ed., Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1873), 270–​71; Keil, The Books of the Kings. Gressmann wanted to read in v. 25 “Gilgal” instead of “Samaria.” Cf. Hugo Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels. Von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea, Schriften des Alten Testaments 2/​1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 284; Vaux, Les livres des Rois, 126; Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 302–​03; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, 353; Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 474. In fact, when we have a long walk and we walk down to the city, it often means that the last phase of our walk consisted in walking down. It is often not the case of the whole walk. The ellipsis in the narrative is then a plausible solution to the problem. The narrator, however, can play with this possible ellipsis for some symbolic reasons, e.g. avoiding the association with the cultic practices in Bethel, as Burnett suggests.

262

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

1.1.4 Semiotic Identification The image associated with the notion of Bethel is vague in our narrative. The reader is not sure if they enter there or not and if Bethel is somehow judged by the narrator through the language he uses.10 The distance and going down wording, enhanced by the stylistic connectors with shame, are, however, associated with negative feelings (indices). The negative atmosphere around Bethel is interpreted by its juxtaposition with other geographical sites, which will be analyzed below (plot). This kind of atmosphere does not characterize other sites. Applying our methodology, we classify Bethel as an allegory of a concrete place which is evaluated as mistrustful. The allegory is weak because the reference object is extra-​narrative and it does not function as a symbol in the text. Bethel is also considered to be a mistrustful place in 2Kgs 2:23–​25, cf. 1Kgs 12:29; 13; 2Kgs 10:29; 23:15.

1.2 Jericho (‫ )ירחו‬as an Allegory The term ‫ ירחו‬occurs five times in our narrative. Jericho as settlement is sometimes called the most ancient city identified in human history and the first

10 Robert Liddell proposed five types of relations between setting and plot in the verbal narrative: utilitarian (the setting is minimally necessary for the development of the plot); symbolic (tempestuous happenings take place in tempestuous places, etc.); irrelevant (the setting is not connected to the plot); “countries of the mind” (the setting is an inner landscape of a character); kaleidoscopic (back and forth from the outside and inner world). Robert Liddell, A Treatise on the Novel (London: Jonathan Cape, 1947), 110–​28. Bar-​Efrat suggests that the biblical geographical places (cities, rivers, houses) are an integral part of the plot. Through the movement from one place to another, the characters receive their literary existence. What is more, through the movement of characters, the space receives its literary existence. Bar-​ Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 187. Moreover, Barthes considers the useless details a kind of luxury and Kenneth Burke calls preoccupation with such details a ‘disease’ of narrative form. Barthes, “L’effet de réel,” 88; Kenneth Burke, Counter-​Statement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 144. On the other hand, Chatman reminds us about metaphors. The metaphors would belong to the symbolic part of the narrative. They make powerful fusions within the narrative, like the one between the setting and characters. Thanks to the metaphors, we can treat a setting almost as a character, e.g. when the setting expresses the feelings of the agent. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, 143. His description seems also to reflect the biblical narrative.

Itinerary Symbolism

263

fortress conquered by Joshua after entering Canaan.11 Etymologically, it may come from ‫( ירח‬moon), but this may also be a later association.12 Let us see how Jericho functions in our narrative.

1.2.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style As was the case for Bethel, Jericho (‫ )ירחו‬is described by the usage of the prepositions and by the lack of them. Yhwh sends Elijah to Jericho in v. 4a. Elijah does not use here any preposition: ‫ׁשלחני יריחו‬. In other occasions of the usage of ‫ׁשלחני‬, Elijah uses some indicator of destination: preposition or final he. Here, it is not the case. It resembles, therefore, on the stylistic level, the reference to ‫הׁשמים‬, modifying ‫ויעל‬. The moment of achieving the destination point in v. 4b is described, as in all cases in our narrative (cf. III 2.2.1), without any preposition, i.e. ‫ויבאו יריחו‬. The term examined is preceded by the preposition bet in vv. 5, 15, 18. The first two, i.e. vv. 5 and 15, are in contrast to the expression ‫ אׁשר־בית־אל‬in v. 3, because the preposition bet is not used in the latter. It is also in contrast to the occurrences in vv. 4a, 4b. Therefore, on the stylistic level, ‫( ביריחו‬bet +​noun) resembles the expression ‫( בסערה‬bet +​noun) in v. 1 and 11.

1.2.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative The function of the term ‘Jericho’ is complex. At the beginning, it is similar to that of Bethel, cf. 1.1.2. It is the second place from whence Elijah might be led to the sky. It also identifies a group of the Sons of the Prophets. Therefore, in v. 15, it is difficult for the reader to understand where the action of Scene III takes place, cf. V 3.2. In Scene III, Jericho is the place associated with the explanation of the transition of the spirit of Elijah to Elisha (v. 15) and of the transition of Elijah to the sky (vv. 16–​18). The interpretation of Jericho within the text is different from that of Bethel. Firstly, the reader is not informed about the distance. Elijah is sent to Jericho (‫)ׁשלחני יריחו‬. If Elijah used the metaphorical language of distance in the case of

11 The history told by the archaeological sites in Jericho is fascinating, cf. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric M. Meyers, vol. 3 (Oxford: University Press, 1997); The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [E-​J]. 5 vols., vol. 2 (Jerusalem: The Israel Exloration Society & Carta, 1993); Ephraim Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–​332 BCE, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009). 12 Another etymological option: ‫( יריחון‬Ps 115:6) means to smell.

264

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

Bethel, here he would not want to create the emotional distance. Secondly, the reader is sure that the twosome enters Jericho (‫ )ויבאו יריחו‬and, by this fact, he/​ she can experience the closeness to this place. Thirdly, the reader experiences the closeness to the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho because they approach Elisha (in Bethel, they came out to him). Fourthly, the fifty return to Elisha while he is staying in Jericho. Jericho, therefore, becomes not only the most quoted (5 occ.), but also one of the two most important places in the narrative. The only place where the agents enter twice, apart from Jericho, is the Jordan (3 occ.), cf. 1.3.

1.2.3 Occurrences in HB The term Jericho occurs in a few variants in HB. The variant, which is used in our narrative, i.e. ‫יריחו‬, occurs in Josh 2:1, 2, 3; 3:16; 4:13, 19; 5:10, 13; 6:1, 2, 25, 26; 7:2; 8:2; 9:3; 10:1, 28, 30; 12:9; 13:32; 16:1, 7; 18:12, 21; 20:8; 24:11; 2Kgs 2:4, 5, 15, 18. The occurrences show us the correlation between Josh and our narrative. It is interesting that the word “Jericho” does not occur (with any vocalization) in the story in 2Kgs 2:19–​22 regarding the healing of the source in the city. We suppose that it was in Jericho because Elisha is there at the end of our episode. The following variant, ‫ירחו‬, occurs in: Num 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48, 50; 34:15; 35:1; 36:13; Deut 32:49; 34:1, 3; 2Sam 10:5; 2Kgs 25:5; 1Chr 6:63; 19:5; 2Chr 28:15; Ezra 2:34; Neh 3:2; 7:36; Jer 39:5; 52:8. This variant is present in Num and clearly late books. There are also two occurrences in the Latter Prophets. The last variant with the final he, ‫יריחה‬, occurs in 1Kgs 16:34, cf. I 2.1.3. Therefore, in Kgs, there are all three variants.

1.2.4 Semiotic Identification The plot and indices analysis allows us to see the positive attitude to Jericho of the authors: closeness vocabulary (indices) and return of Elisha (plot). It is a place where agents can be welcomed and stay. It does not, however, function as a symbol. In fact, Jericho is a weak allegory of a concrete place evaluated as safe. Furthermore, in Josh 4–​5, Jericho is the first city they conquered. By this fact, Jericho might be treated in Josh as an allegory of a place evaluated as victorious. This type of evaluation is also visible within our narrative because Elisha, who foresaw the flow of events, expects the sons of power in Jericho and says, “Didn’t I tell you?”

Itinerary Symbolism

265

1.3 Jordan (‫ )הירדן‬as a Symbol The Jordan river is one of the two locations where Elisha enters twice. Analogically to other places, the etymology of the Jordan is hypothetical. This word might come from the root ‫ירד‬, i.e. to go down. It makes sense because one has to go down to get to the river.

1.3.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style As the name of all the other geographical places, except Jericho, the word ‫הירדן‬ occurs three times in our narrative, i.e. vv. 6, 7, 13. In all three cases it occurs with an article. The first occurrence is ‫הירדנה‬. The last letter is the directive he. This occurrence is modified by ‫ׁשלחני‬. The syntax of the second occurrence seems to be incomplete: ‫עמדו על־הירדן‬. In fact, the complete version is to be found in v. 13: ‫ויעמד‬ ‫על־ׂשפת הירדן‬. There are two stylistic patterns related to the occurrence in v. 6. On the one hand, it is the second repetition of the speech of Elijah, cf. The Three Requests of Elijah in III 2.2.2. On the other hand, the same ending with the preceding word ‫יהוה‬ (we are leaving aside the discussion about the loud pronunciation of this word at the time when the text was written down).

1.3.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative Apparently, the function of the Jordan river in v. 6 is similar to that of other places: Elijah says that Yhwh is sending him there. The reader is meant to notice that the function might be different when, instead of the information that they get there, he finds out that they are still walking. Additionally, fifty men of the Sons of the Prophets were standing at the Jordan. The twosome do not stay at the Jordan. They do not discuss things there. Furthermore, for the first time in this narrative, a miracle happens, when Elijah divides the waters with his mantle. The ascent takes place on the other side. The Jordan is, therefore, a border between the normal world and the world of miracles. Elisha, in order to come back to the normal world, must cross the Jordan exactly in the same way. It is difficult to grasp the interpretation of the Jordan made within the narrative. Bethel and Jericho offer contrasting interpretations of each other. If the Jordan is contrasted with something, it is contrasted with itself. The Jordan before the succession of Elisha is slightly different from the Jordan after the succession. At the end of Scene II, Elijah says: ‫יהוה ׁשלחני הירדנה‬. We classified the directive he as the one showing the general direction, but not a very precise place, cf. I 2.1. For Elijah, therefore, the Jordan seems not to be a precise spot. He strikes the

266

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

river, somewhere on its course, with his mantle, and they pass on dry-​shod.13 The moment after crossing the Jordan is, however, essential for the plot, because Elisha is asked about his wish. Elijah, therefore, treats the river as the passage toward the place where he can fulfill his mission given him by Yhwh. When Elisha is recrossing the river, much more narrative tension is produced, because the crossing is related to the verification if Elisha has received the power. It also seems that the first striking of the waters does not work. For Elisha, therefore, the Jordan is the place of verification.

1.3.3 Occurrences in HB There are four occurrences of the form ‫ הירדנה‬in HB, i.e. Num 34:12; Judg 8:4; 2Kgs 2:6; 6:4. If we remember one of variants of Jericho form, ‫ירחו‬, occurred frequently in Num. This form also occurs in the episode about the settlement of the Sons of the Prophets in the area of the Jordan in 2Kgs 6:4. Now, there are many occurrences of the basic form, ‫הירדן‬, referring to the Jordan in HB. They start in Gen 13:10. The highest number of them is in Josh: 50 occurrences. In second place is Deut: 25 occ. Then 2Sam, Judg, Num, and Gen. The occurrences in Kgs: 1Kgs 2:8; 7:46; 17:3, 5; 2Kgs 2:7, 13; 6:2; 7:15; 10:33. We see, therefore, that a major part of the occ. in Kgs are in the Elijah-​Elisha cycles. The last occurrence (10:33) is in Jehu’s Coup story.

1.3.4 Semiotic Identification There is a stylistic pattern which has not yet been mentioned, which regards the waters of the Jordan and not the term of the Jordan itself. The waters are struck by Elijah and then by Elisha. Firstly, the verbatim expression is repeated in both cases: ‫ויכה את־המים‬. Secondly, let us ask about the stylistic similarity (paronomasia) between the word “water” (‫ )מים‬and the word “sky” (‫)ׁשמים‬. Our agents strike the waters of the Jordan to cross the river.14 Do they strike the sky at the same time? The positive answer seems to be suggested by the intertextuality. The strong correlation between waters and heaven is known from the moment of creation in Gen 1. The moment of dividing the waters of the Jordan with a mantle in v. 8 is the first, from the beginning of the narrative, which seems to be miraculous. Then 13 The expression “on dry-​shod” occurs also in Gen 7:22; Josh 3:17; 2 Kgs 2:8, cf. Exod 14:16 (‫)יבׁשה‬. 14 For a comparison between the crossing of the Kidron by David and the crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3:17, see: Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 189.

Itinerary Symbolism

267

a series of miraculous events take place. The most spectacular are the events accompanying the ascent of Elijah. Elijah, somehow, passes away or is translated. What precisely happens to him is an open issue. The land beyond the Jordan and the Jordan itself are, therefore, places of miracles somehow related to issues of life and death.15 Opening the Jordan waters may symbolize the opening of the sky for the ascent of Elijah (the paronomasia between the sky and the water). The Jordan might symbolize the passage to the land of miracles connected to the life and death issues and the transmission of the prophetic powers.16 Moreover, without the symbolic explanation, we are not able to understand the fact of sending Elijah properly beyond the Jordan. The Jordan river is thus a strong symbol, referring allegorically to the sky.

1.4 Sky (‫ )ׁשמים‬as a Symbol The issues of morphology, syntax, and occurrences in HB of ‫ הׁשמים‬were treated in I 2.1. As such, we will focus mainly on the narrative aspects of these issues. Furthermore, we will identify the narrative function of ‫ הׁשמים‬to draw conclusions regarding its analogy/​symbol aspects.

1.4.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style For the morphological and syntax remarks, especially those regarding the issue of the default preposition, see I 2.1. There is, however, a stylistic issue which has not yet been mentioned. The word ‫ הׁשמים‬is associated with ‫ המים‬by the phonetic resemblance, i.e. by paronomasia, cf. 1.3.

1.4.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative After the ‫סערה‬, ‫ הׁשמים‬is the second object introduced to the narrative. Both nouns are repeated in vv. 1 and 11, and both are not repeated elsewhere. Both are used by the narrator and not used by any other agent. The sky is also important 15 Foresti remarks that, on the basis of intertextual research, going beyond the Jordan refers to the life of Moses (Deut 34): the division of waters; the transmission of power (to Joshua in the Steppe of Moab in Deut 31:3.7; 34:9); Elisha is recognized by the people as Joshua in 4:14; the death of Moses in Deut 24:5, 6a. Cf. Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 271. 16 Of course, our text is not the only one which uses the symbolism of the Jordan, e.g. in 2Kgs 5, the bath in the Jordan is healing Naaman. It might be explained by the fact that, through the Jordan, one enters the promised land.

268

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

for the play of viewpoints at the moment of ascension of Elijah and the transmission of the prophetic power. Mentioning the sky in v. 12 closes the time of Elijah’s possible perceiving of what the condition was for the giving of the double portion of his spirit. Therefore, the sky is particularly important for the temporal passages in the narrative. It is also important for the production of narrative tension. The reader is meant to be curious about the issue of a man being led towards heaven, because no other OT human-​agent was depicted in this manner. Furthermore, as in the case of the whirlwind, in Scene I, the Sons of the Prophets seem not to know about the sky destination of Elijah after being taken “from over the head of Elisha.” Their proper attempt to interpret the rapture of Elijah takes place in Scene III, when they wonder if he was cast “on one of the mountains or into one of the valleys.”

1.4.3 Occurrences in HB The word ‫ ׁשמים‬occurs 411 times in HB and 45 times in Sam-​Kgs. It is interesting that it does not occur in Kgs before 1Kgs 8, i.e. before the dedication of the temple by Solomon. It occurs in Kgs for the last time in 2Kgs 23 to describe Josiah’s reforms. It occurs 5 times in the Triple Cycle: 1Kgs 18:45; 2Kgs 1:10, 12; 2:1, 11. The first occurrence is at the moment when the rain starts again. The following two occur at the moment when the fire comes down. Among other occurrences, we identified the one in Judg 13:20 as particularly important (cf. I 2.1).

1.4.4 Semiotic Identification The sky as direction is not described precisely in our narrative, cf. 1.4.2. If we treat this factor as crucial, we should say that the sky is an allegory of something distant and vague; or an allegory of a realm which is beyond the world on both sides of the Jordan; or an allegory of a place which is unavailable for the reader. Furthermore, Elijah is the highest, after Yhwh, authority in our narrative (“Yhwh has sent me,” “Living Yhwh with the life of your breath,” “your master”). We expect, as readers, that the heavenly destination of such a person is rather a reward than a punishment. If we juxtapose the sky with Bethel, where the twosome went down (negative indices, allegory of mistrust), the sky seems to be an allegory of something eminent.17 This juxtaposition is enhanced by the fact that 17 In English, “eminence” has three meanings: 1. Fame or acknowledged superiority within a particular sphere; 2. An important or distinguished person; 3. A piece of rising ground, cf. ODE.

Heritage Symbolism

269

Bethel is the first, and the sky is the last destination of Elijah (plot). We will conclude that the sky seems to be a symbol of a privileged access to transcendence and a weak allegory of something distant and vague. Applying our terminology, it is a weak symbol because it does not function as a strong allegory, unless we treat it as an allegory of Yhwh. The latter would, however, be of an intertextual nature.

2. Heritage Symbolism The heritage symbolism hinges on the announcement of the final separation of the two. We will analyze four expressions, essential for the understanding of this symbolism: “sons of,” “two,” “spirit of,” and “mantle.” There are other important heritage expressions: “father” is one of them. One can, however, understand “father” only with the juxtaposition with “sons of,” and the letter is more important for the narrative because it is used in a few different contexts.

2.1 “Sons of ” (‫ )בני‬as a Symbol Can the expression “sons of ” (‫ )בני‬be considered a symbol associated with heritage? Its meaning is not clear, but it might enhance the symbolism. Let us start with morphology, syntax, and style analysis.

2.1.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style The term ‫בני‬, “sons of,” occurs five times in our narrative, always in pl. status cons. from ‫בן‬. The first letter, bet, occurs with dagesh in vv. 7, 16; and without it in vv. 3, 5, 15. In v. 7, it is preceded by mem, used as a partitive particle. In all cases, except v. 16, it is followed by the term ‫הנביאים‬.18 In v. 16 it is followed by the term 18 The expression ‘the Sons of the Prophets’ (‫יאים‬ ִ ִ‫ )בְ נֵי־הַ ּנְ ב‬occurs almost exclusively in the stories regarding Elisha: 2Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. De Vaux translates ‫ בני־הנביאים‬as ‘frères prophètes.’ He mentioned that they live together already in 1Kgs 20:35. Elisha has contact with them. Elijah is a solitary prophet. Vaux, Les livres des Rois, 134. Furthermore, ‫ בני־הנביאים‬might have been simply free prophets, cf. Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, 17. These occurrences do not concern the Sons of the Prophets living in the court, known from the story of the prophet in 1Kgs 20:35. The question regarding the understanding of the examined expression by the original readers is old and still open. Cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 30–​35; Beecher and Harper, “Nineteeth Study: Elijah, Elisha, and Their Fellow-​Prophets,” 161–​64; William Rainey Harper, “Outline Topics in the History of Old Testament Prophecy. VI. Prophecy of the Northern Kingdom,” The Biblical World 8, no. 1 (1896): 37–​45.

270

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

‫( חיל‬power, capacity, property, cf. HALOT). Let us also note a few stylistic issues. The word ‫ נביאים‬starts with the letters nun and bet. The term ‫ בני‬starts with bet and nun. It looks like a play on letters. This issue is called paronomasia, i.e. occurrence of words containing the same sounds in the same text. The next issue is called alliteration, i.e. occurrence of the same later in close words: ‫ בני‬vs. ‫ביריחו‬ in v. 15. The last issue regards the phonetic similarity between ‫ בני‬and ‫ בין‬in v. 11, where the two are separated. Again, it is a paronomasia.

2.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative The function of the expressions constructed with the term “sons of ” is complex. Firstly, the Sons of the Prophets, asking questions of Elisha, inform the reader about the time of the ascent.19 They also inform the reader about the master-​disciple type of relationship between Elijah and Elisha. Moreover, they resolve the problem of whether Elisha knows about the future ascent. They also confirm the guidance of Yhwh towards the ascent. Furthermore, they are the only explicit reason why the twosome visit Bethel and Jericho. They are also testimonies of the events around the ascent. Finally, it is Elisha who becomes father for them when they bow themselves before him. Secondly, the expression “the Sons of

HALOT translates the term ‘ben’ also as ‘member’ or ‘fellow’. That is probably why Beecher and Harper translate the whole expression as ‘fellow-​prophets.’ NRS translates it as the ‘company of prophets.’ For our analysis, it is important overall that the narrator introduces a mysterious figure which is not largely used in the OT. This figure brings to the story the idea of sonship among the prophets. 19 Unlike the narrator, Elisha treats the two groups in Scene I in exactly the same way. It is interesting that, in all the presented dialogues, the name of Yhwh is pronounced. The only exceptions are the Two Answers of Elisha, who is not eager to speak with the Sons of the Prophets. If he does not pronounce the name of Yhwh when talking to them, can we say that the two groups are somehow marginalized by Elisha? Do they feel marginalized? The reader will look for the answer in the following scenes. It is difficult to say if the two groups want to inform Elisha about the action of Yhwh; or if they just want to verify if Elisha knows about it; or if they are just too excited to keep this news for them; or if they want to show to Elisha that they are better or at least equal prophets to him. The whole spectrum of reading possibilities opens before the reader by this very sentence. Now, even if it seems that the author does not want to be clear about the motivation of the Sons of the Prophets, one thing seems to be clear: the wording used by the two groups resembles gossiping. “Do you know that (…)?” is a typical beginning of the talk of a gossiper. The answer, “Be quiet,” seems to be a clear counter-​gossip reaction. The reader can therefore consider the Sons of the Prophets to be gossips.

Heritage Symbolism

271

Power” occurs only once. It is added to v. 16 as a secondary information. The expression gives credibility to the demand of the Sons of the Prophets, because only men who are strong can look for someone with efficacity. The expression also distinguishes the group of fifty from the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho. The last example shows the term the “sons of ” is used in the sense of “young and strong people.” Apparently, we can apply the same meaning to the expression “the Sons of the Prophets.” Let us notice that, in the following incidents of Scene I, the Sons of the Prophets evoke the image of a master who is going to be taken from over the head of his disciple/​servant. In this context, the “sons of ” seems to mean the “disciples/​servants of.” The answer of Elisha each time contains the unexpected expression “Be quiet.” In fact, on the narratological level, the reader is being prepared for the scream of Elisha: “My father, my father.”20 The strength of this scream is due to the usage of the expression “the sons of.”21 We are, therefore, dealing with a play of meaning crucial to understanding the elements that occur in the narrative when its tension is at its highest.

2.1.3 Occurrences in HB The form ‫ בני‬occurs widely in HB. Over 1484 occ., the biggest group of 245 occurs in Num. Further positions include 1Chr, Exod, Gen, Jos, and Judg. The expression ‫ בני־הנביאים‬is, however, exceedingly rare in HB. Besides our narrative, it occurs only in 2Kgs 4:1 and 6:1. Both occurrences throw light on this expression. From the former, we find out that ‫ בני־הנביאים‬might be married. From the latter, we find out the leading role of Elisha. The expression ‫ בני־חיל‬occurs more often in HB: Deut 3:18; Judg 18:2; 2Kgs 2:16; 1Chr 5:18; 26:7, 9, 30, 32; 2Chr 26:17; 28:6. As we see, there are three occ. in Dtr and seven in Chronicles.

20 The analysis of the cycle allows us to say that Elijah becomes father of Elisha when the latter leaves his family. 21 An example of an analogous scream, i.e. “my son, my son,” comes from 2Sam 18:33 and 19:4, regarding David’s cry on hearing of Absalom. The narrator: “And the king cried with a loud voice.” “Loud” is not direct. Then the repetition of the expression “my son,” and its contrast to “ab” in Absalom, indicates that David loved him despite what he had done (cf. Prov. 3:12). Later, David addresses Absalom in the second person as if he were there. The lack of logic shows David’s emotional confusion. Cf. Bar-​Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 69.

272

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

2.1.4 Semiotic Identification The term ‫ בני‬is a weak allegory of service, discipleship, youth, and sonship. It is also interpreted within the narrative as a symbol and plays the role in the process of Elisha becoming father, as also the heir. The image and object behind the term are related to a group of men in service of someone. As 2Kgs 4 and 6 confirm, they were in service to Elisha. Because “sons of ” is not an intratextual allegory, we will consider it to be a weak symbol.

2.2 Two (‫ )ׁשנים‬as a Symbol The ideas of two (‫)ׁשנים‬, two-​of-​them (‫)ׁשניהם‬, and double (‫ )פי־‬are used in many verses of our narrative. In this section, we will try to look at these notions as expressions of one symbol. Let us keep in mind the fact that the complexity of this symbolism is probably higher than is the case for our other symbols.

2.2.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style The word ‫ ׁשנים‬links Scene I with Scene II. In vv. 6, 7, 8, 11, it occurs with a suff. 3 m. pl as ‫ׁשניהם‬. The status abs. form occurs in vv. 9, 12. In all the cases, its form is masculine. In v. 9, it modifies the word ‫פי‬, forming the expression ‫פי־ׁשנים‬. In v. 12, it modifies the word ‫קרעים‬. Regarding the style, on the one hand, the occurrences of the form ‫ ׁשניהם‬precede the introduction of the request of Elisha about ‫פי־ׁשנים‬. We called this phenomenon “anticipation traces,” cf. V 2.1. On the other hand, “two” is in contrast with another number occurring in the narrative, i.e. ‫חמׁשים‬, “fifty.”

2.2.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative Firstly, the word ‫ ׁשניהם‬expresses the idea of the unity of Elijah and Elisha, i.e. that they walk together. Secondly, the effect of walking together enhances the narrative tension in the moment of separation of the twosome in v. 11. Thirdly, it makes the question of Elisha, regarding the double portion, more evident. Fourthly, the separation of the two is enhanced by the tearing of clothes by Elisha into two pieces in v. 12. The number “two” is not interpreted like the settlements. Firstly, it is in contrast with “one,” i.e. a single agent. Elijah is presented alone at the beginning of the narrative; Elisha occurs a while later. At the end of Scene I, the narrator comments on the “two of them.” The reader is meant to understand the temporality of the state of walking together. This is confirmed by their separation by the chariotry and the fact of the tearing clothes into two pieces. Secondly, it is

Heritage Symbolism

273

in contrast with the fifty men who “stood opposite them,” cf. V 3.1.22 Because the crucial action for the episode happens between the twosome, the reader is meant to consider the fifty to be witnesses to these events. Finally, the double-​ portion is in contrast with the rest of the portions. This issue does not have any verbal equivalent within the text; it is rather the logical consequence coming from Elisha’s request.

2.2.3 Occurrences in HB The occurrences of the word ‫ ׁשנים‬are very frequent in HB. The highest number of occ. is in Num (77 out of 769, cf. 2.1.3). Other books include Exod, Gen, 1Kgs, 1Chr and 2Kgs.23 The form ‫ ׁשניהם‬occurs only 60 times in HB. The occurrences of the expression ‫ פי־ׁשנים‬are only three: Deut 21:17; 2Kgs 2:9; Zech 13:8. In Deut 21:17, it means “double portion,” where it is used in reference to the heritage of the first-​born son. It is used with the expression “of all that he has”:24 He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has (‫ ;)בכל אׁשר־ימצא לו‬since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his. (NRS)

In Zech 13:8, it means “two-​thirds” (in opposition to ‫הׁשלׁשית‬, i.e. one-​third). It is used here in reference to the part of the people which shall be killed: In the whole land, says Yhwh*, two-​thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one-​third shall be left alive. (NRS)

The meaning of ‫ פי־ׁשנים‬in 2Kgs 2:9 corresponds to the one in Deut, i.e. double portion because of the heritage context.25 22 “Now Adonijah son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, ‘I will be king’; he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him” (1Kgs 1:5). The chariotry and horses of fire: Hab 3:8; Isa 66:15; Ps 68:18. 23 Num 20:11–​12: Moses hits the rock twice and that is why he cannot enter the Promised Land! That is why Elisha is no better than Moses and worse than Elijah! 24 There are two remarks to be made. Firstly, the translation and the understanding of Dtr can simply be wrong even if we find such interpretation in the Mishnaic literature. Secondly, it is interesting that the context of Deut 21:17 regards the non-​loved mother! The intertextual question to be posed is as follows: Is one of the prophets the non-​loved one? 25 The ‫ פי־ׁשנים‬of paternal heritage was given to the firstborn son according to the Assyrian laws, cf. Vaux, Les livres des Rois, 135. In fact, ‫ פי־ׁשנים‬is the equivalent for Ug. “šnpt,” which, according to Gordon, was borrowed from Akk. “šinipu” and cf. Albrecht Goetze, “Number Idioms in Old Babylonian,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5, no. 3 (1946): 185–​202; Cyrus Herzl Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts

274

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

2.2.4 Semiotic Identification The symbolisms based on “two” are complex. It seems, however, that the term “transition” would reflect this complexity. Let us make other remarks on this issue. In certain parts of the narrative, it functions as an allegory of unity (vv. 6, 8). In other places, it regards the idea of separation (vv. 11, 12) In certain places, it functions as an allegory of agents who are in the middle of the action. As such, it is opposed to the idea of the witnesses of the action. Finally, it seems to symbolize the idea of becoming heir.26 It is in contrast to the rest of the possible heirs.27

2.3 “Spirit of ” (‫ )רוח‬as a Symbol The term ‫ רוח‬occurs three times in our narrative, i.e. in vv. 9, 15, 16. Its basic meanings are as follows: “breeze,” “wind,” “breath,” “mind,” “spirit,” cf. HALOT. It occurs as part of larger expressions, as is the case in our narrative. Let us look at the complexity of its symbolism.

