Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms 9780567675897, 9780567675910, 9780567675903

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

659 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, Susan Gillingham, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

INNER BIBLICAL ALLUSION IN THE POETRY OF WISDOM AND PSALMS

Edited by Mark J. Boda, Kevin Chau and Beth LaNeel Tanner

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2019 Paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Mark J. Boda, Kevin Chau and Beth LaNeel Tanner, 2019 Mark J. Boda, Kevin Chau and Beth LaNeel Tanner have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Boda, Mark J., editor. | Chau, Kevin (Kevin D.), editor. | Tanner, Beth LaNeel, 1959-editor. Title: Inner-biblical allusion in the poetry of Wisdom and Psalms / edited by Mark J. Boda, Kevin Chau and Beth La Neel Tanner. Description: London: T&T Clark, 2018. | Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies, ISSN 2513-8758; volume 659 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018009617| ISBN 9780567675897 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567675903 (ePDF) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Psalms—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Psalms—Comparative studies. | Bible. Wisdom of Solomon—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Allusions in the Bible. Classification: LCC BS1430.52 .I56 2018 | DDC 223/.206—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018009617 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7589-7 PB: 978-0-5676-9395-2 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7590-3 Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (ISSN 2513-8758), volume 659 Typeset by: Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Contributors vii Preface ix Abbreviations xi Introduction Mark J. Boda 1 The Psalmist as Historiographer Jeffery M. Leonard 9 Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms: How Do We Decide? Beth LaNeel Tanner 24 Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 in Relation to the Theological Perspectives of Books III, IV, and V of the Psalter Hee Suk Kim 36 The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 David Emanuel 49 The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms Kevin Chau 65 A Ridiculous God: Job Uses Psalm 8.5 [4] To Respond To Eliphaz Charles Yu 84 Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 Ryan P. O’Dowd 103

vi Contents

The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ in Ecclesiastes 5.3-5 [4-6] as an Exemplar of Intertextuality and Reinterpretation in Ecclesiastes 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] Richard L. Schultz 120 Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion: The Case of Creation Motifs in Isaiah Job Y. Jindo 133 Bibliography 166 Index of References 182 Index of Authors 192

C on t ri b u tor s

Mark J. Boda, PhD (University of Cambridge), McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Kevin Chau, PhD (University of Wisconsin–Madison), University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa David Emanuel, PhD (Hebrew University Jerusalem), Nyack College, Nyack, NY Job Y. Jindo, PhD (Jewish Theological Seminary of America), Academy for Jewish Religion, Yonkers, NY Hee Suk Kim, PhD (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chongshin Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea Jeffery M. Leonard, PhD (Brandeis University), Samford University, Birmingham, AL Ryan P. O’Dowd, PhD (University of Liverpool), Bread of Life Anglican Church, Ithaca, NY Richard L. Schultz, PhD (Yale University), Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL Beth LaNeel Tanner, PhD (Princeton Theological Seminary), New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, NJ Charles Yu, PhD (University of Wisconsin–Madison), Blackhawk Church, Middleton, WI

P refa ce

We are thankful for the privilege of working with the many hands that have helped to produce this volume. We thank the contributors for their essays that can now be added to the rich body of research on inner-biblical allusion. Special thanks are due to Professor John Goldingay and Professor David J.A. Clines for their insightful and stimulating reviews. We thank Sheffield Phoenix for originally accepting our volume proposal (before it was subsumed under Bloomsbury). We are grateful to our Bloomsbury editor Dominic Mattos and his editorial staff Sarah Blake and Meredith Benson and the LHBOTS editors Claudia Camp and Andrew Mein. We appreciate our research assistants C.L. Pearce and Chelsea Mak for their work on style and formatting issues. We acknowledge past and present members of the steering committee of Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Carol J. Dempsey, LeAnn Snow Flesher, Elizabeth Hayes, John Hobbins, Tania Notarius, Beth M. Stovell, Naama Zahavi-Ely, and Sarah Zhang): they have been an abundant source of joy and friendship. For biblical references in which the Hebrew and English versifications differ, references are listed first according to Hebrew versification followed by the English (e.g., Ps. 19.2 [1] denotes v. 2 in Hebrew and v. 1 in English). Instead of individual bibliographies for each article, a complete bibliography is provided at the end of this volume.

A b b rev i at i ons

AB Anchor Bible ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bib Biblica BJS Brown Judaic Studies BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament BLMJP Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem Publications BN Biblische Notizen BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series esv English Standard Version FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–99 HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies jps Jewish Publication Society Version JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament kjv King James Version

xii Abbreviations LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LSAWS Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic LXX Septuagint NAC New American Commentary nasb New American Standard Bible NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament niv New International Version NIVAC niv Application Commentary njps New Jewish Publication Society Version nkjv New King James Version nrsv New Revised Standard Version OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OTL Old Testament Library RBL Review of Biblical Literature ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevExp Review and Expositor SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SEÅ Svensk exegetisk arsbok Sem Semitica SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SPHS Scholars Press Homage Series TynBul Tyndale Bulletin UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

I n t rod uct i on

Mark J. Boda

Orientation Research on the interconnectedness between biblical texts did not begin with the dawn of the critical era.1 The Jewish sevenfold middot of Hillel and the Christian hermeneutical principle Scriptura Scripturae interpres (Scripture interprets Scripture),2 reveal earlier recognition that biblical texts shared common vocabulary, themes, and emphases. In the modern era of biblical research, it was the traditio-historical methodology which provided a critical framework for identifying the pre-literary development of biblical traditions. The transference of the traditum between generations was accomplished through the traditio, initially understood as an oral process for which forms (identified by form criticism) provided the vehicle for transmission.3 Ultimately the processes observed on the oral level were applied to transference of written traditions, giving rise to the

1.  What immediately follows in this ‘Orientation’ is reflected also in my earlier work, Mark J. Boda, ‘Quotation, Allusion’, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 298-300. 2.  D. Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C.E. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992); William Yarchin (ed.), History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) p. 114 n. 5; Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: Sacred Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), p. 26. 3.  Walter E. Rast, Tradition History and the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature [distributed by Scholars Press], rev. edn, 1975).

2

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

discipline of inner-biblical interpretation, exegesis and allusion.4 While it was understood that there was less flexibility in the transference of tradition on the written level, reshaping of tradition was still evident. Initial work on inner-biblical connections often focused on the source texts, providing lists of passages from which later texts were constructed. But soon scholars shifted their focus more onto the host texts, identifying the creative reshaping of the material from source texts for the rhetorical goals and historical exigencies of the host text and its audiences. Greater sensitivity was given to the variety of techniques for drawing on source texts, exemplified in the following list: ‘allusion’, ‘echo’, ‘inner-biblical exegesis’, ‘intertextuality’, ‘intertext’, ‘intratextuality’, ‘poetic influence’, and ‘trace’.5 Reference to the term ‘intertextuality’ suggests the influence of Kristeva with her greater attention to the experience of the reader.6 The use of Genette’s categories of transtextuality, which include intertextuality (quotation, plagiarism, allusion), paratextuality (title, terminal notes, chapter headings, marginalia, forewords), metatextuality (commentary),

4.  E.g., Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); Michael Fishbane, ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300); Part I: Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 33-48. 5.  T.K. Beal, ‘Glossary’, in Danna Nolan Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 21-24; cf. David L. Petersen, ‘Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections’, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14 (JSOTSup, 304 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 210-24. 6.  Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980); for discussion of the tension between the two poles of author and reader approaches, see further Kirsten Nielsen, ‘Intertextuality and Biblical Scholarship’, SJOT 2 (1990), pp. 89-95; Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversion; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); cf. Stanley E. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 79-96; Steve Moyise, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New’, in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 14-41.



Boda  Introduction 3

hypertextuality (imitation), and architextuality (genre),7 signaled a greater breadth of connections as well as heightened sensitivity to the hermeneutical dimensions of the interconnectedness of Scripture.8 Thus, while early approaches were more diachronic in method, focusing on the way a later text draws on an earlier text, more recent approaches have shifted to synchronic approaches which focus on the text and the reader’s experience with texts. It is evident that the study of the interconnectedness between biblical passages, whether it is called ‘tradition history’, ‘inner-biblical interpretation’, or ‘intertextuality’, has been a consistent and dominant feature of biblical research over the past two millennia. In light of this, this volume investigates these approaches in relation to poetic passages in the Hebrew Bible, focusing mainly on Psalms and wisdom literature. This introduction provides a summary of the contents of the essays found within this present volume9 and then identifies key streams of research that can be discerned within the various essays. The data and details are provided in the essays, but what follows will hopefully reveal the contribution of the volume to the growing body of research in this field. Overview Jeffrey Leonard analyzes the historiographic use of inner-biblical allusion in Psalm 78. Leonard notes that Psalm 78 draws on non-Priestly portions of Exodus–Numbers, the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15, the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, and the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6. But Leonard emphasizes the interpretive techniques used by the psalmist, showing how this psalm is not a mere repetition of earlier traditions, but an evaluation, reordering, and explanation as to how the traditions are employed for the psalm’s rhetorical goal. Leonard reveals that the one responsible for Psalm 78 functions much like prose historians who edit and supplement source material. Leonard sees evidence of a 7.  Gérard Genette, Palimpsestes: La Littérature au Second Degré (Paris: Seuil, 1982); cf. Petersen, ‘Zechariah 9–14’. 8.  E.g., S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Kampen: Kok, 1989); Danna Nolan Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); Gerrie Snyman, ‘Who Is Speaking? Intertextuality and Textual Influence’, Neotestamentica 30 (1996), pp. 427-49. 9.  The ‘Overview’ section is truly a work of ‘intertextuality’ as it is drawn from the essays within this volume, at times using the various contributors’ language and always their concepts.

4

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

general reliance on the non-Priestly (JE) account of the plagues in Exodus and yet is sensitive to the differences, abbreviating lesser ills, while poetically expanding more serious plagues, and most importantly reordering the plagues to resolve problems inherent in the Torah’s non-priestly account. The reuse of the Taberah account (Num. 11.1-3) in Psalm 78, also highlights the strategy of adjusting and adapting a source to resolve difficulties in the underlying tradition. Leonard also links changes to the tradition to key emphases within the psalm, focusing on the use of the Ark Narrative of 1–2 Samuel and the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 to show how the psalmist is highlighting God’s choice of Judah, Jerusalem, and David. Beth Tanner explores the hermeneutical dynamics of allusion, questioning first the helpfulness of identifying authorship and by extension then the helpfulness of a diachronic focus as she explores connections between Pss. 22.2 [1]; 38.9 [8]; and Job 3.24. She concludes that if literary allusion is dependent on diachronic sequence, we will know nothing about these allusions, and furthermore, as Ben Porat has noted, there are general allusions that do not come from pre-existing texts but are part of the cultural milieu. Shifting to the use of Psalm 22 in the Gospels, however, reveals clear and diachronic allusions and here Tanner focuses on the nature of allusions and allusion recognition. She identifies the reader’s role in the process of allusion recognition and intention of the author for that allusion. She shows how the clear allusion to Ps. 22.2 [1] points the reader to more subtle allusions to the psalm, but also the flexibility of the reader/author to use an earlier work in circumstances beyond its own time and place. Tanner notes how the further removed the reader is from the author, the less likely the reader is to discover the author’s allusions, and such a removed reader will more likely read allusions through a different cultural lens than that intended by the author. She reminds us of the priority of hermeneutics over history in our analysis of allusion, calling for an exploration of poetry which emphasizes the interface between the poem and the reader. Hee Suk Kim investigates the use of Exod. 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 and applies this to the study of the development of the Psalter as a whole. Psalm 86 employs Exod. 34.6 to request that Yahweh’s covenantal fidelity be applied to the psalmist. Psalm 103 employs Exod. 34.6 to show that Yahweh’s fidelity is given to the community of fearers of Yahweh. Psalm 145 uses Exod. 34.6 to state that Yahweh’s fidelity is an element of his universal kingship. Kim argues that Exod. 34.6 has both individual and communal dimensions and shows how these three psalms



Boda  Introduction 5

emphasize either the individual and communal, with Psalm 86 focusing on the individual leader, Psalm 103 on the community, and Psalm 145 on the universal community comprised of individuals relying on Yahweh’s fidelity. These emphases reveal the appropriateness of each psalm to their respective book of the Psalter. David Emanuel argues that Psalm 105 is an example of early biblical interpretation. He adopts a diachronic approach to intertextuality which begins with establishing a vector of allusion between the two related texts (who borrowed from whom?), and then proceeds to compare the two texts to identify omissions, additions, and alterations, before finally reflecting on the reason the later author reframed and reshaped elements from the earlier text. His investigation focuses on Psalm 105. First, he notes connections between Psalm 105 and Genesis–Exodus and adopts the dominant view of contemporary scholarship that Psalm 105 is the later text. Second, his comparison between the source and target texts reveals certain emphases in Psalm 105, all of which emphasize God’s role rather than human involvement, ranging from the power in God’s spoken word to God’s dominant participation in the multiplication of Jacob’s descendants, in the events of Joseph’s life, in the plagues and the conquest. Kevin Chau takes seriously the poetic medium of the psalms in his analysis of inner-biblical allusion. By giving attention to poetic structure, parallelism, metaphor, wordplay, and other poetic devices, Chau shows how earlier traditions have been reshaped to communicate the theological messages of Psalms 77, 89, 106, and 74, focusing on the key role played by the Red Sea and Chaoskampf traditions. The poetics of Psalm 77 points to the hidden nature of God in the Red Sea tradition which provides hope for Israel in its second captivity. The poetics of Psalm 89 provides hope for the Davidic line by intertwining the depictions of God’s sovereignty over creation with the Davidic king’s divine empowerment. The poetics of Psalm 106 parallels the Red Sea deliverance with the consignment of the nation into Babylonian hands, thus presenting God with an occasion to act mightily again. Chau’s concluding extended analysis of Psalm 74 reveals the poetic intertwining of an allusion to Gen. 1.14 and the traditions of the Red Sea deliverance and Chaoskampf in order to provide a theodicy for God’s sovereignty in an era of Babylonian domination. With Charles Yu the volume transitions from Psalms to literature associated with wisdom with an investigation of the use of Ps. 8.5 [4] in Job’s response to Eliphaz in Job 7.17-18. The majority of Yu’s analysis focuses on the narrative world of the book of Job, highlighting the central role played by inner biblical allusion in Job’s rebuttal of Eliphaz’s arguments.