2.3.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style An essential thing which regards the morphology of ‫ רוח‬in the context of our narrative is that it is f. and in status cons. It occurs as part of three expressions: ‫ פי־ׁשנים ברוחך‬in v. 9; ‫ רוח אליהו‬in v. 15; and ‫ יהוה רוח‬in v. 16. The f. gender is visible in v. 15 by the f. verbal form it modifies, i.e. ‫נחה‬, cf. V 1.1.2. The verbal form in v. 16 is m. because it refers to the suf. “him,” i.e. Elijah. On the stylistic level, we may look for similarity between ‫ רוח‬and ‫יריחו‬. This stylistic device is called paronomasia. The occurrences of Jericho in Scene I prepare the reader for the occurrence of a similar-​looking word. The word ‫ רוח‬prepares the reader for the retour to Jericho in Scene III. We are, therefore, dealing with anticipatory traces, cf. V 3.2. Finally, a stylistic continguity based on f. gender of ‫ רוח‬can be identified in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998), 50; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 32. 26 It is also interesting that the Midrashic literature notices that Elisha performed twice as many miracles as Elijah, cf. Weingart, ““My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!”(2 Kings 2:12 //​13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,” 259. 2 7 As in other cases, other aspects of the symbolism of two is being developed on the larger cycle level, e.g. in vv. 23–​25, we are dealing with two she-​bears which symbolize the prophetic power. We could also try to defend the thesis that they are an allegory of the double spirit of Elijah acting through Elisha, cf. O’Brien, “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 15.

Heritage Symbolism

275

with ‫ סערה‬and ‫נפׁש‬. The last one, however, is not necessarily used as m. in our narrative, cf. I 2.2.

2.3.2 Function in the Narrative The word ‫ רוח‬is used only in the dialogue and only by Elisha and the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho. Firstly, it occurs in the crucial demand for the narrative, i.e. Elisha’s request to obtain ‫פי־ׁשנים ברוחך‬, cf. 2.2. The Sons of the Prophets say that ‫ רוח אליהו‬rests over Elisha when they see him. It means that they seem to confirm that Elisha’s request is fulfilled. Because of the correspondence with v. 9, the expression ‫ רוח אליהו‬does not refer in the first place to his miraculous power of dividing waters but to the fact of becoming the heir of his master. The following question which was introduced by Elisha himself is particularly pertinent at this point: “Where is Yhwh?,” i.e. Is he with Elijah or Elisha? The second expression examined, ‫רוח יהוה‬, seems to refer to this issue. The Sons of the Prophets speculate on whether Elijah is to be cast on a mountain or in a valley by ‫רוח יהוה‬. It might mean that Yhwh is still with Elijah and not with Elisha. Scene III is, then, a kind of extended discussion on the presence of Yhwh. The word ‫רוח‬ occupies a crucial place within this discussion.

2.3.3 Occurrences in HB The word ‫ רוח‬occurs 214 times in HB. There are 47 occ. in Isa, 44 in Eze, 40 in Ps and 33 in Job. It occurs 9 times in 1Kgs and 5 times in 2Kgs. We see, therefore, that it is typical for the Latter Prophets and the Writings. There are four occurrences of the expression ‫ ברוחך‬in HB: Exod 15:10; Neh 9:30; Eccl 7:9 and 2Kgs 2:9. The one in Exod 15:10 is as follows: You blew with your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters. (NRS)

The expression is, therefore, applied to Exod as instrumentalis, i.e. “with the usage.” This parallel suggests that Elisha might not be focused on the spirit but on something else. The spirit gives access to it. The occurrence of ‫ רוח אליהו‬in 2Kgs 2:15 is a hapax legomenon. The expression ‫ רוח יהוה‬is more frequent: 23 occ. There are 6 occ. in Job, 5 in Isa, 3 in 1Sam. There is 1 occ. in 2Kgs and 1 in 1Kgs: Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up to Micaiah, slapped him on the cheek, and said, “Which way did the spirit of Yhwh* (‫ )רוח יהוה‬pass from me to speak to you?” (1Kgs 22:24 NRS)

It is thus interesting that, in 1Kgs 22, it seems that the spirit of Yhwh can be with Zedekiah or with Micaiah, so one person at a time.

276

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

2.3.4 Semiotic Identification We might conclude that ‫ רוח‬is a symbol of heritage or a certain type of power. It is better, however, to go case by case. Firstly, let us ask if this term is used as a symbol in ‫ ברוחך‬in v. 9.28 On the one hand, if we treat ‫ רוח‬as allegory, i.e. if Elisha is literally asking for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, we should say that the narrative becomes overly complicated. What does Elisha mean? Can we divide a spirit at all? We can, however, say that this is the notion of the double portion, which is used symbolically, and the notion of the spirit is used allegorically. On the other hand, if we privilege the symbolical interpretation of the spirit, we obtain a clear explanation of the narrative events: Elisha is asking to be the heir of the power of Elijah. Because he is meant to receive only a part of his power, he seems to be hitting the waters twice. Now, let us be aware that the constitutive attribute of the symbol is a multidimensional play between the allegorism and the symbolism. Therefore, privileging the symbolical interpretation seems to be the right interpretation. Secondly, if the first occurrence of ‫ רוח‬is symbolic, the second one should also be classified as such. The Sons of the Prophets confirm the presence of ‫ רוח אליהו‬over Elisha thanks to the new information they get, i.e. that he divides waters. Thirdly, the third occurrence of ‫ רוח‬is, however, different. In the case of ‫רוח יהוה‬, it seems that the Sons of the Prophets use ‫ רוח‬as an allegory of the whirlwind.29 Here, therefore, we are not dealing with the symbolism of heritage as in the previous cases.

2.4 Mantle (‫ )אדרת‬as a Symbol The word ‫ אדרת‬means “splendor,” “robe,” “robe of state,” “fur coat,” cf. HALOT. Our translation as “mantle” corresponds to the “fur coat.” The precise characteristics of ‫ אדרת‬is, however, not given. Therefore, we will use the original Hebrew when necessary.

28 Intertextual analysis, i.e. Exod 15:10 and Deut 21:17, suggests the symbolic interpretation cf. 2.2. ‫ רוח‬in v. 9 is hard to define. It is not a wind or possessions. 29 De Vaux treats the spirit as an allegory. He suggests that the prophetic spirit is not normally transmissible. This is God, in fact, who decides if the request is accepted. The “frères prophets,” as he translates ‫בני־הנביאים‬, would only have access to the natural part of the mystery, cf. Vaux, Les livres des Rois, 135.

Heritage Symbolism

277

2.4.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style The three occ. of ‫ אדרת‬in our narrative are as follows: vv. 8, 13, 14. It is a f. sg. noun. In v. 8, it occurs with a suf. m. sg., i.e. ‫אדרתו‬. In vv. 13 and 14, ‫ אדרת‬occurs in status abs. In v. 8 and 14, it is modified by ‫ ויקח‬but, in v. 13, by ‫וירם‬. In all cases, it is preceded by the particle of the accusative ‫את‬. In vv. 8 and 14, it is followed by ‫ ויכה‬and, additionally, in v. 8 by ‫ויגלם‬. This last verb is stylistically connected to the word ‫ הגלגל‬by the phenomenon of alliteration (‫)הגלגל‬, cf. IV 1.1.3 and VI 3.4. There is also a certain sound similarity between ‫ אדרת‬and ‫( הירדן‬i.e. between the sounds ‫ דר‬and ‫)רד‬, but it seems to be marginal.

2.4.2 Function in the Narrative Firstly, the function of ‫ אדרת‬is indicated by the verb ‫ויקח‬, cf. IV 1.1.3. Elijah takes his mantle in v. 8, just as he were holding it all the way. The same verbal form is used in v. 14, where we can be sure that Elisha was not wearing the mantle because he had just picked it up. It is not, therefore, used as normal clothing from the very beginning. Secondly, Elijah rolled it up before striking the waters. The miracle is more realistic when he rolls it up. It agrees with the Aristotelian rule regarding probability (Poetics XXIV, cf. III 3.2.1). Thirdly, the mantle is used to open the waters of the Jordan, i.e. the passage between the normal and the miraculous. It happens in both directions. Fourthly, the mantle is a connector between Elijah and Elisha because it is used by them both. Fifthly, because it seems that it is used twice by Elisha, the mantle helps to introduce the questions regarding the presence of Yhwh and the extent of the power of Elisha.

2.4.3 Occurrences in HB There are 12 occ. of the word ‫ אדרת‬in HB. It occurs in Gen 25:25 in the story of Esau, whose body was like a hairy mantle. Other occ.: Josh 7:21, 24; Ezek 17:8; Jonah 3:6; Zech 11:3; 13:4. Then, it occurs in 1Kgs 19:13, 19. The former regards the moment when Elijah wrapped his face to stand at the entrance to the cave, after the earthquake, the fire, and a sound of silence. The latter regards the moment when Elijah threw his mantle over Elisha who was plowing. The remaining three occ. are 2Kgs 2:8, 13, 14.

2.4.4 Semiotic Identification The word “mantle” occurs in textual proximity to the expression: the “spirit of Elijah.” Firstly, Elijah strikes the waters with the mantle in v. 8. Elisha is asking for the double portion of his spirit in v. 9. Secondly, Elisha picks up the mantle in

278

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

v. 13 and strikes the waters in v. 14. The Sons of the Prophets say that the spirit of Elijah rests on him in v. 15. Thirdly, the fact that we do not find the mantle in the discussion on the spirit of Yhwh allows us to say that the mantle can be associated with the spirit of Elijah and not with the spirit in general or the spirit of Yhwh. Fourthly, in our narrative, there are very few feminine nouns (for the connection between ‫ סערה‬and ‫רוח יהוה‬, cf. 3.2). The fact that both ‫ רוח‬and ‫אדרת‬ are f. sg. traces the contiguity between them. Fifthly, the mantle is an allegory of the successions of Elisha in vv. 13 and 14. It also functions as a symbol. The occurrence in v. 8 is, however, different. Here, as in the two other verses, it is an allegory of the spirit of Elijah. We classify the expression as a strong symbol.

3. Etiological Symbolism (Proto-​Symbolism) We move to the last identified category, i.e. the etiological symbolism. It is based on a proto-​symbol.30 Other terms from this group are related to it by their synonyms. Let us look at how it works.

3.1 Gilgal (‫ )הגלגל‬as Proto-​Symbol The word ‫ הגלגל‬occurs only once in our narrative, in v. 1. Similarly, to the case of ‫סערה‬, but unlike ‫ׁשמים‬, the authors of our narrative seem to be very precise regarding ‫הגלגל‬. Let us see what this precision is about and how ‫ הגלגל‬functions in the episode.

3.1.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style The word ‫ הגלגל‬occurs with an article. We might imagine that he is a part of the root since the word seems to refer to a proper name. There are, however, many examples in BH where this word occurs without the first initial “he,” cf. 3.1.3. We might also imagine that ‫ הגלגל‬is a variant writing of ‫גלגל‬, but there are no examples where the word is preceded by bet or kaph and the initial he is maintained. Another geographical name which occurs with an article in our narrative is ‫( הירדן‬it occurs without article in Num 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48, 50; 35:1; 36:13; Job 40:23; Ps 42:7). We can suppose that, in both cases, the article refers to the places well-​known to the audience. Additionally, in the case of ‫הגלגל‬, it can mean that there were two Gilgals: one better known to the audience and the second one. 30 Cf. Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten, 61; Myth, Religion, and Mother Right, 48–​50. However, more light is to be shed by De genio 589B.

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

279

There is a single occurrence of the preposition min followed by the maqqeph sign in our narrative. It is the one in the expression ‫מן־הגלגל‬. There are nine other occurrences: one with an adjective; the others are with prepositions. It means that, on the stylistic level, the movement from Gilgal is underlined. It is clearly more visible when we perceive the usage of bet in the expression “the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho” in v. 15 instead of the expected min, corresponding to the location of Elisha in Scene III, cf. V 3.1. Another stylistic remark regards similarity between ‫ הגלגל‬and ‫ ויגלם‬in v. 8. The latter means “he rolled it up.” We looked at this verb in IV 1.1.3.

3.1.2 Function and Interpretation in the Narrative Apparently, the role of ‫ הגלגל‬in our narrative is secondary. The information in v. 1b that the twosome were walking seems to be more important than the knowledge that they were walking from Gilgal.31 If their conversation took place in Gilgal, the reader might try to measure the distance, time of the journey, etc. 31 “Nor, unlike the epithetless jamais vu movement, do events come as a total surprise because totally deprived of antecedents. Rather, the initial epithets generate some fairly determinate expectations, which the sequel so resolves or ramifies as to shape afresh our understanding of the entire causal chain.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 336. Sternberg also speaks about “the play of determinacy and indeterminacy launched by the forward-​looking epithets.” Ibid., 337. The description of David given to Saul by his servant in 1Sam 16:18 represents to Sternberg the Bible’s conception of character: Physical (‘a man of good presence’); Social (‘a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite’); Singular or concretizing (‘skillful in playing’ or, usually, just a name); Moral and ideological (‘the Lord is with him’); Psychological in a wide sense (‘able in deed, a man of war, wise in counsel’), ibid., 326. Of course, each element is supposed to be used later within the plot, as it was shown by Sternberg in the example of Ehud and Eglon. Other proleptic epithets that he indicates include: Judg 19:22; 1Sam 2:12; 1Sam 25:3. All of them take part in the process of character-​shaping. The characters are progressively dramatized in order to make them intelligible as actional agents. Perhaps his most pertinent observation in this context would be that regarding the movement from the truth to the whole truth. The proleptic epithets take the crucial role within this process. Probably his most accurate example of it is the story of Ehud from Judg 3. At the beginning, the main character is presented as a left-​handed man, who made for himself a short sword with two edges. His opponent, Eglon king of Moab, is presented as a very fat man. Sternberg pays attention that all the elements of the specificities play the essential role in the narrative. In other words, none of them is presented just as a pure characteristic, as is very often the case in nineteenth century novels. Our author recapitulates this part of his research as follows: “the initial epithets generate some fairly determinate

280

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

But it is not the case here. Moreover, neither the narrator nor the agents refer to Gilgal in the following verses. Of course, Gilgal is used in different structures of repetition to produce various effects connected to the setting exposition, cf. III 2.2.1, yet any proper noun could be used instead. There is a theory of Barthes saying that, in the narrative, some objects/​places give simply an effect of simulating reality.32 It might be the case of Gilgal, unless it has some symbolical meaning (in this case, we would call the beginning of the narrative “sui loci,” i.e. without continuity with the recently mentioned place).

3.1.3 Occurrences in HB and Meaning The occurrences of the words with the sequence of the letters ‫ הגלגל‬in HB are as follows: Deut 11:30; Josh 9:6; 10:6, 7, 9, 15, 43; 15:7; Judg 2:1; 3:19; 1Sam 10:8; 11:14, 15; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 15:12; 2Sam 19:16, 41; 2Kgs 2:1; 4:38; 9:35; Neh 12:29; Eccl 12:6; Ezek 10:13; Hos 4:15; Amos 4:4; 5:5; Mic 6:5. The occurrences of the root ‫גלגל‬, i.e. without the initial he, are as follows: Josh 5:9; Judg 9:53; 1Chr 10:10; Isa 28:28; Jer 47:3; Dan 7:9. We already see that there are no occurrences of any variant in the Pentateuch. This root is meant to be associated with DH and the Latter Prophets. Now, there are a few senses in which the root is used. In HB, there are at least two different places named ‫ הגלגל‬or ‫גלגל‬. One is identified on the basis of the story in Josh 4–​5: The people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and they camped in Gilgal (‫ )ּבַ ּגִ לְ ּגָל‬on the east border of Jericho (‫)מזרח יריחו‬. (Josh 4:19 NRS)

In Josh 4–​5, Gilgal is located on the east border of Jericho. We will call it Gilgal 4:19 (referring to Josh 4:19) to distinguish it from Gilgal 2:1 (referring to 2Kgs 2:1). The earlier commentators identified ‫ הגלגל‬in 2Kgs 2 with it, because of the

expectations, which the sequel so resolves or ramifies as to shape afresh our understanding of the entire causal chain.” Ibid., 328–​37. 32 Such examples were given in Barthes, “L’effet de réel,” 84–​9.: “un vieux piano supportait, sous un baromètre, un tas pyramidal de boites et de cartons.” Cf. Gustave Flaubert, ”Un coeur simple” (Paris: Flammarion, 2015). “Car si, dans la description de Flaubert, il est à la rigueur possible de voir dans la notation du piano un indice du standing bourgeois de sa propriétaire et dans celle des cartons un singe de désordre (…)” Barthes, ”L’effet de réel,” 84. “Toute la culture Classique a vécu pendant des siècles sur l’idée que le réel ne pouvait en rien contaminer le vraisemblable; d’abord parce que le vraisemblable n’est jamais que de l’opinable: il est entièrement assujetti à l’opinion (du public).” Ibid., 88. “Le baromètre de Flaubert, la petite porte de Michelet ne disent finalement rien d’autre que ceci: nous sommes le réel.”

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

281

motif of crossing the Jordan. Recently, this identification of Gilgal 4:19 with Gilgal 2:1 is defended by Joel Burnett using a symbolic argumentation.33 There is no agreement regarding the number of other places called ‫​גלגל‬/‫הגלגל‬ to be identified in HB. HALOT enumerates four more certain and nine uncertain distinguish textual entities. We do not pretend to resolve this problem in our dissertation. For us, it is enough to say that there is at least one other location to be identified as ‫​גלגל‬/‫הגלגל‬, apart from Gilgal 4:19. The verses which do not indicate Gilgal 4:19 are as follows: the king of Dor in Naphath-​dor one the king of Goiim in Galilee (‫( )לְ גִ לְ ּגָל‬Josh 12:23 NRS) and the boundary goes up to Debir from the Valley of Achor, and so northward, turning toward Gilgal (‫)אל־הגלגל‬, which is opposite the ascent of Adummim, which is on the south side of the valley; and the boundary passes along to the waters of En-​shemesh, and ends at En-​rogel; (Josh 15:7 NRS) also from Beth-​gilgal (‫ )ומבית הגלגל‬and from the region of Geba and Azmaveth; for the singers had built for themselves villages around Jerusalem. (Neh 12:29 NRS)

We will call this group of textual locations Gilgal non-​4:19.34 NRS, after LXX, translates ‫ גלגל‬in Josh 12:23 as “Galilee.”35 The two successive quotations may refer to one place, different, however, to Gilgal 4:19. Almost all scholars identify Gilgal 2:1 with Gilgal non-​4:19 in order to resolve the topographical problem.36 Foresti, however, thinks that the primitive story referred to one place (Gilgal 4:19) and the elaborated one refers to another one (next to Carmel).37

33 Burnett, “ ‘Going Down’ to Bethel: Elijah and Elisha in the Theological Geography of the Deuteronomistic History,” 281–​97. 34 One of the pertinent questions regards the localization of Gilgal where Saul was anointed king in 1Sam 11 and where Samuel hewed the king of the Amalekites in 1Sam 15:33. It might be associated with Gilgal non-​4:19 in its northern variant because, in 1Sam 15:12, we find: “Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, and Samuel was told, ‘Saul went to Carmel, where he set up a monument for himself, and on returning he passed on down to Gilgal’.” 35 HALOT evokes the theory that this place is located in the neighborhood of Shilo (HALOT “‫הגלגל‬,” II 3). In fact, if we look at the whole list in Josh 12, we notice that first are enumerated places in Judah and then those in the north: Jericho, Ai, Jerusalem, Hebron, (…), Lachish, (…), Bethel, (…), Hazor, Shimron-​meron, (…), Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam in Carmel, (…), Goiim in ‫גלגל‬., Tirza. 36 Cf. our analysis of the term “went down to Bethel” in 1.1. 37 According to Foresti, the legends regarding Bethel and Jericho were originally inde�pendent. They were incorporated with the Source and the Bears stories. The reinterpretation of Gilgal (from Gilgal 4:19 to Carmel, known from 2Kgs 2:25) is the

282

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

The word ‫גלגל‬, vocalized as ‫ּגִ לְ ּגָל‬, might also designate a heap/​circle of stones by analogy to the word ‫ גל‬in Hebrew (cf. Josh 7:26, 8:29, 2Sam 18:17) and to the associated root galãlu in Akkadian.38 The story referring to twelve stones set by Joshua might be etiology: Those twelve stones, which they had taken out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal (‫)בגלגל‬, saying to the Israelites, “When your children ask their parents in time to come, ‘What do these stones mean?’ then you shall let your children know, ‘Israel crossed over the Jordan here on dry ground.’ For Yhwh* your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you crossed over (…)” (Josh 4:20–​23a NRS)

Let us note that, despite common elements between this text and 2Kgs 2 (the Jordan, dry-​shod, and crossing over), we do not find reference to stones in 2Kgs 2. The word ‫גלגל‬, vocalized as ‫( ּגִ לְ ּגָל‬Isa 28:28) or as ‫( ּגַלְ ּגַל‬other cases), designates a wheel-​based structure. The most important quotations in this context are the following: Grain is crushed for bread, but one does not thresh it forever; one drives the cart wheel (‫ )והמם ּגִ לְ ּגָל עגלתו‬and horses over it, but does not pulverize it. (Isa 28:28 NRS) their arrows are sharp, all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs seem like flint, and their wheels like the whirlwind (‫)וגלגליו כסופה‬. (Isa 5:28 NRS) At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, at the clatter of his chariots, at the rumbling of their wheels (‫)מרעׁש לרכבו המון גלגליו‬, parents do not turn back for children, so feeble are their hands (…) (Jer 47:3 NRS) before the silver cord is snapped, and the golden bowl is broken, and the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the [paddle-​]wheel (‫ )הגלגל‬broken at the cistern (…) (Eccl 12:6 NRS)

Often it is a wheel of a mechanic object as a chariot, a cart, or a cistern. The clear exception to this rule is the “wheels like the whirlwind.” We find here an important association with 2Kgs 2. There are at least two cases where the word ‫גלגל‬, vocalized as ‫ּגַלְ ּגַל‬, designates the whole vehicle: They shall come against you from the north with chariot(s) and wagon(s) (‫ )רכב וגלגל‬and a host of peoples; they shall set themselves against you on every side with buckler, shield,

reason why we find the word “went down” modifying Bethel. There was Gilgal next to Carmel: Josh 12:23. In 1Kgs 18:31, Elijah took 12 stones and built an altar, cf. Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 262–​64. Cf. Elias Friedman, “The Antiquities of El-​Muhraqa and I Kings 18, 31,” Ephemerides Carmeliticae 22, no. 1 (1971): 95–​104. 38 Cf. galãlu in Akkadian means “a stone,” “a building stone (for stele)” or simply “to roll,” also of river water (cf. CDA, “galãlu”).

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

283

and helmet, and I will commit the judgment to them, and they shall judge you according to their ordinances. (Ezek 23:24 NRS, cf. 26:10)

In this case, we are dealing with the phenomenon of metonymy, where the name of a characteristic attribute becomes the name of the whole object. Last but not least, ‫גלגל‬, vocalized as ‫ּגַלְ ּגַל‬, can also designate a whirlwind (whirling dust), as in the following example: The crash of your thunder was in the whirlwind (‫ ;)קול רעמך בגלגל‬your lightnings lit up the world; the earth trembled and shook. (Ps 77:18 NRS)

The other two occurrences, vocalized as ‫ּגַלְ ּגַל‬, received in the NRS translation similar meaning: The nations roar like the roaring of many waters, but he will rebuke them, and they will flee far away, chased like chaff on the mountains before the wind and whirling (dust) (‫ )וכגלגל‬before the storm (‫)לפני־רוח וכגלגל לפני סופה‬. (Isa 17:13 NRS) O my God, make them like whirling dust (‫)כגלגל‬, like chaff before the wind (‫)לפני־רוח‬. (Ps 83:14 NRS)

HALOT, however, translates these two occurrences as “wheel-​plant.” The semantic field of the examined term needs to be enlarged by its connection to burning objects as fire in Dan 7:9, or coals in Ezek 10:2, 6. A similar root (‫ )גלגלת‬means “skull” in 2Kgs 9:35, Judg 9:53. Furthermore, Gilgal is associated with the oath which we also find in our narrative: Though you play the whore, O Israel, do not let Judah become guilty. Do not enter into Gilgal, or go up to Beth-​aven, and do not swear, “As Yhwh* lives.” (Hos 4:15 NRS)

Gilgal is also condemned together with Bethel in Am 4:4; 5:5. Finally, Gilgal is the place where the story about the large pot and a famine takes place, cf. 2Kgs 4:38–​41. The story may be an etiology because of the default round shape of the pot and the meaning of glgl in Ugaritic.39

3.1.4 Semiotic Identification There is one characteristic which should be attributed to all the places mentioned in our narrative. They are deprived of any description. All we have are secondary details as prepositions used in reference to these places. Moreover, the characters do not dwell in these places. On the one hand, the places are used to build up the 39 glgl in Ugaritic means “a cup,” as in “a cup he took in his hand with the wind, the downpour and the clouds,” cf. DULAT, “glgl.” It is also interesting that the root gl in Ugaritic means “shout of jubilation.”

284

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

plot (cf. III 2.2.4; III 3.1). On the other hand, they are used to build up the symbolism within the text. The semantic field of the word ‫​גלגל‬/‫ הגלגל‬refers us to different elements within the text and plot. Without referring to the semantic field, Gilgal seems to be pure allegory, indicating simply one of the biblical places. Gilgal seems to play a very marginal role within the narrative plot, and it could be substituted by any other geographical name or even omitted. The situation changes radically when we look at Gilgal using the semantic tools. The semantic field of the root ‫ גלגל‬refers us by association to the following elements of the narrative: a) whirlwind, b) chariotry (wheel of), c) to roll up (the mantle). In the following points, we will try to show how ‫ הגלגל‬functions as proto-​symbol, i.e. the symbol on which the narrative is based.

3.2 Whirlwind (‫ )סערה‬as Allegory and Symbol We have seen that ‫גלגל‬, one of the synonyms of ‫סערה‬, is connected to ‫הגלגל‬. Let us describe this reference on the symbolic level. Can we call ‫ סערה‬an allegory? Let us not forget that, in the background of our semiotic and close reading research, there are a number of theories specifying the historical reality associated with ‫סערה‬.40

3.2.1 Morphology, Syntax and Style The examined word ‫ בסערה‬occurs twice in our narrative: in vv. 1a, 11b. We have translated it as “whirlwind” (cf. I 2.1.4). It is composed of a feminine noun ‫סערה‬ and the preposition ‫ב‬. In MT, it occurs with the definite article.41 In v. 1, ‫בסערה‬ modifies the expression ‫( ויהי בהעלות‬cf. III 1.1.1). In v. 11, it modifies the expression ‫ויעל‬. In both verses, ‫ סערה‬is the first noun after introduction of the agents

40 Gray speculates on whether Elijah disappeared in a dust storm, cf. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 475. Grill suggested that Elijah died in the whirlwind. His argument, however, is based to a large extent on the difference between the nature of Elijah and that of Christ. Cf. Severin Grill, “Die Himmelfahrt des Elias,” Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1938–​39): 242–​48. 41 According to Gray, the definite article indicates here a reference to a well-​known tradition regarding the translation of Elijah, cf. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 473.

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

285

(Yhwh and Elijah in v. 1; Elijah in v. 11). It is therefore the first object introduced in our narrative. While the translation of ‫ סערה‬was established previously, the translation of the particle ‫ ב‬remains uncommented. It is, however, important. It might be surprising that we are dealing in our narrative with a few different meanings of the preposition ‫ב‬. It occurs in the temporal meaning “when” in ‫“( בהעלות‬when was about to lead up”) in v. 1a; in the directive meaning “in” in ‫“( ביריחו‬in Jericho”) in v. 5a, and probably in the same word in v. 15; in another directive, meaning “on,” in ‫“( בחרבה‬on dry-​shod”) in v. 8b, and in ‫“( באחד‬on one of ”) in v. 16a; in the partitive, meaning “of ” in ‫“( ברוחך‬of your spirit”) in v. 9b. The meaning of the preposition in ‫בסערה‬, in. vv. 1 and 11, is directive (“in”) or instrumental (“with the usage of ”). In the first case, it would correspond to the meaning in vv. 5 and 15 (“in Jericho”). The second possible meaning would be original in the context of our narrative. As in I 2.1, the solution is probably in the parallel structure in Judg 13:20, where bet is used in the directive meaning. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that we are dealing with the strategy of an interplay of the two possible meanings. Let us look at the end of our expression. This is even more style than morphological remark. Apart from the fact that the final he indicates the feminine gender of noun, it links the examined word with other nouns with the final he in the narrative. Probably the most pertinent among them is ‫בחרבה‬, i.e. “on dry-​ shod” (v. 8) as already mentioned. With the beginning bet and the f. gender, it can be applied to the same type of nouns. Another significant word is ‫יהוה‬, occurring in v. 1 and in many other verses. The third one is ‫ארצה‬, occurring in v. 15 . Here, however, we are dealing with the directive he. Other final he in the narrative do not occur with nouns.

3.2.2 Function in the Narrative Let us study briefly the function of ‫סערה‬. Firstly, it modifies the time of the narrative by its occurrence in the proleptic expression in v. 1 (… ‫)ויהי בהעלות‬. Secondly, it marks the rhythm of the plot since it takes part of the things repeated verbatim by the narrator in v. 11. Thirdly, ‫ סערה‬is crucial for taking Elijah towards heaven. Chariotry and horses only separate the twosome. Fourthly, ‫ סערה‬is important in the play of the viewpoints, crucial for the identification of the succession of Elisha. In fact, this is the whirlwind which can reduce the visibility of the departing Elijah. The question of whether Elisha sees the departure is introduced thanks to the presence of the whirlwind. It is introduced early to the narrative. In that way, the reader has time to imagine the whirlwind, which unexpectedly

286

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

becomes obstacle. Furthermore, the whirlwind is already described by the narrator in v. 1. It is an object governed by Yhwh, which is capable of taking Elijah up to the sky. Further characteristics of the whirlwind in the narrative might be given by the Sons of the Prophets who were in Bethel and, successively, by the ones in Jericho already in Scene I. They do not, however, mention the whirlwind, referring to the moment of the departure of Elijah, saying to Elisha, “Do you know Yhwh is going to take your master from over your head today?” Of course, the expression “from over your head” facilitates the imagination of the reader of the space where the whirlwind would occur. The interpretation of the whirlwind is, however, made by the Sons of the Prophets, who were in Jericho only in Scene III. They say: “perhaps the spirit of Yhwh (‫ )רוח יהוה‬has taken him up.” It means that they are referring to the object which would transport Elijah towards heaven. They refer, therefore, consciously, or unconsciously, to the whirlwind. At the same time, Elisha seems not to notice the whirlwind at all.