6

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Through a series of questions including the allusion to Psalm 8 Job undermines Eliphaz’s constructed deity, a rule-bound, human-stalking, divine terror with no sense of proportion, that is, a ridiculous god. In closing Yu considers the function of the allusion at the level of implied author and readers, and argues that the allusion buttresses Job’s credential as God’s loyal servant by showing him defending God’s reputation from Eliphaz’s spurious defamation of God’s character. Ryan O’Dowd highlights the poetic techniques of Prov. 30.1-9 in order to identify the various connections to the Torah, Prophets, and Writings as well as the reason for these links. These allusions contribute to a passage which reflects on the wisdom showcased in the immediately preceding chs. 10–29. O’Dowd identifies three poetic patterns in Prov. 30.1-9, the first drawing attention to names, the second rereading (relecture) sacred texts by emending them to repurpose them for a new setting, and the third rereading sacred texts by citing an excerpt. Through these techniques the poem testifies to the limits of wisdom by employing characters and stories outside of Proverbs (the patriarchs, the Torah, Davidic kingdom, and the Prophets). In particular, the figures of Moses, David, and the prophets overshadow the text which warns about the true character of wisdom. Richard Schultz analyzes the role of Deuteronomic passages in the book of Ecclesiastes, focusing on the allusions to the ‘Law of the Vow’ in Deut. 23.22–24 [21-23] in Eccl. 5.3-5 [4-6] and to 1–2 Samuel and Deut. 13.2-6 [1-5] in Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7]. He attributes divergences between the two passages to differences in genre (legal vs. wisdom formulation) and suggests that Qoheleth is quoting the Deuteronomic law to highlight the danger of approaching the house of God without due caution. Schultz then proceeds to show how elements within the broader context in which Eccl. 5.3-5 [4-6] is found (Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7]) resonate with the treatment of Saul in 1 Samuel 14, 15, 19, and 26. The reuse of this material by the Solomonic voice warns the readers to avoid the failures of the earlier king. Both Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and Deut. 13.2-6 [1-5] contrast dreams and words with reverence for God and keeping commands. Several other elements in Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] suggest links to Deuteronomy, including the phrase ‘God is in heaven and you are on earth’ (5.1 [2]; cf. Deut. 3.24; 4.39), the anger of God (Eccl. 5.5 [6]; cf. Deut. 1.34; 9.7, 9, 19, 22; 29.27), and ‘the work of your hands’ (Eccl. 5.5 [6]; cf. Deut. 16.15; 24.19). Schultz concludes by highlighting links between Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7], the concluding epilogue in Eccl. 12.13-14 and Deuteronomy, showing how the emphases in Eccl. 12.13-14 are affirmed in Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and the key interlinking of reverence for God



Boda  Introduction 7

and obedience to commands in Ecclesiastes is also emphasized in Deuteronomy (6.2; 8.6; 13.5 [4]; 17.19). This evidence provides the foundation for Schultz’s conclusion that Deuteronomy and the ‘Deuteronomistic History’ were ‘quite influential on the thinking of both Qoheleth and the final author/editor of the book of Ecclesiastes’. Jindo Job reflects on the interpretive role of allusion and seeks to identify what features of allusion should be kept in mind when interpreting biblical literature. There are four such features: (1) the conceptual interrelations of alluding elements shows that connections can be established on a deeper conceptual level; (2) the extraordinary specificity of allusions and their arrangement reveals that authors deliberately use and arrange images in order to communicate a rhetorical or poetic concept fitted to the context in which they appear; (3) the semantic unit of allusion points to the way allusions appear throughout a larger literary composition; (4) the cognitive function of allusion highlights the fact that the information being conveyed may not be propositional (predictions and condemnations) but cognitive (perceptions and insights). Jindo showcases these features by analyzing allusions in the book of Isaiah to the mythological category of creation and primordial history. His focus is on the messianic vision of the branch in Isa. 11.1-10 and on the metaphor of nations as ‘(raging) waters’ in Isaiah. Streams This rich collection of essays represents various approaches to the connections between biblical texts. All the essays showcase researchers identifying specific connections between texts, but a few also provide helpful hermeneutical reflections on the method used. One can see the enduring legacy of the diachronic approach to interconnectedness (e.g., Leonard, Kim, Emanuel), but the legitimacy of this approach is challenged by Tanner who suggests other approaches, including a synchronic-reader approach. Even for those essays which were more diachronically oriented, greater attention was placed on the reshaping of tradition, thus moving beyond the mere identification of sources. Leonard focuses on the rhetorical goal of the poet pointing to reshaping through evaluation, reordering, and explanation, Emanuel probes the reason the later author reframed and reshaped elements through omission, additions, and alterations, while Yu writes of the rhetorical role of allusion in Job’s rebuttal. Leonard concludes that one key strategy in allusions is the resolution of problems inherent in the source material.

8

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Various studies forge links between inner-biblical analysis and other methodologies, ranging from the canonical approach to the Psalter (Kim), to historiography (Leonard), to narratology (Yu), to poetics (Chau, O’Dowd), the importance of the final link lying in the fact that these essays emerged from sessions of the Biblical Hebrew Poetry group of the Society of Biblical Literature. The essays reveal the complex character of interconnections, whether that is in the creative intertwining of Torah (Deuteronomy) and History (Deuteronomic History; Schultz), the mingling of Red Sea Deliverance and Chaoskampf (Chau), the interlinking of various non-Priestly sections of Exodus–Numbers (Leonard), or interweaving of the traditions of patriarchs, Torah, Davidic Kingdom and Prophets (O’Dowd). While most studies identify interconnections on the lexical level, an important suggestion is that greater attention should be given to the deeper conceptual level (e.g., Jindo). And while the majority of essays look at more limited literary units, one study calls for greater attention to larger literary compositions for consistent patterns of connections to similar texts (Jindo).10 There are, of course, far more interconnections between these essays, but the hope is that this initial list will make the readers aware of some of the emerging issues and key contributions of the present volume and encourage attentiveness to further connections. What is clearly evident is that analysis of interconnections between biblical texts is still in a nascent phase and hopefully this volume will encourage further reflection and refinement of present methodologies and analysis especially on poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible.

10.  This is similar to the technique of ‘sustained allusion’ identified by Michael R. Stead, ‘Sustained Allusion in Zechariah 1–2’, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (LHBOTS, 475; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), pp. 144-70.

T he P s a l m i s t a s H i s tor i ogr aphe r

Jeffery M. Leonard

Introduction Tucked here and there among the Psalter’s psalms of praise and lament are a handful of psalms that take up as their theme the events of Israel’s past. Though differing in many respects, these psalms—usually identified as Psalms 78, 105, 106, 135, and 136, with a few smaller passages embedded in larger psalms—share in common a recitation of the deeds of God and God’s people stretching back to the nation’s earliest historical memories. The oddity of these history-focused psalms in the midst of the larger Psalter has often left Psalms scholars scrambling to identify properly their Gattungen and Sitze im Leben. Some have labeled them ‘didactic psalms’ (Junker, Carroll), others ‘wisdom psalms’ (Kühlewein), others a mixture of genres (Mowinckel, Kraus). To my mind, though, it is difficult to improve upon the straightforward description, ‘historical psalms’, even if these psalms do not constitute a formal Gattung.1 While written in poetry not prose and set in the book of Psalms rather than the narratives of the Torah, Former Prophets, or Chronicler’s History, it is nevertheless clear that these works share a historiographic concern. The authors of the historical psalms may have composed their works to inspire and to convince, but they also wrote to explain.

1.  Notker Füglister’s comment, ‘der Gruppe (nicht: Gattung!) der Geschichts­ psalmen’, is particularly apt (‘Psalm LXXXVIII [sic]: Der Rätsel Lösung?’, in J.A. Emerton [ed.], Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991], pp. 264-97 [269]). Further discussion of this issue is available in A.A. Anderson, ‘Psalms’, in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 56-66 (60).

10

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

No less than their prose counterparts, the authors of Israel’s historical psalms used the tools of the ancient historiographer to produce their accounts of the nation’s past. One of these tools was reliance upon earlier historical traditions, what we might call in another setting, inner-biblical allusion. Through an examination of the manner in which psalmists allude to earlier texts and traditions, an important window of research is opened onto the historiographic techniques of these psalms. Here, we may consider not only information about the state of Israel’s historical traditions at the time of the psalms’ composition, but also how the psalmists themselves interpreted these traditions and marshaled them to guide the minds of their readers. In this study, I will focus primarily on the historiographic use of innerbiblical allusion by the author of Psalm 78. While due attention will be paid to the sources underlying this important psalm, the key focus of this study will fall upon the interpretive techniques used by the psalmist in dealing with these sources and on the psalmist’s use of these innerbiblical allusions to shape the larger argument of the psalm. Here, it will be evident that the author of Psalm 78, just like Israel’s prose historians, does more than simply repeat earlier traditions. On the contrary, he evaluates, reorders, and explains these traditions as he directs them toward the psalm’s overarching goal.2 Evaluating, Reordering, Supplementing A detailed examination of Psalm 78 reveals a striking pattern of reliance on earlier historical texts. Throughout his recitation of the nation’s early historical memories—the plagues, the departure from Egypt, the wilderness wanderings, entry into the land—the psalmist draws on a unique collection of old historical traditions: the non-Priestly portions of Exodus–Numbers, the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15, the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, and the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6. Time does not permit an exhaustive treatment of this catalog of allusions. Instead, I will focus on just a handful of these allusions with a view toward highlighting the techniques our psalmist employed in recounting his history. In particular, I hope to show that our psalmist acts much like prose historians as he edits and supplements his source material.

2.  A more extensive treatment of these issues is available in my doctoral dissertation, completed under the direction of Marc Brettler, ‘Historical Traditions in Psalm 78’ (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2006).



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 11

The Plagues Few historical traditions are accorded as much attention by our psalmist as are the plagues. As the psalmist recounts the plagues in v. 12 and again in vv. 42-51, he draws extensively upon the non-Priestly plague account in Exodus (which I still consider to be best described as JE). The psalmist includes just the seven non-Priestly plagues from Exodus, using the same vocabulary as JE to identify each one: ‫( דם‬v. 44), ‫( צפרדע‬v. 45b), ‫ערב‬ (v. 45a), ‫( דבר‬vv. 48,3 50), ‫( ברד‬v. 47), ‫( ארבה‬v. 46), ‫( בכור‬v. 51). Among the various lists of plagues in the Tanakh, only Psalm 78 and the JE account in Exodus agree concerning the number (seven) and names of the plagues.4 Significantly, Psalm 78 includes neither ‫‘( כנים‬gnats’?) nor 3.  While the MT, LXX, and Vulgate affirm the reading ‫ וַ יַּ ְסגֵּ ר ַל ָבּ ָרד‬in v. 48, several factors suggest this form derives from a metathesis of ‫ּד ֶבר‬,ֶ a reading preserved in Symmachus and at least one Hebrew manuscript (see Abraham Cohen, The Psalms [London: Soncino Press, 1945], p. 255). Verses 48-50 are marked by a clear inclusio, ending with ‫ל ֶּד ֶבר ִה ְסּגִ יר‬,ַ a phrase that finds a natural parallel with an emended reading, ‫ וַ ּיַ ְסּגֵ ר ַל ֶּד ֶבר‬in v. 48. The Masoretic reading wreaks havoc upon this structure. The section’s inclusio is lost as v. 48 must be separated from vv. 49-50 and cast as the second of two verses describing the hail plague. Moreover, vv. 49-50a are left hanging as plague descriptions with no plagues to go with them. The chief evidence advanced in favor of keeping ‫ ברד‬is the maintenance of the supposed parallel with ‘lightning’ (‫ )רׁשפים‬in v. 48b. Here, as elsewhere in the Tanakh, though, ‫רׁשף‬, is more properly connected with pestilence than with lightning (cf. Deut. 32.24 and esp. Hab. 3.5). See further, Edward L. Greenstein, ‘Mixing Memory and Design: Reading Psalm 78’, Prooftexts 10 (1990), pp. 197-218 (216 n. 97). Concerning Resheph, see Paola Xella, ‘Resheph’, in Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 700-703; Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, ‘Nergal (Erra)’, in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992); John Day, ‘Yahweh and the Underworld Deities (Mot, Resheph, Molech and the Rephaim)’, in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup, 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 185-225; and William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Rešep (AOS, 8; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976). 4.  Within the Tanakh, the plague lists include the combined account in Exod. 7−12 (ten plagues), the underlying JE (seven) and P (five or, perhaps, six depending on the alignment of the darkness plague) accounts, Ps. 78 (seven), and Ps. 105.27-36 (eight). In a recent consideration of the historical psalms, Judith Gärtner offers an excursus on the treatment of the plagues in Ps. 78 (Die Geschichtspsalmen: Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106, 135 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter (FAT, 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp. 81-84. While Gärtner recognizes the psalm’s dependence on the account in Exodus, she largely avoids consideration of source-critical issues in Exodus.

12

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

‫‘( ׁשחין‬boils’), the Priestly doublets to JE’s ‫‘( ערב‬swarms’) and ‫‘( דבר‬pestilence’). Nor does it include the darkness plague, a plague that appears to be of either Priestly or independent origin.5 As with JE, the psalmist’s waters turn to blood using the phraseology ‫( חפך לדם‬v. 44; cf. Exod. 7.17, 20) not the Priestly ‫( היה דם‬Exod. 7.19). Like JE, the psalmist recounts the Egyptians’ inability to find water to drink (v. 44; cf. Exod. 7.21); the Priestly account never does.6 The swarms plague—‫ערב‬, a term found only in Exodus’s non-Priestly account (Exod. 8.16-28)—is ‘sent’ in Psalm 78 using the verb ‫ׁשלח‬. The Priestly account of the plagues never uses ‫ׁשלח‬. The non-Priestly account does so twice, once in a general description of the plagues (Exod. 9.14) and once more, as in Psalm 78, describing the swarms plague (Exod. 8.17).7 The psalmist’s pestilence plague (‫דבר‬, v. 48) also unique to JE’s contribution to Exodus, is directed toward the Egyptians’ cattle (‫)מקנה‬.8 Ten of the eleven 5.  Moshe Greenberg makes a strong case for aligning the darkness plague with the Priestly account in Exodus (‘The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus’, in Hans Goedicke [ed.], Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William F. Albright [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971], pp. 243-52 [248]). Noting the plague’s improbable placement as the first plague in Ps. 105, Marc Brettler suggests darkness was an independent tradition incorporated into the Exodus account (‘The Poet as Historian: The Plague Tradition in Psalm 105’, in Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon [eds.], Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007], pp. 19-28 [27]). 6.  Anja Klein argues the psalmist’s reference to the people’s inability to find water to drink demonstrates his dependence on the Priestly revision of the blood plague in Exod. 7.14-25, which she contends added the lack of water for drinking to the original tradition which mentioned only dying fish (Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments [FAT, 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], pp. 132-33). The three references in Exod. 7 to Egypt’s inability to find water to drink (vv. 18b, 21b, 24) align more readily, though, with JE’s version of the plague than with P’s contribution. This is especially evident in their consistent use of the singular (and definite) form ‫ היאר‬as in the rest of the JE material (cf. vv. 15, 17, 18a, 20 [×2], 21a [×2], 25, 28; 8.5, 7). P only uses plural forms (‫ יאריהם‬in 7.19; ‫ היארים‬in 8.1) to describe Egypt’s river(s), and these only in conjunction with other water-related terms such as ‘canals’ (‫ )נהר‬and ‘pools’ (‫ )אגם‬which JE’s plague account does not mention. 7.  Gärtner (Geschichtspsalmen, p. 82) argues ‫ ׁשלח‬is not drawn from the psalmist’s Exodus Vorlage. The term appears twice in Exod. 8.17, however, in reference to the swarms plague. 8.  In Ps. 78.48, it is technically to the ‫‘( רׁשפים‬lightning’) that the ‫‘( מקנה‬cattle’) are turned over. As I argue above, however, ‫ דבר‬and ‫ רׁשף‬are essentially synonymous phenomena (cf. Hab. 3.5).



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 13

uses of ‫ מקנה‬in the plague narratives are in JE, and six of these are found specifically in JE’s pestilence plague (Exod. 9.1-7). The psalmist also recounts the death of the firstborn in language strikingly similar to that of Exodus’s non-Priestly account: ‫( ויך כל־בכור במצרים‬Ps. 78.51) ‫( הכה כל־בכור בארץ מצרים‬Exod. 12.29 [JE])

Though, here, the Priestly writer’s description (Exod. 12.12) is also quite similar. Taken together, these and various other pieces of evidence point toward Psalm 78’s reliance on the non-Priestly or JE account of the plagues in Exodus. Yet, there are also a number of differences between the two accounts. Some have pointed to the psalmist’s use of terms such as ‫( חסיל‬v. 46) and ‫( חנמל‬v. 47) to suggest the psalmist refers to plagues not found in the Exodus account.9 This is almost certainly not the case, however. The noun ‫חסיל‬, mentioned by our psalmist in the locust plague, is nothing more than the complement to ‫ ארבה‬in a fixed word-pair, not an independent plague (cf. 1 Kgs 8.37 // 2 Chron. 6.28; Joel 1.4; 2.25). The term ‫חנמל‬, mentioned in the hail plague, is a hapax legomenon, making its precise meaning difficult to determine. Following Koehler, though, it appears the most likely rendering of the term is ‘floods’, in which case, it would actually strengthen the allusion to the JE narrative, which several times refers to rains that accompanied the hail plague.10 More important than the objection that Psalm 78 may mention plagues not found in JE is the fact that the plagues in Psalm 78 appear in a different order than in the JE narrative. It is my contention that this difference in order is due to the psalmist’s deliberately reordering and reconfiguring the plagues to resolve problems inherent in the Torah’s non-Priestly account. It has long been recognized that JE’s version of the plagues presents certain conceptual difficulties. Most notably, after the dreadful work of the hail upon Egypt’s crops (Exod. 9.13-35), there should be no vegetation left for the locusts to consume (Exod. 10.1-20). The weight of this

9.  Samuel Loewenstamm (The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition [trans. Baruch J. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992], p. 80) and Michael Goulder (The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III [JSOTSup, 233; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], p. 121) are among those who argue the account of the plagues in Exodus relied on Ps. 78 rather than the reverse. 10.  Ludwig Koehler, ‘Hebräische Etymologien’, JBL 59 (1940), pp. 35-40 (39-40).

14

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

difficulty was apparently felt early on. Already within the JE account, we find an interpolation in Exod. 9.31-32, clarifying that not all of Egypt’s vegetation was killed by the hail. Only one crop was killed, leaving something for the locusts to devour later.11 It would not be surprising to find a similar interpretive move in Psalm 78. Turning to Psalm 78, we find that this does indeed prove to be the case. By limiting the hail to Egypt’s vines and sycamores and the locusts to the crops and produce, the psalmist avoids JE’s problem of having the same vegetation destroyed by two different plagues. The psalmist takes this process a step further, though, by relocating the locust plague to a position prior to the hail. The effect of this move is readily apparent. Because hail wreaks its havoc upon everything in its path, its early position in JE could hardly avoid creating a problem for later plagues. The psalmist solves this problem by trusting in the more discriminating palates of the locusts, which could eat a portion of Egypt’s vegetation and still leave other items for the hail to destroy. Supporting this understanding of the psalmist’s order is the fact he has the locusts destroy the more vulnerable ‘crops’ and ‘produce’, leaving the hardier ‘vines’ and ‘sycamores’ for the hail (vv. 46-47).12

11.  This interpolation does not entirely remove the tension in the Exodus account, however, in that it explains how the ‘wheat and emmer’ could still be available as targets for the locusts but does not resolve the problem of the continued presence of the fruit trees (Exod. 9.25; cf. 10.5, 15). A similar resolution to this problem is attempted in Ps. 105.32-35, as the psalmist limits the work of the hail to the ‘their vines and their fig trees’ (‫)גפנם ותאנתם‬, saving the rest of Egypt’s vegetation for the locust plague (‫)ויאכל כל־עׂשב בארצם ויאכל פרי אדמתם‬. 12.  Gärtner (Geschichtspsalmen, p. 82) rightly notes that the language used in Ps. 78 to describe the vegetation devoured by the locusts differs from that found in Exodus. This difference is largely due to the psalmist’s consistent focus on the effect of the plagues on the Egyptians themselves and not just their land. Both ‫ יבול‬and ‫יגיע‬ emphasize the labor involved to produce the crop rather than the crop itself. The term ‫ יגיע‬refers to ‘toil, labor’, and ‘the product of labor’, emphasizing the work required to produce the produce (cf. HALOT, p. 385b). Similarly, ‫יבול‬, cognate to the Akkadian biltu from the verb wabālu, emphasizes the human effort involved in bringing forth the produce (cf. HALOT, pp. 382b, 383a). As Gärtner notes (p. 82), even the swarms and frogs in the psalm are directed toward the Egyptians and not toward their land: swarms devoured them, frogs destroyed them. When the objects of the plagues are not specifically the Egyptians, a steady succession of third masculine plural suffixes still emphasizes that the objects are their rivers, their streams, their vines, their sycamores, their cattle, their herds.



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 15

The psalmist has also arranged the plagues in a pattern of escalating severity. The locusts eat the Egyptians’ crops (v. 46); the more devastating hail destroys all that is left (v. 47). The identification of this pattern helps to explain several differences between the accounts in JE and our psalm. First, to continue the progression from crops to vines and trees to livestock, the psalmist has relocated the pestilence plague (vv. 48-50) to a position after the locust and hail plagues (vv. 46-47). Second, to keep one object from being struck by two different plagues, the psalmist has removed the livestock from the hail plague altogether, limiting their appearance solely to the pestilence plague (v. 48). Third, with JE’s livestock removed from the hail plague, the humans (‫ )נפשׁם וחיתם‬could hardly be left alone alongside the vegetation. Thus, they were removed as well, again to the pestilence plague (v. 50).13 Fourth, with the pestilence plague now in the penultimate position and with its significance enhanced by the addition of humans to its roster of targets, the psalmist provided the plague with a longer and more tightly structured description, adding to it the highly charged mythological language that was his own contribution (vv. 48-49; ‫רשׁפים‬, ‫מׁשלחת מלאכי רעים‬, ‫‘[ מות‬lighting’, ‘a company of destroying angels’, ‘death’]).14 With these steps accomplished, a steady pattern of escalation in the plagues’ objects emerges: pollution of the land (blood, swarms, frogs) → attacks on vulnerable crops and produce → attacks on hardier vines and sycamores → attacks on cattle and herds → attacks on the bodies and lives of the Egyptians. The ultimate escalation occurs, of course, in the last of the psalmist’s plagues, the striking of Egypt’s firstborn (v. 51).

13.  Klein (Geschichte und Gebet, p. 134) maintains the original version of the hail plague in Exodus was directed against humans and animals (cf. Exod. 9.25a) and was only secondarily expanded to include vegetation (v. 25b). Thus, she argues the psalmist, by directing the hail solely toward vegetation, has stood the logic of the original hail and locust plagues on their head (‘Auf diese Weise stellt der Psalm die Zuordnung von Hagel- und Heuschreckenplage auf den Kopf’). It seems highly unlikely, though, that the presence of vegetation in Exodus’ hail plague should be regarded as a secondary expansion. The primary target of the hail plague can hardly have been the Egyptians and their livestock, since they are specifically instructed to come in from the fields to avoid being caught up in the plague’s effects (Exod. 9.19). Only those among the Egyptians who failed to heed this instruction (cf. vv. 20-21) were struck by the plague which was first and foremost directed toward the people’s fields and crops. 14.  Concerning this mythological language, see A. Caquot, ‘Sur quelques démons de l’Ancien Testament (Resheph, Qeteb, Deber)’, Sem 6 (1956), pp. 53-68.

16

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Though clearly relying on JE’s version of the plagues, the psalmist who composed Psalm 78 was not content merely to duplicate the underlying narrative. Instead, he reworked his source material, abbreviating the descriptions of lesser ills like frogs and gnats,15 poetically expanding more serious plagues like locusts and hail, and above all, reordering the plagues to produce a version no longer bound by JE’s inconsistencies.16 Taberah A similar pattern of alluding to but then clarifying earlier traditions is evident in our psalmist’s treatment of the wilderness complaint narratives. Perhaps the most enigmatic of the Torah’s non-Priestly complaint narratives is the Taberah account found in Num. 11.1-3. The account begins in v. 1 with a description of the people’s bitter complaints against YHWH: ‫ויהי העם כמתאננים רע באזני ה׳ ויׁשמע ה׳ ויחר אפו‬ ‫ותבער בם אׁש ה׳ ותאכל בקצה המחנה‬ Now it happened as the people complained bitterly in the hearing of YHWH that YHWH heard and his anger was kindled, and the fire of YHWH burned against them and consumed at the outskirts of the camp.

15.  The psalmist’s description in v. 45 (‫ )ישׁלח בהם ערב ויאכלם וצפרדע ותשׁחיתם‬is often regarded as an intensification of the swarms and frogs plagues (see, e.g., Klein, Geschichte und Gebet, p. 133). Upon closer examination, however, this appears not to be the case. As noted above (see n. 12), the psalmist consistently focuses on the havoc wreaked by the plagues on Egyptians and their possessions. The plague account in Exodus, however, mentions no such destruction in the case of the frogs. Hopping in and out of the Egyptians’ beds and bowls and ovens, piled in heaps, and causing the land to stink, the frogs provide a rare comedic touch in the midst of the otherwise relentless damage inflicted by the plagues. It is apparently because of the relatively benign effects of the frogs plague that the psalmist subordinated the frogs to the more damaging swarms plague, thereby reversing the order of the plagues found in Exodus and allotting the frogs only two words at the end of the poetic line (‫)וצפרדע ותׁשחיתם‬. The dominant role of the swarms in the line is evidenced by the fact that even the verb applied to the frogs (‫‘[ ׁשחת‬to destroy]) is apparently drawn from Exodus’s description of the swarms plague (cf. Exod. 8.20 [24]). See Greenstein (‘Mixing Memory and Design’, p. 207), who reaches a similar conclusion concerning the placement of ‫ ׁשחת‬in v. 45. 16.  While I am in agreement with Klein’s observation that Ps. 78 exhibits substantial literary and thematic connections with Exod. 7−12, I cannot agree with her suggestion that the psalmist shows no preference for any particular Pentateuchal source (‘keine Bevorzugung einer spezifischen Pentateuchschicht’, cf. Geschichte und Gebet, p. 137).



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 17

Our psalmist’s allusion to this event in v. 21 is unmistakable:17 ‫לכן ׁשמע ה׳ ויתעבר‬ ‫ואׁש נׂשקה ביעקב‬ 18 ‫וגם־אף עלה ביׂשראל‬ Therefore, YHWH heard and became angry, And fire was kindled against Jacob, And anger rose against Israel.

In addition to their common use of ‫ אׁש‬and ‫ אף‬to describe the divine ‘fire’ and ‘anger’, both accounts note that ‘YHWH hears’ the complaints of the Israelites. As Psalm 78 describes YHWH’s wrath toward the people, it does so using the hithpael, ‫וַ ּיִ ְת ַע ָּבר‬. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this unusual form is a wordplay based on the verb ‫ בער‬found in Num. 11.1, ‫וַ ִּת ְב ַער‬, and again in the etiological formula in v. 3, ‘and they called the name of that place Taberah (‫)ּת ְב ֵע ָרה‬ ַ because the anger of YHWH 19 burned (‫)ּב ֲע ָרה‬ ָ against them’. A significant difficulty in JE’s account of the Taberah incident is its failure to specify the substance of the people’s complaint. While a number of translations suggest the Israelites complained ‘about their misfortunes’ (nrsv, esv), ‘about their hardships’ (niv), or ‘of adversity’ (nasb), the tradent in Numbers 11 notes merely that the people complained bitterly without indicating the substance of the people’s complaint. Apparently recognizing this lacuna, our psalmist clarifies the nature of the complaint in vv. 19b-20, supplying a quote from the Israelites, Can God prepare a table in the wilderness? True, he struck a rock, and waters flowed, and streams gushed out, Can he also give bread? Can he provide meat to his people?

17.  Noted also by Klein (Geschichte und Gebet, p. 127). 18.  BHS suggests this colon may have been added as a gloss. See also Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 530. The parallelism is admittedly difficult, particularly in the line’s use of ‫גם‬. The overlap in terminology between the psalm and Num. 11.1, combined with our psalmist’s penchant for drawing on earlier source materials, suggests the line is original to the psalm. The intended force of the particle remains elusive, however. 19.  Also suggested by Greenstein, ‘Mixing Memory and Design’, p. 206; Franz Delitzsch, Psalms (ed. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch; trans. Francis Bolton; Commentary on the Old Testament; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), p. 525; and Füglister, ‘Psalm LXXXVIII [sic]’, p. 279 n. 37.