3.2.3 Occurrences in HB If we treat the form ‫ בסערה‬as unity –​i.e. the noun preceded by the preposition bet –​ we must admit that it occurs only in our narrative in the whole HB. Moreover, neither the form ‫סערה‬, nor its variant ‫סער‬, occurs in either the Pentateuch or the DH. We find ‫ סערה‬in Job 38:1; 40:6; Ps 107:25, 29; 148:8; Isa 29:6; 40:24; 41:16; 54:11; Ezek 1:4. ‫ סער‬can be found in 2Kgs 6:11; Ps 55:9; Jer 23:19; 25:32; 30:23; Hos 13:3; Amos 1:14; Jonah 1:4, 11, 12, 13.42 The variant form preceded by the preposition bet is to be found in Amos: So I will kindle a fire against the wall of Rabbah, fire that shall devour its strongholds, with shouting on the day of battle, with a storm (‫ )בסער‬on the day of the whirlwind (‫( )סופה‬1:14 NRS)

The usage of the preposition bet is instrumental, therefore it is translated as “with.” Rabbah is going to be devoured by a fire with a storm (‫ )בסער‬. The word ‫ סער‬is, therefore, associated with the fire in a similar syntax context to the one in 2Kgs 2. If we consider Am 1:14 as ancient as the whole book, we obtain an important and ancient reference to the verses examined in 2Kgs 2. Let us refer briefly to other occurrences. The examined root ‫ סער‬occurs once in Kgs, in the verb ‫ ויסער‬in 2Kgs 6:11 with the meaning “[the king of Aram] was greatly perturbed.” In Ezek 1:4–​5, we find the noun ‫סערה‬. It is a stormy wind,

42 On other possibilities, see: Mitchell Dahood, “Ś’RT ‘Storm’ in Job 4,15,” Biblica 48, no. 4 (1967): 544–​45.

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

287

which comes out of the north, in the middle of the fire there were four living creatures. In Ps 107:25, the stormy wind (‫ )רוח סערה‬lifted up the waves to heaven (‫)יעלו ׁשמים‬. The form ‫ סערה‬occurs twice in Job. It is probably the most explicit theophany associated with this noun in BH.43 Yhwh answers Job out of the whirlwind (‫ )סערה‬in Job 38:1 and 40:6. In Jonah, ‫ סער‬is not explicitly theophoric, cf. 1:4, 11, 12, 13.

3.2.4 Semiotic Identification On the etiological basis, cf. 3.1., we suggest that the noun ‫ סערה‬would be introduced to the narrative as an allegory referring to Gilgal. It is, however, interpreted within the narrative as a symbol which the Sons of the Prophets seems to compare to the Spirit of Yhwh. We will, therefore, classify it as a strong symbol. Furthermore, there are two extreme images to which ‫ סערה‬in 2Kgs can be compared. Firstly, to the image associated with ‫ סער‬in Am 1:14, i.e. to the force of nature. Secondly, to the image associated with ‫ סערה‬in Job, i.e. theophany characterized by the voice of God coming out of it. The image associated with ‫סערה‬ in 2Kgs is closer to the one in Am, because God is not communicating explicitly through it.

43 We can probably call the scene of the ascent in the whirlwind a quasi-​theophany. The discussion among scholars shows the ambiguity of the problem, e.g. according to Hobbs, nothing except fire indicates classic theophany: Hobbs, 2 Kings, 21. Contra Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 467; Foresti, “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo,” 266. Cf. I 2.1. It seems that Hobbs is right. For example, in the book of Job, Yhwh speaks from the whirlwind (Job 38:1; 40:6) or, in Ezek 1:4, someone from the whirlwind talks to the prophet. In 2Kgs 2:1–​18, however, the whirlwind does not produce any voice. Cf. Nicholas P. Lunn, “Prophetic Representations of the Divine Presence: The Theological Interpretation of the Elijah-​Elisha Cycles,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 9, no. 1 (2015): 49–​63. Of course, there are also arguments for the theophany, e.g. the occurrence of the double command of being quiet as in Sph 1:7; Zach 2:17; Hab 2:20. The niphal form of ‫ עלה‬occurs 4 times in the theophany context: Exod 40:36, 37; Num 9:17, 22. As we see, all these occurrences are in Pentateuch and, moreover, in each case, they are connected to the noun ‫ענן‬, which seems to be close in meaning to ‫סערה‬ (it may also mean that the author of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 did not want to copy word-​by-​word the vocabulary typical to the Pentateuchal theophanies). Therefore, we prefer to call this phenomenon quasi-​theophany, i.e. authors use this motif for their own purposes.

288

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

3.3 Chariotry (‫ )רכב‬as Allegory and Symbol The word ‫ רכב‬means “column, group of chariots,” “war chariot troop,” “an individual chariot,” or “the upper of two millstones,” cf. HALOT. The real problem in our text is the choice between a group of chariots and an individual one.

3.3.1 Morphology, Syntax, and Style The word ‫ רכב‬occurs in vv. 11, 12 in status cons. It is a collective m. noun, which we translate as “chariotry,” because it is modified by pl. verb ‫ויפרדו‬. The collective translation also accords with 2Kgs 13:14, so with the title of Elisha and with the events described in 2Kgs 7:6, where the Aramean army hears the sound of chariots (‫ )רכב‬and of horses. Let us refer to the stylistic issues. In the case of many important words, we are dealing with various stylistic assimilations, which often anticipate or recall occurrences of these words. The first occ. of ‫ רכב‬might be anticipated by the occ. of the word ‫ רוח‬in v. 9. This stylistic device is called alliteration. It occurs, however, with the preposition bet, therefore this connection is not strong. The second occ. of the word examined is verbatim repetition. Additionally, it seems to be associated with the two occ. of the verbal ‫ ראה‬in the same verse.

3.3.2 Function in the Narrative The description of the itinerary of the twosome is the subject of Scene I and half of Scene II. The twosome are meant to be considered tired in this moment. The chariotry of fire, however, does not appear to pick them up. It appears in v. 11 to separate the twosome. In fact, we are dealing with two phases of separation in the narrative. On the one hand, the Jordan separates the world-​without-​miracles from the other world. On the other hand, the chariotry of fire separates the twosome. The reader, therefore, is meant to have an impression that Elijah enters into another area of the miraculous world. And at this moment, Elijah goes up to the sky. From this moment on, the narrative does not refer to the twosome as a unity. As a result of this separation, Elisha is left alone immediately, and the reader can address the question of whether Elisha has received the double portion or not, cf. 2.2.1. The reader finds out that Elisha saw something supernatural because, in his cry, he uses the expression “the chariotry of Israel.” The reader is, however, meant to be unsure if it is a description of the phenomenon or a title given to Elijah or the two together. As we have noticed in IV 3.2, the cry of Elijah is not conclusive to indicate that he received the double portion, but it is especially important to keep the high level of narrative tension.

Etiological Symbolism (Proto-Symbolism)

289

3.3.3 Occurrences in HB The highest number of occ. of the noun ‫ רכב‬in HB is in 2Kgs (20 out of 136). The other books to be mentioned in this category: 1Kgs, 2Chr, Jer, Isa. The word examined occurs 9 times in Exod. The expression ‫רכב־אׁש‬, used in v. 11, is hapax legomenon. The expression ‫ רכב יׂשראל‬used in v. 12 occurs in 2Kgs 13:14, i.e. in the scene of the death of Elisha. Elisha is called like that by the King Joash of Israel.44

3.3.4 Semiotic Identification In Scene II, we deal with the process of production of a symbol. We do not have any clue in our text to say that the first occurrence of the chariotry is a strong or weak allegory. The second occurrence, however, of the term examined is different. Elisha in his scream uses the term “of Israel” to describe the chariotry. The chariotry seems to be an allegory of Elijah which functions as a symbol within the narrative. It is, therefore, a strong symbol. Let us also remember that we are dealing with the play of perspectives, cf. IV 2.2. We are unable to clearly say if Elisha utters ‫ רכב יׂשראל‬as a title or if he uses the expression examined to describe the phenomenon which he has just seen. In fact, the two possibilities exist side by side. The first one informs us that we are dealing with a symbol, i.e. the term ‫ רכב‬symbolizes the strength, the defense, etc.45 The second one strengthens the symbolic effect by indicating the existence of the chariotry in the world of the narrative. We would rather describe this type of symbolism as supernatural than theophoric, because the name of God does not occur in vv. 11–​12.

44 Scholars believe that the expression ‫ אבי אבי רכב יׂשראל ופרׁשיו‬in v. 12 was borrowed from 2Kgs 13:14. According to Galling, both chariotry references are additions, i.e. v.11aβ and in 12aα, taken from 2Kgs 13:14. There is no military setting, so Elijah was taken only in the whirlwind. Galling, “Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entrückung Elias,” 141–​2; O’Brien, ”The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2,” 11. 45 Intercultural studies might be especially useful to examine v. 12, because horses are symbols of death in many cultures, just as the fire separates the living from the dead. Also, in many cultures, the body is burned, cf. Agata Mrva-​Montoya, “Learning from Dead Animals: Horse Sacrifice in Ancient Salamis and the Hellenisation of Cyprus,” in Animal Death, ed. Jay Johnston and Fiona Probyn-​Rapsey (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2013), 114–​22; Anthony Leahy, “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27, no. 2 (1984): 199–​206; Mirosław Barwik, Księga wychodzenia za dnia: Tajemnice egipskiej Księgi Umarłych (Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 2009), 7–​44.

290

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

3.4 Further Remarks on Rolled Up (‫)ויגלם‬ We have commented on the verb form ‫ ויגלם‬in IV 1.1.3. We have also mentioned in VI 3.1 that there is a phonetic contiguity between ‫ הגלגל‬and ‫ויגלם‬. Additionally, we need to underline the meaning contiguity, i.e. there is an essential resemblance between the nouns “wheel,” “whirlwind,” and the verb “to roll up.” Because it does not seem that “rolled up” functions as an intra-​textual symbol, we will consider it to be a strong allegory.46 Furthermore, the authors of 2Kgs 2 do not add a suffix to ‫ ויגלם‬as they do not want to highlight that Elisha is rolling up the mantle, yet he is rolling something in general. It is also interesting that ‫ ויגלם‬is not repeated in vv. 13–​14, which means that it is only used on Jericho’s side of the Jordan.

4. Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks The results of research on the MT of our narrative will be confronted with various remarks on the LXX version of the same story. Before focusing on symbolism, we will make a few remarks on the style and structure of LXX.

4.1 Greek Narrative and Its Translation In the left column, we present Ralphs’ version of the Septuagint. We will use the abbreviation LXX to indicate this text. LXX, in the case of 2Kgs 2:1–​18, corresponds more to Codex Alexandrinus (A) than to Codex Vaticanus (B). Let us remind ourselves that it is not the case for the majority of Ralphs’ text.47 Nevertheless, it is not surprising because A is closer to MT in the case of our text, even if it reflects the kaige recension.48 In the right column, we present Brenton’s translation from 1844.49 In this column, we put selected words missing in the translation in the square brackets. We marked with round brackets selected words occurring only in the translation: 46 On the intertextual level, rolling up the mantle makes it resemble the staff of Moses, cf. Exod 17:5. 47 The Later Historical Books: I and II Kings. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented From Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, 2. 48 Cf. Introduction. 49 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, ed. Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1900), 488–​89.

Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἀνάγειν κύριον τὸν Ηλιου ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ηλιου καὶ Ελισαιε ἐκ Γαλγαλων 2 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου πρὸς Ελισαιε κάθου δὴ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με ἕως Βαιθηλ καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε ζῇ κύριος καὶ ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου εἰ καταλείψω σε καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βαιθηλ 3 καὶ ἦλθον οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν οἱ ἐν Βαιθηλ πρὸς Ελισαιε καὶ εἶπον πρὸς αὐτόν εἰ ἔγνως ὅτι κύριος σήμερον λαμβάνει τὸν κύριόν σου ἐπάνωθεν τῆς κεφαλῆς σου καὶ εἶπεν κἀγὼ ἔγνωκα σιωπᾶτε 4 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου πρὸς Ελισαιε κάθου δὴ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με εἰς Ιεριχω καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε ζῇ κύριος καὶ ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου εἰ ἐγκαταλείψω σε καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Ιεριχω 5 καὶ ἤγγισαν οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν οἱ ἐν Ιεριχω πρὸς Ελισαιε καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν εἰ ἔγνως ὅτι σήμερον λαμβάνει κύριος τὸν κύριόν σου ἐπάνωθεν τῆς κεφαλῆς σου καὶ εἶπεν καί γε ἐγὼ ἔγνων σιωπᾶτε 6 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ηλιου κάθου δὴ ὧδε ὅτι κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με ἕως τοῦ Ιορδάνου καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε ζῇ κύριος καὶ ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου εἰ ἐγκαταλείψω σε καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἀμφότεροι 7 καὶ πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἔστησαν ἐξ ἐναντίας μακρόθεν καὶ ἀμφότεροι ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ιορδάνου 8 καὶ ἔλαβεν Ηλιου τὴν μηλωτὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἵλησεν καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ διῃρέθη τὸ ὕδωρ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα καὶ διέβησαν ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἐρήμῳ 9 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ διαβῆναι αὐτοὺς καὶ Ηλιου εἶπεν πρὸς Ελισαιε αἴτησαι τί ποιήσω σοι πρὶν ἢ ἀναλημφθῆναί με ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε γενηθήτω δὴ διπλᾶ ἐν πνεύματί σου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ 10 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου ἐσκλήρυνας τοῦ αἰτήσασθαι ἐὰν ἴδῃς με ἀναλαμβανόμενον ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ἔσται σοι οὕτως καὶ ἐὰν μή οὐ μὴ γένηται 11 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἅρμα πυρὸς καὶ ἵπποι πυρὸς καὶ διέστειλαν ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων καὶ ἀνελήμφθη Ηλιου ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν 12 καὶ Ελισαιε ἑώρα καὶ ἐβόα πάτερ

291

And it came to pass, when the Lord was going to take Eliu with a whirlwind as it were into heaven, that Eliu and Elisaie went out of Galgala. 2 And Eliu said to Elisaie, “Stay here, I pray thee; for God has sent me to Baethel.” And Elisaie said, “As the Lord lives and thy soul lives, I will not leave thee.” So they came to Baethel. 3 And the Sons of the Prophets who were in Baethel came to Elisaie, and said to him, “Dost thou know, that the Lord this day is going to take thy lord away from [above] thy head?” And he said, “Yea, I know it; be silent.” 4 And Eliu said to Elisaie, Stay here, I pray thee; for the Lord has sent me to Jericho. And he said, “As the Lord lives and thy soul lives, I will not leave thee.” And they came to Jericho. 5 And the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho drew near to Elisaie, and said to him, “Dost thou know that the Lord is about to take away thy master to-day from [above] thy head?” And he said, “Yea, I know it; hold your peace.” 6 And Eliu said to him, “Stay here, I pray thee, for the Lord has sent me to Jordan.” And Elisaie said, “As the Lord lives and thy soul lives, I will not leave thee.” And they both went on. 7 And fifty men of the Sons of the Prophets went also, and they stood opposite afar off: and both stood on the bank of Jordan. 8 And Eliu took his mantle, and wrapped it (together), and smote the water: and the water was divided on this side and on that side, and they both went over on dry ground. 9 And it came to pass while they were crossing over, that Eliu said to Elisaie, “Ask what I shall do for thee before I am taken up from thee.” And Elisaie said, “Let there be, I pray thee, a double portion of thy spirit upon me.” 10 And Eliu said, “Thou hast asked a hard thing: if thou shalt see me when I am taken up from thee, then shall it be so to thee; and if not, it shall not be so.” 11 And it came to pass as they were going, they went on talking; and, behold, a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and it separated between them both; and Eliu was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven. 12 And Elisaie saw, and cried, “Father,

292

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

πάτερ ἅρμα Ισραηλ καὶ ἱππεὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἔτι καὶ ἐπελάβετο τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ καὶ διέρρηξεν αὐτὰ εἰς δύο ῥήγματα 13 καὶ ὕψωσεν τὴν μηλωτὴν Ηλιου ἣ ἔπεσεν ἐπάνωθεν Ελισαιε καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν Ελισαιε καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ Ιορδάνου 14 καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν μηλωτὴν Ηλιου ἣ ἔπεσεν ἐπάνωθεν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ οὐ διέστη καὶ εἶπεν ποῦ ὁ θεὸς Ηλιου αφφω καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὰ ὕδατα καὶ διερράγησαν ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα καὶ διέβη Ελισαιε 15 καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν προφητῶν οἱ ἐν Ιεριχω ἐξ ἐναντίας καὶ εἶπον ἐπαναπέπαυται τὸ πνεῦμα Ηλιου ἐπὶ Ελισαιε καὶ ἦλθον εἰς συναντὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν 16 καὶ εἶπον πρὸς αὐτόν ἰδοὺ δὴ μετὰ τῶν παίδων σου πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες υἱοὶ δυνάμεως πορευθέντες δὴ ζητησάτωσαν τὸν κύριόν σου μήποτε ἦρεν αὐτὸν πνεῦμα κυρίου καὶ ἔρριψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἢ ἐφ᾽ ἓν τῶν ὀρέων ἢ ἐφ᾽ ἕνα τῶν βουνῶν καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε οὐκ ἀποστελεῖτε 17 καὶ παρεβιάσαντο αὐτὸν ἕως ὅτου ᾐσχύνετο καὶ εἶπεν ἀποστείλατε καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πεντήκοντα ἄνδρας καὶ ἐζήτησαν τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ οὐχ εὗρον αὐτόν 18 καὶ ἀνέστρεψαν πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκάθητο ἐν Ιεριχω καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε οὐκ εἶπον πρὸς ὑμᾶς μὴ πορευθῆτε.

father, the chariot of Israel, and the horseman thereof!” And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his garments, and rent them into two pieces. 13 And Elisaie took up the mantle of Eliu, which fell from off him upon Elisaie; and Elisaie returned, and stood upon the brink of Jordan; 14 and he took the mantle of Eliu, which fell from off him, and smote the water, and said, “Where is the Lord God of Eliu?” And he smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither; and Elisaie went over. 15 And the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho on the opposite side saw him, and said, “The spirit of Eliu has rested upon Elisaie.” And they came to meet him, and did obeisance to him to the ground. 16 And they said to him, “Behold now, there are with thy servants fifty men [sons] of strength: let them go now, and seek thy lord: peradventure the Spirit of the Lord has taken him up, and cast him into Jordan, or on one of the mountains, or on one of the hills.” And Elisaie said, “Ye shall not send.” 17 And they pressed him until he was ashamed; and he said, “Send.” And they sent fifty men, and sought three days, and found him not. 18 And they returned to him, for he dwelt in Jericho: and Elisaie said, “Did I not say to you, Go not?”

Figure 42-VI.  4βασιλέων 2:1-18 and Its Translation

Let us highlight that the LXX version of our narrative does not provide any difference in the numbering or order of the verses compared with MT. There are some essential differences and additions on which we comment below.

4.2 Remarks on the Style We have already mentioned and commented on a few issues of style, cf. ὡς in I 2.1.1; ζῇ in I 2.2.1; αφφω in I 2.3; οἱ ἐν Βαιθηλ /​οἱ ἐν Ιεριχω in III 2.2.4. There are, however, other things which we mentioned but on which we did not make a satisfactory comment, and others which still need to be noticed. In III 2.2.4, we indicated the juxtaposition between ἦλθον in v. 3 and ἤγγισαν in v. 5. The first one is translated into English as “came” instead of “went,” referring to the Sons

Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks

293

of the Prophets who were in Bethel. In this case, the translator might have been influenced by the Hebrew text, cf. 1.1. The translation of ἤγγισαν as “drew near” does not provoke such a problem. Furthermore, in III 3.2.2, we have made reference to ἕως in vv. 2, 6. In fact, it is interesting that in the parallel v. 4 εἰς is used. This means that Elijah underlines in v. 4 his feeling sent to (εἰς) Jericho, but to describe the Bethel and the Jordan destinations, he uses the particle ἕως, while MT makes a distinction between all three, cf. III 3.2.3. Let us move to matters not indicated in the previous chapters. Firstly, the twosome went to (ἦλθον εἰς) Bethel in v. 2 and to Jericho in v. 4, while in MT another wording is used: “went down” and “came,” cf. 1.1.50 In the parallel v. 6, however, LXX uses ἐπορεύθησαν where MT uses simply “they went,” cf. III 3.2.3. The LXX word seems to be more precise regarding the flow of the narrative, i.e. they “walked on” and not only “went.” Secondly, LXX gives stress on repetitions of oath formulae (vv. 2, 4, 6) while, in MT, we find exclusively verbatim expressions, cf. III 2.2.3. Additionally, LXX keeps the literal, i.e. conditional, character of the expression instead of translating it dynamically. The first variant in v. 2 is εἰ καταλείψω σε, i.e. “if I leave thee.” The second and the third variant in vv. 4, 6 are εἰ ἐγκαταλείψω σε. Both forms are ind. fut. act. The prefix ἐγ-​, however, may enforce or give another “color” to the repeated promise.51 Thirdly, the expression καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ διαβῆναι αὐτοὺς in v. 9 means “it came to pass while they were

50 The MT, SP, and LXX texts reveal different approaches to the variant repetitions. SP and LXX tended to resolve variations in repetitions by their characteristic interventions. Sternberg uses two terms to describe these interventions: foresmoothing and backsmoothing. The foresmoothing regards creating similarities to the former microunit of the repetition’s structure; the backsmoothing regards creating similarities to the letter microunit of the structure. SP backsmoothes the “elliptical” structure as in Exod 14:12. In the case of LXX, he gives an example of Judg 16:13–​14 (of course, LXX can preserve the repetitions lost by MT by haplography). Nevertheless, none of these processes can be considered as a dominant ideology since many variations remain in the Bible. The same issue also applies to exact repetitions. Sternberg offers an excellent remark on this matter: “Those committed to the schematism of the repetition structure –​like the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and their scholarly following –​ leave unanswered the question why so many variations remain in the Bible even according to their philosophy. Whereas those who build variation into the system –​ like Ibn Zra, Radak or Cassuto –​ leave unanswered the question why so many exact repetitions have slipped through.” Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 374. 51 Cf. William H. D. Rouse, “Learning English through the Classics,” Classical World 6, no. 4 (1912): 25–​26.

294

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

crossing over.” While in MT we are dealing with a consecutive action (because of the usage of kaph and not bet), cf. IV 1.1.1, LXX applies simultaneity. This shift increases the drama tension of the narrative, cf. IV 2.1. Fourthly, LXX keeps the sg. form of chariot (ἅρμα) in vv. 11, 12, even if in Greek the plural form exists, cf. GELS, “ἅρμα.” The verb διέστειλαν, which modifies the expression ἅρμα πυρὸς καὶ ἵπποι πυρὸς, is, however, pl. It is, therefore, a calque of MT. The situation changes in v. 12 where, instead of the expected (MT) “horsemen” in pl., LXX uses sg. ἱππεὺς. We are dealing with a clarification. This is Elijah who is called “Chariot of Israel.” The ambiguity that Elisha may only refer to the phenomenon which he just saw, disappears, cf. IV 3.2.52 Fifthly, v. 16 of LXX contains far-​ reaching changes and additions in comparison to MT. LXX adds the expression μετὰ τῶν παίδων σου, “with thy servants” to the expression “fifty men, sons of strength.” It is a clarification regarding the identity of the groups of fifty, i.e. the fifty in v. 7 are meant to be different from the group in v. 16. A very curious addition is the speculation about Elijah being thrown into the Jordan: ἔρριψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ. The addition, in comparison with MT, provides a concrete image where MT is difficult to read because of Ketiv/​Qere variants cf. I 2.4. Finally, instead of expected “valleys,” we find in LXX “hills,” i.e. βουνῶν. In this way, LXX resolves the Ketiv/​Qere problem.

4.3 Remarks on the Structure The structure of the LXX version of the narrative corresponds to the one of MT. There is, however, a structural element of the narrative which can be understood in the light of the Greek writings. We are talking about the phenomenon of the Greek chorus.53 An essential analysis of chorus was made by Aristotle in Poetics, made on the basis of the Greek tragedies, the genre developed by Sophocles or Aeschylus marvelously. On the one hand, Aristotle writes that chorus should be regarded as one of the actors, even if they are merely interluding. On the other hand, he distinguished different structures within which the chorus speeches occur. In fact, the whole tragedy can be divided according to the occurrences of the chorus. Aristotle, describes the whole structure of the tragedy in the following manner:

52 Cf. Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Elisha,” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 1 (1994): 1–​28. 53 Aristotle asks: what is the difference between introducing a chorus and introducing another type of a speech? Poetics, XVIII 1456a.

Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks

295

The prologue is the whole portions of a tragedy prior to the chorus parodos; an episode is the whole portion of a tragedy between complete choral songs; the exodos is the whole portion of a tragedy following the final choral song. Of choral units, the parodos is the first complete utterance of the chorus; a stasimon is a choral song without anapaestic and trochaic rhythms; a kommos is a dirge shared between chorus and actors. (Poetics XI 1452b18–​22)

Let us trace a few similarities between the structure of our narrative and that of the Greek tragedies. Firstly, v. 1 can be treated as a prologue introducing the chorus parodos. Secondly, parodos would take place in vv. 2–​6, supposing that the same choir acts as the Sons of the Prophets who were in Bethel and Jericho. It seems, however, that it does not finish with the intervention of the chorus in v. 5, yet continues and concludes in v. 6 with the last repetition of the dialogue between Elijah and Elisha. It does not finish in v. 7 with the occurrence of the fifty men of the Sons of the Prophets because they do not speak. Thirdly, episode would take place in vv. 7–​14. Fourthly, the final chorus song would correspond to the dialogue between the Sons of the Prophets and Elisha in vv. 15–​17. We might call it kommos, but it occurs clearly after the culmination point. Fifthly, exodos consists of the monologue of Elisha in v. 18. It concludes the narrative.

4.4 Symbolism in LXX vs. MT Let us comment briefly in the light of LXX on each of the terms discussed in this chapter. We will do it in the order in which they occur in the text.

4.4.1 Whirlwind (συσσεισμός) in vv. 1, 11 The form συσσεισμῷ is translated into English as “whirlwind.” It is dat. m. sg. noun from συσσεισμός. LXX precedes this word with ἐν, which is the equivalent of the term used in MT. Both can be translated as “in” or “with,” cf. GELS. The masculine gender of συσσεισμός does not permit us to make a simple connection with the spirit, which is n. in Greek. This connection was possible in the case of MT.

4.4.2 Sky (οὐρανός) in vv. 1, 11 The form οὐρανὸν is translated into English as “heaven.” It is acc. m. sg. noun from οὐρανός. It is preceded by the expression ὡς εἰς, meaning “as if ” and the definite article, cf. I 2.1. Since the term examined is sg. and not dual as in BH, the contiguity with “waters” becomes unclear. Its gender, however, links this word with “the sky,” which indicates a new symbolic connotation.

296

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

4.4.3 Gilgal (Γάλγαλα) in v. 1 The word Γαλγαλων is a gen., m., sg., proper noun (in LXX, the proper nouns occur without diacritics).54 It seems that the etymological contiguity with “whirlwind,” “chariotry,” and “rolled up” is reduced to the Semitic analysis, cf. 3.1. The contiguity in Greek can, however, be based on the gender and number in the case of “whirlwind” and “chariotry.”

4.4.4 Bethel (Βαιθηλ) in v. 2, 3 The word Βαιθηλ occurs in our text is dat., gen, acc., f., sg. These forms are identical to the one in nom. It is preceded by the preposition ἕως, cf. 4.1, which followed gen., meaning “up to,” “as far as,” cf. GELS. We were open to treat the Hebrew equivalent of this particle as a kind of valorization of Bethel, cf. 1.1. The Greek particle ἕως seems to give to it the same stylistic color. The occ. of Bethel in v. 3, however, modified by ἦλθον, is deprived of the distance wording of MT, cf. 1.1. This is not the case for Jericho.

4.4.5 Sons (υἱοὶ) in vv. 3, 5, 7, 15 The word υἱοὶ is nom. m. pl from υἱός. The fact that it is in nom., and not in gen. as in MT (status cons.), seems to highlight υἱοὶ in the expressions “the Sons of the Prophets” and “the sons of strength.” Nevertheless, our English translation skips the word “sons” in v. 16, probably treating it as an element of the idiomatic expression, which would confirm its symbolic function. The semantic field of this symbol seems to contain the idea of “strength,” in the case of v. 16, and the idea of “service,” “discipleship,” “youth,” “sonship,” “heritage” in vv. 3, 5, 7, cf. 2.1.

4.4.6 Jericho (Ιεριχω) in vv. 4, 5, 15, 18 The word Ιεριχω occurs in vv. 4, 5 in acc., and in vv. 15, 18 in dat. f. sg.55 In all instances, the form is identical. The forms in acc. are preceded by εἰς, which

54 Often, Greek proper nouns are translated into English in the way they resemble the Greek word, i.e. the translator focuses more on the phonetics than on the English equivalent. 55 It is remarkably interesting that, in B, Ιεριχω occurs in v. 1, i.e. according to B, the twosome were coming from Jericho, not from Gilgal. We will not, however, explore here the differences between the MSS.

Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks

297

corresponds to MT. The occurrence in v. 5, preceded by ἐν, is modified by ἤγγισαν, “drew near,” which refers the reader to MT. Both texts seem to express the idea of proximity with Jericho, possibly also on the metaphoric level, cf. 1.2. In v. 18 of LXX, Elisha dwells or rests (ἐκάθητο, cf. GELS) in Jericho, which enhances the idea of proximity (it is also the case of MT). It is an indication that Jericho might be considered a symbol of safety, trust, and goodness. The f. gender in LXX seems to underline its connection with Bethel.

4.4.7 Jordan (Ἰορδάνης) in v. 6, 7 13, 16 The form Ιορδάνου occurs in vv. 6, 7, and 13. This proper noun is in gen. m. sg. It is preceded by an article. The form Ιορδάνῃ occurs in v. 16. It is in dat. m. sg., preceded by an article. This form does not have equivalent in MT, cf. 4.2. In v. 6, Elijah is sent as far as (ἕως) the Jordan, just as he was sent as far as Bethel. If we apply the distance hermeneutics, we should say that the emotional attitude to the Jordan is here the same as that towards Bethel. Now, if the attitude towards Bethel is negative, the one toward the Jordan is also negative. It is difficult, however, to indicate the reason for the change of attitude in the LXX. The other possibility is that LXX does not consider the attitude to Bethel in pre-​MT as negative and, instead, focuses on translation. The final he of pre-​MT is translated simply according to stylistic correctness of the Greek translator, cf. 1.3. It is probable, therefore, that the symbolism of “trust” and “mistrust” based on the geographical locations is not exposed in LXX.