18

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

The singular nature of this quotation—the psalmist nowhere else includes direct speech, either from the people or from anyone else—supports the thesis that this is a free contribution from the psalmist, a different species of material than the poetic recollection of historical accounts found elsewhere in the psalm. Importantly, the psalmist envelopes the paraphrase of the Taberah account and the quote he supplies as the people’s complaint with language recounting the provision of meat for the Israelites. In so doing, the psalmist links the Taberah episode in Num. 11.1-3 with the following story, the Kibroth Hattaavah incident in Num. 11.4-35.20 While some have suggested the joining of these two accounts marks a significant difference between Psalm 78 and JE’s account, the overlap between these two accounts points in just the opposite direction.21 The Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah accounts are connected solely by their juxtaposition in the JE tradition; nothing in the content of the stories suggests a connection between the two. Absent any reason for connecting Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah on the basis of content, the author of Psalm 78 can only have connected them because he was relying on these accounts in the order in which they appear in JE. Thus, the improbable connection of Taberah with Kibroth Hattaavah underscores rather than undermines the reliance of Psalm 78 on the JE traditions.22 The psalm’s dependence on JE further is confirmed by the fact that the provision of water and manna are treated in Psalm 78 as antecedent to the provision of quail, a feature shared with JE but quite different from the Priestly narrative (cf. Exod. 16). The differences that do exist between the JE account and our psalm tell us more about the psalmist’s historiography than they do about his historical sources. Although the psalmist relies on JE throughout his recitation, he does not hesitate to adjust and adapt his source to resolve difficulties in the underlying tradition.

20.  Also suggested by Gärtner, Geschichtspsalmen, p. 69. 21.  See, for example, Aarre Lauha, Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen (Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae; Helsinki: Finnischen Literatur­gesellschaft, 1945), p. 80. 22.  Erhard Blum has suggested the Taberah account in Num. 11.1-3 together with the fiery serpents in Num. 21.4b-9 form a Deuteronomistic inclusio around much of the non-priestly wilderness narrative. Our psalm suggests, however, that Num. 11.1-3 was already in place immediately preceding the Kibroth Hattaavah narrative in Num. 11.4-34 before Ps. 78 was composed. See Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 123-24, 135.



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 19

Marshalling Tradition for a Greater Purpose Intertwined with our psalmist’s recollections of historical events are parenetic sections in which the psalmist offers commentary on the people’s past behavior (cf. vv. 17-18a, 32-43, 55-72). These sections and the psalm’s introduction in vv. 1-11 demonstrate that the psalm was not intended merely as an idle reflection on the nation’s history. The psalm clearly has an agenda. This is no slight toward the psalmist’s historiography, though. Ancient historians (and, dare we say, modern, as well) always write their histories to accomplish some larger purpose. Documentarians have suggested J wrote to support the Davidic monarchy, that E wrote to contest that monarchy and uphold the concerns of northern Mushite priests, and that JE was formed to reconcile northern refugees and southern Jerusalemites during the time of Hezekiah. The Deuteronomistic History is thought by some to have been written to support Josiah’s reforms, by others to be an indictment against the nation after the commencement of the exile. Many of the newer Pentateuchal theories look to the concerns of the exile or post-exile to find the purpose for which these traditions were assembled.23 Though there may be disagreement over just what the purpose of a given historical work was, there is near universal agreement that these histories were written to convince and not merely to inform. The overarching historiographic purpose of Psalm 78 is thrown into sharp relief by the manner in which the psalmist alludes to previous traditions.

23.  The scholarly literature related to the composition of the Pentateuch is already vast and continues to expand. Richard Elliott Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987) provides an accessible introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis, though it is written largely for a popular audience. Among the recent defenses of the viability of the documentary approach, two newer studies by Joel Baden stand out: J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), and The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012). See also the insightful appendix on the Documentary Hypothesis in William Propp’s Exodus commentary (‘Appendix A: The Documentary Hypothesis’, in Exodus 19–40 [AB, 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006], pp. 723-34). An invaluable overview of the numerous proposals advanced as replacements to the documentary approach is provided in Ernest Nicholson’s The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), supplemented by the at times supportive, at times scathing review by Benjamin Sommer: Review of The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), by Ernest Nicholson in RBL 2 (2000), pp. 184-89.

20

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

The Ark Narrative Verses 59-69 of our psalm rehearse a tradition in which God is said to have abandoned the old Israelite shrine at Shiloh. Upon closer examination, it is clear that the events the psalmist recounts are actually drawn from the account preserved in 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6, the so-called Ark Narrative proposed by Leonhard Rost.24 As various scholars have noted, the references to divine ‘might’ and ‘glory’ (‫ )עזו ותפארתו‬in v. 61 are best understood as allusions to the ark of the covenant.25 It is to the deaths of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Pinchas (Phineas), that the psalmist alludes in v. 64 when he says, ‘Their priests fell by the sword’ (cf. 1 Sam. 4.11, 17). The widows whom the psalmist says ‘made no lamentation’ v. 64) would include Pinchas’s pregnant wife who, upon hearing about her husband’s death, was thrown into early labor and died in childbirth. Of particular note is the fact that 1 Sam. 4.20 notes that when the women attending Pinchas’s wife reassured her that she had borne a son, ‘She did not answer or give heed’, a direct parallel to the psalmist’s language.26 The psalmist’s allusions to the Ark Narrative continue in v. 66 as he even makes a humorous allusion to the punishment inflicted on the posteriors of the Philistines: ‫‘( ויך צריו אחור‬He struck his enemies behind’).27 Key to the Ark Narrative in 1–2 Samuel is the fact that the ark lost from Shiloh to Philistia does not return from Philistia back to Shiloh. 24.  Concerning the literary status of the Ark Narrative, see Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (ed. J.W. Rogerson; trans. Michael D. Rutter and David M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), and Antony F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (SBLDS, 16; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975). 25.  Noted, for example, in G. Henton Davies, ‘The Ark in the Psalms’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), Promise and Fulfillment: Essays Presented to Professor S.H. Hooke in Celebration of His Ninetieth Birthday, 21st January 1964 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964), pp. 51-60. Similar allusions to the ark are likely found in Isa. 60.7; 64.10 [11]; Lam. 2.1; Pss. 63.3 [2]; 96.6; 132.7-9; and possibly 105.4. Note the use of Pss. 96.6 and 105.4 by the Chronicler (1 Chron. 16.11, 27) in his liturgy for the procession of the ark to the temple. 26.  The events described in v. 64 were already associated with the deaths of Hophni, Pinchas, and Pinchas’s wife by Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak. So also Lauha, Geschichtsmotive, p. 110; Delitzsch, Psalms, pp. 5, 530; and Greenstein, ‘Mixing Memory and Design’, p. 208. Gärtner’s more generic reference to the breakdown of society during the exilic period is much less likely (cf. Geschichtspsalmen, p. 94). 27.  The LXX (εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω), Vulgate (in posteriora), and Targum (‫בטחוריא‬ ‫ )באחוריהון‬appear to have understood the phrase in this manner, as have many modern interpreters. See, for example, Füglister, ‘Psalm LXXXVIII [sic]’, p. 283 n. 47;



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 21

Instead, the Philistine cows are divinely directed toward Beth Shemesh, from which the ark then moves to Kiriath-jearim and finally, at David’s direction, on to Jerusalem. The effect of this geographical narration is to highlight the rejection of Shiloh in favor of Jerusalem. What the author of the Ark Narrative is content to mention only obliquely through the ark’s journey, our psalmist instead spells out explicitly in vv. 67-68. Here, God is said to have expressly rejected the North (Joseph, Ephraim) in favor of the South (Judah), The Lord awoke as from sleep, like a warrior shaking off wine. He struck his enemies behind, dealing them lasting disgrace. He rejected the clan of Joseph; He did not choose the tribe of Ephraim. He did choose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved.

The psalmist’s motivation in specifying so clearly the theological implications of the Ark Narrative is not difficult to divine. God’s choice of Judah, Jerusalem, and David is the central focus of the psalm as a whole.28 Entering the Land This focus is equally evident in one of the psalmist’s allusions to the Song of the Sea found in Exodus 15.29 In v. 54 of our psalm, the psalmist describes God’s safe deliverance of the Israelites to the promised land, ‫ויביאם אל־גבול קדׁשו‬ ‫הר־זה קנתה ימינו‬ He brought them to his holy territory, The mountain that his right hand acquired. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), p. 283; and Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979), p. 61 n. 1. 28.  These verses are often treated either as a secondary insertion or a wooden theological statement. Michael Goulder, for example, opines, ‘It seems to me that 78.9 and 67-69 are obvious insertions into the text, and should be explained as adaptations made by an ill-natured Jerusalem editor’ (‘Asaph’s History of Israel [Elohist Press, Bethel, 725 bce]’, JSOT 65 [1995], pp. 71-81 [73]). It seems more likely, though, that the psalmist has merely followed quite correctly the theological rationale of the Ark Narrative itself. 29.  A helpful summary of the verbal connections between our psalm and the Song of the Sea is available in Richard J. Clifford, ‘In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78’, in Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 121-42 (134 n. 25). See also Gärtner, Geschichtspsalmen, pp. 85-88, and Klein, Geschichte und Gebet, pp. 118-21.

22

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Every element of this description echoes language from the Song of the Sea. Verse 54a condenses two phrases from the song (Exod. 15.13, 17), ‫אל־נוה קדׁשך‬ to your holy abode ‫תביאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך‬ You brought them and planted them on the mountain of your inheritance.

Then, the psalmist’s phrase, ‫ימינו הר־זה קנתה‬, in v. 54b reconfigures Exod. 15.16, ‫‘( עם־זו קנית‬the people which you acquired’). Important for our purposes is the fact that the psalmist makes two deliberate and significant changes to his source material. The psalmist borrows the Song of the Sea’s phrase, ‫עם־זו קנית‬, but replaces ‫‘( עם‬people’) with ‫‘( הר‬mountain’). The psalmist also draws upon the phrase ‫ אל־נוה קדׁשך‬but substitutes ‫ גבול‬for the Song’s ‫נוה‬. This latter case may be nothing more than an example of poetic license. It seems more likely, however, that it too shows a concern with the mountain (‫ )הר‬noted in the first example. As others have noted, ‫ גבול‬here is likely related to the root gbl, referring to a ‘mountain’, a meaning still preserved in Arabic (cf. also HALOT).30 Why does the psalmist twice alter his source material to draw attention to a mountain? He does so for the same reason he spelled out so clearly in the logic of the Ark Narrative, ‘He rejected the clan of Joseph; he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim. He did choose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved’ (vv. 67-68). Throughout the psalm, the psalmist highlights occasions in which God’s gracious deliverance has been met only with continued rebellion and disobedience. Now at last, God has rejected Israel and the cult centered in Shiloh, graciously providing Zion and David in their place (vv. 59-72). Will the people finally learn the lessons of the past and submit to the divine will? Now that God has manifestly chosen Zion and David over Shiloh and the North, will the people continue to rebel? Conclusion While the approach of an ancient (and biblical) historian to the events of the past will naturally differ from that of a modern historian to those same events, this difference is often one of degree not kind. The presence in 30.  See Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB, 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), p. 245.



Leonard  The Psalmist as Historiographer 23

historical texts from the Bible of features such as interpretive insertions and explanatory glosses illustrates the need their authors felt to make sense of past events and to help their readers make sense of them in turn. As the various examples noted above from Psalm 78 demonstrate, these concerns were evident not only in Israel’s prose histories but also in poetic works such as the historical psalms. The present setting does not permit a full exploration of the Psalter’s many other historiographically significant examples of reliance on earlier traditions. Given the great potential the historical psalms hold for illuminating the state of the underlying traditions at the time of the psalms’ composition, however, further research into this fruitful area of study is certainly warranted. This remains all the more true given the renewed intensity of the debate over the composition of these traditions that the past few decades have witnessed.

A l l u s i on or I l l us i on i n t he P salms : H ow D o W e D eci de ?

Beth LaNeel Tanner

Three decades after Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel,1 the debate still continues about what is and what is not an intentional allusion placed within the biblical text by an author. Even now, there is not a single definition of the term ‘allusion’ that will satisfy a majority of biblical scholars. Yet biblical studies is in good company because this problem of definition is mirrored in the larger field of literary criticism where the same search for a standard definition continues. It appears then that even after years of study and debate a definitive definition of allusion in either literary or biblical studies is indeed ‘illusionary’! The purpose of the present study is to wade into the fray with an investigation of Psalm 22. In and of itself, Psalm 22 is a fairly typical psalm of lament. Yet when used in the Gospels, it becomes an older, authoritative text that is both quoted and alluded to in the crucifixion narratives. It is a text within the Gospel texts. Psalm 22, then, serves as a unique witness to the use of allusion in ancient documents and will serve as the in situ example for testing the various ways allusion is argued to function in the scriptures. One avenue of literary criticism in general that is often followed in biblical studies is an author-centered focus. Some scholars catalog allusions made by later authors to demonstrate the importance of a particular classical work.2 Others present a study of the allusions within the works of a particular author in order to say something about that author’s 1.  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). 2.  James Johnson, ‘Identifying Chaucer Allusions, 1991–2000: An Annotated Bibliography’, The Chaucer Review 39 (2005), pp. 436-55 (436).



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 25

education, social structure, or personality.3 The purpose of these studies is to learn something about the author or the relationships between the author’s seminal works or the older works that an author uses as overt or covert allusions in his or her works. In other words, the focus is most often on the work, mind, or personality of the author and how that author uses allusions in his or her writings. Is a similar author focus possible for Psalm 22 or even in the Psalms in their entirety? What is clear is that there is no consensus concerning authorship of the psalms. Of course, the traditional author, King David, is now replaced by that ever popular ‘psalmist’ in academic circles, but this act of assigning personhood to the ancient author does not get one any closer to an actual person. Psalm 22 is longer than a traditional lament, with three distinct cycles of complaint followed by declarations of trust. The distress appears acute and not easily managed. The ‘I’ of the psalm feels deserted by God and mocked by humans. Yet this righteous one continues to confess God’s providence (vv. 4-6 [3-5], 13-19 [12-18], 22b [21b]) and in the end proclaims God’s care and blessings among others (vv. 23-32 [22-31]). Knowing the content of the prayer, however, does not further our understanding of the psalm’s author. From what can be known about Psalm 22, it, like most individual psalms, is not traceable to a particular person or even a specific period of time, and as a result, there is no direct or even indirect access to the mind or purpose of an author. Partly because of this anonymous character of the psalms, Gunkel and Mowinckel turned the focus from individual authors to the cult, yet again after years of study, we do not know the exact purpose for the composition of individual psalms. We also remain in the dark concerning how, when, and why psalms of all genres were used in worship. Furthermore, the whole idea that psalms were composed in and for the temple cult in Jerusalem has been questioned of late. For example, Gerstenberger reminds scholars of the importance of smaller family or community structures in the worship life of ancient Israel.4 The temple cult, then, may be only one of several social institutions where psalms were composed and/or used. 3.  Examples of these studies investigate almost all famous authors: biblical authors, authors of classical works, to current authors. In other words, theorists also write about the purpose of allusions in the works of authors who could simply be asked about their motives; see Nicholas Lakostik, ‘A Crown of Conflicting Glory: Biblical Allusions in Alison’s Bastard Out of Carolina’, Explicator 66 (2007), pp. 59-61. 4.  Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL, 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 33.

26

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

As for Psalm 22’s use in the cult, Bentzen argued for it to be placed in a royal cultic drama where the king represents the dying and reviving deity.5 Mowinckel argues the psalm is royal in origin with the worshipper describing God as, ‘his accoucheur and foster-father (22.10f)’.6 Kraus, with others, argues the last section (vv. 23-32 [22-31]) involves the community and thus indicates its use in temple rituals.7 Gerstenberger argues Psalm 22 is a personal prayer for small group worship in the postexilic period.8 The ‘I’, according to these scholars is either the king, a cultic priest or temple singer, or a postexilic sufferer. However, the exact use or uses of this psalm in ancient worship remain unknown, either in a specific period (Bentzen), or over the life of its use. Did Psalm 22 have a prominent place in temple worship? Was it the favorite of those suffering deep hurt and abandonment who were excluded from temple worship because of their afflictions? Was Psalm 22 important only to these early New Testament followers, without it being part of the larger Jewish community, or was its use in worship common in temple rituals? Was it popular for an extended period of time, maybe even hundreds of years, or did it become popular under Roman rule? Was its use in the Gospels maybe related to its status in the life of the community, or was it selected for another completely different reason known only to the ancient community? We simply do not know why Psalm 22 (along with 32 and 69) was deemed an important source for the writers of the Gospels.9 The only thing we know today is Psalm 22 stands with 149 other prayers without any clear prioritizing of one psalm or a set of psalms over any others in the worship life of Israel within the Psalter,10 but at some point, it along with Psalms 32 and 69, became a very important connection between the Psalms and the Gospels. 5.  Aage Bentzen, Messias, Moses Redivivus, Menschensohn (Zurich: ZwingliVerlag, 1948), p. 20. 6.  Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), I, p. 226. 7.  Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 294; Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1, p. 112. 8.  Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1, pp. 109-10. 9.  Donald Juel makes the same point from postbiblical Judaism, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 115. 10.  As noted by the shape and shaping work, psalms at the seams of the five books did play an organizing role and thus had some status, but this status is directly related to the organization of written book of Psalms and this may or may not be a reflection of liturgical use.



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 27

What we have—all we have—are poems. Granted there is always an author, or more probably authors, and quite possibly a cult. But as James Sanders and others taught, these poems ultimately belong to communities, not individuals, or cultic circles of priests. These prayers voice humanity’s highest hopes and its greatest fears and thus connect all the people who have used these psalms throughout their long history. These psalms belong neither to an individual nor to a specific period of history. The ‘I’ of the psalm belongs to the psalm and its unique poetic matrix. So it also belongs to the reader who engages its poetic exhortation and uses it as their own words. There is no author to analyze, so if allusion study requires one, this is a futile enterprise. The study of allusion in the Psalms will need to abandon the author and search for other forms of analysis. A second focus of literary criticism is defined as a ‘literary allusion’, so defined because it requires two texts in a diachronic sequence. Its focus moves from author-centered to text-centered. The texts are the subject of the study and these texts do not serve as avenues to an author’s intentions. Thus because of the problems with author-focused study in the Psalms, will this avenue be more fruitful? One test is in Ps. 22.2 [1], ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, why are you far from my roaring words?’ (my translation)

The word šeʾāgâ (‫‘ )שׁאגה‬roaring’, often represents the roaring of a lion (e.g. Judg. 14.5; Isa. 5.29). Here and in Ps. 38.9 [8] and Job 3.24, it is used to describe the suffering of one in deep pain. Is the use of this word to describe pain an intentional literary allusion? Is the author of Psalm 22 creating a literary allusion to either Psalm 38 or Job 3? Or is the author of Job alluding to Psalm 22 or 38 or both? Which of these three was the first to associate suffering and pain with the roar of a lion? Certainly studying the texts could shed light on the question, but in all probability, any proposal of a clear diachronic sequence would remain conjecture. There certainly is a new definition given to this word in these three texts, but which author used it first is much harder to determine.11 While much ink can be spilled arguing about the dating of these three texts, scholars are far from a consensus and, as with Psalm 22, the arguments range from an early to a very late dating. If literary allusion is dependent on an absolute diachronic sequence, we are back to knowing nothing about these allusions. 11.  Jeffery Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case’, JBL 127.2 (2008), pp. 241-65 (251). Rare or distinctive languages is one of his categories for identifying allusions.

28

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

In addition, according to Ben Porat, there are general allusions that do not come from pre-existing texts and thus does not have the burden of being in an absolute diachronic sequence. It is part of the cultural milieu, defined as an ‘indirect reference to a known fact’.12 It may be an idiom or colloquialism or an urban legend. Its genesis is usually unknown and could come from any strata of society. In many ways, these general allusions are like archeological tells. Some are in continuous uses over the centuries; others rise for a generation or two and die out; while still others rise for a period of time then are abandoned, only to be reused again by later generations. Kristeva, among others, noted the flux of meaning in words and phrases over time. There is the formal dictionary understanding of a word, but some words are constantly morphed into expanded or sometimes even opposite meanings from their dictionary form. It is in this oral culture that new meaning of words are created and used.13 Kristeva, of course, was speaking of a much more literary world than the one in ancient Israel, so the fluidity of words and allusions was probably even greater in a more oral society. In summary then, there is no definite path to evaluate the expanded definition of the word ‘roaring’. Was it a true literary allusion made by one of these authors of Psalm 22, Psalm 38, or Job, or did it originate from the general culture? Just as with the intentions of the authors, there is no sure way to know. There are, however, clear and diachronic allusions in the Gospels. The Gospel writers used Psalm 22 as a reference text in the crucifixion narratives.14 We should turn first to the content of these allusions. Psalm 22.2a [1a] appears in Mk 15.34 and Mt. 27.46 as a direct quotation. Psalm 22.19 [18] is alluded to in all four Gospels concerning the dividing of Jesus’ clothes.15 The mocking of the one in Ps. 22.7-8 [6-7], 13-14 [12-13], and 17-18 [16-17] is reflected in the mocking of Jesus by a multitude of persons in all three of the synoptic Gospels.16 12.  Ziva Ben-Porat, ‘The Poetics of Literary Allusion’, Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976), pp. 105-28 (106). 13.  Julia Kristeva, ‘The System and the Speaking Subject’, in K.M. Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2nd edn, 1997), pp. 124-28. 14.  Nancy deClaissé-Walford, ‘The Dromedary Saga: The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament’, RevExp 95 (1998), pp. 493-511 (495). 15.  See Mk 15.24; Mt. 27.35; Lk. 23.34; Jn 19.23-26. 16.  By the Jewish authorities (Mk 14.65; 15.31-32; Mt. 26.67; 27.41-43; Lk. 22.63; 23.35), the Roman soldiers (Mk 15.16-20; Mt. 27.27-31; Lk. 22.63; 23.35; Jn 19.2-3), Herod and his underlings (Lk. 23.11), the crowd and the criminals (Mk 15.29, 32; Mt. 27.39-40, 44; Lk. 23.39).



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 29

Can Psalm 22’s use by these New Testament writers teach us something about literary allusions and their use in the ancient world? The place to begin is with the clearest allusion of Ps. 22.2 [1] in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Indeed, this obvious quotation is possibly the key to the other more hidden ones. Much of the literature on the use of Psalm 22 focuses on Mark because of its status as the earliest Gospel. How does the allusion function in Mark? One possibility suggests the use of the Aramaic version of Ps. 22.2 [1] might be a clue that these were the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel author in this case would be little more than a stenographer, copying exactly what Jesus uttered from the cross. Most scholars reject this argument, however, mainly because they see Psalm 22 as central in the shaping of Mark’s crucifixion narrative.17 Instead, they see this phrase from Psalm 22 as an added explanation of the ‘loud cry’ Jesus utters (Mk 15.27; Mt. 27.50), coming either from a pre-Markan source or from the author of Mark.18 So scholars remain divided on whether this allusion to Psalm 22 was original to the Gospel of Mark or is copied from an earlier source. In her article on the use of Psalm 22, Menn rightly moves away from the question of who is the original author, focusing instead on the community’s proclamation. She writes, ‘the opening question of Psalm 22 constitutes the oldest preserved Christian tradition concerning his [Jesus’] final words…’19 If we cannot positively identify an originator of the allusion, can we still pursue the intention of the allusion without a person to attribute it to? If we accept Menn’s argument, it is possible because we are not searching for the intent of the original author; instead, the meaning of the event comes from at least one early community.20 So the question would then become, is this a written tradition such as a pre-Markan source or does this come from a more general allusion in the culture? 17.  Both Juel and Menn make this point based on the change from Ps. 22 to Ps. 69 in Luke’s narrative and the omission of it entirely in John (Juel, Messianic Exegesis, pp. 93-96, and Esther Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22’, HTR 93 (2000), pp. 301-41 [328]). 18.  The pre-Markan source is suggested by George Nickelsburg, ‘The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative’, HTR 73 (1980), pp. 153-84 (184). Juel places it with the author of the Gospel, Messianic Exegesis, p. 114. 19.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, p. 331. 20.  Granted, assuming that the community’s purpose and the purpose of an author are one and the same is problematic. The author may be challenging the community’s understanding or affirming it. Yet again, we are at a place where author intent—even with an authoritative literary text—is impossible to discern. We simply must admit what we cannot access in these ancient documents.

30

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

We can begin this exploration by asking what is the purpose of using Psalm 22 as the last words of Jesus? Is it meant to say something about Jesus and the crucifixion, or is it meant to reflect the theological focus of the particular Gospel, or is it a bit of both? What is the relationship of this event to Psalm 22 and/or what does Psalm 22 mean to this early community? Menn represents one group of scholars as she writes, ‘prominent allusions to Psalm 22 and the other individual laments within the context of the Passion narratives suggest a pre-Markan understanding of Jesus as the innocent sufferer of a humiliating and excruciating death, whom God vindicated by raising from him the dead, thereby accomplishing an inbreaking of the kingdom of God’.21 Her position posits that this is not an instance of the use of a single verse, which may have been in wide circulation, but an intentional shaping of the crucifixion narrative as ‘a number of further connections between Psalm 22 and the details of the passion appear in the New Testament’.22 She further notes that by the second century, there was an understanding that the psalm in its totality was to be understood as ‘containing the whole of Christ’s passion’.23 Menn and others place the focus on the whole text of the psalm and its trajectory from despair to praise. The vindication, it seems, is in the very cry itself.24 On the other hand, Raymond Brown wonders if the citing of the whole psalm from a mention of the first line is universally true: Applied here, it would mean that Mark expected his readers to recognize that a psalm was being cited, to know the whole psalm, and to detect from a reference to the agonized opening verse the triumphant fate of the one who prays—in short, to take almost the opposite meaning of what Jesus is saying.25

Brown works with the same allusion as other scholars and reaches exactly the opposite conclusion concerning the intention of the allusion 21.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, p. 328. 22.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, p. 331. 23.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, p. 331, quoting Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19.5. 24.  Also Thomas Schmidt, ‘Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994), pp. 145-53 (150). 25.  Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994), II, p. 1050. This type of common familiarity would lead one to conclude that Ps. 22 was important in the ancient liturgies. To get the allusions, one would need to know the psalm by heart. Juel avoids this problem by noting the psalms are added for the sake of readers of the Gospel (Juel, Messianic Exegesis, p. 94-95).



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 31

in Mark’s Gospel, in addition he questions the concept that a quotation of the first line of a psalm invokes the whole psalm.26 My purpose is not to choose one side in this argument. The point is to introduce the third important component in the study of allusion and that is the reader and how that reader is involved in the process of allusion recognition and the subsequent application of author intention for that allusion. After all, to be an allusion within any text requires placement by an author and recognition by a reader. An author, whether ancient or modern, can insert allusions into his or her text but if the reader does not notice it, then there is no allusion because the connection is not seen. Looking at the allusions to Psalm 22 in the Gospels, the cry of Jesus from the cross is clearly meant to be a connection between these two texts because it is a direct quotation of the psalm.27 The other two allusions to the psalm, the dividing of Jesus’ clothes and the mocking of the people, are not as easy to discern. The first one, the dividing of the clothes (Ps. 22.19 [18]), is also unique to Psalm 22 and thus might not be recognized without the cry from the cross, because, as Brown argues, the reader would have to know Psalm 22 well enough to recall v. 19 [18] without the help of the phrase search in BibleWorks! So, the first clear allusion of Ps. 22.2 [1] may cue the reader to look for other allusions as well. The third reference, to the mocking of Jesus, is a common theme of the lament psalms.28 It would be almost impossible for a reader to connect the mocking in the Gospels to only the mocking in Psalm 22 without the other two allusions to point the way. This demonstrates that the level of sophistication required to recognize an allusion varies with each individual allusion and one clear allusion may point the reader to other more subtle ones. Without reading the clues correctly, the allusion is missed and the text being read refers only to itself. In short, no matter how clever the author, or for what reason she places an allusion in her manuscript, it may be overlooked without the corresponding recognition from the reader. There may be hundreds of allusions in the biblical text, which, from our distant place, remain hidden to us. What is crystal clear to an ancient audience may well be missed by a modern one.

26.  Brown probably has a point since this perspective (suggested by William Albright) has not convinced a majority of scholars, ‘A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII)’, HUCA 23 (1950-51), pp. 1-39. 27.  This is not to imply that the plain meaning of the Mark text is lost on a reader who does not make the connection. Allusions either enhance or undermine the plain meaning of the text. 28.  See, e.g., Pss. 39.9 [8]; 42.11 [10]; 55.4 [3]; 69.10 [9]; 74.10; 89.52 [51].