4.4.8 Two: (δύο) in v. 12; (διπλᾶ) in v. 9; (ἀμφότεροι) in vv. 6, 7, 8, 11 The form δύο occurs in v. 12. It is num. acc. identical with nom. LXX distinguishes clearly δύο from ἀμφότεροι, so “two” from “both” in vv. 6, 7, 8, 11. The form ἀμφότεροι is num. nom. m. pl. from ἀμφότερος. It occurs always in pl. The distinction between the two is crucial for the symbolism, because the narrative connection between the twosome and the tearing of the clothes in two pieces becomes very weak in comparison to MT. Another symbolical connection is, however, created: that between δύο in v. 12 and διπλᾶ in v. 9, i.e. “double portion.” The form is an adj. nom. n. pl. from διπλοῦς. In LXX, the double portion is therefore connected to the fact of tearing clothes in two. It is not very visible in MT. It seems that this symbolism is weaker than the one connecting the tearing clothes and the separation of the two in MT. Nevertheless, the symbolism based on opposition between the twosome and the fifty men remains. In LXX, it is between ἀμφότεροι and πεντήκοντα. The

298

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

“twosome” seems to be a symbol of the “leading,” while the fifty is the symbol of the “support.”56

4.4.9 Spirit (πνεῦμα) in vv. 9, 15, 16 In v. 9, the form πνεύματί occurs. It is dat. n. sg. from πνεῦμα. The letter, i.e. the nom. form, occurs in vv. 15, 16. The contiguity between the spirit and the mantle, clear in MT, is very vague in LXX, due to the difference in gender. The narrative connection between these elements is, however, the same. Therefore, we are dealing with weak symbolism, deprived of one of the connectors. At the same time, another contiguity is visible in LXX: it is the one with “water,” which is n. in Greek (τὸ ὕδωρ). It seems that the fact of dividing water may be considered in LXX as symbolism of the division of the spirit, i.e. of the heritage. This symbolism is, therefore, clearer than in MT, in which we do not find gender and number contiguity.

4.4.10 Mantle (μηλωτή) in vv. 8, 13, 14 The form μηλωτὴν, occurring in vv. 8. 13, 14, is a noun acc. f. sg. from μηλωτή. As we have mentioned above, the contiguity between “mantle” and “spirit” became very vague in LXX because of the difference in gender, unlike in MT. We can, however, speak about symbolism contiguity on the level of the narrative plot. The narrative fact that Elisha takes the mantle and hits the waters after the transition of power is common for MT and LXX. The mantle is therefore a symbol of the “heritage” and the “transmission of the prophetic power” because it is the only miraculous thing in the hands of Elisha which remains after Elijah.

4.4.11 Rolled Up (εἱλέω) in v. 8 The verbal form εἵλησεν is ind. aor. act. 3 c. sg. from εἱλέω. There is a stylistic contiguity between the term “rolled up” and the proper noun “Gilgal” in MT. This is not the case in LXX, unless we risk recognizing the similarity between 56 The intertextual research seems to confirm the “support” symbolism, i.e. fifty was a unit of young men preparing themselves to give a hand to their leader. Let us take, for example, the description of a Greek historian, Strabo: “And these teachers wake the boys up before dawn by the sound of brazen instruments, and assemble them in one place, as though for arming themselves or for a hunt; and then they divide the boys into companies of fifty, appoint one of the sons of the king or of a satrap as leader of each company, and order them to follow their leader in a race, having marked off a distance of thirty or forty stadia.” Geography XV 3 18.

Symbolism in LXX and Other Remarks

299

words based solely on the letter lambda. The verb examined, stylistically, is rather akin to the verb “smote,” i.e. ἐπάταξεν, which is not the case in MT.

4.4.12 Chariotry (ἅρμα) in vv. 11, 12 The form ἅρμα is a noun acc. n. sg. Its occ. in v. 11 seems to be allegoric (in the sense proposed by Goethe). The occ. in 12 is symbolic. The ambiguity between the allegoric interpretation and the symbolic one enhances the symbol, i.e. 3.3. The gender contiguity with the spirit is interesting. It underlines the symbolism of the transmission of the spirit in v. 12. The “chariot” seems, therefore, to be not only a symbol of “military power,” but also of “heritage.”57

4.5 Section Conclusions Many symbolical contiguities based on style in MT were not identified in LXX. There is no gender contiguity between the “whirlwind” and the “spirit,” or number contiguity between the “sky” and the “water”; or plot-​based contiguity between the “both” and the “renting into two pieces.” Furthermore, LXX avoids ambiguities, e.g. it uses “as if ” when referring to the sky; or “came” regarding the Sons of the Prophets. Furthermore, on the one hand, the etiological contiguity disappears in the case of Gilgal; on the other hand, LXX seems to strengthen the symbolism associated with Jericho (e.g. enhancement of the idea of proximity) and to neutralize the negative symbolism of Bethel (e.g. the common gender with Jericho). LXX applies the distance symbolism to the Jordan. New types of contiguity were identified, e.g. between “the spirit” and “the water.”

57 The chariot as a symbol of military power is based on war relations. For example, this is Herodotus’ description of the Persian ruler Xerxes traversing with his army at Hellespont. This occurs at the end of the description of a chariot (ἅρμα): “(…) After that, first came a thousand horsemen, chosen out of all Persians; next, a thousand spearmen, picked men like the others, carrying their spears reversed; and after them ten horses of the breed called Nesaean, equipped most splendidly… Behind these ten horses was the place of the sacred chariot (ἅρμα) of Zeus, drawn by eight white horses, with the charioteer following the horses on foot and holding the reins; for no mortal man may mount into that seat. After these came Xerxes himself in a chariot (ἅρματος) drawn by Nesaean horses; beside him was his charioteer, whose name was Patiramphes, the son of Otanes, a Persian.” Histories VII 40.

300

FROM NARRATIVE TO SYMBOLISM

5. Chapter Conclusions Let us present the result of our research on the symbolism in MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 in a table: categories elements examined + (I) – itinerary (H) – heritage (E) – etiology

weak allegory Bethel (I) Jericho (I)

strong allegory

weak symbol

strong symbol

protosymbol

Jordan (I) Sky (I)* Sons (H) Two (H) Spirit (H)** Mantle (H) Gilgal (E) Whirlwind (E) Chariotry (E) Rolled up (E)

Figure 43-VI.  Symbolism in MT of 2Kgs 2:1–18

The following issues need to be highlighted. Firstly, Gilgal is a proto-​symbol based on the etiological continguities with “whirlwind,” “chariotry” and “rolled up.” The etiological symbolism is the strongest in our narrative: two strong symbols and one strong allegory. This fact should be interpreted in the historical-​ critical context in further research. Secondly, the second strong symbolism is the heritage one. It hinges on two strong symbols and two strong allegories, i.e. spirit and mantle vs. sons and two. Let us remark that the spirit (**) seems to be an allegory of the whirlwind only in the “spirit of Yhwh” expression. Thirdly, the weakest symbolism seems to be the itinerary one: Bethel, Jericho, Sky, and the Jordan, which represent analogically two weak allegories, one weak symbol and one strong symbol. “Sky” (*) might be treated as a strong symbol if we admit its contiguity with “Yhwh.” It would, however, be an intertextual operation. Fourthly, we need to notice that Gilgal belongs both to the etiological and heritage categories (cf. 4.4.11), which enhances its strength as a symbol. Fifthly, we analyzed the elements which are essential for the construction of the plot, e.g. “breath” would

Chapter Conclusions

301

be classified as a heritage symbolism continguous with the “spirit.” There is, however, a problem with this continguity because the gender of “breath” seems to be m. in our narrative. Additionally, it is not a crucial element for the plot, so we put it aside. Sixthly, we might have proposed various symbolisms of the moral judgement: up/​down, close/​far, in/​toward etc. We treated them, however, as indices. Seventhly, LXX version, on the one hand, is less symbolical, because it avoids ambiguities; on the other hand, LXX creates new symbolic contiguities based on genders and (non)distance vocabulary. The crucial thing, however, is that LXX makes the Gilgal symbolism invisible (B even uses Jericho instead).

Conclusions and Proposals Narratological analysis of stylistic structures (particularly prolepsis, repetitions, simultaneity, points of view, analepsis) confirms that Elisha is the main figure of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. Moreover, we noticed that he is not only presented as the main but as the unique successor to Elijah and the figure with the executive power of the narrator (cf. 1. Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative). Furthermore, we proposed that the key to understanding the role of Elijah’s ascent within the narrative lies in the symbolism, connecting the narratological and historical-​critical strata of the text (cf. 2. Proto-​Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity). The analysis of the symbolism shows that Elijah’s ascent is rooted in a preexisting oral tradition(s), while the story referring to Elisha does not seem to be rooted in such a way. It is the preexistence of the oral tradition(s) which makes Elijah’s ascent aspect of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 so powerful and memorable that we tend to focus on it rather than on Elisha’s succession.

1. Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative Let us elaborate on the conclusions presented above. In each of the three scenes of the narrative, there are groups of dominant stylistic and structural features. After specifying these features, we will refer them to the narratological categories of space, time, and agents.

1.1 Complexity of Style and Structure The basic question which we need to pose in this conclusion regards the style and structure of the narrative in 2Kgs 2:1–​18. Are the style and structure naïve or elaborated? In other words, is it a simple narrative about Elijah and Elisha where other elements occur only because they are necessary to present the twosome? Or rather, is it a sophisticated story, where various elements are somehow elaborated and evaluated by the narrative? Let us summarize first the results of our investigation on the style and structure in a table:

304

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

Figure 43-VI. Continued Scene Verbal Structure Initial Quasi-Incident in v. 1 Initial Incident in v. 2

Plot Structure Exposition in v. 1

Scene I “From Gilgal to Jericho”

Inciting Moment in v. 2 Bethel1 Incident in v. 3 Complication Bethel2 Incident in v. 4 in v. 3–6 Jericho1 Incident in v. 5 Jericho2 Incident in v. 6

Scenes’ Structure vs. Style a) style – the narrative seems to use prolepsis in v. 1 as proleptic title, but in fact prolepsis fulfils other functions: sui temporis, it binds Scene I with Scene II (repetitions) and with Scene III (making a link with analepsis), cf. III 2.1; – there are eight repetitions of phrase patterns (some of them are verbatim): vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b; vv. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα; vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ; vv. 3aα, 5aα; vv. 3aβ, 5aβ; vv. 3b, 5b; vv.1a vs. 3aβ, 5aβ; vv. 1a vs. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα, cf. III 2.2. b) structure – there are only three types of narrator’s verbs: time, space, and speech, cf. III 1.1; – successive incidents can be grouped in nonoverlapping pairs, cf. III 1.3; – prolepsis modifies the struc­ ture of the narrative time, cf. III 2.2 – there are no multiple changes of the plot tension within one verse, i.e. short narration time, cf. III 3; – phenomenon of extended exposition was identified in vv. 1–6, cf. III 3.1; – structure of the plot corres­ ponds  to the structure of incidents and to the one based on verses (each incident corresponds precisely to one verse), cf. III 4;

Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative

305

Figure 43-VI. Continued

Scene II “At the Jordan River”

Scene Verbal Structure Introduction Incident in v. 7 First Crossing Incident in v. 8 Request Incident in vv. 9–10 Separation Incident in v. 11 Scream Incident in vv. 12–13

Second Crossing Incident in v. 14

Plot Structure

Scenes’ Structure vs. Style a) style – deed verbs as a new category of the narrator’s verbs is introduced along with the basic categories known from Turning Point in Scene I, cf. IV 1.1. vv. 9–11 – various expressions of simultaneity are used (mixing the durative and instantaneous Anagnorisis aspects), cf. IV 2.1; & Climax in – diversity of the viewpoints is v. 12aα used to make the anagnorisis Peripeteia in and peripeteia possible, cf. IV v. 12aβ 2.2; Pathos in in v. 12b – repetitions are used in turning point and denouement, cf. IV Denouement in vv. 3.2 13–15 – pathos was identified in the plot in v. 12b. It is unusual in HB context, cf. IV 3.2; – intelligent usage of maqqeph: v. 12 is the only verse without it, cf. V 3.1; b) structure – narrative complication and denouement link the scene with the neighboring scenes, cf. IV 3; – there are seven plot stages in the scene; a few of them (changes of the narrative tension) take place within two-verse-long incident based on verbal structure in vv. 12–13, cf. IV 3.2; – there is clear correspondence between the plot and incidents only in vv. 9–11, cf. IV Conclusions.

306

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

Scene III “From the Jordan to Jericho”

Scene Verbal Structure Proclamation (v. 15a) Request (vv. 15b–16) Aba-shment in v. 17a Research in v. 17b Return in v. 18

Plot Structure Conclusion in vv. 16–18

Scenes’ Structure vs. Style a) style – there are no time verbal patterns where the case in the previous scenes was not, cf. V 1.2; – analepsis is the central stylistic figure of the scene, cf. V 2.2; – analepsis is constructed as a play on the negative particles, cf. V 2.2.3; – play on letters introduces the reader to analepsis, cf. V 2.2.4; – direct expression of emotions, cf. V 1.4; b) structure – analepsis modifies the narra­ tion time structure, cf. V 2; – there is only one change between the plot stages within the scene, i.e. denouement finishes, and conclusion starts, in the middle of an incident V 3.

Figure 44  -Conc. Complexity of Style and Structure in 2Kgs 2:1–18

We see that the complexity of style and structure changes within the narrative (narration time). Apparently, the style of Scene I is naïvely simple, but, in fact, it is particularly complicated due to polyfunctional prolepsis and overlapping multifunctional repetitions (verbal and nonverbal). Someone might think that repetitions are rather a sign of simplicity. We have given, however, many examples of complexity of bits of information which are transmitted through the differences and similarities between variants, cf. III 2.2. Scene II diversifies the stylistic tools. Repetitions are only an element of the whole. The stylistic tool crucial for storytelling is the play of perspectives and the multiplication of plot stages. The variety of simultaneous time expressions is also of great importance. The most distinctive stylistic figure in Scene III is analepsis. Other analyzed stylistic patterns, i.e. the play on letters and particles, are not necessarily visible for the first-​time reader. Additionally, their functions are correlated with analepsis. The structure of the scenes can be specified analogically to the style. Apparently, Scene I has a naïve structure: the identified incidents can be easily

Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative

307

grouped in nonoverlapping pairs and the structure of the plot corresponds to the structure of incidents (and to the one based on verses, i.e. each incident corresponds precisely to one verse). Prolepsis, however, modifies the narrative time structure and relativizes the time references in that way that the structural aspect of the scene becomes sophisticated. The structure of Scene II is particularly sophisticated in the Scream Incident in which we deal with a cumulation of plot stages. Moreover, this middle scene starts as the continuation of the complication stage of the plot and finishes as the beginning of its denouement. Finally, Scene III’s structure seems to be naïve because there is only one change of plot stage (Request Incident). The structure of the narrative time is, however, modified by analepsis.

1.2 Relation between Basic Categories Noting that the style and structure are not naïve means that there is an elaborated logic within our narrative. In our case, the logic is based on hierarchy between crucial elements in the world of our narrative, cf. II 2.3. These crucial elements are time, space, and agents. The general rule, which emerges from the analysis of our narrative patterns, is of hierarchical nature, i.e. the narrative is oriented towards agents and space and not towards time. This distinguishes our narrative, for example, from many other Kgs stories more focused on time than on space (cf. 1Kgs 15–​16; 2Kgs 15). At the same time, it makes our narrative close to other narratives in the Elijah-​Elisha cycle (cf. Micaiah story in 1Kgs 22 or Ahaziah’s Death Story in 2Kgs 1). The hierarchical issues are visible in the example of the phenomena of prolepsis and repetitions. Prolepsis (used in v. 1a; classified as internal and repeating) not only modifies the presentation of the narrative time within the story (proleptic title), but it also relativizes this time (“When Yhwh”), cf. III 2.1. Furthermore, our polyfunctional prolepsis is not only repeated but also interpreted within the narrative, cf. III 2.2. For example, the relative idea of time introduced in the prolepsis is specified by the repetitions in vv. 1a, 3aβ, 5aβ (and later in v. 17). The situation is the same in the repetitions’ pattern in vv. 1a, 2aα, 4aα, 6aα. In this case, the issue of time is ignored. Other examples of focalization on space and not on time are non-​verbatim repetition in vv. 1b, 2b, 4b, 6b (cf. space verbs in III 1.1.2) and non-​verbatim repetition in vv. 3aα, 5aα. Finally, the category of agents occurs in all identified structures of repetitions. This is, therefore, the most important category. Additionally, we identified two repetitive structures where agents occur without references to space or time, i.e. verbatim repetitions in vv. 2aβ, 4aβ, 6aβ, and in vv. 3b, 5b.

308

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

The situation does not significatively change in the case of other analyzed patterns. The simultaneity patterns, which focus on the plot, introduce different localizations (Jordan in v. 7; heaven in v. 11) or agents (Sons of the Prophets in v. 7; Elijah, Elisha in v. 12), cf. IV 2.1. They are, however, not focused explicitly on time, even if they modify the narrative time to stress plot issues. Furthermore, we indicated clear changes of points of view on the temporal and spatial plane (terminology of Uspensky), cf. IV 2.2, e.g. in v. 7, we address the description of space, in which time was only deduced from the grammar structures. Both were used to describe the tension between agents. In v. 9, we were dealing with the reference to the sequence of events and not to the time as such. We have indicated various character-​elevating strategies, e.g. in vv. 12, 13, and 14. Finally, the main function of analepsis is focusing on Elisha, so on the agents’ level. Then it is also focusing on space by invoking the idea of movement preceded by the evocation of Jericho. The issue of time, used as a narrative tool of analepsis, and the mentioning of “three days” are not the objects of focalization. We see that the narrative is more focused on space than on time, but less than on agents. Let us see how the situation looks within these categories.

1.3 Hierarchy within the Category of Space Our study on the way in which our narrative evaluates places shows that there is a specific hierarchy within the category of space. In fact, Bethel and Jericho are juxtaposed within the narrative structures, cf. III 2.2; and the issue of the application of indices in VI 1. Let us briefly summarize the way of describing Bethel. It is described with the usage of distance expressions: “as far as” (‫)עד‬, “came out” (‫)ויצאו‬. It is also described with the usage of going down wording: “went down” (‫( )וירדו‬where the advanced reader expects “went up”). We concluded that Bethel is pictured as a mistrustful place. The result of the evaluation of Jericho is, however, different. Elijah is sent to Jericho (‫)ׁשלחני יריחו‬, and not “as far as.” Similarly, the twosome enter Jericho (‫)ויבאו יריחו‬, not “went down.” Therefore, there are no attempts to create an emotional distance. The closeness vocabulary was, however, identified. The Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho approach (‫ )ויגׁשו‬Elisha and not only “come out.” Finally, Elisha is in Jericho at the end of the narrative. Jericho is, then, pictured as a trustful place. The situation with Gilgal is, however, different to these two last spots. We only know that they were going from Gilgal. For some reason, it remains terse about the place mentioned in v. 1. Summing up, Jericho is pictured as more important than Bethel, but Gilgal is not evaluated.

Hierarchical Complexity of the Narrative

309

1.4 Hierarchy within the Category of Time We mentioned earlier that the time of the narrative is relative. In fact, we called this relativization sui temporis. This narrative technique permits us to separate the narrative time of the episode from the narrative time of previous episodes, cf. III 2.1.3. This is a general style of the Elijah–​Elisha cycles which is in contrast to the general style of the Kgs units, cf. III 2.1.1. Furthermore, we mentioned that the time of the narrative is specified twice. Firstly, when the Sons of the Prophets repeat that the master of Elisha is going to be taken “today,” cf. vv. 3, 5. Secondly, when the narrator mentioned that the fifty men were searching for Elijah for “three days,” cf. v. 17. Both specifications do not change the fact that the reader does not know when “today” or “three days” takes place. It is different in the case of places because, potentially, the reader can check where the geographical places are. Now, let us ask the question of whether there is any hierarchy between these time references. They are not evaluated by indices as Jericho or Bethel; the criterion of action, however, seems to be suitable for the evaluation. The action of vv. 3–​17a takes place “today,” and the action of vv. 17b takes place during “three days.” The time of action of vv. 1–​2, 18 is not specified. Summing up, the time of the narrative is relative, but the main focus is on “today,” which confirms the tendency of the narrative to minimize the focalization on time.

1.5 Hierarchy within the Category of Agents One may think that the hierarchy within the category of agents is presented as fixed in the exposition: Yhwh is mentioned first, then Elijah, then Elisha, and the Sons of the Prophets, cf. III 3.1. This hierarchy, however, is only the initial one. In fact, the final hierarchy seems to be identifiable thanks to a certain phenomenon of closeness to the narrator figure. Firstly, we may think about Yhwh as the closest figure to the narrator. One of the reasons for this is Sternberg’s attribution of the feature of omniscience to the biblical narrator and to Yhwh (cf. III 2.1.1). It is, however, difficult to copy to the exegesis of our text, even if we resolve the analogical-​ideological resemblance problems.1 The main reason is that Yhwh does not speak within the narrative. Moreover, while we find references to Yhwh in the voices of other 1

An exemplary problem between the analogical and the ideological resemblance comes from the shocking comparison between 2Sam and 1Chr where, in the analogical structures, the word “God” in 2Sam 24:1 corresponds to the word “Satan” in 1Chr 21:1. On the ideological level, these two figures are clear contradictions. This, however, does not seem to be clear to the narrator.

310

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

narrative figures, his actual presence within the story is not obvious. In fact, this ambiguity is used by the storyteller to lengthen the moment of the identification of the heir cf. I 2.2; IV 3.2. Furthermore, there are only single references to Yhwh in Scenes II and III. Secondly, let us ask if Elijah can be considered the closest figure to the narrator. Unlike Yhwh, Elijah speaks in the narrative and, furthermore, he is the speaker who initiates conversations. These are, however, only conversations with Elisha. Can he therefore be associated with the narrator? Well, Elijah talks only to Elisha. Therefore, he could be the narrator of the story of Elisha. Elijah initiates his talk to Elisha in vv. 2a, 4a, 6a (cf. III 2.2.2), informing him that he is sent respectively to Bethel, Jericho, and the Jordan. Each time, this is new information for Elisha. It is not the case in v. 9, where Elijah repeats the information already given in the narrator’s text and in the text of the Sons of the Prophets. In v. 10, again, putting the condition, he plays the role of the narrator. The problem, however, with Elijah is that he disappears in the middle of Scene II and is only alluded to in Scene III. His association with the proper narrator is therefore difficult. Thirdly, there are two groups of the Sons of the Prophets in the narrative. The Sons of the Prophets who were in Bethel occur in v. 3 as the first group. They ask Elisha about the departure of Elijah, which might be new information for him. Even if the answer confirms his awareness about the departure of his master, the Sons of the Prophets who were in Bethel seem to try to narrate the flow of events to Elisha. This group does not recur in our narrative. The second group are the Sons of the Prophets who were in Jericho. They occur in v. 5 in the same way as the former group. This group, however, recurs in v. 15, where they interpret the sign of dividing the waters. Successively, they try to interpret the departure of Elijah as temporal. They strongly claim, therefore, to be associated with the narrator. Finally, Elisha is a strange agent. In Scene I, he only answers to demands and the reader may wonder what Elisha is doing in the narrative at all, cf. III 3.2.2. Apparently, he cannot be associated with the narrator because he is not guiding others through the flow of the events. He is active, however, in all the conversations which take place. The dialogue of Scene II resembles that of Scene I, i.e. Elisha is answering the question. After the ascent, however, Elisha gives two short monologues (vv. 12 and 14). It seems, therefore, that this is the moment when he becomes the agent who can be associated with the narrator. Scene III,

Proto-Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity

311

however, starts with a monologue of the Sons of the Prophets, followed by their request to Elisha and his answer. At the end of Scene III, therefore, we are dealing with a kind of competition between Elisha and the Sons of the Prophets who better understand the flow of events. The result of this competition is visible in v. 18, where we are dealing with analepsis. The negative expression “Do not go” (‫)לא תׁשלחו‬, used by Elisha, is contrasted with the one used by the Sons of the Prophets in v. 16, i.e. “You shall not send” (‫)אל־תלכו‬. Elisha shows that he is the one who understands the new reality of the narrative. He becomes, therefore, the agent who is closest to the omniscient narrator. What is more, his analeptic words in v. 18 are juxtaposed with the proleptic text of the narrator in v. 1, and to him belongs the last word in our story. In this sense, he not only replaces his master but, as the narrator-​like figure, he becomes more than Elijah used to be before his ascent. We see, therefore, that our narrative is not only about becoming the heir of Elijah, but also about the process of becoming the most powerful in the story.

2. Proto-​Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity We see that the complexity of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 can be explained on the narratological level. This explanation is, however, not satisfactory for someone who expects historical-​critical data. Is it possible, then, to use the narratological data to reconstruct the history of the redaction of the text? How can we use the pieces of information about the narratological tools and the hierarchy between (and within) the categories of agents, space, and time? In fact, it is the application of elaborate proto-​symbolism theory which will help us to make the transition between the narratological and the historical-​critical data. To see how it works, we need to define the literary genre of the narrative and allude to the theories of Rofé and Schmitt.

2.1 Literary Genre of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 To define the literary genre of our narrative, let us look at the examples of the tools used by the episodes which are closest to 2Kgs 2:1–​18, i.e. the Death of Ahaziah in 2Kgs 1:1–​18 and the Transitional Cycle in 1Kgs 19:19–​21, 2Kgs 2:19–​ 22, and 2Kgs 2:23–​25. We will classify these episodes referring to five categories discussed in our dissertation, i.e. prolepsis, repetitions, simultaneity, points of view, analepsis:

analepsis

viewpoints

simultaneity

repetitions prolepsis w.

312

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS 1Kgs 19:19–​21 3 verses

2Kgs 1:1–​18 18 verses

2Kgs 2:19–​22 3 verses

2Kgs 2:23–​25 3 verses

no initial prolepsis

no initial prolepsis; only a time reference

no initial prolepsis

no initial prolepsis

no phrase repetitions

phrase repetitions in vv. 3, 6, 16; vv. 9, 11, 13; vv. 10, 12

no phrase repetitions

no phrase repetitions

simultaneity in v. 19

simultaneity in vv. 3, 5, 6, 9, 16 (?)

simultaneity in v. 19

simultaneity in v. 24

change of focalization in v. 19 (?)

change of focalization change of in v. 9, 14 (?) focalization in v. 19

change of focalization in v. 24 (?)

no final analepsis no final analepsis; no final only final words of the analepsis; only prophet final words of the prophet

no final analepsis

Figure 45  -​Conc. Literary Genre of 2Kgs 2:1–​18

Our episode is thematically close to the other ones in the table: the motif of discipleship of Elisha is central for 1Kgs 19:19–​21; the motif of Jericho to 2Kgs 2:19–​22; and the motif of Bethel for 2Kgs 2:23–​25, cf. chiasms in II 2.1. 2Kgs 1:1–​ 18 seems to be less connected to our episode on the level of motifs. Nevertheless, if we look at the style and structure of episodes, it is the episode in 2Kgs 1 that is the most similar to ours. The crucial resemblances are as follows: number of verses, time reference at the beginning of the narrative; developed structures of repetitions; words of the prophet at the end. Furthermore, the style and structure of 1Kgs 19:19–​21, 2Kgs 2:19–​22, 2Kgs 2:23–​25 are different: three verses long; no equivalents of initial prolepsis; no phrase repetitions; and, with one exception, no equivalents of the final analepsis. If we want to classify them using Rofé’s criteria, we should call them legends. The episode about the death of Ahaziah is an elaborated legend. Furthermore, Rofé says that the story in 2Kgs 2:1–​18 was created entirely as a part of vita on the base of oral tradition(s), cf. II 1.3.1. We

Proto-Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity

313

will argue, however, that, before becoming a part of vita, our narrative passed through the stage of legenda and elaborated legenda.

2.2 Three Etymological Traditions To understand the gradual change of the literary genre, we need to pass to the proto-​symbolism issues. On the one hand, we observed that Gilgal (‫ )הגלגל‬is the second place, after the sky, mentioned in the narrative’s exposition. On the other hand, we called Gilgal “proto-​symbol” on the basis of its phonetic similarity to the synonyms of two words essential for the narrative, and to one word occurring in it, cf. VI 3.1.4. Firstly, it contains the same set of the consonants as ‫( גלגל‬MT: ‫)ּגַלְ ּגַל‬, synonym of ‫סערה‬, understood as “whirlwind.” Secondly, it contains the same set of consonants as ‫( גלגל‬MT: ‫)ּגִ לְ ּגָל‬, synonym of ‫רכב‬, understood as “chariotry.” Thirdly, we also noticed that there is a phonetic similarity (alliteration) between Gilgal and the form ‫( ויגלם‬MT: ‫)וַּיִ גְ ֹלם‬, used in 2Kgs 2:8, understood as “rolled up.” The question is how can we interpret this data? We propose that each of these terms, referring to Gilgal, is a trace of an oral tradition which was memorized and transmitted thanks to the mentioned similarities. These similarities would become practically invisible in the process of adaptation to the language understandable to the audience/​readers. The three traditions are as follows: the chariotry tradition; the whirlwind tradition; the rolled-​mantle tradition. To understand this phenomenon, let us refer now to the research of H.-​Ch. Schmitt on the redaction of 2Kgs 2:1–​18.