32

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

An author can also intentionally make the allusion difficult for all readers to see. It can be cryptic by design so that only those who are part of a specific community can rightly interpret it. These allusions serve at least two purposes. The first is protection, as in the coded context of Babylon represented in the text of the book of Daniel. The concealment of the actual context protects the community from further persecution. Another reason for hidden allusions is to provide a sense of unity. Only the author’s community will understand the true point of the text so that the correct reading of these allusions enhances group cohesiveness. These types of cryptic allusions are present in apocalyptic literature and may be used in other genres of biblical literature as well.29 Indeed, those that argue for an understanding of the whole of Psalm 22 here in Mark are making the same argument; only those in the know will read the crucifixion as vindication for the Messiah. Recognition of the outcome of Psalm 22 is required for the allusion circle to be complete. Without such recognition, we are back to the age-old question: If a tree falls in the forest and it is not heard, does the tree make a sound? An allusion, to be an allusion, must be recognized. If it is not recognized, the text before the reader evokes only itself.30 Another learning from the use of Psalm 22 in the Gospel is the flexibility of a reader/author to use the psalm in circumstances beyond its own time and place. The psalm carries the superscription ledāwid (‫)לדוד‬. In Mark and Matthew, this psalm becomes the words of Jesus.31 Donald Juel defines this use of allusion as, ‘From the onset the psalms were part of a tradition that narrated the death of the King of the Jews. The psalms were read as messianic—that is, referring to the anointed King from the line of David expected at the end of days.’32 To Juel, the psalm is a clue to Jesus’ real status and only those who understand this will pick up on the allusion. This point is magnified by the bystanders who misunderstand what Jesus said (Mk 15.35). A psalm of David is given a new, cryptic, Christian context, but there is still a connection of ancestry between the psalm and the Gospel in the line of David and its messianic hopes.

29.  John Collins, ‘Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in the Book of Daniel’, JSOT 21 (1981), pp. 83-100 (93). 30.  Of course, these hidden allusions have been a standard in movies made for children; ‘Adult Humor’, http://pixar.wikia.com/Adult_Humor. It is one way that parents survive watching these productions. 31.  Or at the very least, the first verse becomes the words of Jesus. 32.  Juel, Messianic Exegesis, p. 116.



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 33

Menn presents a second and later allusion to Psalm 22. During the third to fifth centuries ce, Psalm 22 becomes the prayer of Esther as she struggles to save the Jewish people. This is seen most clearly in Midrash Tehillim.33 An allusion never intended by the psalm’s original context now becomes part of the tradition about Esther and the celebration of Purim. This is an example where readers, who subsequently become authors, are free to see allusions without any author or original community-centered basis on which to do so. This demonstrates that Psalm 22 and the Psalms in general ceased to be tied to author intention or even to its own superscription.34 Readers, then, freely attached psalms to other persons and situations beyond the original context, telling us that there is a long tradition of allowing for the ‘I’ to be placed in the hands of the reader to use as he or she sees fit. One final piece sheds a bit more light on the reader and the history of the tradition concerning Psalm 22. Later translators found an additional connection between Psalm 22 and the narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion. The Hebrew text of Ps. 22.17 [16] is notoriously difficult to translate, reading in the MT ‘like a lion, my hands and my feet’.35 What is of interest for our purposes is the Septuagint’s translation of this text. Gregory Vall traces this interesting twist. He notes that in Alexandria, at least a century or two before Christ, a Jewish scribe was faced with this puzzling verse and selected a verb meaning ‘to dig’ for ‘like a lion’.36 This leads to a translation of ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’. Clearly the change was made without any knowledge of the death of Jesus or the still-tobe-written Gospel accounts. This seemingly obvious reference to the crucifixion, however, does not appear in any of the Gospel accounts. The connection of Ps. 22.17 [16] and the crucifixion account is not explicitly spelled out until the writings of second-century fathers such as Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian.37 This understanding grows to the point that Thomas Aquinas writes, ‘This psalm deals with the passion of Christ… [T]hat is its literal sense’.38 This last interpretation stands as an

33.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, pp. 317-27. 34.  A similar point is made by the additional psalm superscriptions in the LXX. The old superscriptions did not bind a later community to read the psalm only in this way, but they were free to add to the tradition with their own understandings. 35.  James Linville, ‘Psalm 22:17B: A New Guess’, JBL 124 (2005), pp. 733-44. 36.  Gregory Vall, ‘Psalm 22:17B: “The Old Guess” ’, JBL 116 (1997), pp. 45-56 (45). 37.  Menn, ‘No Ordinary Lament’, p. 334. 38.  Vall quotes Thomas Aquinas, ‘Old Guess’, p. 46.

34

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

example of an interpretation by a translator that in the hands of a reader, a few hundred years later, becomes a well-known and often-documented allusion that is, from a technical perspective, illusionary. In this case, an authoritative understanding of the text grew from a translation stumbled on by an unknown scribe. Yet, that tradition continues in countless sermons to this day.39 So what conclusions can be drawn from this brief study of Psalm 22? First, an author-centered approach in the psalms is speculative. This does not mean that scholars cannot surmise what the author may have intended, but it should be stated as such, instead of as a certainty. Second in the category of diachronic literary allusions, the psalms themselves are difficult, if not impossible, to date in relation to each other and in relation to other biblical literature. So, as with the example of the word ‘roaring’ in Ps. 22.2 [1], it is impossible to determine the origin of its literary allusion. Indeed, it may not be a literary allusion at all, but one that comes from the spoken allusions in a particular people. Third, the ‘I’ of Psalm 22, specifically, and of the Psalms in general belongs not to any one person or an author, or cult. Indeed, even its superscription does not tie it to a particular person or time in history. The ‘I’ belongs to the poem itself and can be adapted for others whose story is seen by a later author as mirroring the psalm. The second set of observations are about the nature of allusions and allusion recognition. Even when an author and a reader share a community, the recognition of an allusion is complex. For a true literary allusion, it requires an author who carefully places an allusion from another text within her text and it also requires a reader who has the ability to find and analyze the allusion as the author intended. The further the reader is removed from the world of the author, the less likely it is that he will be able to discover the allusions of the author. In addition, it is also possible that this removed reader will see allusions through his cultural lens that the original author never intended. So in the hunt for the definition of allusions in poetic texts from our distant place, we would be well served to think in terms of hermeneutics rather than any historical search for the time or place or intention of that long-ago author 39.  Interesting, the reference to the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet is also tradition, in that it does not appear in any of the Gospel accounts. For example, Mk 15.20 reads, ‘Then they led him out to crucify him’. It describes the deed in general without the specifics. A topic beyond the scope of the present study is to investigate whether tradition and not an author creates an allusion, does it still remain an allusion or an illusion.



Tanner  Allusion or Illusion in the Psalms 35

or cult. We should also consider the history behind the allusions we think are clear and well established, such as the connection of Ps. 22.17 [16] and the crucifixion of Jesus, to understand the complex ways that allusions function across time and cultures. Indeed, at the end of the day, a definition of allusion that is more hermeneutical and less historical and diachronic frees us to explore the poetry of these texts as they were intended, as an interface between the poem and the reader.40 Don’t worry—this freedom does not mean that there are no guidelines, because the tradition of interpretation has its own requirements, yet it does mean that these psalms will continue to spawn allusions to other written works and the emotions and intellect of its readers. The use of Psalm 22 by later reader/authors confirms this as a long-standing tradition of reader generated allusions within the matrix of the suffering ‘I’. Chris Ricks, a noted literary scholar explains of some other famous poems, ‘This, not because in criticism anything goes, but much goes. Poems have a way of being undulating and diverse.’41 Psalm 22 and some moments in its early history certainly demonstrate this character.

40.  Adele Berlin comes to much the same conclusion in her article on biblical narrative, ‘Literary Exegesis of Biblical Narrative: Between Poetics and Hermeneutics’, in J. Rosenblatt and J. Sitterson (eds.), ‘Not in Heaven’: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 120-28. 41.  Christopher Ricks, ‘Keat’s Sources, Keat’s Allusions’, in S. Wolfson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Keats (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 152-69 (152).

E xodu s 34.6 i n P s a l m s 86 , 103, and 145 in R e l at i on to t h e T h eol og i cal P e r spe cti ve s of B ook s III, IV, a n d V of t he P salte r

Hee Suk Kim

Introduction It is well known that Psalms 86, 103, and 145 cite Exod. 34.6, which expresses YHWH’s covenantal fidelity. The present study intends to examine the way Psalms 86, 103, and 145 respectively use Exod. 34.6. More specifically, it analyzes what aspect of Exod. 34.6 is picked up in each text and thereby compares the three psalms with regard to their intentions of citing Exod. 34.6. It is hoped that this study contributes to the development of a recent method in Psalms scholarship which pays particular attention to the compositional aspects of the whole Psalter.1 1.  For examples of seminal works in this area, see Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997); David G. Firth and Philip Johnston, Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005); David M. Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); J. Clinton McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); J. Clinton McCann, ‘The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness’, in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 340-48; J. Clinton McCann and Nancy Rowland McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993); Harry Peter Nasuti, ‘The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms’, in Peter Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 311-39; R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book (JSOTSup, 222; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985); Gerald Henry



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 37

To this end, this essay first examines Exod. 34.6 before moving onto the analyses of Psalms 86, 103, 145. Exodus 34.6 ‫ויעבר יהוה על־פניו ויקרא‬ ‫יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬ And he passed in front of him, proclaiming, ‘The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness and truth’.

Exodus 34.6 is well known as it describes the character of YHWH in the context of the Sinai covenant. More precisely, the character articulated in Exod. 34.6 specifically portrays how YHWH responds to the disobedience of the Israelites, his covenant people. When the Israelites broke the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19–24, YHWH made a decision to rebuild the covenantal relationship.2 Exodus 34.6 depicts YHWH’s character revealed in this process of reinstituting the Sinai covenant: ‘the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness and truth’. An implication of this characterization of YHWH is that YHWH’s character should be understood in accordance with his response to the disobedience of the covenant people. Instead of devastating the covenantal relationship, YHWH attempted to restore the relationship. Therefore, Exod. 34.6, when reused in later texts, naturally Wilson, Psalms: Volume 1 (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002); Gerald Henry Wilson, ‘King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter’, in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 391-406; W.H. Bellinger, ‘Reading from the Beginning (Again): The Shape of Book I of the Psalter’, in Joel S. Burnett, W.H. Bellinger, and W. Dennis Tucker (eds.), Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading Psalms in Real Time: Proceedings of the Baylor Symposium on the Book of Psalms (LHBOTS, 488; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 114-26; Robert E. Wallace, The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter (Studies in Biblical Literature, 112; New York: Peter Lang, 2007). For the names of commentators who employ this methodology, see the following footnotes. 2.  Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), pp. 610-20; Alphonso Groenewald, ‘A God Abounding in Steadfast Love: Psalms and Hebrews’, in Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (LHBOTS, 527; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp. 52-65 (54-56).

38

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

presents theologically significant material: YHWH is the God that does not abandon his covenantal relationship; at any cost, he attempts to rebuild the relationship that has been broken by the covenant people. Another point to be made here, before we examine the Psalter, is that YHWH’s covenantal character is portrayed in terms of his relationship with a community, not with individuals. B.S. Childs points out that Exod. 34.6 is allusively used in later traditions ‘as a reflection of a considerable history of Israel’s relation with her God’.3 That is, the theological implications of Exod. 34.6 are primarily related to a faith community, not individuals. Yet, there is more to consider in this regard. For a clear understanding of Exod. 34.6, we need to attend to two features. First, the object of covenant rebuilding was certainly the community of Israel. Second, the covenant rebuilding was accomplished through a leader of the community, Moses. The Israelites were not capable of recovering from their fatal mistake, and so Moses asked YHWH to give them a second chance. Moreover, the self-revelation of YHWH’s covenantal character in Exod. 34.6 (i.e., the basis for the covenant rebuilding) was given first to Moses, who later delivered it to the covenant community of Israel. As a result, when reading later texts with a citation from Exod. 34.6, it is necessary to address which of the two features in covenant rebuilding is emphasized: the individual leader or the covenantal community. We now examine how Psalms 86, 103, and 145 re-utilize Exod. 34.6. In so doing, we will pinpoint which aspect(s) of Exod. 34.6 is emphasized and how that emphasis is established. Psalm 86.15 ‫ואתה אדני אל־רחום וחנון‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬ But you, O Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness and truth.

Psalm 86 is a Davidic psalm, and particularly, the only Davidic psalm in Book III. As John Goldingay and Marvin Tate rightly explain, this psalm comes with a number of allusions to other parts of the Old Testament.4 Of special interest is that it uses phrases referring to the exodus 3.  Childs, Exodus, p. 612. 4.  John Goldingay, Psalms 42–89 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 618; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), pp. 380-83.



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 39

event. Goldingay even states that the psalm represents a ‘renewed Sinai Theology’, implying that vv. 5, 8, 15 contribute in connecting the psalm with the exodus event.5 In the context of Psalm 86, this analysis explores how the theme of YHWH’s covenantal character is described through the use of Exod. 34.6. First, let us examine the verses that refer to YHWH’s covenantal fidelity, ‫חסד‬, which is often translated as ‘loving kindness’.6 Verse 5 ‫כי־אתה אדני טוב וסלח‬ ‫ורב־חסד לכל־קראיך‬ Because you are forgiving and good, O Lord, abounding in loving-kindness to all who call to you.

Psalm 86.5 introduces the theme of YHWH’s character of forgiveness (‫ )סלח‬in the first colon of v. 5. In the second colon, this theme of forgiving character of YHWH is further explained by a phrase allusive to Exod. 34.6, ‘abounding in loving-kindness’ (‫)רב־חסד‬. Verse 13 further notes that the loving-kindness belongs to YHWH (‫)חסדך‬. It is out of this lovingkindness that YHWH should deliver the psalmist from Sheol. Verse 13 ‫כי־חסדך גדול עלי‬ ‫והצלת נפׁשי מׁשאול תחתיה‬ For great is your loving-kindness toward me; you have delivered me from the depths of the grave.

This character of YHWH goes on to be specified by the citation of Exod. 34.6. Verse 15 ‫ואתה אדני אל־רחום וחנון‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬ But you, O Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness and truth.

5.  Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, pp. 618-19. 6.  For a study on YHWH’s fidelity in the Psalter, see Rolf A. Jacobson, Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 111-37.

40

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Except for the introductory address, ‘But you, O Lord’ (‫)ואתה אדני‬, this verse presents exactly the same phrase as in Exod. 34.6, ‫אל רחום וחנון‬ ‫‘( ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness and truth’). The question accordingly arises: why does the psalmist cite Exod. 34.6? The psalmist uses a phrase spoken by YHWH himself in order to persuade YHWH to show the same loving-kindness to the psalmist.7 As YHWH gave a second chance to the covenant people who had broken their covenant with YHWH, the psalmist requests YHWH to provide another chance to the psalmist. For this purpose, the psalmist appeals to the covenantal character of YHWH revealed in Exod. 34.6. Second, having examined the intention of the psalmist in general, we need to investigate what aspect of the exodus event is emphasized. A crucial feature of Psalm 86 must first be addressed: the intentional focus upon the relationship between the individual psalmist and YHWH. This psalm is widely acknowledged as an individual lament.8 Furthermore, Psalm 86 specifically describes the relationship between YHWH and the psalmist as a lord–servant relationship. The psalmist calls himself ‫עבדך‬ (‘your servant’). This servant language appears throughout the psalm (vv. 2, 4, 16). Then who is this servant? Goldingay avers that Psalm 86 stresses a servant–master relationship that would best be utilized by national leaders such as a king or a governor.99 Even though the Davidic authorship (cf. the superscription, ‘a prayer of David’, ‫ )תפלה לדוד‬has been questioned among scholarship, I agree with Goldingay and understand the psalmist as a king, arguing that Psalm 86 is at least presenting a royal figure who describes himself as a servant of YHWH. If this is acceptable, we should further note that the description of the psalmist as YHWH’s servant is closely associated with the concept of YHWH’s covenant fidelity (‫)חסד‬. Simply put, YHWH’s covenant fidelity, which had been given to the nation Israel, should now be given to the servant of YHWH, that is, the psalmist. Psalm 86 consists of three developmental steps in this regard. First, v. 5 requests that YHWH’s covenant fidelity be abundantly provided for all who call to YHWH. Second, v. 13

7.  Gordon Wenham understands ‫ חסד‬in the Psalter as referring to a specific aspect of God’s character that represents the will of YHWH to ‘keep covenant with a disobedient people’. Gordon J. Wenham, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically (Studies in Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), pp. 160-61 n. 24. 8.  Artur Weiser, The Psalms (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 576. 9.  Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 620.



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 41

describes how YHWH’s covenant fidelity is great upon the psalmist, the royal servant of YHWH. Third, and lastly, vv. 15-16 finalize the argument. Verse 15 cites Exod. 34.6 to portray the necessity of YHWH’s fidelity in the current hardship of the psalmist; v. 16 then asks YHWH to provide his fidelity to his servant. Verse 16 ‫פנה אלי וחנני‬ ‫תנה־עזך לעבדך‬ ‫והוׁשיעה לבן־אמתך‬ Turn to me and have mercy on me; grant your strength to your servant and save the son of your maidservant.

In this verse, the recipient of YHWH’s fidelity is repeated; first, the psalmist (‫אלי‬, ‘on me’); second, YHWH’s servant (‫עבדך‬, ‘to your servant’); third, the son of YHWH’s maidservant (‫לבן־אמתך‬, ‘to the son of your maidservant’). This repetition highlights the imploring for YHWH’s fidelity to the psalmist. Thus, vv. 15-16 conclude with a request for YHWH’s fidelity, which was first shown to the nation in the exodus event, to be given also to the psalmist. In the same vein, Erich Zenger succinctly states, The petitioner now asks for himself as an individual a demonstration of this godhead of YHWH, revealed in the history of the people of Israel—and in such a way that his enemies may see that God is on his side, and that they are thereby publicly ‘shamed’, that is, disclosed and disempowered, as criminals.10

In sum, Psalm 86 uses Exod. 34.6 to argue that YHWH’s covenant fidelity once shown to the covenant community should now be provided for the psalmist. YHWH needs to restore the misfortune of the psalmist in accordance with his covenantal fidelity.

10.  Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), p. 375. E.S. Gerstenberger also thinks that the kind of relationship expressed in this text appeals more to ‘simple anthropological patterns of asking and receiving, gift and countergift, religious loyalty and disloyalty’ than any specific sort of communal or treaty covenant. Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations (FOTL, 15; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 137.

42

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Psalm 103.8 ‫‏רחום וחנון יהוה‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד‬ The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.

Psalm 103 is a praise psalm, which requests the community to praise YHWH. The reason for praising YHWH is clearly YHWH’s covenant fidelity. The psalm mentions ‫‘( חסד‬loving-kindness’) in vv. 4, 8, 11, and 17. The central question concerns how this psalm explains and utilizes the concept of the covenantal fidelity of YHWH. First of all, let us pay attention to the structure of the psalm. Two points deserve mention here. First, the psalm can be analyzed according to the development of the identities of the addressee of the psalm. Goldingay right observes, ‘the psalm moves from “you” (the self; vv. 1-5) to “they” (Israel of the past; vv. 6-9) to “we” (Israel of the past and present; vv. 10-14) to humanity (vv. 15-18) to the heavenly and earthly cosmos (vv. 19-22)’.11 Second, the beginning and ending parts of the psalm (vv. 1-2, 20-22) consist of imperatives (‫[ ברכי‬vv. 1-2]; ‫ברכו‬ [vv. 20-22]) that ask the community to praise (bless) YHWH. The remaining part of the psalm (vv. 3-19) explains the reason for praising YHWH. When these observations are considered together, the middle part of the psalm (vv. 3-19) is divided into four sections: ‘you’ (vv. 3-5), ‘they’ (vv. 6-9), ‘we’ (vv. 10-14), and humanity (vv. 15-18). Each section mentions YHWH’s fidelity, ‫( חסד‬vv. 4, 8, 11, 17). Let us examine these sections briefly with regard to the identity of the recipients of YHWH’s ‫‘( חסד‬loving-kindness’). Verses 3-5 state that YHWH’s covenant fidelity is applicable to the psalmist. The second person feminine addressee in these verses refers to ‫‘( נפׁשי‬my soul’) in vv. 1-2, which denotes the psalmist. Verse 4 mentions YHWH’s fidelity, ‫‘( חסד ורחמים‬loving-kindness and mercy’), with which YHWH crowns the psalmist. Accordingly, vv. 3-4 portrays how the psalmist is a recipient of YHWH’s fidelity. Verses 6-9 then move to a new trajectory by looking back to the history of Israel. Verse 7 references Moses and the Israelites, and v. 8 eventually cites Exod. 34.6.

11.  John Goldingay, Psalms 90–150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 165.



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 43

Verse 8 ‫‏רחום וחנון יהוה‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד‬ The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.

What should be noted here is that the identity of the recipient of YHWH’s fidelity begins to democratize. In vv. 3-5 the recipient is the psalmist; in vv. 6-9 the recipient is the covenant community, those who were given a second chance at the time of golden calf event in Exodus 32–34. A possible implication is that the recipients of God’s fidelity progressively expand. In the past, YHWH’s fidelity was confined to the covenantal community. Then, vv. 10-14 further explains that YHWH’s fidelity is provided for those who fear YHWH (‫)יראיו‬. Verse 11 ‫כי כגבה ׁשמים על־הארץ‬ ‫גבר חסדו על־יראיו‬ For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his loving-kindness for those who fear him.

Verse 13 ‫כרחם אב על־בנים‬ ‫רחם יהוה על־יראיו‬ As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.

Both ‘loving-kindness’ (‫חסד‬, v. 11) and ‘compassion’ (‫רחם‬, v. 13) echo Exod. 34.6. Having been applied to the psalmist and the covenantal community in vv. 3-9, the covenantal fidelity of YHWH is now declared for those who fear YHWH. The phrase, ‘those who fear YHWH’, importantly indicates that the recipient of YHWH’s fidelity goes beyond individuality. This community of fearers of YHWH is open to anyone who meets the standard of fearing YHWH and its members are included in YHWH’s community. According to James L. Mays, those who fear YHWH is ‘a designation used in the psalms along with the righteous, the faithful, and the servants of the Lord for those who seek to make the Lord the decisive orienting center of their lives’.12 12.  James L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994), p. 329.

44

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

This expansion of recipients is also found in vv. 15-18. Verse 17 once again states that YHWH’s covenantal fidelity is given to the fearers of YHWH. Verse 17 ‫וחסד יהוה מעולם‬ ‫ועד־עולם על־יראיו‬ ‫וצדקתו לבני בנים‬ But the LORD’s loving-kindness is from everlasting and to everlasting to those who fear him, and his righteousness is to the children’s children.

Psalm 103 uses Exod. 34.6 to highlight the communal aspect of YHWH’s fidelity which had been revealed in the history of Israel. This communal aspect guides the psalmist to ascertain that YHWH’s covenantal character is applicable to a new covenantal community characterized as the fearers of YHWH. Before moving on to Psalm 145, let us compare our study of Psalm 86 and that of Psalm 103 with regard to their uses of Exod. 34.6. Psalm 86 argues that YHWH’s fidelity should apply to the psalmist; Psalm 103 states that YHWH’s fidelity is given to a community of individuals who fear YHWH.13 It seems that these two usages of Exod. 34.6 go in different directions. What can this phenomenon mean? Before answering this question, we need to examine another citation of Exod. 34.6, which appears in Psalm 145. Psalm 145.8 ‫חנון ורחום יהוה‬ ‫ארך אפים וגדל־חסד‬ The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in loving-kindness.14 13.  Gerstenberger also thinks, even though not comparing the uses of Exod. 34.6 in Ps. 86.15 and Ps. 103.8, that Ps. 103 intends to care for the individuals in the community and thereby effectively forms a community of the YHWH fearers. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, p. 220. See also Goldingay, Psalms 90–150, pp. 176-77. 14.  Leslie C. Allen correctly observes that Ps. 145.8, in comparison to Exod. 34.6, is given ‘a unique twist’ in order to show the greatness of YHWH’s fidelity. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, rev. edn, 2002), p. 372.



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 45

Psalm 145 is the last psalm of the second Davidic group in Book V (Pss. 138–145).15 This psalm therefore seems to function as the climactic Davidic psalm of Book V. It begins with a declaration that YHWH is the king over all creation (v. 1), which indicates that the psalm emphasizes YHWH’s kingship rather than Davidic kingship. Let us concentrate on how the psalm uses Exod. 34.6. As Goldingay points out, Psalm 145 presents a good number of uses of ‫‘( כל‬all/every’; vv. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21). All of these uses portray the universality of YHWH’s reign.16 Goldingay states that the repeated use of ‫‘ כל‬points to the allembracing nature of the worship of YHWH…but it especially emphasizes the all-embracing reach of YHWH’s goodness’.17 Of prime importance in this regard is that the use of ‫ כל‬begins right after v. 8 where Exod. 34.6 is cited. It does not appear in vv. 1-7 where the praise of YHWH is commanded yet no reason for doing so is given. Conversely, vv. 8-21 explain why YHWH should be praised. The first, and the most important reason, given in v. 8, is the reuse of Exod. 34.6 that emphasizes YHWH’s fidelity in the history of Israel. Whereas v. 8 describes YHWH’s fidelity that was applied to the covenantal community, the following verses describe YHWH’s covenantal fidelity in his universal reign (vv. 9-11). Verse 9

The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.

‫טוב־יהוה לכל‬ ‫ורחמיו על־כל־מעׂשיו‬

Verse 10

All of your works will praise you, O LORD; Your faithful ones will bless you.

‫יודוך יהוה כל־מעׂשיך‬ ‫וחסידיך יברכוכה‬

15.  The first group of Davidic psalms appears in Pss. 108–110. 16.  For example, YHWH is described as the one who satisfies the desire of every living thing (v. 16) and the one who preserves all those who love him and destroys all the wicked (v. 20). 17.  Goldingay, Psalms 90–150, pp. 696-97. For another interpretive view in this vein, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 598-99.

46

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Verse 11

They will tell of the glory of your kingdom and speak of your might.

‫כבוד מלכותך יאמרו‬ ‫וגבורתך ידברו‬

Verse 9 states that YHWH’s compassion (‫ )רחמיו‬is upon all his works (‫)כל־מעׂשיו‬. Verses 10b-11 say that all the faithful ones of YHWH (‫ )חסידיך‬bless YHWH, speak of the glory of YHWH’s kingdom, and tell of YHWH’s power. Geoffrey W. Grogan explains that the word ‫חסידים‬ designates ‘those who are characterized by faithfulness, and this too is suggestive of the love that exists within the covenant relationship’.18 That is to say, YHWH gives his fidelity to his covenant people, who thereby also express their fidelity in their lives by praising YHWH’s kingship.19 Simply put, YHWH’s covenantal fidelity is actualized in his reign of the universe. Then, what can we infer about the use of Exod. 34.6 in Psalm 145? Its reuse ascertains the universality of YHWH’s covenantal fidelity, which was only applied to a specific community at the exodus event, yet should now be applied to the whole of YHWH’s kingdom. In this regard, it seems possible to think that, while Psalm 103 attempts to apply the covenantal fidelity of YHWH to the God-fearing community, Psalm 145 goes beyond 103 to acknowledge the establishment of YHWH’s fidelity over the universal realm, into which the fearers of YHWH are undoubtedly incorporated. The theological focus in Psalm 145 is placed upon YHWH’s reign per se, as opposed to the God-fearing faith of community members presented in Psalm 103. Implications We now integrate the studies of Psalms 86, 103, and 145. First, Psalm 86 utilizes Exod. 34.6 in order to ask that YHWH’s covenantal fidelity be applied to the psalmist. Next, Psalm 103 does so to show that YHWH’s fidelity is given to a community of fearers of YHWH. Lastly, Psalm 18.  Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 280. 19.  For a thorough study on this subject, see Harm van Grol, ‘David and His Chasidim: Place and Function of Psalms 138–145’, in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms (BETL, 138; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010), pp. 309-37.