2.3 Elaboration of the Traditions Schmitt, who entered into dialogue with the research of Gunkel and Galling, concluded that 2Kgs 2:1–​18 was developed in four different stages (as a part of the 1Kgs 19:19–​21 and 2Kgs 2:1–​25 ensemble), cf. II 1.2. Apparently, this theory cannot be reconciled with that of Rofé (2Kgs 2:1–​18 is due to one redactor who worked at the end of the creation of the cycles), cf. II 1.3. Let us, however, recall that Rofé has also elaborated the theory of three stages of the development of the stories of the Elijah-​Elisha cycles, recently quoted in 2.1: legends develop into elaborated legends to finally be developed as a part of vita. It seems that these stages can be identified within Schmitt’s theory in the following fashion: a) legenda (the succession issues) corresponds to: vv. 1b .7–​11a.12aδ-​14 (without ‫)יהוה‬.15 (without ‫;)אׁשר־ביריחו‬ b) elaborated legenda corresponds to: vv. 1a .11b .12aαβγ (the heavenly ascent issues); vv. 2–​6 . ‫ יהוה‬in v. 14 . ‫ אׁשר־ביריחו‬in v. 15; (the Yhwh-​Jericho issues)

314

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

c) vita corresponds to: the later addition in vv. 16–​18 (the research issues). The essential thing is that we accept Schmitt’s proposal, that the first stage of the development of the text did not contain the tradition of the whirlwind (vv. 1a .11b). The reason for this is that other texts of the Elijah-​Elisha cycles did not refer to the ascent of Elijah. It is unlikely then that the heavenly ascent issues were known to the writers taking care of Sukzessorsammlung. We identified this stage with legenda. Furthermore, we think that the heavenly ascent ideas were incorporated together with the Yhwh-​Jericho issues at the stage called elaborated legenda. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, the heavenly ascent is discussed in vv. 2–​6, so it makes its later incorporation unlikely, cf. structures of repetition in III. On the other hand, that the term “Yhwh” occurs in v. 1a is a serious argument for the common emendation, cf. Łach in II 1.3.2. Finally, as a major part of the exegetes, we think that the research issues in vv. 16–​18 were incorporated at the last stage of the development of the narrative and that they were embedded integrally. We suggest that this stage can be identified with vita, i.e. the long narrative which represents the totality of the known life events. Now, like Rofé, we think that a few oral traditions might be incorporated into the creation of 2Kgs 2:1–​18. We think, however, that it took place on different stages of the development of the text. They might correspond to the relations within the proto-​symbolic structure which we identified in V 3. The term “Gilgal” would have been explained at the same time by the chariotry tradition, and by the whirlwind tradition, and by the rolled-​mantle tradition. These traditions would be incorporated in our episode at different stages of its development as follows: –​ the chariotry and rolled-​mantle traditions belong to the legend stage of the development of the episode; –​ the whirlwind tradition belongs to the stage of the elaborated legend. If we juxtapose the results of our research on proto-​symbolism with our version of Schmitt’s proposal, we arrive at the following:

Proto-Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity Modified Schmitt’s Proposal a) the succession issues (vv. 1b .7–​11a.12aδ–​14 (without ‫)יהוה‬.15 (without ‫))אׁשר־ביריחו‬ b) the heavenly ascent issues (vv. 1a .11b .12aαβγ) the Yhwh-​Jericho issues (vv. 2–​6 . ‫ יהוה‬in v. 14 . ‫ אׁשר־ביריחו‬in v. 15) c) the research issues (vv. 16–​18)

315

Proto-​Symbolism the chariotry tradition the rolled mantle tradition the whirlwind tradition ? ?

Figure 46  -​Conc. Modified Schmitt’s Proposal vs. Proto-​Symbolism

Let us comment on issues connected to this table. Firstly, the chariotry tradition, which is mentioned in the table, refers only to the chariotry which separates the twosome in v. 11. The title of Elijah, given to him by Elisha, was most probably taken from the scene of the death of Elisha in 2Kgs 13, cf. VI 3.3.1. Furthermore, the rolled mantle tradition is problematic because it apparently refers to the staff of Moses but, in fact, the existing tradition might only have been synchronized with the Moses one, cf. II 1.3.3; V 1.1.4. In any case, both oral traditions might have been known to the editor of the written legend. Thirdly, the whirlwind tradition is another problematic one. Schmitt suggested that the proleptic title in v. 1a was emended together with the description of taking Elisha to the sky in v. 11b, while scholars, such as Galling, opted for the later emendation of the proleptic title. Our research, however, confirms Schmitt’s thesis. The structure in Judg 13:20 would be the textual pattern which was used for the creation of v. 1a.11b, cf. I 2.1.2. In this case, the oral tradition, which we may call “Heaven for Elijah” (cf. the title of the dissertation), explained the name of “Gilgal” through the story about the ascent of Elijah to heaven in the whirlwind. This story would be incorporated in Elijah’s legend with the usage of the vocabulary and syntax of Judg 13:20. It is an argument for the larger time space between two editions. The second editor was looking for an older language pattern. For the reason given earlier, we think that the editor, inserting the whirlwind tradition into the narrative, is also responsible for the insertion of the Jhwh-​ Jericho issues (vv. 2–​6 . ‫ יהוה‬in v. 14 . ‫ אׁשר־ביריחו‬in v. 15). This emendation may be explained by the change of place attributed to Gilgal, cf. Foresti proposal in VI 3.1.3. Using our terminology, we will call this phenomenon a change from Gilgal non-​4:19 to Gilgal 4:19 (the name by analogy to Josh 4:19). Why might this

316

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

change have taken place? The proposal of our answer is based on the results of our research. On the one hand, in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, we saw in the first part of the conclusion that the narrative is radically more focused on space than time; and that Jericho is evaluated positively within the story, unlike Bethel, while Gilgal is not evaluated. On the other hand, in 1.2 and 1.5, we saw how priority is given to the agents and particularly to Elisha. Now, if we attribute Elijah’s traditions mentioned above (chariot, rolled mantle, and whirlwind) to Gilgal non-​4:19, the emendation is their reattribution to Gilgal 4:19, so the place associated with Jericho and Elisha. Furthermore, the minimalization of the importance of time is due to the necessity of binding two distant-​in-​time layers of time. Josiah’s reform (640–​609 BCE) seems to be a good candidate as a reference point for the dating of this emendation because of the condemning of the Yhwh cult practices in the former sanctuaries (cf. Stipp proposal in II 1.1; and the last occ. of the word ‫ הׁשמים‬in Kgs in VI 1.4.3). This reform might be a good support for the development and application of more advanced forms of writing as the ones in this emendation needed for creation of the elaborated legenda. The advance narrative techniques used by this editor and analyzed in our dissertation are listed here: vv. 1a .11b vv. 2–​6 v. 12aαβγ

polyfunctional structure of prolepsis, cf. III 2.1 polyfunctional structure of repetitions, cf. III 2.2 gradual structure of simultaneity, cf. III 2.1

Figure 47  -​Conc. Advance Narrative Techniques in 2Kgs 2 :1–​18

The last thing which supports the Josiah dating is the observation that the movement between Gilgal non-​4:19 to Gilgal 4:19 may be connected with the invasion of Samaria by the Assyrians (cf. vocabulary analysis in IV 1.1.3). The last emendation tells the story of the research of Elijah by the 50 men in vv. 16–​18. This emendation may be created without a preceding oral tradition, as a part of vita, connecting various text into the early version of Kgs with the Elijah-​Elisha cycle in it, i.e. it is connected with 2Kgs 1 and 2Kgs 2:1–​15 by a chiastic structure, cf. II 2.1. The narration of vv. 16–​18 is stylistically different from the other parts of the text (a long speech in v. 16; direct expression of emotions in v. 17, cf. V 3.2), therefore the author/​editor of these lines is different from the one who elaborated our legenda. It does not mean that they come from completely different scribal schools. The usage of multifunctional analepsis analogues to the opening prolepsis might be an indication of the same scribal school, which we identify as Dtr. The function of vv. 16–​18 is, however, different. The examination

Proto-Symbolism vs. Hierarchical Complexity

317

of the heritage symbolism helped us to understand that this fragment was written to prove that Elisha is the unique heir to the prophet Elijah. Its editor was no more interested in removing the cult from the sanctuary of Gilgal than was the previous editor.

2.4 Further Study Options In the end, let us enumerate a few points marking the perspective of further research. Firstly, the results of the application of the narratological and semiotic aspects of our methodology to other biblical narratives, particularly those in the Elijah-​Elisha cycles, is pertinent. Secondly, our research on plot stages, repetitions, points of view, types of verbs provides a good base for the characterological analyses of the agents (emotional, intellectual, or moral pictures). At this point, we refer especially to the research with the help of functions and indices developed by Todorov, cf. VI 1. Thirdly, we introduced three theological motifs, i.e. ascent to heaven, cf. II 2.1; presence of Yhwh in the prophet, cf. II 2.2 and II 2.3; and relation between the narrator and Yhwh as an agent. Nevertheless, these are only examples of pertinent theological topics. Other topics to be discussed are as follows: human freedom vs. divine plan; resistance to the spiritual fatherhood; or the theology of dialogue in the narrative. Fourthly, inter-​cultural studies are pertinent: occurrence of the elements known from the Greek tragedies and historiography, e.g. chorus, fate, crossing waters; the occurrence of the Egyptian and Greek motif of the heavenly ascent. Fifthly, a large intertextual study on our episode is to be continued, particularly on connections with Gen 22, cf. III 2.1; Josh 3 and 12, cf. IV 1.1.2, V 3.1; 2Sam 15–​19, cf. I 2.2; 1Kgs 17–​19.21, cf. II 1.1; 2Kgs 1 and 3, cf. II 1.3; 2Kgs 4–​13, cf. IV 1.2.4. The text which is especially pertinent here is Judg 13, cf. I 2.1.

Transliterations Hebrew Consonants –​Simplified Transliteration (TCHB) ‫א‬

’

‫ל‬

l

‫ּב‬

b

‫מ‬, ‫ם‬

m

‫ב‬

b

‫ן‬, ‫נ‬

n

‫ּג‬

g

‫ס‬

s

‫ג‬

g

‫ע‬

‘

‫ּד‬

d

‫ּפ‬

p

‫ד‬

d

‫פ‬

p

‫ה‬

h

‫צ‬

‫ו‬

w

‫ק‬

ṣ

‫ז‬

z

‫ר‬

r

‫ח‬

H

‫ׂש‬

ś

‫ט‬

ṭ

‫ׁש‬

š

y

‫ּת‬

t

‫ּכ‬

k

‫ת‬

t

‫ך‬, ‫כ‬

k

‫י‬

q

Hebrew Vowels –​Simplified Transliteration ֲ

a

ִ

i

ַ

a

‫ִ י‬

î

ָ

a

ֳ

o

‫ׇ י‬

â

ָ

o

‫ָ ה‬

ah

ׂ

o

ְ

e

‫וֹ‬

ô

ֶ

e

‫ׂ ה‬

oh

ֵ

e

ֻ

u

‫ֵי‬

ê

‫וּ‬

û

‫ֵה‬

eh

320

Transliterations

Greek Letters Transliteration α

a

ν

n

β

b

ξ

x

γ

g

ο

o

δ

d

π

p

ε

e

ρ

r

ζ

z

σ, ς

s

η

ê

τ

t

θ

th

υ

u

ι

i

φ

ph

κ

k

χ

ch

λ

l

ψ

ps

μ

m

ω

ô

Hebrew Terms selected stems’ names (Binyanim)

qal, niphal, piel, pual, hiphil, hophal, hithpael, hishtaphel

Hebrew letters’ names

aleph, bet, gimel, dalet, he, waw, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaph, lamed, mem, nun, samek, ayin, pe, tsade, qopf, resh, sin, shin, taw

selected verbal forms

qatal, weqatalti, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, weyiqtol, qotel

selected signs

shewa, dagesh, patah, qames, ṣere, segol, holem, quibbus, maqqeph

Figures Figure 1-​I Figure 2-​I Figure 3-​I Figure 4-​II Figure 5-​II Figure 6-​II Figure 7-​II Figure 8-​II Figure 9-​II Figure 10-​II Figure 11-​II Figure 12-​II Figure 13-​III Figure 14-​III Figure 15-​III Figure 16-​III Figure 17-​III Figure 18-​III Figure 19-​III Figure 20-​III Figure 21-​III Figure 22-​III Figure 23-​III Figure 24-​III Figure 25-​III Figure 26-​III Figure 27-​III Figure 28-​IV Figure 29-​IV Figure 30-​IV Figure 31-​IV Figure 32-​IV Figure 33-​IV Figure 34-​IV Figure 35-​IV Figure 36-​IV Figure 37-​IV

MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 and Its Translation �������������������������������  45 Modifications of ‫ ׁשמים‬by ‫ עלה‬in BHS ����������������������������������  50 Modification of ‫ הׁשמימה‬by the Verb ‫  ������������������������������ עלה‬51 Lundbom’s Chiasm ����������������������������������������������������������������  89 Hobbs’ Chiasm �����������������������������������������������������������������������  90 Long’s Chiasm ������������������������������������������������������������������������  91 Long’s Abbreviated Chiasm ��������������������������������������������������  92 Long’s Proposal �����������������������������������������������������������������������  96 DeVries’s Proposal ������������������������������������������������������������������  97 Closure Categories �����������������������������������������������������������������  99 Triple Cycle ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 Narratological Division Vs. Historical-​Critical Division  110 The Scheme of the Title in 2Kgs 2:1a ��������������������������������  128 The Four Speeches of the Narrator ������������������������������������  133 The Three Requests of Elijah ����������������������������������������������  134 The Core of the Three Requests of Elijah ��������������������������  135 The Three Answers of Elisha ����������������������������������������������  137 The Core of the Three Answers of Elisha ��������������������������  138 The Two Speeches of the Narrator �������������������������������������  138 Variants of the Two Speeches of the Narrator ������������������  139 The Core of the Two Speeches of the Narrator ����������������  139 The Two Questions of the Sons of the Prophets ��������������  140 The Two Answers of Elisha �������������������������������������������������  142 A Nonverbal Phenomenon in vv.1a vs. 3aβ, 5aβ �������������  143 A Nonverbal Phenomenon in vv. 1a vs. 2aα, 4aα, 6aα ����  143 Incidents, Stages, Repetitions in Scene I ���������������������������  164 Repetitions vs. Stages in Scene I �����������������������������������������  166 Structure of v. 7 ��������������������������������������������������������������������  191 Two Events in v. 7 �����������������������������������������������������������������  193 Structure of v. 11a ����������������������������������������������������������������  195 Structure of v. 12aα ��������������������������������������������������������������  200 Syntax of v. 7 �������������������������������������������������������������������������  202 Syntax of v. 11aα �������������������������������������������������������������������  202 Syntax of v. 12aα �������������������������������������������������������������������  202 Simultaneity in v. 7 ���������������������������������������������������������������  203 Simultaneity in v. 11aα ��������������������������������������������������������  203 Simultaneity in v. 12aα ��������������������������������������������������������  203

324 Figure 38-​IV Figure 39-​IV Figure 40-​V Figure 41-​V Figure 42-​VI Figure 43-​VI Figure 44-​Conc. Figure 45-​Conc. Figure 46-​Conc. Figure 47-​Conc.

FIGURES

Incidents, Stages vs. Simultaneity in Scene II �������������������  220 Stages vs. Points of View in Scene II ����������������������������������  221 Structure of v. 18 ������������������������������������������������������������������  240 Incidents vs. Plot Stages in Scene III ���������������������������������  255 4βασιλέων 2:1–​18 and Its Translation �������������������������������  292 Symbolism in MT of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 �������������������������������������  300 Complexity of Style and Structure in 2Kgs 2:1–​18 ����������  306 Literary Genre of 2Kgs 2:1–​18 �������������������������������������������  312 Modified Schmitt’s Proposal vs. Proto-​Symbolism ���������  315 Advance Narrative Techniques in 2Kgs 2 :1–​18 ��������������  316

Bibliography Bible Source Texts The Aleppo Codex: Provided With Massoretic Notes and Pointed by Aaron Ben Asher the Codex Considered Authoritive by Maimonides (Hebrew Edition). Edited by Moshe H. Goshen-​Gottstein. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1976. The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Edited by Alexander Sperber. Vol. 1–​3, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. Codex Alexandrinus (Royal Ms. 1 D V–VIII) in Reduced Photographic Facsimile: Old Testament. Part II. 1 Samuel –​2 Chronicles. Edited by Frederic G. Kenyon. London: British Museum, 1930. Facsimile. Codex Cairo of the Bible: From the Karaite Synagoge at Abbasiya. The earliest extant Hebrew Manuscript Written in 895 by Moshe ben Asher. Edited by The Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Makor Publishing, 1971. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997. The Later Historical Books: I and II Kings. The Old Testament in Greek. According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented From Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. Edited by Alan England Brooke, Henry Saint John Thackeray and Norman McLean. Vol. 2, Cambridge: University Press, 1930. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck and James A. Sanders. Leiden: Eerdmans; Brill, 1998. Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira: Traducción y notas. Edited by Victor Morla. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2012. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Edited by Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1900. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Ralphs. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta interpretum olim ad fidem codicis ms. Alexandrini. Edited by Johann Jacob Breitinger and Johann Ernst Grabe. Tiguri Helvetiorum: Joannis Heideggeri & Soc., 1730.

326

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bible Translations Biblia das ist die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deutsch. Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1545. The Holy Bible Quatercentenary Edition: An Exact Reprint in Roman Type Page for Page, Line for Line, and Letter for Letter of the King James Version Otherwise Known as the Authorized Version. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1611. Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Anglicized Edition ed. London: SPCK, 1995. La Bible de Jérusalem. Translated by Ecole biblique de Jérusalem. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2011. La Sacra Bibbia: Edizione ufficiale della CEI. Roma: Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, 1983. New American Standard Bible. Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications, 1995. The New Jerusalem Bible: Study Edition. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1994. New King James Version: The Holy Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982. Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu: W Przekładzie z Języków Oryginalnych. Edited by Zespół Biblistów Polskich z Inicjatywy Benedyktynów Tynieckich. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Pallottinum, 2008.

Non-​Biblical Source Texts The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Edited by Raymond O. Faulkner. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Edited by Raymond O. Faulkner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James Bennett Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. The Apocalypse of Elijah: Based on P. Chester Beatty 2018. [in Coptic]. Edited by Albert Pietersma, Susan Turner Comstock and Harold W. Attridge. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Apokryfy Starego Testamentu. Edited by Ryszard Rubinkiewicz and Andrzej Kondracki. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Vocatio, 2007. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Edited by Albert Kirk Grayson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition. Edited by Matthew Black. Leiden: Brill, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

The Book of the Dead: The Hieroglyphic Transcript of the Papyrus of Ani. Edited by Ernest Wallis Budge. New York: University Books, 1960. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Jozef Milik. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Die hebräische Elias-​Apokalypse und ihre Stellung in der apokalyptischen Litteratur des rabbinischen Schrifttums und der Kirche: Kritische Ausgabe mit Erläuterungen, sprachlichen Untersuchungen, und einer Einleitung, nebst Übersetzung und Untersuchung der Abfassungszeit. [in Hebrew, English]. Edited by Moses Buttenwieser. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897. Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta. Edited by Herman Vanstiphout. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. The Lachish Letters. Edited by Harry Torczyner and Naphtali Herz Tur-​Sinai. London; New York; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1938. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Edited by Jean-​Jacques Glassner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Pahlavi Texts. Edited by Edward William West. Cambridge: The Clarendon Press, 2013. Pisma apokaliptyczne i testamenty. Edited by Marek Parchem. Kraków; Mogilany: Enigma Press, 2010. Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXII. Edited by George Brooke, John Collins, Torleif Elgvin, Peter Flint, Jonas Greenfield, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, et al. Vol. 3, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Edited by Mark S. Smith and Wayne Thomas Pitard Vol. 1–​2. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1994; 2009.

Commentaries Abravanel, Isaac. Commentary on the Former Prophets [Perush `al Nevi’im Rishonim]. [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Torah ve-​Da`at, 1955. Burney, Charles Fox. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. The Anchor Bible 11. Garden City: Doubleday, 1988. Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. DeVries, Simon John. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985. Driver, Samuel Rolles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary 34. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902.

328

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grabbe, Lester L. 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Study Guide. History and Story in Ancient Israel. T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament. London: Bloomsbury; T&T Clark, 2016. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1970. Gunkel, Hermann. Ausgewählte Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904. —​—​—​. Genesis. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. —​—​—​. Genesis: Übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1. 2 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. Hobbs, Trevor Raymond. 2 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 13. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985. Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings. New Century Bible Commentary: Based on the Revised Standard Version. Vol. 1–​2, Grand Rapids; London: Eerdmans; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984. Keil, Carl Friedrich. The Books of the Kings. Biblical Commmentary on the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872. Kittel, Rudolf. Die Bücher der Könige. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Lemaire, André, Baruch Halpern, and Matthew Joel Adams, eds. The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Long, Burke O. 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. —​—​—​. 2 Kings. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Montgomery, James Alan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960. Noth, Martin. Könige. Biblischer Kommentar des Altes Testament 9. Vol. 1, Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968. Provan, Iain W. 1 & 2 Kings. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Šanda, Albert. Die Bücher der Könige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9. Vol. 1–​2, Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–​1912. Skinner, John. Kings: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes, Index, and Map. The New Century Bible. New York; Oxford; Edinburgh: H. Frowde; Oxford University Press; T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1893.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

329

Sperber, Daniel. A Commentary on Derekh Eretz Zuta. Ramat-​Gan: Bar-​Ilan University Press, 1990. Thenius, Otto. Die Bücher der Könige. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1873. Würthwein, Ernst. Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17 –​ 2. Kön. 25. Das Alte Testament deutsch 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Dictionaries and Grammars Abrams, Meyer Howard, and Geoffrey Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2015. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by Erica Reiner and Martha T. Roth. Vol. 1–​21, Chicago; Gluckstadt: The Oriental Institute; J. J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1956–​2011. Bailly, Anatole. Dictionnaire grec-​français. Paris: Hachette, 1899. Baldick, Chris. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. The Enhanced Brown-​Driver-​Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Logos Research Systems, 2000. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Edited by Jeremy Black, Andrew George, John Nicholas Postgate and Tina Breckwoldt. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000. Davidson, Andrew B. Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Handbook of Oriental Studies 112. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar: Edited and Enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. Głowiński, Michał, Teresa Kostkiewiczowa, Alesandra Okopień-​Sławińska, and Janusz Sławiński. Słownik terminów literackich. Vademecum Polonisty. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Osslińskich, 2008. Gordon, Cyrus Herzl. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998. Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Jenni, Ernst. Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Neubearbeitung des “Hebräischen Schulbuchs” von Hollenberg-​Budde. Basel: Helbig & Lichtenhahn, 1981.

330

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Translated and Revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia biblica 27. 3 ed. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [A-​ E]. Edited by Ephraim Stern and Ayelet Leṿinzon-​Gilboʻa. 5 vols. Vol. 1, Jerusalem: The Israel Exloration Society & Carta, 1993. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land [E-​J]. Edited by Ephraim Stern and Ayelet Leṿinzon-​Gilboʻa. 5 vols. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: The Israel Exloration Society & Carta, 1993. Oxford Dictionary of English. Edited by Angus Stevenson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. Vol. 3, Oxford: University Press, 1997. Steingass, Francis Joseph. The Student’s Arabic-​English Dictionary. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1884. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Classical Works Aristotle. “Poetics.” Loeb Classical Library 23. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999. Augustine, of Hippo. “De doctrina christiana.” Translated by R. P. H. Green. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Flaubert, Gustave. “Un coeur simple.” Paris: Flammarion, 2015. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. “Maxims and Reflections.” Penguin Classics. Suffolk: Penguin, 1998. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. “Schriften zur Kunst. Schriften zur Literatur. Maximen und Reflexionen.” Goethes Werke 12. Hamburg: Christian Wegner Verlag, 1982. Herodotus. “The Persian Wars: Books 5–​7.” Translated by A. D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library 119. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922. Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews: Books 9–​11.” Loeb Classical Library 326. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

Plato. “Republic: Books 6–10.” Translated by Chris Emlyn-​Jones and William Preddy. Loeb Classical Library 276. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013. Plutarch. “On the Daimonion of Socrates.” Translated by Heinz-​Günther Nesselrath. Sapere 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Proust, Marcel. “À la recherche du temps perdu.” Paris: Gallimard, 1913–​1927. Sophocles. “Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus.” Loeb Classical Library 20. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press, 1994. Spinoza. “Theological-​Political Treatise.” Collected Works of Spinoza. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2016. Strabo. “Geography.” Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Loeb Classical Library 50. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1954.

Books Adamczewski, Bartosz. Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-​Numbers, and Samuel-​ Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012. Alonso-Schökel, Luis. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988. Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Biblical Seminar 9. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. —​—​—​. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1–2, Munchen: Beck, 1953. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 2011. —​—​—​. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985. Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. Janua Linguarum: Series Practica 231. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1980. Austin, John Langshaw. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Bachofen, Johann Jakob. Myth, Religion, and Mother Right. Mythos: Bollingen series 84. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. —​—​—​. Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten. Basel: Bahnmaier, 1859. Bar-Efrat, Shimeon. Narrative Art in the Bible. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008.

332

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. Orbis biblicus et orientalis. Vol. 50/​1, Fribourg; Göttingen: Editions Universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. —​—​—​. Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. —​—​—​. Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Textual criticism and the translator 3. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Barwik, Mirosław. Księga wychodzenia za dnia: Tajemnice egipskiej Księgi Umarłych. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 2009. Beauchamp, Paul. L’un et l’autre Testament: Accomplir les Ecritures. Parole de Dieu 28. Vol. 2, Paris: Seuil, 1990. Berlin, Adele. Enmerkar and Ensuḫkešdanna: A Sumerian Narrative Poem. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 2. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1979. —​—​—​. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series 9. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Burke, Kenneth. Counter-​Statement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Campbell, Antony F. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth Century Document (1 Samuel 1–​2 Kings 10). The Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Monograph Series 17. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986. Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Cassuto, Umberto. Biblical and Canaanite Literatures: Studies on the Bible and Ancient Orient. 1. Edited by Studies on the Bible and Ancient Orient. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1972. Chatman, Seymour Benjamin. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Chernov, Ghelly V. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-​Prediction Model. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2004. Chrostowski, Waldemar. Asyryjska diaspora Izraelitów i inne studia. Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 10. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio,” 2003. —​—​—​. Babilońskie deportacje mieszkańców Jerozolimy i Judy oraz inne studia. Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 34. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Vocatio,” 2009. —​—​—​. Bohaterowie wiary Starego Testamentu. Warszawa: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1992. Colenso, John William. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. London: Roberts; Longman; Green, 1862. Collini, Stefan, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation: Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christine Brooke-​Rose. Cambridge: University Press, 1992. Cronauer, Patrick T. The Stories about Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9. Library of Hebrew Bible; Old Testament Studies 424. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. —​—​—​. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Davies, Graham I. Corpus and Concordance. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, 2004. De Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Halle: Schimmelpfennig und Compagnie, 1807. del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. La vocacion del lider en el antiguo Israel: Morfologia de los relatos biblicos de vocacion. Institución San Jerónimo; Bibliotheca Salmanticensis: Estudios 2. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1973. DeVries, Simon John. Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. —​—​—​. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament. Time and History in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Dubovský, Peter. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-​ Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–​19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.

334

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dziadosz, Dariusz. Gli oracoli divini in 1 Sam 8–​2 Re 25. Redazione e teologia nella storia deuteronomistica dei re. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 2002. Eco, Umberto. Lector in fabula: Współdziałanie w interpretacji tekstów narracyjnych. Translated by Piotr Salwa. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1994. —​—​—​. The Limits of Interpretation. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. —​—​—​. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Emerson, Peter, and Stephen Frosh. Critical Narrative Analysis in Psychology: A Guide to Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 54. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1994. Fewell, Danna Nolan. Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 1992. Fischer, Georg. Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzähltechnik in der Berufung des Mose (Ex 3–​4). [in German] Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 91. Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Flesher, Paul Virgil, and Chilton Bruce. Targums: A Critical Introduction. [in English] Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004. —​—​—​. Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Tools for Biblical Study 1. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999. —​—​—​. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 2001. Forster, Edward Morgan. Aspects of the Novel. San Diego; New York; London: Harcourt, 1985. Foucault, Michel. Archaeology of Knowledge. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Harvard Semitic Monographs 22. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

Galil, Gershon. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Galil, Gershon, Moshe Weinfeld, and Zecharia Kallai. Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Gargano, Guido. Il sapore dei padri della chiesa nell’esegesi biblica. Milano: Edizioni San Paolo, 2009. Genette, Gérard. Figures. Collection “Tel Quel.” Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1966. —​—​—​. Figures II. Points 106. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969. —​—​—​. Figures III. Poétique. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1972. —​—​—​. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. —​—​—​. Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Points Essais. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1982. Grabbe, Lester L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London; New York: T& TClark, 2007. Gressmann, Hugo. Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels. Von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea. Schriften des Alten Testaments 2/​1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. Gunkel, Hermann. Das Märchen im Alten Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart 2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1917. —​—​—​. Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen: (das erste Buch Mosis). Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. —​—​—​. Elias, Jahve und Baal. Die Religion des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, 1906. —​—​—​. Geschichten von Elisa. Meisterwerke hebräischer Erzählungskunst 1. Berlin: Karl Curtius, 1925. Gunkel, Hermann, and Heinrich Zimmern. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895. Harrison, Stephen, Stavros Frangoulidis, and Theodore D. Papanghelis. Intratextuality and Latin Literature. Trends in Classics –​Supplementary Volumes 69. Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018. Haynes, Stephen R., and Steven L. McKenzie. To Each its own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application. Louisville: Westminster; John Knox Press, 1999. Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1993.

336

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hollander, John. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. UC Press Voices Revived. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Ingarden, Roman. The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. —​—​—​. Das Literarische Kunstwerk: Eine Untesuchung Aus Dem Grenzgebiet der Ontologie, Logik Und Literaturwissenschaft. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1931. —​—​—​. The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature. Northwestern University Studies in Phenomeno­ logy and Existential Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. —​—​—​. O poznawaniu dzieła literackiego. Lwów: Ossolineum, 1937. Jasiński, Mirosław. Posłannictwo proroka w cyklu Elizeusza: Studium egzegetyczno-​ teologiczne 1 Krl 19,15 –​2 Krl 13,21. Studia i Materiały 73. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Teologiczny, 2004. Joosten, Jan. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012. Kawin, Bruce F. Telling it Again and Again: Repetition in Literature and Film. Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1989. Kittel, Rudolf. A History of the Hebrews. Translated by John Taylor. Theological Translation Library 3, 6. Vol. 1–​2, London: Williams and Norgate, 1895–​1896. Kubiś, Adam. The Book of Zechariah in the Gospel of John. Etudes bibliques 64. Pendé: Gabalda, 2012. Lemaire, André. The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007. Lemański, Janusz. “Sprawisz, abym ożył” Ps 71,20b: Źródła nadziei na zmartwychwstanie w Starym Testamencie. Rozprawy i studia 532. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 2004. Liddell, Robert. A Treatise on the Novel. London: Jonathan Cape, 1947. Liverani, Mario. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. Bible World. Edited by James Crossley and Philip R. Davies. London; Oakville: Equinox, 2005. Lohfink, Norbert. Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 8, 12, 20, 31. Vol. I–​IV, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990–​2005. Łach, Józef. Bóg-​Zbawca w biblijnych opowiadaniach o Elizeuszu. [in Polish]. Szczecin; Warszawa: Kuria Biskupia Szczecińsko-​Kamieńska, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Malandra, William W. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and Achaemenid Inscriptions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Marguerat, Daniel L., and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories? An Introduction to Narrative Criticism. London: SCM Press, 1999. McConville, James Gordon. God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology Genesis-​Kings. Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies 454. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Supplements To Vetus Testamentum 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Meynet, Roland. Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric. International Studies in the History of Rhetoric 3. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. Nelson, Richard Donald. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 18. Edited by David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Suplement Series 15. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. —​—​—​. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Die Sammelden und Bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943. Otto, Susanne. Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-​Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-​Elisa-​Erzählungen. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 152. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001. Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History 1. New York: Seabury Press, 1980. Pouillon, Jean. Temps et roman. Jeune philosophie. Paris: Gallimard, 1946. Priest, Stephen, ed. Jean-​Paul Sartre: Basic Writings. London; New York: Routledge, 2001. Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folktale. Bloomington: Mouton & Co., 1958. Radner, Karen, and Eleanor Robson. The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ricardou, Jean. Problèmes du nouveau roman. Collection “Tel Quel.” Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1967.

338

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ricoeur, Paul. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. Chicago; London University of Chicago Press, 2004. —​—​—​. Time and Narrative. Vol. 1–​3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009–​2010. Rofé, Alexander. The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History. Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1988. Römer, Thomas. The So-​Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Rost, Leonhard. The Succession to the Throne of David. Reformation Texts with Translation (1350–​1650). Biblical Studies, Historic Texts. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. Sandowicz, Małgorzata. Oaths and Curses: A Study in Neo-​and Late Babylonian Legal Formulary. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 398. Münster: Ugarit-​ Verlag, 2012. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. [in French] Etudes et Documents Payot. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot, 1971. —​—​—​. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. Schmitt, Armin. Entrückung, Aufnahme, Himmelfahrt: Untersuchungen zu einem Vorstellungsbereich im Alten Testament. Forschung zur Bibel. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Schmitt, Hans-​Christoph. Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie. Gütdersloh: Mohn, 1972. Schweizer, Harald. Elischa in den Kriegen: Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von 2 Kön 3, 6, 8–​23, 6, 24–​7, 20. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 37. München: Kösel-​Verlag, 1974. Seremak, Jerzy. Psalm 24 als Text zwischen den Texten. Österreichische biblische Studien 26. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004. Sharrock, Alison, and Helen Morales. Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Shimron, Joseph. Reading Hebrew: The Language and the Psychology of Reading It. Mahwah; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Sievers, Eduard. Metrische Studien: Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Abhandlungen der Philologisch-​historischen Klasse der Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften 21. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Siwek, Krzysztof. Powstał prorok jak ogień: Droga Eliasza. Biblijni Bohaterowie Wiary 1. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Collegium Bobolanum, 2020. Ska, Jean Louis. Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–​31. Analecta Biblica 109. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1986. —​—​—​. “Our Fathers have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives. Subsidia Biblica 13. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990. Ska, Jean Louis, Jean-​Pierre Sonnet, and André Wénin. L’analyse narrative des récits de l’Ancien Testament. Service Biblique Évangile et Vie 107. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1999. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sonek, Krzysztof. Truth, Beauty, and Goodness in Biblical Narratives: A Hermeneutical Study of Genesis 21: 1–​21. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Vol. 395, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–​332 BCE. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009. Sternberg, Meir. Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. —​—​—​. Hebrews between Cultures: Group Portraits and National Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. —​—​—​. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Stipp, Hermann-​Josef. Elischa-​Propheten-​Gottesmänner: die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text-​und Literaturkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–​7. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 24. Sankt Ottilien: Eos-​ Verlag, 1987. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Wauconda: Bolchazy-​ Carducci Publishers, 2002. Todorov, Tzvetan. Introduction to Poetics. Theory and History of Literature 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981. —​—​—​. Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal View of Twentieth-​C entury Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988. —​—​—​. The Poetics of Prose. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. —​—​—​. Poétique de la prose. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2014.

340

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—​—​—​, ed. Théorie de la littérature: Textes des Formalistes Russes, Points Essais 457. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2016. —​—​—​. Theories of the Symbol. Translated by Catherine Porter. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Trebolle Barrera, Julio Cesar. Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes. Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 47. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1989. Uspensky, Boris. A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form. Translated by Valentina Zavarin and Susan Wittig. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Heaven; London: Yale University Press, 1983. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961. —​—​—​. Les livres des Rois. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1949. Walsh, Jerome T. Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963. White, Marsha C. The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup. Brown Judaic Studies 311. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Wiesel, Elie. The Golem: The Story of a Legend. New York: Simon & Schuster Trade, 1983. Worthington, Martin. Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Wright, J. Edward. The Early History of Heaven. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

Book Sections Alonso-​Schökel, Luis. “Of Methods and Models.” In Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, edited by John Adney Emerton. Vetus Teslamentum Supplements 36, 3–​13. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Astour, Michael C., and Bendt Alster. “The Nether World and Its Denizens at Ugarit.” In Death in Mesopotamia: Papers read at the XXVIe recontre assyriologique internationale. Mesopotamia 8, 227–​38. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980. Barr, James. “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship.” In Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, edited by Johannes Cornelis de Moor, 1–14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Begg, Christopher. “Martin Noth: Notes on His Life and Work.” In The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 182, 18–​30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Berlejung, Angelika. “The Origins and Beginnings of the Worship of YHWH: The Iconographic Evidence.” In The Origins of Yahwism, edited by Jürgen van Oorschot and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 484, 67–​92. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2017. Conrad, Joachim. “2 Kön 2, 1–​18 als Elija-​Geschichte.” In Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament Jerusalem 1986, edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-​Dietrich Schunck. Beiträge zur Erforschung des alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 13, 263–​71. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang, 1988. Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” In Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Dubovský, Peter. “Genesis 39 and ‘The Tale of the Two Brothers’.” In Bible et Terre Sainte: Mélanges Marcel Beaudry, edited by José Enrique Aguilar Chiu, Kieran J. O’Mahony and Maurice Roger, 47–​61. New York; Washington: Peter Lang, 2008. —​—​—​. “Neo-​Assyrian Warfare: Logistics and Weaponry during the Campaigns of Tiglath-​pileser III.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Arms and Armour Through the Ages, edited by M. Novotná, W. Jobst, M. Dufková, K. Kuzmová and P. Hnila, 61–​67. Trnava: Trnavská Univerzita, 2006. Eissfeldt, Otto. “Die Komposition von I Reg 16,29 –​ II Reg 13,25.” In Das ferne und das nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines

342

BIBLIOGRAPHY

70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet, edited by Fritz Maass. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105, 49–​58. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Hull, John H. “King Lists as a Structuring Principle in the Book of Kings.” In Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney, edited by Shelley L. Birdsong Serge Frolov, 133–​46. Claremont, California: Claremont Press, 2017. Joosten, Jan. “The Value of the Septuagint for Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible as Illustrated by the Oxford Hebrew Bible Edition of 1 Kings.” In Text-​ critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, edited by Johann Cook and Hermann-​Josef Stipp. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 157, 223–​36. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. Knauf, Ernst Axel. “From History to Interpretation.” In The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past, edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement series 127, 26–​64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Kogut, Simcha. “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ‫ הנה‬in Biblical Hebrew.” In Studies in Bible, edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31, 133–​54. Jerusalem: Magnet Press, The Hebrew University, 1986. Kristeva, Julia. “Intertextualité.” In Le texte du roman: Approche sémiologique d’une structure discursive transformationnelle. Approaches to Semiotics 6. The Hague: Mouton, 1976. Maier, Christl M. “Myth and Truth in Socio-​historical Reconstruction of Ancient Societies: Hosea 4:11–​14 as a Test Case.” In Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, edited by John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook. Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies, 256–​72. New York and London: T&T Clark, 2009. Markl, Dominik. “This Word Is Your Life: The Theology of ‘Life’ in Deuteronomy.” In Gottes Wort im Menschenwort: Festschrift für Georg Fischer SJ zum 60. Geburtstag. Österreichische biblische Studien 43, 71–96. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2014. McConville, James Gordon. “1 Kings 8:46–​53 and the Deuteronomic Hope.” In Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, edited by James Gordon McConville and Gary N. Knoppers. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 358–​69. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. McKenzie, Steven L. ““My God is YHWH”: The Composition of the Elijah Story in 1–​2 Kings.” In Congress Volume Munich 2013, edited by Christl M. Maier. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 163, 92–​110. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Mrva-​Montoya, Agata. “Learning from Dead Animals: Horse Sacrifice in Ancient Salamis and the Hellenisation of Cyprus.” In Animal Death, edited by

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Jay Johnston and Fiona Probyn-​Rapsey, 114–​22. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2013. Olrik, Axel. “Epic Laws of Folk Narrative.” In The Study of Folklore, edited by Alan Dundes, 129–​41. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1965. —​—​—​. “Episke love i folkedigtningen.” In Danske Studier, edited by Marius Kristensen; Axel Orlik. Universitets-​Jubilæets danske samfunds skriftserie, 69–​89. Kobenhavn: Det Schubotheske Forlag, 1908. Ross, L. Ronald. “Advances in Linguistic Theory and Their Relevance to Translation.” In Bible Translation: Frames of Reference, edited by Timothy Wilt, 114–​51. Manchester; Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing, 2003. Ska, Jean Louis. “Quelques exemples de sommaires proleptiques dans les récits bibliques.” In Congress Volume Paris 1992, edited by John Adney Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 61, 315–​26. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1995. —​—​—​. “The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading.” In The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 152, 1–​26. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Smend, Rudolf. “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History.” In Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, edited by Gary N. Knoppers and James Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 95–110. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Stipp, Hermann-​Josef. “Remembering Josiah’s Reform in Kings.” In Remembering and Forgetting in Early Second Temple Judah, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 85, 225–​38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narrative.” In Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art Throughout the Ages, edited by Joseph Heinemann and Samuel Werses. Scripta Hierosolymitana 27, 9–​26. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1978. Trebolle Barrera, Julio Cesar. “Histoire du Texte des Livres Historiques et Histoire de la Composition et de la Rédaction Deutéronomistes avec une Publication Préliminaire de 4Q481A, ‘Apocryphe d’Elisée.’ ” In Congress Volume Paris 1992, edited by John Adney Emerton. Vetus Testamentum: Supplements 61, 327–​42. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Uehlinger, Christoph. “L’ascension d’Élie: A propos de 2 Rois 2, 11–​12.” In Bible et Proche-​Orient; Mélanges André Lemaire III. Transeuphratène 46, 79–97. Paris: Gabalda, 2014.

344

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wright, J. Edward. “Whither Elijah? The Ascension of Elijah in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions.” In Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, edited by Esther G. Chazon, Ruth A. Clements and David Satran. Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism 89, 123–​38. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Articles Alcaina Canosa, Celso. “Panorama crítico del circlo de Eliseo.” Estudios Bíblicos 23 (1964): 217–​34. Alt, Albrecht. “Die literarische Herkunft von I Reg 19 19—​21.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 2 (1912): 123–​25. Assis, Elie. “Moses, Elijah and the Messianic Hope: A New Reading of Malachi 3, 22–​24.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123, no. 2 (2011): 207–​20. Barthes, Roland. “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative.” New literary history 6, no. 2 (1975): 237–​72. —​—​—​. “L’effet de réel.” Communications 11, no. 1 (1968): 84–​89. —​—​—​. “Théorie du texte.” In Encyclopaedia universalis, 1013–​17. Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis France, 1973. Barton, George Aaron. “A Sumerian Source of the Fourth and Fifth Chapters of Genesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 34, no. 1/​4 (1915): 1–​9. Beecher, Willis Judson, and William Rainey Harper. “Nineteeth Study: Elijah, Elisha, and Their Fellow-​Prophets.” The Old Testament Student 7, no. 5 (1888): 161–​64. Blum, Erhard. “Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels: Eine Ganzheitliche, Historisch-​Kritische Lektüre von 1 Regum XVII–​XIX.” [In English]. Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 3 (1997): 277–​92. Bodner, Keith. “The Locutions of 1 Kings 22:28. A New Proposal.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 3 (2003): 533–​43. Böklen, Ernst. “Elisas „Berufung” (I Reg 19 19—​21).” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 1 (1912): 41–​48. —​—​—​. “Noch einmal zu 1 Reg 19 19—​21.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 4 (1912): 288–​91. Brueggemann, Walter, and Davis Hankins. “The Affirmation of Prophetic Power and Deconstruction of Royal Authority in Elisha Narratives.” Catholic Biblical Quartely 76, no. 1 (2014): 58–​76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Burnett, Joel S. “ ‘Going Down’ to Bethel: Elijah and Elisha in the Theological Geography of the Deuteronomistic History.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 2 (2010): 281–​97. Campbell, Antony F. “The Reported Story, Midway, Between Oral Performance and Literary-​Art.” Semeia, no. 46 (1989): 77–​85. Carlson, R. A. “Élisée: le successeur d’Élie.” Vetus Testamentum 20, no. Fasc. 4 (1970): 385–​405. Cooley, Jeffrey L. “Astral Religion in Ugarit and Ancient Israel.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70, no. 2 (2011): 281–​87. Cortese, Enzo. “Lo schema deuteronomistico per i re di Giuda e d’Israele.” Biblica 56, no. 1 (1975): 37–​52. Dahood, Mitchell. “Ś’RT ‘Storm’ in Job 4,15.” Biblica 48, no. 4 (1967): 544–​45. Dubovský, Peter. “Cosmology in 1 Henoch.” Archív Orientální 68, no. 2 (2000): 205–​18. —​—​—​. “Tiglath-​pileser III’s Campaigns in 734–​732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7, 2 Kgs 15–​16 and 2 Chr 27–​28.” Biblica 87, no. 2 (2006): 153–​70. —​—​—​. “Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?”. Biblica 95, no. 3 (2014): 321–​46. Eitan, Israel. “La répétition de la racine en hébreu.” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 1 (1921): 171–​86. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Elisha.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 1 (1994): 1–​28. Foresti, Fabrizio. “Il rapimento di Elia al cielo.” Rivista Biblica 31, no. 3 (1983): 257–​72. François, Wim. “Andreas Masius (1514–​73). Humanist, Exegete and Syriac Scholar.” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 61, no. 3–​4 (2009): 199–​244. Friedman, Elias. “The Antiquities of El-​Muhraqa and I Kings 18, 31.” Ephemerides Carmeliticae 22, no. 1 (1971): 95–​104. Gabbay, Uri. “Akkadian Commentaries from Ancient Mesopotamia and Their Relation to Early Hebrew Exegesis.” Dead Sea Discoveries 19, no. 3 (2012): 267–​312. Galil, Gershon. “The Last Years of the Kingdom of Israel and the Fall of Samaria.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, no. 1 (1995): 52–​64. Galling, Kurt. “Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entrückung Elias.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53, no. 2 (1956): 129–​48. Gianto, Agustinus. “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew.” Israel Oriental Studies 18 (1998): 183–​98.

346

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—​—​—​. “Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe.” Language 79, no. 1 (2003): 202–​04. —​—​—​. “Variations in Biblical Hebrew.” Biblica 77, no. 4 (1996): 493–​508. Goetze, Albrecht. “Number Idioms in Old Babylonian.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5, no. 3 (1946): 185–​202. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥai/​Ḥē.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 1 (1957): 34–​39. Grelot, Pierre. “La légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible: Origine et signification.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 46, no. 1 (1958): 5–​26. Grill, Severin. “Die Himmelfahrt des Elias.” Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1938–​ 39): 242–​48. Gunkel, Hermann. “Elisha—​The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 1=​ 18).” The Expository Times 41, no. 4 (1930): 182–​86. Halpern, Baruch, and David Vanderhooft. “The Editions of Kings in the 7th-​6th Centuries B.C.E.”. Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 179–​244. Hammond, Philip C. “An Ammonite Stamp Seal from Amman.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 160, no. 1 (1960): 38–​41. Harper, William Rainey. “Outline Topics in the History of Old Testament Prophecy. VI. Prophecy of the NorthernKingdom.” The Biblical World 8, no. 1 (Jul. 1896): 37–​45. Hentschel, Georg. “Historyczne podstawy tradycji o proroku Eliaszu.” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 33, no. 2 (1980): 49–​58. Hergesel, Tomasz. “Cud w interpretacji autorów biblijnych.” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 34, no. 2 (1981): 105–​13. —​—​—​. “Eliasz i Elizeusz “Mężowie Boży” w służbie Jahwizmu (1 Krl 17–​22; 2 Krl 1–​2).” Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 20, no. 2 (1982): 22–​45. Hobbs, Trevor Raymond. “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose.” Studies in Religion 13, no. 3 (1984): 327–​34. Hoffman, Yair. “Between Conventionality and Strategy: On Repetition in Biblical Narrative [‫על החזרה בסיפור המקראי‬: ‫]בין קונוונציה לאסטרטגיה‬.” [In Hebrew]. Hasifrut 28 (1979): 89–​99. Hong, Christopher. “Intermediate State: The Ascension of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.” [In Korean]. 신학정론 10, no. 1 (1992): 88–​114. Hoopen, Robin B. “Where Are You, Enoch? Why Can’t I Find you? Genesis 5:21–​ 24 Reconsidered.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 18, no. 4 (2018): 1–​23. 4 December 2018, https://​www.jhsonl​ine.org/​.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

Joosten, Jan. “Une théologie de la Septante? Réflexions méthodologiques sur l’interprétation de la version grecque.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 132, no. 1 (2000): 31–​46. Kilian, Rudolf. “Die Totenerweckungen Elias und Elisas –​eine Motivwanderung?”. Biblische Zeitschrift 10 (1966): 44–​56. Kuśmirek, Anna. “Sefer Elijahu: Żydowska Apokalipsa Eliasza.” Studia Judaica 1, no. 13 (2004): 123–​37. Leahy, Anthony. “Death by Fire in Ancient Egypt.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27, no. 2 (1984): 199–​206. Lehmann, Manfred R. “Biblical Oaths.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 81, no. 1 (1969): 74–​92. Lemański, Janusz. “Standardowe i specyficzne rozumienie slowa rûªh w tekstach Ksiegi Rodzaju i Ksiegi Wyjscia.” [In Polish]. Verbum Vitae 37, no. 1 (2020): 11–​34. Long, Burke O. “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 3 (1987): 385–​99. Lundbom, Jack R. “Elijah’s Chariot Ride.” Journal of Jewish Studies 24, no. 1 (1973): 39–​50. Lunn, Nicholas P. “Prophetic Representations of the Divine Presence: The Theological Interpretation of the Elijah-​Elisha Cycles.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 9, no. 1 (2015): 49–​63. Łach, Józef. “Elizeusz jako sługa Eliasza i prorok Jahwe (1 Krl 19,16–​21; 2 Krl 2,1–​18).” [In Polish]. Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 4, no. 40 (1987): 273–​80. Marti, Karl. “Bemerkung zu I Reg 19 19—​21.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 1 (1912): 48. Martin, William J. “Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32 (1957): 315–​19. McCarthy, Dennis J. “The Uses of wehinnēh in Biblical Hebrew.” Biblica 61, no. 3 (1980): 330–​42. Mikołajczak, Mieczysław. “Il viaggio di Elia nel deserto (1 Re 19, 1–18).” Collectanea Theologica 69 (1999): 5–​23. —​—​—​. “Samoofiarowanie Eliasza (1 Krl 17, 21).” Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 51, no. 2 (1998): 81–​87. Miller, James Maxwell. “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85, no. 4 (1966): 441–​54. Milne, Pamela J. “Folktales and Fairy Tales: An Evaluation of Two Proppian Analyses of Biblical Narratives.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11, no. 34 (1986): 35–​60.

348

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moshavi, Adina. “Rhetorical Question or Assertion? The Pragmatics of ‫ֲהל ֹא‬ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 32, no. 1 (2017): 91–​105. —​—​—​. “Two Types of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue.” Biblica 90, no. 1 (2009): 32–​46. Naudé, Jacobus A. “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Chronology and Typology Debate.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36, no. 2 (2010): 1–​22. Newing, Edward George. “The Rhetoric of Hope: The Theological Structure of Genesis –​2 Kings.” Colloquium 17, no. 2 (1985): 1–​15. O’Brien, Mark A. “The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2.” Australian Biblical Review 46 (1998): 1–​16. Otto, Susanne. “The Composition of the Elijah-​Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 4 (2003): 487–​508. Price, Ira M. “The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets.” The Old Testament Student 8, no. 7 (1889): 244–​49. Puech, Émile. “Élie et Élisée dans l’Éloge des Pères: Sira 48,1–​14 dans le manuscrit B et les parallèles.” [In French]. Revue de Qumran 29, no. 2 (2017): 205–​18. Rice, Gene. “Elijah’s Requirement for Prophetic Leadership (2 Kings 2: 1–​18).” Journal of Religious Thought 59/​60, no. 1 (2006): 1–​12. Rofé, Alexander. “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 4 (1970): 427–​40. —​—​—​. “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story.” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 1 (1988): 89–​104. Rösel, Hartmut N. “2 Kön 2, 1–​18 als Elija-​oder Elischa-​Geschichte?”. Biblische Notizen, no. 59 (1991): 33–​36. Rouse, William H. D. “Learning English through the Classics.” Classical World 6, no. 4 (1912): 25–​26. Sartre, Jean-​Paul. “Replies to Structuralism: An Interview with Jean-​Paul Sartre.” Telos, no. 9 (1971): 110–​16. Satterthwaite, Philip E. “The Elisha Narratives and Coherence of 2 Kings 2–​8.” Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 1 (1998): 1–​28. Schmitt, Armin. “Die Totenerweckung in 1 Kön. XVII 17–​24: Eine form-​und gattungskritische Untersuchung.” Vetus Testamentum 27, no. 4 (1977): 454–​74. —​—​—​. “Die Totenerweckung in 2 Kon 4, 8–37.” Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1975): 1–​25.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

Schulte, Hannelis. “The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-​Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence.” Semeia 66 (1994): 133–​48. Segal, Moshe Zvi. “Constructing the Phrases of the Oath and the Vow.” [In Hebrew]. Leshonenu 1 (1929): 215–​27. Ska, Jean Louis. “Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph.” Biblica 73, no. 4 (1992): 518–​27. Smend, Rudolf. “Das Wort Jahwes an Elia.” Vetus Teslamentum 25, no. 3 (1975): 525–​43. Smit, Erik J. “Death-​and Burial Formulas in Kings and Chronicles Relating to the Kings of Judah.” Neotestamentica, no. 1 (1966): 173–​77. Smith, Carol. “Biblical Perspectives on Power.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25, no. 93 (2001): 93–​110. Sternberg, Meir. “Repetition Structure in Biblical Narrative: Strategies of Informational Redundancy.” [In Hebrew]. Hasifrut 25 (1977): 109–​50. Tabor, James D. ““Returning to the Divinity”: Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 2 (1989): 225–​38. Thackeray, Henry St. John. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” The Journal of Theological Studies 8, no. 30 (1907): 262–​78. Thomson, Henry O. “Commentary on the Tel Siran Inscription.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2, no. 3 (1974): 125–​36. Todorov, Tzvetan. “Les catégories du récit littéraire.” Communications 8, no. 1 (1966): 125–​51. Todorov, Tzvetan, and Richard M. Berrong. “The Origin of Genres.” New Literary History 8, no. 1 (1976): 159–​70. Tokarczuk, Olga. “The Tender Narrator.” In Nobel Lecture by Olga Tokarczuk: Nobel Laureate in Literature 2018, edited by Svenska Akademien. Stokholm: The Nobel Foundation, 2019. Van Seters, John. “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography.” Catholic Biblical Quartely 59, no. 1 (1997): 45–​57. Vorndran, Jürgen. “Elijas Dialog mit Jahwes Wort und Stimme (1 Kön 19, 9b–​ 18).” Biblica 77, no. 3 (1996): 417–​24. Weingart, Kristin. ““My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!”(2 Kings 2:12 //​ 13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?”. Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 2 (2018): 257–​70. Wilson, John A. “The Oath in Ancient Egypt.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7, no. 3 (1948): 129–​56.

350

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Winitzer, Abraham. “Etana in Eden: New Light on the Mesopotamian and Biblical Tales in Their Semitic Context.” Journal of American Oriental Society 133, no. 3 (2013): 441–​65. Witczyk, Henryk. “La missione di Elia nella tradizione dell’AT, nella letteratura intertestamentaria e negli scritti di Qumran.” Collectanea Theologica 69 (1999): 25–​36. Zewi, Tamar. “The Particles ‫ הנה‬and ‫ והנה‬in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 37, no. 1 (1996): 21–​37. —​—​—​. “The Particles ‫ הִ ֵנּה‬and ‫ וְ הִ ֵנּה‬in Several Bible Translations.” Hebrew Studies 47 (2010): 181–​91. Ziegler, Yael. ““As the Lord Lives and as Your Soul Lives”: An Oath of Conscious Deference.” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 1 (2008): 117–​30.

Index of Authors A Abrams, Meyer Howard  38, 39, 218 Abravanel, Isaac  64, 65 Adamczewski, Bartosz  69 Alcaina Canosa, Celso  80 Alonso-​Schökel, Luis  93, 109, 142 Alt, Albrecht  32, 34, 42, 75, 76, 84, 87, 103, 110 Alter, Robert  57, 91, 93–​95, 113–​ 115, 124, 131, 134, 135, 137, 146, 201, 245, 246 Andersen, Francis I.  205 Aristotle  40, 99, 130, 145, 147, 150, 151, 157, 206, 216, 217, 294 Assis, Elie  157 Astour, Michael C.  27 Attridge, Harold W.  30 Augustine, of Hippo  257 Austin, John Langshaw  174 Bachofen, Johann Jakob  41, 278 B Bailly, Anatole  104 Baldick, Chris  149 Bar-​Efrat, Shimeon  95, 100, 106, 113, 114, 124, 130, 146, 148, 149, 151, 155, 156, 158, 163, 187, 189, 190, 193, 205, 229, 236, 237, 241, 243, 247, 248, 262, 266 Barr, James  109 Barthélemy, Dominique  36, 46, 64–​66 Barthes, Roland  41, 150, 151, 153, 161, 258, 262, 280 Barton, George Aaron  25 Barwik, Mirosław  289 Baumgartner, Walter  19 Beauchamp, Paul  150

Beck, Astrid B.  35, 75 Beecher, Willis Judson  32 Begg, Christopher  32, 269, 270 Ben Asher, Aaron  35 Ben Asher, Moshe  35 Bendt Alster  27 Berlejung, Angelika  136 Berlin, Adele  25, 70, 95, 147, 204, 206–​209, 245 Berrong, Richard M.  40 Black, Jeremy  19 Blum, Erhard  86 Bodner, Keith  189 Böklen, Ernst  75 Booth, Wayne C.  100 Bourquin, Yvan  98–​100, 102, 104, 107, 146 Breitinger, Johann Jacob  59 Brichto, Herbert Chanan  141 Briggs, Charles Augustus  19 Brooke, Alan England  35 Brooke-​Rose, Christine  40 Brown, Francis  19 Bruce, Chilton  48, 60, 134 Brueggemann, Walter  130 Burke, Kenneth  34, 77, 91, 96, 125, 126, 262 Burnett, Joel S.  261, 281 Burney, Charles Fox  46, 56, 59, 60, 64, 104 Buttenwieser, Moses  30 C Campbell, Antony F.  167 Carlson, R. A.  38 Cassuto, Umberto  147, 293 Chatman, Seymour Benjamin  100, 147–​149, 205, 207, 211, 221, 262

352

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Chernov, Ghelly V.  187 Chrostowski, Waldemar  17, 81 Cogan, Mordechai  26, 46, 269, 274 Cohn, Robert L.  33, 34, 91–​94, 118 Colenso, John William  70 Collini, Stefan  40 Comstock, Susan Turner  30 Conrad, Joachim  33 Cooley, Jeffrey L.  205 Cortese, Enzo  104 Cronauer, Patrick T.  84, 85 Cross, Frank Moore  58, 71, 73, 77, 86 Culler, Jonathan  40 D Dahood, Mitchell  286 Dalley, Stephanie  26, 131 Davidson, Andrew B.  56, 59 Davies, Graham I.  58 De Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht  70 del Olmo Lete  19 del Olmo Lete, Gregorio  76 Derrida, Jacques  151 DeVries, Simon John  34, 77, 79, 96–​ 98, 125, 136, 160, 189, 323 Driver, Samuel Rolles  70 Dubovský, Peter  17, 30, 93, 172, 174 Dziadosz, Dariusz  81 E Eco, Umberto  40, 41, 208, 257, 258, 289 Eissfeldt, Otto  34, 73 Eitan, Israel  142 Emerson, Peter  140 F Faulkner, Raymond O.  24 Feldman, Louis H.  294 Fernández Marcos, Natalio  101

Fewell, Danna Nolan  251 Fischer, Georg  63, 209 Flaubert, Gustave  129, 280 Flesher, Paul Virgil  48, 60 Fokkelman, Jan P.  93, 101, 114, 128, 129, 148, 149, 190, 206, 208 Foresti, Fabrizio  33, 34, 91, 94, 184, 267, 281, 282, 287, 315 Forster, Edward Morgan  147, 148 Foucault, Michel  151 François, Wim  71 Frangoulidis, Stavros  40 Freedman, Noel  35 Friedman, Elias  282 Friedman, Richard Elliott  74 Frosh, Stephen  140 G Galil, Gershon  174, 188, 281 Galling, Kurt  32, 42, 75, 76, 289, 313 García Martínez, Florentino  56 Gargano, Guido  150 Genette, Gérard  84, 106, 124, 125, 132, 135, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 221, 238, 241, 248 George, Andrew  25, 157 Gesenius, Wilhelm  19, 59 Gianto, Agustinus  17, 113, 137, 203 Glassner, Jean-​Jacques  25 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von  39, 41, 257, 258, 299 Goetze, Albrecht  273 Gordon, Cyrus Herzl  74, 130, 157, 273 Goshen-​Gottstein, Moshe H.  35 Grabbe, Lester L.  58, 188 Grabe, Johann Ernst  59 Gray, John  46, 76, 88, 105, 136, 173, 213, 261, 284, 287 Green, R. P. H.  70 Greenberg, Moshe  56, 59, 60 Grelot, Pierre  30

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Gressmann, Hugo  261 Grill, Severin  284 Gunkel, Hermann  23, 31, 33, 41, 42, 59, 60, 77, 78, 87, 91, 110, 158, 313 H Halpern, Baruch  46 Hammond, Philip C.  136 Hankins, Davis  130 Harper, William Rainey  32, 269, 270 Harpham, Geoffrey  38, 39, 218 Harrison, Stephen  40 Haynes, Stephen R.  109 Heinrich Zimmern  77 Hentschel, Georg  81 Hergesel, Tomasz  78, 81, 82 Herodotus  19, 299 Himmelfarb, Martha  30 Hobbs, Trevor Raymond  33, 42, 77, 90, 91, 93, 213, 287, 323 Hoffman, Yair  131 Hollander, John  251 Hong, Christopher  30 Hoopen, Robin B.  46 Hull, John H.  188 I Ingarden, Roman  37, 258 J Jasiński, Mirosław  81 Jenni, Ernst  170 Jones, Gwilym H.  34, 136 Joosten, Jan  101, 113 Josephus  19, 29, 31, 294 Joüon, Paul  19, 59, 64, 170, 191, 192, 194, 195, 198–​200, 202, 203, 244 K Kallai, Zecharia  188 Kautzsch, E.  19

353

Kawin, Bruce F.  134 Keil, Carl Friedrich  65, 66, 261 Kenyon, Frederic G.  35 Kilian, Rudolf  80, 81 Kirk Grayson, Albert  105 Kittel, Rudolf  72, 73 Knauf, Ernst Axel  136 Koehler, Ludwig  19 Kogut, Simcha  196 Kristeva, Julia  84 Kubiś, Adam  17, 89 Kuśmirek, Anna  30 L Lambdin, Thomas O.  19, 49 Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee  20, 290 Leahy, Anthony  289 Lehmann, Manfred R.  56, 57, 61, 62 Lemaire, André  34, 136 Lemański, Janusz  17, 94, 186 Leṿinzon-​Gilboʻa, Ayelet  259 Liddell, Robert  262 Liverani, Mario  57, 269 Long, Burke O.  34, 42, 77, 91–​94, 96, 101, 104, 126, 127, 323 Lundbom, Jack R.  33, 42, 76, 88–​ 94, 323 Lunn, Nicholas P.  287 Łach, Józef  78, 81, 136, 314 M Maier, Christl M.  34, 161 Malandra, William W.  27 Marguerat, Daniel L.  98–​100, 102, 104, 107, 146 Markl, Dominik  63 Marti, Karl  33, 69, 70, 73, 83, 183 Martin, William J.  75 McCarthy, Dennis J.  197, 198, 200, 208

354

INDEX OF AUTHORS

McConville, James Gordon  74, 130, 157 McKenzie, Steven L.  34, 74, 78, 82–​ 85, 87, 109 McLean, Norman  35 Meyers, Eric M.  263 Meynet, Roland  88 Mikołajczak, Mieczysław  81 Milik, Jozef  30 Miller, James Maxwell  73, 74, 87 Milne, Pamela J.  145 Montgomery, James Alan  76, 88, 104, 213, 261 Morales, Helen  40 Morla, Victor  28 Moshavi, Adina  242 Mrva-​Montoya, Agata  289 Muraoka, Takamitsu  19 N Naudé, Jacobus A.  188 Nelson, Richard Donald  74, 104 Newing, Edward George  157 Noth, Martin  33, 69–​71, 73, 83, 88, 104 O O’Brien, Mark A.  76, 121, 160, 161, 210, 246, 274, 289 O’Connor, Michael Patrick  19, 170, 183, 200 Olrik, Axel  141 Otto, Susanne  34, 73, 78, 85–​87, 259, 261 P Papanghelis, Theodore D.  40 Pietersma, Albert  30 Plato  19, 27, 204 Plutarch  19 Polzin, Robert  70 Pouillon, Jean  205

Price, Ira M.  141 Priest, Sephen  151 Pritchard, James Bennett  19 Propp, Vladimir  145, 150 Proust, Marcel  125 Provan, Iain  77, 95 Puech, Émile  28 R Radner, Karen  25 Ralphs, Alfred  36, 290 Ricardou, Jean  149 Rice, Gene  141 Ricoeur, Paul  125 Robson, Eleanor  25 Rofé, Alexander  33, 41, 76, 78–​81, 83–​85, 87, 311–​314 Römer, Thomas  69, 70, 85 Rorty, Richard  40 Rösel, Hartmut N.  33 Ross, L. Ronald  47 Rost, Leonhard  34, 245 Rouse, William H. D.  293 S Šanda, Albert  76 Sanders, James A.  35 Sandowicz, Małgorzata  57 Sanmartín, Joaquín  19 Sartre, Jean-​Paul  151, 153 Satterthwaite, Philip E.  42, 94, 95 Saussure, Ferdinand de  23, 132 Schmitt, Armin  34 Schmitt, Hans-​Christoph  33, 34, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 87, 110, 311–​315 Schulte, Hannelis  130 Schweizer, Harald  74, 136 Segal, Moshe Zvi  56, 60, 61 Seremak, Jerzy  121 Sharrock, Alison  40 Shimron, Joseph  140

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Sievers, Eduard  59 Siwek, Krzysztof  102 Ska, Jean Louis  17, 40, 98, 99, 101, 107, 113, 114, 124, 127, 145, 146, 157, 159, 163, 205, 209, 210, 215, 217, 218, 237, 249 Skinner, John  31, 71, 72 Smend, Rudolf  74, 81 Smit, Erik J.  105 Smith, Carol  130 Smith, Mark S.  206 Sonek, Krzysztof  161 Sophocles  19, 216, 294 Sperber, Alexander  36, 37 Sperber, Daniel  30 Spinoza  71 Steingass, Francis Joseph  206 Stern, Ephraim  259, 263 Sternberg, Meir  40, 95, 100, 105, 124, 126, 127, 129, 131–​133, 143, 144, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 205, 208, 210, 212, 221, 230, 242, 243, 252, 279, 293, 309 Stevenson, Angus  19 Stipp, Hermann-​Josef  74, 83, 85, 101, 316 Strabo  19, 298 T Tabor, James D.  29 Tadmor, Hayim  26, 46, 269, 272 Talmon, Shemaryahu  187 Thackeray, Henry  35, 36, 101 Thenius, Otto  261 Thomson, Henry O.  136 Tigay, Jeffrey H.  131 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C.  56 Todorov, Tzvetan  40, 41, 114, 145, 146, 150, 151, 157, 159, 163, 205, 248, 249, 257, 317 Tokarczuk, Olga  247

355

Torczyner, Harry  56 Tov, Emanuel  19 Trebolle Barrera, Julio Cesar  36, 84 Tur-​Sinai, Naphtali Herz  56 U Uehlinger, Christoph  34 Uspensky, Boris  204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 221 V Van Seters, John  69, 74, 105 Vanderhooft, David  46 Vanstiphout, Herman  25 Vaux, Roland de  33, 80, 261, 269, 273, 276 Vorndran, Jürgen  103 W Wallis Budge, Ernest  25 Walsh, Jerome T.  91 Waltke, Bruce K.  19, 170, 183 Watson, Wilfred G. E.  176 Weinfeld, Moshe  188 Weingart, Kristin  34, 127, 138, 259, 274 Wellhausen, Julius  32, 71–​73 Wénin, André  101 White, Marsha C.  84 Wiesel, Elie  174 William Rainey Harper  32 William, Edward  27 Wilson, John A.  58, 161 Winitzer, Abraham  26 Witczyk, Henryk  81 Wright, J. Edward  26, 46, 48, 55 Würthwein, Ernst  78 Z Zewi, Tamar  196, 198 Ziegler, Yael  56, 60, 63

Index of References NB Italics signify references in footnotes Biblical references Genesis (Gen)  70, 128, 175, 228, 266, 271, 273 – 1  77, 129, 130, 266 – 1:1  49, 129 (3), 130 (2) – 1:30  55 – 2:1  129 (3) – 2: 1-​2  133 – 2:4  49 – 2:16-​17  133 – 2:19  55 – 3:2-​3  133 – 3:23  182 – 3:7  120 – 4:10  176 – 5:21–​24  46 – 5:24  23, 32 – 6:7  49, 55 – 6:18  152 – 7:7  152 – 7:19  55 – 7:22  266 – 7:23  55 – 8:13  209, 210 – 8:20  49 (2) – 9:2  55 – 12:4–​5  149 – 12:8  261 – 13  175 – 13:1  49 – 13:3  261 – 13:10  266 – 13:11  176 (2) – 13:14  119 – 15:5  51 – 15:12  178

– 16  152 – 16:1  147 – 17:22  49 – 18:1  127 – 18:9  183 – 19:9  228 (2) – 19:14  121 – 19:30  49 – 21:1–​21  161 – 21:21  48 – 22  128 – 22:1  127 – 22:17  55 – 24:15–​16  – 25:25  277 – 26:4  55 – 26:23  49 – 27:2–​7  133 – 27:46  121 – 28:12  51 – 28:15  120 – 28:19  261 – 28:18  141 – 28:11–​19  261 – 28:18  141 – 29  154 (2) – 29:2  209 – 29:2–​3  146 – 29:20  187 – 29:9–​10  147 – 29:10, 13  147, 151, 152 – 29:17–​18  147 – 30:2  244 – 31:14–​17  133 – 31:13  261 – 32:30  119 – 35:1, 3, 6, 7, 15  261

358

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 35:13  49 (2) – 37  93, 94 – 37:22  227, 228, 237 – 37:29–​30  133 – 38  93 (2), 94, 210 – 38:12  49 – 39  93, 94 – 39–​50  93 – 40:7  141 – 40:16  64 – 41:1–​32  152 – 42:2  244 – 42:15  59 – 42:16  229 – 42:22  237 – 46:29  49 – 50:7, 9  49 Exodus (Exod)  271, 273, 289 – 2:9  133 – 2:23  55 – 3:2  209 (2) – 5:8  176 – 9: 8, 10  51 – 10:12, 14  49 – 12:8  61 – 14:1–​31  40, 113 – 14:12  293 – 14:15–​25  114 – 14:16  266 – 14:42–​46  113 – 14–​15  213 – 15:10  275 (2), 276 – 17:1–​7  80 – 18:25  141 – 19:18, 20  49 – 20:7  58 – 21:24  61 – 24:3  106 – 24: 9, 13, 15, 18  49 – 29:7  141 – 32:1–​6  83

– 32:13  55 – 33:15  171 – 34:4  49 – 40:25  49 – 40:29  49 – 40:36, 37  287 Leviticus (Lev)  – 10:9  244 (2) – 26:3–​46  62 – 26: 16, 24, 41  64 Numbers (Num)  266 (2), 271 – 5:3  227 – 6:7  141 – 7:12–​83  134 – 9:17, 22  287 – 11:15  244 – 13:2  227 – 20:180  – 20:11–​12  264 – 22:1  264 – 23:2, 14, 30  49 (2) – 26:3, 63  264, 278 – 31:4  227 – 31:12  264, 278 – 33:38  49 – 33:48, 50  264, 278 – 34:12  266 – 34:15  264 – 35:1  264, 278 – 36:13  264, 278 Deuteronomy (Deut)  69 (2), 178, 224, 273 – 1:8, 21  178 – 1:10  55 – 1–​4  71 – 2:24, 31  178 – 2:25  55 – 3:18  271 – 3:28  182

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 4:5  178 – 4:11  55 – 4:19  51 – 4:32  49, 179 – 5:11  58 – 7  85 – 9:14  180 – 10:22  55 – 11:26  178 – 11:30  280 – 12:2  66 – 12:13  182 – 12:30  180 – 13:14  197 – 21:17  214; 273 (3), 276 – 22: 1, 4  182 – 24: 5, 6  267 – 27:11–​28:69  62 – 27:25  121 – 28:26  55 – 28:34, 67  182 – 28:62  55 – 28:36–​37  73 – 28:68  232 – 28:41  226 – 29:25  225 – 30:12  51, 55, 56 – 30:15  178 – 31:3, 7  267 – 31:15  172 – 31:17  231 – 32:7  179 – 32:11  121 – 32:26  232 – 32:38  182 – 32:40  62 – 32:49  264 – 33:52  182 – 33:24  182 – 34  267 – 34:1  49, 223, 224, 236, 256, 264

– 34:3  264 – 34:9  267 Joshua (Josh)  51, 69 (2), 206 – 1:5  120 – 2:1, 2, 3  264 – 2:5  171 – 2:9  178 – 2:22  230 – 2:23  172 – 3  213, 317 – 3:2  172 – 3:13  172 – 3:16  264 – 3:17  266 (2) – 4:10, 12  172 – 4:11  172 – 4:13  264 – 4:14  267 – 4:18  49 – 4:19  264, 280 (2), 315 – 4:20–​23  282 – 4–​5  264, 280 (2) – 5:6  171 – 5:9  280 – 5:10  264 – 5:13  196, 264 – 6:1  146, 264 – 6:2, 25, 26  178, 264 – 6:9  171 – 6:13  170, 171 – 6:20  49 – 6:26  95 – 7:2  264 – 7:21, 24  277 – 7:26  282 – 8:1  178 – 8:2  264 – 8:9, 12  261 – 8:10  49 – 8:20  51, 52, 206 – 8:29  282

359

360

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 9:3  264 – 9:6  280 – 10:1, 28, 30  264 – 10:6, 15, 43  54, 280 – 10:7  49, 280 – 10:9  280 – 10:36  49 – 10:13  172 – 10:28, 30, 32, 40  175 – 10:29, 31, 34  172 – 11:20  181 – 12  281, 317 – 12:9  261, 264 – 12:16  261 – 12:23  281 (2), 282 – 13:32  264 – 15:7  280, 281 – 15:15  49 – 15:18  181 – 16:1  261, 264 – 16:7  264 – 18:9  172 – 18:11  49 – 18:12, 21  264 – 18:13  261 – 19:10  49 – 20:6, 9  172 – 20:8  264 – 24:11  264 Judges (Judg)  49, 69 (2), 230, 266, 271 – 1:4  49 – 1:14  181 – 1:22  261 – 2:1  49 – 2:2  49, 280 – 2:3  232 – 2:12  225 – 2:17  171, 225 – 3  279 – 3:15  147, 230 – 3:17  147

– 3:19  280 – 3:21  242 – 3:22  52 – 4:5  261 – 4:10  49 – 4:12–​18  147 – 4:22  225 – 4:24  171 – 5:6  226 – 6:25–​29  132 – 6:28  173 – 6:29  230 – 6:31  172 – 6:33  172 – 6:39  182 – 7:1  106 – 7:7  226 – 7:17  180 – 7:21  172 – 8:4  266 – 8:8, 11  49 – 9:7, 35  172 – 9:8  171 – 9:26  172 – 9:36  178, 196 – 9:38  65 (2) – 9:44  172 – 9:46  259, 261 – 9:48  49 – 9:53  280, 283 – 10:9  172 – 11:1–​3  147, 247 – 11:29, 32  172 – 11:34  225 – 12:1  172 – 13  317 – 13:13  232 – 13:19  49 – 13:20  49 (2), 51 (3), 52 (7), 53 (3), 56, 66, 268, 285, 315 (2) – 13:21  120 – 14:2, 19  49 – 14:5  225

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 14:8  196 – 14:9  171 – 14:14  66 – 15:2  232 – 15:14  225 – 16:4  106 – 16:13–​14 (LXX)  293 – 17:2  182 – 18:1  178 – 18:2  271, 230 – 18:5  171, 179 – 18:9  121, 197 – 18:13  172, 198 – 19:3  223, 225 – 19:14  172 – 19:22  279 – 20  51 – 20:4  56 – 20:12  230 – 20:18, 26, 31  261 – 20:40  51, 52, 55 – 20:41  178 – 21:2  261 – 21:10, 13  230 Ruth (Ruth)  46, 64, 102 – 4:13–​22  102 1 Samuel (1Sam)  69 (2), 101 (3), 110, 181, 275 – 1  102 – 1:1, 2  147 – 1:10  141 – 1:11  178, 182 – 1:19  225, 231 – 1:21  49 – 2:6  49 – 2:12  279 – 2:30  232 – 2:35, 36  – 3  154 – 3:2  106 – 3:1, 7  146, 152 (2)

– 3:9  133 – 3:10  133, 198 – 5:8, 11  230 – 5:12  50 (2), 55 (2) – 6:3  227, 228, 236 – 6:12  171 (2) – 6:16  231 – 6:21  230 – 7:16  261 – 8–​2 Kgs 25  81 – 8:3, 5  171 – 9:1–​2  147 – 9:4  172 (2) – 9:27  172 – 9:7  197 (2) – 9:14  194, 199, 201 – 9:17  178, 194, 232 – 9:23  232 – 10:2  180 – 10:3  261 – 10:8  280 – 10:10  225 – 11  281 – 11:1  49 – 11:14, 15  280 – 12:17  181 – 12:19  244 – 13:2  261 – 13:4, 8, 12, 15  280 – 13:9  352 – 13:10  225 – 13:15  352 – 13:22  181 – 14:9–​12  135 – 14:13, 46  352 – 14:16, 33  181 – 14:19  171 – 14:46  171 – 15:11  119 – 15:12  172, 280, 281 – 15:20  119 – 15:33  281 – 15:34  192

361

362 – 15:35  106 – 16  154 – 16:1  154 – 16:4  225 – 16:9, 10  172 – 16:11  147, 153, 154 – 16:12  147, 153, 154 (3) – 16:14  242 – 16:18  279 – 16:21  172 – 16:23  181 – 17  146 – 17:8  172, 181 – 17:13, 14  171 – 17:28, 55  121 – 17:51  172 – 17:53  231 – 17:56  179 – 18:6  106 – 18:8, 20  181 – 19:17  119 – 19:18–​24  72 – 19:19, 21  181 – 19:22  183 – 19:23  171 – 20:3  63 – 20:12  197 – 20:29  119 – 20:30  121 – 20:35  106 – 21:8  181 – 22:9–​13  133 – 22:15, 22  181 – 22:22  121 – 23:6  106 – 23:7  181 – 23:22  178, 216 – 24:1  49 – 24:2  119 – 24:5, 6, 10, 23  181 – 24:7  180 – 24:12  178

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 24:21  121 – 25  147 – 25–​28  153, 154 – 25:1  147, 153, 154 – 25:2  106, 147 – 25:3  147, 279 – 25:8  179 – 25:11  121 – 25:12  231 – 25:26  63 – 25:36  198 (2) – 25:37  106 – 26:12  178 – 26:13  172 – 26:16  178 – 26:22  172 – 26:25  119 – 27:2  172 – 27:4  181 – 27:8  49 – 28  154 – 28:1  106 – 28:3  146 – 28:9  146, 147 – 28:15  180 – 28:22  106 – 29:9  121 – 30:1  106 – 30:1–​4  132 – 30:3  197 – 30:9  133, 172 – 30:10  133, 172 – 30:22  171 – 30:26  58 – 31:11  181 2 Samuel (2Sam)  69 (2), 101 (3), 147, 266 – 1  149, 207 – 1:1  119 – 1:2  106 – 1:10  121

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 1:11  176, 177 – 2:2  49 – 2:6  180 – 2:8  181 – 2:15, 29  172 – 2:23, 25, 28  172 – 2:29  171 – 2:30  119 – 3:1  171 – 3:8, 9  180 – 3:13  182 – 3:16, 24  171 – 3:23  192 – 4:6  121 – 5:10  171 – 6  210 – 6:12, 17  49 – 6:17  49 – 6:20  106 – 7:2  178 – 7:23  171 – 9:1, 3, 7  180 – 9:7, 10, 11  119 – 9:9  181 – 9–​10  71 – 10:2  180 – 10:5  264 – 10:6  230 – 10:17  172 – 11–​12  148 – 11:2 (LXX)  102 – 11:11  180, 243 – 11:12  119 – 11:2–​3  147 – 11:27  172 – 12:12  180 – 12:22  232 – 12:24  102 – 13:8  205 – 13:17  229 – 13:19  171 – 13:34  171

– 14:7  198 – 14:17  182 – 14:24, 28  178 – 15–​19  317 – 15:3  178 – 15:11  171 – 15:17  172 – 15:21  63 – 15:22  172 – 15:24  49 – 15:32  198, 225 – 16:1  225 – 16:13  171 – 17:11  171 – 17:16  229 – 17:17  226 – 17:20  230, 231 – 17:22  172 – 17:23  178 – 18:4, 30  172, 180 – 18:11  197 – 18:17  282 – 18:23  172 – 18:25  171 – 18:27  178 – 18:28  226, 227 – 18:29  121 – 18:33  271 – 19:1  49 – 19:4  271 – 19:7, 23  121 – 19:15, 40  105, 230 – 19:16, 41  54, 280 – 19:30  232 – 19:32, 40, 41  172 – 19:39  180 – 19:41, 42  172 – 20:2  49 – 20:12  178 – 20:14  172 – 20:22  119 – 21:8  181

363

364

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 21:1–​3  106 – 21: 3, 4  180 – 21:10  55 – 21:13  49 – 22:4  58 – 22:7  55 – 22:44  121 – 24:1  309 – 24:5  172 – 24:12  171 – 24:14  178 – 24:19  49 – 24:22, 25  49, 178 1 Kings (1Kgs)  101 (3), 179, 206, 225, 273, 289 – 1  79, 189 – 1–​2  71, 72, 101 – 1:3  230, 231 – 1:5  190, 273 – 1:6  190, 242 – 1:20, 22  72 – 1:23  196 – 1:29  119 – 1:30  180 – 1:35  173 – 1:37  182, 183 – 1:52  183 – 1:39  174 – 1:48  232 – 1:50  176 – 2  102 – 2:8  192, 193, 197, 266 – 2:10  101 – 2:10–​12  101 – 2:11 (LXX)  102 – 2:12–​11:43  81 – 2:13  111 – 2:13–​2Kgs  101 – 2:19, 30, 38, 41  173 – 2:24  119 – 2:28  176

– 2:29  198 – 2:33, 37, 45  183 – 2:34  49, 173 – 3–​2Kgs 101  – 3:1  174 – 3:4–​15  71 – 3:5  179 – 3:6  232 – 3:15  49, 172, 173 – 3:16–​28  71 – 3:21  196 – 3:26  183 – 4:7  183 – 5:5  173 – 5:8  183 – 5:22  180 – 5:27  49, 173 – 6  81 – 6–​7  71 – 6:1  106 – 6:21  172 – 7:13  174 – 7:46  266 – 8  268 – 8:1–​11  71 – 8:13  81 – 8:21  175 – 8:22, 55  172 – 8:25  232 – 8:29, 35, 37  183 – 8:30  48 – 8:36  226 – 8:46–​53  157 – 8:57  182 – 9:8  183 – 9:9  225 – 9:16  232 – 10:1–​10  71 – 10:6–​7  197 – 10:9  182 – 11:15  49 – 11:26  177

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 11:21  119 – 11:32  183 – 11:33  171, 225 – 11:41  71 – 11:43  101, 102 – 12:2, 25  173 – 12:3, 20  230 – 12:6  119 – 12:16  178, 183 – 12:20  119 – 12:24  231 – 12:25–​32  83 – 12:29  262 – 12:32, 33  49 (2), 173 – 12:32–​13:32  73 – 13  140, 262 – 13:1  261 – 13:10  119, 261 – 13:11, 14, 25  232 – 13:11–​34  79 – 13:19, 33  173 – 13:25  197 – 13:32  183 – 13:33  119, 181 – 14:2  244 – 14:3  183 – 14:5  181 – 14:11  55 – 14:19–​20  127 – 14:20, 31  101, 102 – 14:26  174 – 14:29–​15:3  105 – 15–​16  307 – 15:1–​5  127 – 15:1, 9, 25, 33  127 – 15:7–​15  105 – 15:8, 24  101, 102 – 15:12  172 – 15:17  49, 173 – 15:18  174, 232 – 15:21  173 – 15:23–​26  105

– 15:33–​34  127 – 16–​18  58 – 16:4  55 – 16:5–​10  105 – 16:6  101, 102 – 16:8, 15, 21, 24  127 – 16:14–​15  105 – 16:20–​23  105 – 16:22  176 – 16:28  101, 102 – 16:29–​19:18  79 – 16:29–​22:53  105 – 16:31  174 – 16:34  54, 264 – 17  81, 83 (2) – 17–​18  86 – 17–​19  72 (3), 86 – 17–​2Kgs13  104 – 17:1  84, 119, 140, 182, 183 – 17:1–​22:40  81 – 17:12, 23  119 – 17:3, 5  266 – 17:5  173 – 17:8–​16  95 – 17:8–​24  80 (2), 82 – 17:14  179 – 17:19  232 – 17:23  174 – 17:24  80, 121 – 18  95, 116, 225 – 18:1  116 – 18:1–​21  82 – 18:4  153, 174 – 18:7  197, 199 (2), 225 (2) – 18:8, 11, 14, 44  179 – 18:10, 15  119 – 18:13  49, 153 (2) – 18:17  169 – 18:17 (LXX)  225 – 18:17–​20:19  71 – 18:18  196 – 18:20–​40  84

365

366

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 18:23  180 – 18:27  116 – 18:29  170 – 18:31  71, 174, 183, 282 – 18:36  49, 116 – 18:37  140 – 18:43  119, 173 – 18:44  116, 244 – 18:45  268 – 19  83 – 19:1–​18  86, 87 (2) – 19:4, 6, 7, 21  173 – 19:5  102 – 19:6  102, 196 – 19:10  84, 230(2), 231 – 19:10–​14  79 – 19:11  197 – 19:13  170, 172, 197, 198, 277 – 19:14  230 (2), 231 – 19:15  225 – 19:15–​18  103 – 19:16  225 – 19:17  86 – 19:19  77, 136, 172, 195, 277 – 19:19–​21  32, 34, 75 (2), 76 (2), 77, 79, 84, 86 (2), 87 (3), 103 (2), 105, 110, 311, 312 (3), 313, 317 – 19:21  174 – 20  72, 230 – 20:1, 26  49, 173 – 20:1–​43  86 – 20:3, 5, 13, 14, 28, 32, 35, 42  179 – 20:5  231 – 20:5–​7  133 – 20:9  180 – 20:22  72 – 20:32  119 – 20:35  269 (2) – 20:38  172 – 21  72, 85 – 21:1–​38  86 – 21:2  180

– 21:4, 27  102 – 21:14  230 – 21:15  119 – 21:19  179 – 21:20–​26  82, 84 – 21:20–​29  85 – 21:24  55 – 21:27  170 – 22  79, 100, 104, 140, 188, 189, 239, 275, 307 – 22:1–​38  72 – 22:3  121 – 22:8  239 – 22:11, 20, 27, 50  179 – 22:13  182 – 22:14  119 – 22:18  232 (2), 238 – 22:19  232 – 22:20  49, 173 – 22:21  172 – 22:23  192 – 22:24, 34  175, 275 – 22:25  176 – 22:28  189 – 22:29  49, 173 – 22:33  231 – 22:36  172 – 22:40  101, 102 – 22:50  188 – 22:51  101, 102, 127 (2), 188 – 22:51–​53  126 – 22:52  85, 127 – 22:54  85 2 Kings (2Kgs)  49, 52 (2), 53, 69, 93, 101, 110, 182, 224, 227, 273, 275 – 1  76, 85, 104, 105, 106, 126 (3), 140, 243 (3), 307, 312, 316, 317 – 1–​2  33, 90 – 1:1–​2:6  93 – 1:1–​6  93

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 1:1–​8, 16–​18  90 – 1:1–​18  311, 312 (2) – 1:2, 5, 6, 8  179 – 1:3  171 – 1:4, 6, 11, 16  93, 243 – 1:2, 5, 9, 11, 13  93, 179 – 1:2–​17  72, 73 – 1:3  93 (2) – 1:3–​4  87 – 1:4, 6, 11  179 – 1:5  231 (2) – 1:6 (LXX)  82, 84 – 1:9  49, 173, 231, 232 – 1:13  49, 173 – 1:9–​14  93 – 1:11, 13  173 – 1:17  93 – 1:17–​18  104, 105, 106 – 1:17–​3:3  105 – 1:18  35 – 1:19–​21  103 – 2  28, 29, 33, 51, 72, 83 (2), 86, 95 (2), 105 (2), 126, 130, 207, 225, 243, 264, 280 – 2:1  23, 41, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52 (2), 53, 54 (2), 56, 61, 72, 75, 77, 81, 105 (3), 106, 107, 116, 128 (8), 130 (2), 148, 154 (3), 155, 163, 280 (2) – 2:1, 3, 5  93, 155, 163 – 2:1–​6  113, 157 – 2:1–​8  103 – 2:1, 11  49, 52, 53 (3), 56, 154, 268 – 2:1–​15  86 (2), 87 (2), 316 – 2:1–​18  23 (2), 24, 27, 28 (2), 29, 31 (2), 32 (7), 33, 34 (2), 35 (3), 36 (3), 37, 41, 43, 46 (2), 47, 58, 62, 74 (2), 75 (2), 75, 79 (5), 81 (2), 82, 84, 86, 98, 107, 110, 131, 169, 242, 287 (2), 290, 300 (2), 303 (3), 306, 311 (3), 312 (2), 313 (3), 314, 316 – 2:1–​18 (LXX)  295–​299

367

– 2:1–​25  32, 35, 72, 76, 103, 105 (2), 110, 313 – 2:2  59 (4), 228, 231, 239, 282 (3), 286 (2), 290 – 2:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 81  179 – 2:2, 3, 23  261 – 2:2, 4, 6  41, 56, 119, 155, 163 – 2:2–​6, 14, 15, 22, 25  76, 77 – 2:2–​13  81 – 2:2–​18  42 – 2:3, 5, 7, 15  269 – 2:4  43, 240 – 2:4, 5, 15, 18  264 – 2:6  266 – 2:6–​8  89 – 2:7  172, 191, 192, 193, 266 – 2:7, 16–​18  93, 172 – 2:8  313 – 2:8, 13, 14  277 – 2:9  273 (2), 275 – 2:9–​14  93 (2) – 2:10, 12  93 – 2:11  49, 50, 51, 52 (2), 77, 93 (2), 106, 128, 154 (2), 171, 195, 196, 197, 199 (3) – 2:12  34, 75, 200 – 2:13  266 – 2:14  36, 93 (2), 41, 64 – 2:15  36, 77, 106 (3), 216, 275 – 2:15 (LXX)  225 – 2:16  36, 41, 43, 66, 67 (2), 227, 271 – 2:16–​18  77, 87 – 2:18  77, 237, 238, 239 (2) – 2:19  178 – 2:19–​21  86 – 2:19–​21, 22, 23, 24  72, 75 – 2:19–​22  78, 103 (2), 264, 311, 312 (2), 312 – 2:19–​25  32, 72, 82 – 2:21  179, 183

368

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 2:22  35 – 2:23  49, 173 – 2:23–​25  262, 311, 312 (3) – 2:24  77 – 2:25  119 (2), 281 – 3  72 (2), 95 – 3–​13  247 – 3:1  80, 105, 106, 188 – 3:2  80, 105 – 3:3  80 – 3:4–​27  82, 86 – 3:5  116 – 3:9  189 (2) – 3:14  119 – 3:16, 17  179 – 3:21  172 – 3:26  174 – 3:27  174, 231 (2) – 4  71, 74, 95, 272 – 4–​8  79, 80, 81 – 4–​13  317 – 4:1  72, 269, 271 – 4:1–​6:23  72 – 4:1–​7  80 (2), 84, 186 – 4:1–​7, 38–​41  – 4:1–​37  136 – 4:1–​41  82 – 4:2  72 (2), 180 (3) – 4:2, 4, 6 (LXX)  59 – 4:5  201 (3) – 4:6  170 – 4:8  72 – 4:8–​37  60, 78 – 4:9  121 – 4:11, 34  102 – 4:13, 43  179 – 4:16  239 – 4:19  183 – 4:20, 31, 35  173 – 4:24, 28  225 – 4:25  170 – 4:28  232, 239

– 4:29–​30, 31, 32, 35  87 – 4:30  56, 63, 120 – 4:31  225 – 4:33  72 – 4:34, 35  49, 173 – 4:38  54, 105, 119, 269, 280 – 4:38–​41  84 (2), 283 – 5  267 – 5–​8  95 – 5:1–​15  82 – 5:5, 24  174 – 5:9, 15, 25  172 – 5:10, 14, 15  171, 173 – 5:11  225 – 5:13  179 – 5:15  121 – 5:21  225 – 5:22  119, 269 – 6  272 – 6:1  271 – 6:1–​7  84, 95 – 6:2  266 – 6:4  266 – 6:6  223 – 6:8–​23  136 – 6:10, 32  179 – 6:11  286 – 6:15–​18  82 – 6:20  82 – 6:23  72 – 6:24  49, 72, 82, 173 – 6:24–​7:20  72 – 6:26–​7:20  86 – 6:30  170 – 6:32  231, 232 – 7:1  82, 179 – 7:2  178 – 7:3–​16  82 – 7:5  197, 198 – 7:6  122, 288 – 7:8, 15  231 – 7:9  121

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 7:15  266 – 7:18  183 – 7:19  178, 197 – 8  236, 256 – 8:1–​15  72 – 8:5  176 – 8:7  75 – 8:9  119, 172, 174, 225 – 8:10, 14, 19  179 – 8:11  228, 229 – 8:12  121 – 8:13  103 – 8:15  174 – 8:16  188 – 8:16  188 – 8:21  72 – 8:24  101, 102 – 8:29  80, 173 – 9  72, 75, 86 – 9–​10  72, 82, 85 (2), 225 – 9:1  269 – 9:1–​13  80 – 9:3, 6, 12, 18, 19  179 – 9:6  103 – 9:15  173 – 9:17, 27  178 – 9:18  119, 225 – 9:20  119 – 9:27–​29  126 – 9:35  280, 283 – 9:36  231 – 10  58, 72 – 10:4  172 – 10:7  230 (2) – 10:9  172 – 10:15  225 – 10:29  260, 261, 262 – 10:31  28 – 10:33  266 (2) – 10:34–​35  127 – 10:35  101, 102 – 11  71

369

– 11:1–​12:17  72 – 11:4, 19  174 – 11:11  172 – 11:15  179 – 11:19  173 – 12  71, 100 – 12:10, 19  174 – 12:11, 19  49, 173 – 13  72, 83, 104, 315 – 13:4  178 – 13:9, 13  101, 102 – 13:10–​13  126 – 13:14  79, 178, 183, 288, 289 (3) – 13:14–​21  72, 79, 82, 86 (2), 87 (2) – 13:15, 18, 25  174 – 13:18  172 – 13:20–​21  79 – 13:21  195 – 13:24–​25  105 (2) – 13:24–​14:4  105 – 13:25  173 – 14:11  49, 173 – 14:14  173 – 14:16, 29  101, 102 – 14:17–​24  105 – 14:19  230 (2) – 14:23  127 – 14:26  178 – 15  307 – 15:1, 13, 17, 23, 27, 32  127 – 15:5, 20  173 – 15:7, 22, 38  101, 102 – 15:14  49, 173 – 15:19  174 – 15:29  174 (2) – 15–​16  174 – 16:1  127 – 16:4  66 – 16:5–​10  105 – 16:8  174 – 16:9, 12  49, 173 – 16:10–​18  71

370 – 16:15  183 – 16:20  101, 102 – 17  58, 86 – 17:1  127 – 17:3, 6, 24, 28  173 – 17:5  49, 173 – 17:16  225 – 17:25–​28  73 – 17:27  177 (2) – 18:1  106 – 18:12  172 – 18:17–​20:19  71, 172 – 18:27  119 – 18:28  172 – 19:8, 9, 36  173 – 19:14  49, 173, 174 – 19:15  232 – 19:19–​21  75 – 19:21–​23  82 – 19:21–​34  81 – 19:27  121 – 20  79 – 20:11  173 – 20:19  183 – 20:21  101 – 21:3  173 – 21:18  101, 102 – 22:3–​23:24  71 – 22:9  173 – 22:17  58 – 23  268 – 23:2  49, 173 – 23:3  172 – 23:4, 17  261 – 23:15  262 – 23:16–​28  73 – 23:16, 30  174 – 23:17  178 – 23:20  173 – 23:25  119 – 23:26  119 – 23:26–​25:30  73 – 23:27  183, 232

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 23:29  225 – 24:1  173 – 24:6  101, 102 – 24:12  174 – 25:1  106 – 25:3  176 – 25:5  264 – 25:18, 20  174 – 25:27–​30  71 1Chronicles (1Chr)  174, 271, 273, 309 – 5:18  271 – 6:63  264 – 7:28  261 – 10:10  280 – 11:6  49 – 13:6  49 – 19:5  264 – 21:1  309 – 21:2  239 (2) – 21:10  61 – 21:17  239 – 21:19  49 – 21:26  49 (2) – 26:7, 9, 30  271 – 27:23  55 2Chronicles (2Chr)  35, 240, 289 – 1:6  49 (2) – 1:7  179 – 3:5, 14  49 – 6:13  51 – 7:14  226 (2) – 9:31  101 – 12:9  49 – 12:16  101 – 13:8  58 – 13:19  261 – 13:23  101 – 16:13  101 – 18  239 – 18:7  239

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 18:17  239 (2) – 18:19, 28  49 – 20:34  173 – 21:1  101 – 25:21  49 – 26:17  271 – 26:23  101 – 27–​28  174 – 27:9  101 – 28:4  66 – 28:6  271 – 28:9  48 – 28:15  264 – 28:27  101 – 29:20  49 – 30:27  48 – 32:5  49 – 32:33  101 – 33:20  101 – 34:25  58 – 34:30  49 – 35:14  49 – 35:21  244 – 36:15–​16  79 – 36:17, 23  49 Ezra (Ezra)  71, 85 (2), 106 – 1:3  49 – 2:28  261 – 2:34  264 – 3:3  49 (2) – 9:2  226 – 9:6  48 – 9–​10  85 – 10:44  226 Nehemiah (Neh)  36, 46, 64, 85 (2), 106 – 3:2  264 – 7:32  261 – 7:36  264 – 8:10  229 – 8:11  121

371

– 9:30  275 – 12:29  280, 281 – 13:10  120 Judith (Jdt)  – 14:5 (LXX)  47 (2) Esther (Esth)  36, 46, 64 – 1:6  149 – 2:21  2:21 1Maccabees (1Macc)  28 (2) – 2:58  28 3Maccabees (3Macc)  – 5:22 (LXX)  47 Job (Job)  54 (2), 261, 275, 287 (3) – 1  106 – 1:1–​3  147 – 1:11  60 – 1:16  178 – 2:12  51 – 4:15  286 – 5  275 – 8:8  179 – 12:7  179 – 17:15  65 (2) – 20:6  48, 50 (3), 55, 56 – 28:24  55 – 37:3  55 – 38:1  54, 286, 287 (2) – 38:33  120 – 38:1  54 – 39:1  120 – 40:6  54 (2), 286, 287 (2) – 40:23  278 – 41:3  55 Psalms (Ps)  – 2:8  179 – 18:7  55 – 24  121

372 – 28:1  121 – 34:16  55 – 39:3  121 – 39:13  55 – 40:2  55 – 42:7  278 – 50:4  48 – 55:9  54 (2), 286 – 68:18  273 – 69:15  244 – 71:20  94 – 73:5 (LXX)  47 – 77:18  283 – 82:6–​7  58 – 83:14  226 – 83:16  226 – 83:17  283 – 89:10  60 – 102:2  55 – 104:12  55 – 107:25  54, 286, 287 – 107:26  50, 55, 56 – 107:29  54, 121, 286 – 115:6  263 – 139  174 – 139:8  32 – 139:16  175 – 145:19  55 – 148:8  54 Proverbs (Prov)  – 3:12  271 – 9:7  121 – 11:30  121 – 30:4  50, 55, 56 Ecclesiastes (Eccl)  – 1:7  171 – 1:13  55 – 2:3  55 – 3:1  55 – 3:7  121 – 7:9  275

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 10:7  171 – 10:20  55 – 12:6  280, 282 Song of Songs (Song)  – 2:8  66 Ben Sira (Sir)  – 6  28 – 48:1–​14  28 – 48:12  28, 29 Isaiah (Isa)  275 – 2:14  66 – 3  275 – 5:6 (LXX)  47 – 5:9  60 – 5:28  282 – 7  174 – 7:2  224, 236 – 7:11  179 – 14:7  224 – 14:13  50, 55, 56 – 16:1  229 – 17:13  283 – 19:12  65 (2) – 21:9  178 – 28:28  280, 282 (2) – 29:6  54 (2), 286 – 33:18  183 – 37:14  49 – 37:36  175 – 40:24  54 (2), 286 – 41:16  54 (2), 286 – 42:5  49, 61 – 42:14  121 – 45:8  49 – 45:12  49 – 45:18  49 – 51:6  48 – 52:5  182 – 53:2  49 – 53:8  182 (2)

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 54:11  54 (2), 286 – 57:11  121 – 62:1  121 – 64:11  121 – 65:6  121 – 65:7  66 – 65:17  49 – 66:15  273 Jeremiah (Jer)  – 1:16  58 – 2:10  229 – 3:2  183 – 4:24  66 – 4:25  55 – 8:19  55 – 9:16  229 – 15:3  55 – 16:12  171 – 20:2  175 – 23:19  48, 54 (2), 286 – 23:31  121 – 25:6  58, 233 (2), 236, 256 – 25:32  54 (2), 286 – 30:6  181 – 30:23  48, 54 (3), 286 – 34:14  227 – 35:11  49 – 35:15  233 (2), 236, 256 – 37:11  49, 117 – 39:5  264 – 44:8  58 – 47:3  280, 282 – 51:8  178 – 51:9  48 – 51:16  49 – 51:44  178 – 51:53  50 – 52:8  264 – 52:27  175 Ezekiel (Ezek)  – 1:4  54 (2), 286, 287

– 1:4–​5  286 – 6:3  66 (2) – 7:16  66 (2) – 10:2, 6  283 – 10:13  280 – 11:23, 24  49 – 13:3  171 – 14:7  49 – 17:8  277 – 20:18  233 (2), 236, 256 – 23:24  283 – 24:16  121 – 26:10  283 – 26:19  49 – 31:6  55 – 31:12  66 – 31:13  55 – 32:4  55 – 32:5  66 (2) – 35:8  66 – 36:4  66 – 36:6  66 – 37:19  121 – 37:21  121 – 40:6  49 Daniel (Dan)  – 7:9  280, 283 – 9:12  55 – 10:7  178 – 10:20  120 – 12:3  32 – 12:7  48 Hosea (Hos)  – 2:20  55 – 4:11–​14  161 – 4:13  66 – 4:15  280, 283 – 10:15  261 – 12:5  261 – 13:3  286 – 13:10  65 (2)

373

374 Joel (Joel)  – 4:13  229 Amos (Amos)  261, 286 – 1:14  54 (2), 286 – 3:14  261 – 4:4  261, 280 – 5:2  178 – 5:5  261, 280 – 5:12  121 – 7:10  261 – 9:2  50, 55 (2) – 9:13  66 Jonah (Jonah)  – 1:4  54 (2), 286, 287 – 1:11  54 (2), 286, 287 – 1:12  54 (2), 286, 287 – 1:13  54 (2), 286, 287 – 3:6  277 – 4:6  49 Micaiah (Mic)  – 6:1  66 – 6:5  280 Nahum (Nah)  – 2:8  173 – 3:3  52 Habakuk (Hab)  – 2:20  287 – 3:8  273 Zephania (Zeph)  – 1:3  55 Haggai (Hag)  – 2:11  179 Zechariah (Zech)  – 6:7  230

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– 7:2  261 – 11:3  277 – 13:4  277 – 13:8  273 (2) Malachi (Mal)  – 3:23–​24  24, 28 (2) – 4:5–​6  28 Matthew (Matt)  – 11:14  29 – 16:14  29 – 17:3, 4, 10, 11, 12  29 – 27:47, 49  29 Mark (Mark)  – 6:15  29 – 8:28  29 – 9:4, 5, 11, 12, 13  29 – 15:35, 36  29 Luke (Luke)  – 1:17  29 – 4:25–​26  29 – 4:27  29 – 9:8, 19, 30, 33  29 – 9:51–​56  93 John (John)  – 1:21, 25  29 – 8:52–​53  89 – 20:25  218 Romans (Rom)  – 11:2  29 Other References Aristotle, “Poetics”  – VI 1450a  40, 147 (2) – VI 1450b  147 (2) – VII 157 

INDEX OF REFERENCES

– X 1452a  217 – XI 1452b  217, 295 – XIV 110  – XVIII 1456a  294 – XXIV 157, 277  Herodotus, “The Persian Wars” VII 40  27, 299 Homer, “The Iliad” I 27  Homer, “The Odyssey” V 27  Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews”  31 (2) – 4:326  29 Philo, “Questions on Genesis”  29 (2), 31 – 1:86  29

375

Plutarch, “De genio Socratis”  589b 41, 278 Plato, “Republic”  – III §392–​395  204 – X 27  Sophocles, “Oedipus”  216, 294 Strabo, “Geography” XV 3 18  27, 398 Talmud  – Derekh Eretz Zuta 1:5  30 (2) Qumran Texts  – 2QBen Sira (2Q18)  28 – 4QApocryphon of Elisha (4Q481a)  36 (2) – 4QParaphrase of Kings (4Q382)  56

Index of Subjects A agent/​character  58–​61, 84, 90–​91, 96, 99, 102–​112, 113–​118, 118–​ 123, 128, 135, 141, 145–​151, 156, 159–​163, 167, 171, 174, 178, 179–​ 185, 189, 194, 208, 215, 223–​232, 243, 245–​246, 251, 259, 262, 264, 266, 268, 272, 274, 279, 280, 284, 303, 309–​310, 316–​317 alliteration  258, 270, 277, 288, 313 ambiguity  47, 56, 60, 66, 80, 128, 150, 210, 222, 287, 294, 299, 301, 310 analepsis  42, 219, 223–​225, 236–​ 248, 254, 303–​304, 306–​308, 311–​ 312, 316 – contrastive  247 – explicative  242, 248 – heterodiegetic/​homodiegetic  238–​ 241, 248, 254 – synchronic/​synchronization  189, 247 anticipatory traces  251–​254, 274 athnah  64–​67 ascent/​ascension  23–​26, 38, 42, 46–​55, 75, 87, 88–​90, 96, 107–​108, 126, 161–​163, 167, 183, 260, 265–​ 266, 267–​270, 281, 287, 303, 310, 311–​317 C close reading  70, 88, 98, 284 codex  35–​37, 59, 107, 290 contiguity  41, 258, 278, 290, 296–​301 D delimitation  42, 98–​101, 135

deuteronomistic/​deuteronomic  33–​ 36, 63, 69–​74, 79–​85, 104–​05, 157, 261, 281, 284 dialogue/​answers/​requests  58, 81, 104–​106, 113–​124, 132, 144, 151–​ 153, 159, 160–​162, 178, 180, 186, 201, 213, 227, 234–​235, 242–​254, 270, 275, 295, 310, 313, 317 direct speech/​indirect speech  120, 196, 201, 210–​211, 220, 237, 244–​246 directive he  48, 51–​56, 265, 285 distance/​closeness  33, 44–​45, 53, 108, 140, 166, 261–​265, 279, 296–​ 301, 308 E emphasis  64, 191, 247 exposition  106, 115, 124, 116, 145–​ 167, 212, 218, 280, 304, 309, 313 – implicit/​explicit  147, 155–​167, 179, 212, 218 – initial  115, 124, 148–​150, 153–​ 156, 163 – gradual  151–​155, 163–​164 F fluctuation  159, 207, 212 formula  56–​63, 66, 71, 76, 101–​106, 120, 125–​126, 129–​130, 135, 159, 188, 201, 237–​248, 254, 293 H hierarchy/​hierarchical complexity  254, 307–​311 hinneh/​wehinneh  195–​211, 215

378

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

I indices  41, 258–​264, 268, 274, 280, 301, 308–​309, 317 instrumental bet  148, 275, 285–​ 286, 298 intratextuality  32, 39, 40, 131, 272 intertextuality  32, 39, 81, 84, 131, 148, 214, 218, 223, 236, 251, 256, 266–​267, 273, 276, 290, 298, 300, 317 irony  210, 243, 247–​248, 254 K ketiv/​quere  43, 66–​67, 294 L literary genre  149, 241, 294, 311–​313 – legenda/​elaborated legenda  313–​316 – vita  78–​81, 87, 312–​316 M maqqeph  182, 249, 259–​260, 279, 305 N narrative communication  63, 115, 133, 137, 138, 144, 151, 217, 287 – implied author/​reader  100 – model reader  40 – narrator  31, 100–​101, 105–​108, 114–​118, 121, 124, 126, 128, 131–​133, 137, 138–​139, 140–​144, 148–​155, 158, 162–​165, 169–​179, 179–​194, 203–​210, 213, 216, 219, 223–​255, 260–​262, 267, 270–​272, 280, 285–​286, 303–​305, 309–​ 311, 317 – narratee  100, 206 – real author/​reader  100, 153

narrative tension  156–​166, 190, 204, 208, 212–​219, 249–​254, 260–​ 272, 288, 294, 304–​308 negative particles  244–​248, 254, 306 nominal clause/​nominal expressions  179, 183, 186, 195–​ 202, 211, 244 O omission  53, 64–​65, 90–​91, 133, 195 P paronomasia  229, 232, 236, 254, 258, 266, 267, 270, 274 preformative mem  182 prophetic(al)  33–​34, 41, 65, 72, 76–​ 87, 96–​97, 103–​105, 110, 118–​121, 128, 130, 140–​141, 160, 189, 247, 252, 254, 261, 267–​268, 269–​277, 287, 298 petuha/​setuma  35 philosophical/​ phenomenological  37, 125, 205 plot  31, 32, 38, 39–​42, 70, 75–​77, 88–​99, 107–​110, 115, 124–​131, 141, 145–​169, 187–​190, 204–​208, 212–​221, 243, 248–​257, 262–​269, 279, 284–​285, 298–​308, 317 – anagnorisis/​recognition  93, 216–​ 222, 260, 305 – chorus  294–​295, 317 – climax  146, 213, 219, 220, 221, 305 – complication  146, 159–​167, 212, 220–​222, 304–​307 – conclusion  71, 146, 215, 223, 249–​251, 255, 303, 306, 316 – denouement  146, 218–​223, 243, 249, 250, 255, 305–​307 – disequilibrium  145–​146, 156, 160, 163, 165, 204, 212–​213, 219, 249

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

– equilibrium  145–​146, 156–​167, 204–​219, 248, 255 – exodos  295 – flow of the events  214, 310 – inciting moment  146, 159–​167, 212, 304 – peripeteia  216–​222, 260, 305 – perturbation  145, 146, 159, 163, 165 – pathos  217, 220–​222, 260, 305 – prologue  295 – resolution  146, 216 – story-​line  240, 248 – turning point  146, 215, 219–​ 222, 305 points of view  42, 169, 187, 204–​211, 212, 215, 221, 303, 308, 311, 317 – bluff  206, 213, 219, 222 – conceptual  205–​211, 221–​222 – character-​elevating strategy  205, 210–​222, 308 – evenhanded strategy  205, 207, 210, 221, 222 – external/​internal/​zero focalization  31, 93, 97, 205, 207–​ 211, 221–​222, 248, 307–​312 – ideological plane  149–​150, 190, 204, 211–​212, 218, 221 – interest  205–​211, 221, 222 – perceptual  205–​211, 221, 222 – phraseological plane  204–​205, 211, 221, 222 – psychological plane  204 – reader-​elevating strategy  212 – spatial/​temporal plane  204, 213, 219, 221–​222, 308 prolepsis  42, 113, 123–​127, 132, 143, 154, 157, 164–​166, 186, 215, 219, 238–​255, 303–​316 – completing  125, 238 – proleptic resumé  125, 130

379

– proleptic title  105, 127, 131, 165, 167, 304, 307, 315 – repeating  124, 125, 307 Q qatal… +​ w-​..qatal  192–​199 qotel.. +​ w-​..qotel  199–​203 qotel +​ w..qatal  194–​202 R regnal resumé  104, 105, 106, 125, 126, 127, 130, 165, 188 repetition  39, 42, 64, 96, 97, 113, 123, 126, 131–​144, 145–​163, 164–​167, 169–​175, 185, 192–​193, 210–​219, 229, 236, 237–​254, 266, 285, 288, 293, 304–​307 – backbone structure  162 – contextual  80, 133 – core  132–​139 – cross-​repetition structure  165, 167 – enactment  152–​154, 166, 230, 236, 253 – forecast  152–​155, 230, 236, 252 – member  152–​154, 253 – paradigmatic  133 – report  152, 154, 253 – syntagmatic  133 – verbal/​nonverbal  143, 152–​155, 165, 237–​248, 254 – verbatim/​variant repetition  123–​ 145, 152, 155, 161, 183, 230, 238–​251, 266, 285, 288, 293, 304–​307 – variation  132–​138, 155, 163, 191, 231, 293 rhetorical question  241–​254 S setting/​background  27, 88, 94, 123–​ 126, 141, 146–​155, 156, 159, 163,

380

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

194, 206, 224, 232, 241, 247–​248, 284, 262, 280, 289 simultaneity  42, 169–​171, 186–​203, 207–​208, 213, 216, 219, 220, 294, 303–​316 – durative/​instantaneous  194–​195, 199–​204, 213, 216, 219–​220, 305 – opposition  139, 192–​194, 202, 217, 224, 249–​250, 252, 273, 281, 297 – overlapping/​non-​ overlapping  187–​189, 304, 306 – synchronicity  187–​189, 247 – time-​oriented/​ non-​time-​oriented  187–​191 spatial/​space/​sui loci  117, 148, 171–​ 173, 194, 203–​210, 213, 219–​222, 234, 280, 307–​308 structural/​structure  88–​109, 113–​ 123, 169–​185, 223–​236, 241, 258, 294, 303, 307 – chiasm/​chiastic/​non-​chiastic  33, 88–​98, 312 – Elijah cycle  29, 70–​87, 100–​103, 111, 261, 266, 287, 307–​317 – Elisha cycle  70–​87, 95, 98, 100–​103, 111, 180, 261, 266, 287, 307–​317 – incident/​quasi-​incident  33, 39, 42, 53, 88, 104, 113, 115, 122–​125, 141–​142, 160–​168, 173, 183–​185, 234–​236 – macro-​narrative  100–​101 – micro-​narrative/​Episode  104–​107 – triple cycle  103, 116, 174, 225, 230, 231, 268 – transitional cycle  103, 261, 311 – scene  107–​108 – sequence 102–​103  succession/​successor  23, 29–​34, 76, 90, 104, 110, 126, 148, 183, 189,

192, 245, 250, 265, 278, 285, 303, 313, 315 symbol/​symbolism  257–​300 – allegory  259–​264, 284–​289 – etiology  42, 98, 249, 258, 278–​290 – heritage  42, 250–​258, 269–​277 – itinerary  42, 90, 258, 259–​268 – proto-​symbol/​proto-​ symbolism  41–​42, 257–​259, 278–​ 290, 311–​318 T theological  74, 83, 86, 127–​129, 281, 287, 317 – benediction  61–​62 – credo  61, 63, 66 – curse  28, 61–​63, 95, 105, 107, 192, 193, 197 time/​temporal  23–​24, 106, 115–​116, 124–​125, 130, 146, 149, 152, 160, 169–​170, 192, 199, 202–​222, 233, 254, 268, 272, 285, 308–​310 – narrative time  124–​131, 132, 148, 187–​204, 236–​248, 259, 304, 307–​309 – narration time  124, 132, 304, 306 – sui-​temporis phenomenon  128–​ 131, 165, 304, 309 tradition  24, 29, 31, 41, 42, 63, 69–​87, 96, 104, 136, 160, 167, 284, 303, 313–​316 – etymological  313 – oral  41, 81, 167, 303, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316 V verb structures  169, 170, 183, 185, 186, 235, 236, 254 – character verbs/​Elijah verbs/​Elisha verbs  118–​121, 179–​183, 223–​233 – deed verbs  174–​178, 234

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

– narrator verbs  115–​118, 169–​179, 223, 224, 227, 228, 230 – speech verbs  118, 179, 234 – time verb structures  115–​117, 169–​170, 233–​234 – quasi time verbs  233–​236, 254 W w-​..qatal  192, 194, 195, 199, 200, 203, 204, 213 wayyiqtol(qatal)… w-​ ..qotel  195, 199 Selected Proper Names (Non-​Authors): Abraham  30, 127–​128, 147, 175, 237 Adapa  26 Aramean(s)  28, 95, 197, 288 Assyrian(s)/​Neo-​Ass.  25, 172–​173, 177, 273, 316 Baal  57–​58, 77, 79, 85–​87, 95, 104, 126, 206 Babylon(ian)(s)/​Neo-​Bab.  30, 50, 69, 85, 105 Bathsheba  84, 102, 148, 189, 243 Canaan  58, 263 David  63, 71, 73, 84, 94, 101–​102, 111, 114, 125, 147, 152–​154, 176, 178, 188–​190, 197, 207, 224, 229, 239, 242–​245, 266, 271, 279

381

Dead Sea Scrolls/​Qumran  28, 35, 36, 56, 61 Enoch  23, 29, 30, 32, 46 Egyptian(s)  24–​25, 38, 57, 62, 114, 131, 317 Enmeduranki  26 Etana  25–​26 Greek(s)  24, 27–​28, 46, 59, 101–​102, 124, 141, 149, 160, 290–​299 Jacob  141, 151–​152, 187, 244, 261 Jehu/​Jehu Dynasty  74–​75, 79–​87, 103, 126, 225, 260, 266 Joseph  93, 94, 141, 228, 238 Septuagint/​LXX  35–​36, 42, 47, 59, 64–​67, 82, 84, 104, 111, 139, 155, 173, 201, 225, 281, 290–​299, 301 Moses  29, 82, 84, 87, 136, 141, 224, 227, 236, 256, 267, 273, 290, 315 Naboth  84–​86, 180, 230 Noah  152, 209 Omrids  73, 79–​81, 86–​87, 130 Persian(s)  85, 87, 299 Salomon  148 Sumerian(s)  25 Syro-​Palestinian(s)  26–​27 Talmud  30 Targum(s)  36–​37, 48, 60 Ugaritic  58, 205, 206, 283 Utuabzu  26 Zarathustra  27

European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski Vol.

1

Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol.

2

Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012.

Vol.

3

Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol.

4

Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013.

Vol.

5

Edward Nieznański: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013.

Vol.

6

Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013.

Vol.

7

Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013.

Vol.

8

Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014.

Vol.

9

Jacek Grzybowski: Cosmological and Philosophical World of Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy as a Medieval Vision of the Universe. 2015.

Vol.

10 Dariusz Karłowicz: The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. 2016.

Vol.

11 Monika Ożóg: Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great. Translated by Marcin Fijak. 2016.

Vol.

12 Marek Dobrzeniecki: The Conflicts of Modernity in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2016.

Vol.

13 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2016.

Vol.

14 Paweł Rytel-Andrianik: Manna – Bread from Heaven. Jn 6:22-59 in the Light of Ps 78:2325 and Its Interpretation in Early Jewish Sources. 2017.

Vol.

15 Jan Čížek: The Conception of Man in the Works of John Amos Comenius. 2016.

Vol.

16 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Matthew. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2017.

Vol.

17 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of John. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2018.

Vol.

18 Tomasz Stępień & Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska: Unknown God, Known in His Activities. 2018.

Vol.

19 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska: Dialogue of Scriptures. The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations. 2018.

Vol.

20 Mariusz Rosik: Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways. 2019.

Vol.

21 Magdalena Zowczak (ed.): Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of Transformation. Comparative Studies of Religious Culture in Poland and Ukraine. 2019.

Vol.

22 Cezary Korzec (ed.): Bible Caught in Violence. 2019.

Vol.

23 Magdalena Zowczak: The Folk Bible of Central-Eastern Europe. 2019.

Vol.

24 Sławomir Henryk Zaręba / Marcin Zarzecki (eds.): Between Construction and Deconstruction of the Universes of Meaning. Research into the Religiosity of Academic Youth in the Years 1988 – 1998 – 2005 – 2017. 2019.

Vol.

25 Bartosz Adamczewski: Genesis. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

26 Bartosz Adamczewski: Exodus–Numbers. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

27 Bartosz Adamczewski: Deuteronomy–Judges. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

28 Bartosz Adamczewski: Samuel–Kings. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2021.

Vol.

29 Grzegorz Hołub: Understanding the Person. Essays on the Personalism of Karol Wojtyła. 2021.

Vol.

30 Michał Karnawalski: Heaven for Elijah? A Study of Structure, Style, and Symbolism in 2 Kings 2:1–18. 2022.

www.peterlang.com