Kim  Exodus 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 47

145 uses Exod. 34.6 to state that YHWH’s fidelity is an element of his universal kingship. As discussed before, Exod. 34.6 has both an individual aspect and a communal aspect: YHWH’s covenantal fidelity was given to a community (Israel) through an individual leader of the community (Moses). Out of this combination of individual and communal aspects, Psalm 86 utilizes the individual aspect and applies it to the psalmist. When we assume that the psalmist of Psalm 86 is either David or a Davidic king, the message of Psalm 86 becomes clear: YHWH’s fidelity is upon a leader of the covenantal community of Israel. Then, Psalm 103 utilizes the communal aspect of Exod. 34.6 as it depicts YHWH’s fidelity as applying to the fearers of YHWH. The thematic emphasis has moved from the leader of the covenant community to the community itself. Psalm 145 then further develops the communal aspect of Exod. 34.6 as it declares that YHWH’s fidelity applies to the universal reign of YHWH. Overall, concerning the covenantal relationship with YHWH, Psalm 86 emphasizes an individual; Psalm 103 focuses upon a community; Psalm 145 puts stress on a universal community in which individuals who utilize YHWH’s fidelity in their life. Therefore, it seems warranted to conclude that Psalms 86, 103, and 145 use Exod. 34.6 for their own purposes respectively. Furthermore, this conclusion contributes to a recent method in Psalm scholarship, the compositional approach to the Psalter, which pays special attention to the final shape of the Psalter.20 This approach argues that the five books of the Psalter have their own theological directions. Among a number of arguments of this approach, it is well known that Book III of the Psalter presents the failure of the Davidic covenant, that Book IV responds to the failure of Davidic covenant by declaring the kingship of YHWH which exceeds the Davidic kingship, and that the Davidic psalms of Book V (Pss. 108–110 and Pss. 138–145) function to describe David as a king who humbly acknowledges the ultimate kingship of YHWH.21

20.  Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter; Idem, ‘The Use of Royal Psalms at the “Seams” of the Hebrew Psalter’, JSOT 35 (1986), pp. 85-94; Gerald H. Wilson, ‘Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms’, in J. Clinton McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 72-82; Erich Zenger, ‘The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145’, JSOT 80 (1988), pp. 77-102; Erich Zenger, ‘New Approach to the Study of the Psalms’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 17 (1994), pp. 37-54. 21.  deClaissé-Walford, Reading from the Beginning, pp. 73-103.

48

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

To examine the pros and cons of this approach certainly goes beyond the capacity of the present article. Yet, I hope that the conclusions of this study contribute to the compositional approach. In Psalm 86, the psalmist’s notion of YHWH’s fidelity as only being limited to himself (David or Davidic king) coheres well with Book III’s portrayal of the struggles with the Davidic covenant. In Psalm 103, the presentation of YHWH’s fidelity applying to a community of fearers of YHWH is consistent with Book IV’s emphasis upon YHWH’s kingship instead of the failed Davidic kingship. In Psalm 145, the psalmist’s (David or a Davidic king) acknowledgment of the kingship of YHWH over the universe depicts the king’s willingness to serve YHWH as a member of the faithful ones (‫)חסידים‬, which supports Book V’s theme of the king surrendering to the kingship of YHWH. Simply put, I am of the opinion that this study can function as an exemplary model of the democratization of the kingship in the Psalter by pinpointing how various psalms reinterpret the theme of God’s covenant fidelity through Exod. 34.6.22 Overall, it seems warranted to say that this study shows that the uses of Exod. 34.6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 have different directions, but they as a whole can be understood as establishing a thematic development in accordance with the literary format and theological fronts of the Psalter. In this sense, it is hoped that this study will contribute to furthering the understanding of the theological intentions of Books III, IV, and V of the Psalter.

22.  For a general view on the kingship issues of the Psalter from the perspective of the compositional approach, see Jamie A. Grant, ‘The Psalms and the King’, in David Firth and Philip S. Johnston (eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), pp. 101-18.

T he E l evat i on of G od i n P salm 105

David Emanuel

As a hymn of praise, Psalm 105 succinctly recounts events from the patriarchal tradition and exodus narratives recorded in the Pentateuch, and motivates its audience to praise God for his past benevolent acts to Israel and their forefathers. Frequently classified as a historiographic or historical psalm,1 the composition echoes Pentateuchal texts reflecting the time span from the patriarchal wandering era to the conquest of Canaan. The psalm opens in vv. 1-7 with an exhortation for Israel to thank YHWH, remembering his heroic deeds of old and proclaiming them to the nations. Following this, vv. 8-11 delineate God’s promise to grant Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan. From this point onwards, the psalmist both alludes to and explicitly recounts instances of divine intervention from

1.  See, e.g., Leslie Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), p. 54; and A.A. Anderson, ‘Historical Psalms’, in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 56-66 (59), who states that psalms such as 78, 105, and 106 are often called ‘historical psalms’. Gunkel similarly refers to psalms like Ps. 105 as ‘legends’ (see Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel [trans. J. Nogalski; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998], p. 247). Later works similarly treat them as such; see, e.g., Judith Gärtner, Die Geschichtspsalmen: Eine Studie zu dem Psalmen 78, 105, 106, 135 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte Im Psalter (FAT, 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Classifications like these are not genres, so to speak, but reflections of the way certain psalms recite events from Israel’s historical traditions. Consequently, historical psalms fall into a variety of genres, such as laments (Ps. 106), or hymns of praise (Ps. 95). Naturally, as historical psalms, they are not monolithic, and each composition bears unique characteristics and purpose; see Phillip McMillion, ‘Psalm 105: History with a Purpose’, ResQ 52 (2010), pp. 169-79.

50

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Israel’s literary history that reveal how God fulfilled his promise. Verses 12-15 reflect the early patriarchal wandering era, and vv. 16-22 record Joseph’s subjugation and ascent to power while in Egypt. The longest of the narrative recitals, vv. 23-36, details the Egyptians’ oppression of Jacob’s descendants, and culminates with an explicit portrayal of their emancipation through God’s intervention. The final climactic narrative in the psalm, vv. 37-45, recalls God fulfilling the promise he initiated in vv. 8-11. After protecting them from the elements during their desert journeys, God settles them into Canaan, where they enjoy the produce for which others had laboured. Throughout the psalm, YHWH’s faithfulness to his word constitutes a repetitive theme. In each pericope, the psalmist portrays YHWH’s steadfast devotion to fulfilling his word, intervening in the lives of Abraham and his descendants and delivering them from threatening people and situations.2 God rebukes kings for the patriarchs, dramatically reverses Joseph’s fortunes, sends plagues against the Egyptians and provides sustenance and protection for the emancipated Hebrews in the wilderness. The final verse of the composition, however, introduces an unexpected twist, placing a condition upon Israel that provides a rationale for YHWH’s actions. All the benevolent and merciful acts God performed for Abraham and his seed carried with them a solemn obligation: they must keep his commands and obey his laws. Previously, scholars working on Psalm 105 primarily adopted a number of approaches to analyzing the composition. The most traditional method is simply to view the work as a hymn of praise, according to the criteria outlined by Herman Gunkel’s form-critical methodology.3 Most modern commentators adopt this position, with the determination of each composition’s form and setting dominating the proceedings.4 In this regard, many of the classic hymn features are instantly apparent: an 2.  For more on this see, Sophie Ramond, Les leçons et les énigmes du passe: Une exégèse intra-biblique des psaumes (BZAW, 495; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), p. 110. 3.  For an in-depth description of the genres, see Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction; more specifically for the hymn of praise, see pp. 23-41. In spite of his reference to the genres as ‘categories’, Mark Futato, in Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), pp. 146-50, aptly summarizes the characteristics of Gunkel’s genres. 4.  Allen’s Psalms 101–150, pp. 49-61, predominantly adopts this approach in his analysis of the psalm, as do other commentators such as Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. H. Oswald; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 305-12.



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 51

invitational call to give thanks or praise,5 frequent use of imperatives opening the composition,6 recurrent invocations of the divine name in the introduction,7 and a reason to praise God for his benevolence towards Israel, in this case his work for Israel in the exodus.8 Another approach involves dissevering the psalm to analyze its individual components. With respect to this method, the plagues’ tradition undoubtedly receives the most attention. Archie Lee, for example, drew comparisons between the psalm’s plagues rendition and the creation tradition from Genesis 1.9 Similarly, the number of plagues in Psalm 105 frequently attracts scholarly attention. Both Baruch Margulis and Samuel Loewenstamm have treated the topic extensively;10 additionally, W. Dennis Tucker examined the land leitmotif in the psalm and its importance for understanding the number and selection of plagues recorded in vv. 28-36.11 Looking beyond the plagues’ narrative, the psalm’s exodus recitation as a whole receives additional detailed attention, to the detriment of the relatively rich Genesis material echoed within the composition. Stig Norin’s published dissertation, Er Spaltete das Meer, examined the history of the exodus motif in the Psalter, including Ps. 105.23-42.12 Norin’s primary motivation for examining the psalm was to facilitate his arguments for the tradition’s development. Yair Hoffman’s work similarly traces the exodus motif’s development throughout the Old Testament.13 5.  See v. 1, ‫הודו ליהוה‬. 6.  See especially the first six verbs opening the psalm: v. 1, ‫הודו‬, ‫קראו‬, ‫הודיעו‬, and v. 2, ‫ׁשירו‬, ‫זמרו‬, and ‫ׂשיחו‬. 7.  See vv. 1, 3, 4 and 7. 8.  Though certain features associated with a hymn are absent, such as the particle ‫כי‬, no doubts arise concerning the psalm’s genre. 9.  Archie Lee, ‘Genesis 1 and the Plagues Tradition’, VT 40 (1990), pp. 257-63. 10.  Baruch Margulis, ‘The Plagues Tradition in Psalm 105’, Bib 50 (1969), pp. 491-96, argues for the addition of pestilence to the plagues portrayal in Ps. 105— based on the reconstruction of a lacuna in 11QPsa—together with the separation of the plague of swarms and lice, even though they appear in the same verse. Samuel Loewenstamm, ‘The Number of Plagues in Psalm 105’, Bib 52 (1971), pp. 34-38, rejects Margulis’ theories, and maintains a seven-plague tradition for Ps. 105, one that preserves a single plague for swarms and lice in v. 31. 11.  W. Dennis Tucker, ‘Revisiting the Plagues in Ps. CV’, VT 55 (2005), pp. 401-11. 12.  Stig Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des Alten Israel (ConBOT, 9; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1977), pp. 133-37. 13.  Yair Hoffman, The Exodus Tradition in the Faith of Israel (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies University, 1983). The whole of this work traces the development of the tradition.

52

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

A third rarer approach to evaluating Psalm 105 involves a close reading and poetic analysis. For the most part, modern commentaries merely glance over the psalm’s poetry,14 and few scholars who specifically focus on the psalm exclusively read it with the goal of uncovering and interpreting its rich poetic characteristics. Perhaps Anthony Ceresko best exemplifies this approach; he analyzed the composition’s poetic forms and structures, devoting particular attention to irony.15 More recently, a few scholars have collected Psalm 105 together with a number of historiographic psalms, particularly pertaining to the exodus, for analysis. Two such works are Judith Gärtner’s Die Geschichtspsalmen, and Anja Klein’s monograph, Geschichte und Gebet.16 Both of these works adopt a similar analytical approach: by concentrating primarily on five psalms (78, 105, 106, 135, 136); by providing a literary and structural analysis; and by discussing each composition’s relationship to its neighbours. Though Klein’s work primarily focusses on the aforementioned psalms, she also draws additional poetic historiographical works into her study, not least of which are Exodus 15 and Psalm 114. Shifting slightly from the aforementioned stream of approaches, the present study examines the psalm from a relatively new perspective, viewing the psalmist as a resourceful and creative writer. In spite of the lucid allusions and echoes of Israel’s literary historical traditions in the song, the psalmist is not merely an arranger of ancient sources, but a creative individual who thoughtfully selected and reused sections of Israel’s literary traditions to fashion a new composition with goals and emphases distinct from the contexts of the original materials. 14.  This is true of J. Clinton McCann, ‘Psalms’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), IV, pp. 639-1280; Allen, Psalms 101–150; Kraus, Psalms 60–150; and Willem A. VanGemeren, ‘Psalms’, in Tremper Longman III and David Garland (eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (13 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rev. edn, 2008), V, pp. 21-1024 (771-79). Though the latter authors reveal a concentric structure for the psalm as a whole, they refrain from commenting on features such as repetition and hyperbole. 15.  See Anthony Ceresko, ‘A Poetic Analysis of Ps 105, with Attention to Its Use of Irony’, in Psalmists and Sages (Indian Theological Studies Supplements, 2; Bangalore: St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute, 1994), pp. 75-102. A more recent exhaustive poetic treatment of Ps. 105 appears in David Emanuel, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes: A Close Reading and Intertextual Analysis of Selected Exodus Psalms (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012). 16.  See Gärtner, Die Geschichtspsalmen; and Anja Klein, Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments (FAT, 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 53

Understanding the psalmist and his work in this way resonates with intertextual approaches to biblical studies, such as those adopted by Michael Fishbane in his seminal work Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel,17 Benjamin Sommer’s research on Isaiah,18 and Yair Zakovitch’s broader investigation that appreciates the contribution of biblical editors to the interpretive process.19 More recently Sophie Ramond in her book, Les Leçons et les énigmes du psaumes, selects a group of psalms (78, 81, 105, 106, 114, 135, 136) similar to those mentioned above by Klein and Gartner.20 Ramond’s study primarily addresses the re-reading and transformation of early biblical texts into poetic forms addressing new contexts.21 The methodology adopted by the aforementioned authors, and consequently followed in the present work, reflects a diachronic approach to intertextuality, implying that a later author accessed and manipulated earlier compositions.22 This approach is in contrast to synchronic models, 17.  See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). 18.  See Benjamin Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). 19.  See Yair Zakovitch, Introduction to Inner-biblical Interpretation (EvenYehudah: Reches, 1992). Another author that deserves a mention at this point is Jordan Scheetz, The Concept of Canonical Intertextuality and the Book of Daniel (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011). He, by and large, adopts a more diachronic approach, and similar to Zakovitch, recognizes the work of redactors and arrangers of the biblical material as exegetes. 20.  See Ramond, Les Leçons. 21.  Along similar lines, Mark Boda discusses Nehemiah’s prayer in detail, elaborating on how Israelite historical traditions are reused and adapted to emphasize different points, and applied to a later generation’s political and social context. See Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW, 277; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999). 22.  In tracing the development of the Hebrew Bible and the process in which an interpretation of a text subsequently becomes added to the received tradition, Fishbane, in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, frequently refers to the traditum and the traditio to describe a source text and its subsequent interpretation. Sommer, in A Prophet Reads Scripture, focuses on a relatively late text, Second Isaiah, and its use of earlier traditions. For much of Zakovitch’s work (Introduction to Inner-biblical Interpretation), large portions of text represent the sources that are subsequently manipulated for interpretive purposes by later editors and redactors. Ramond dates the psalms in her study from the period of the exile onwards and leans towards these purportedly later authors utilizing written sources. In any event, her methodology relies on first establishing earlier sources from which later authors develop their

54

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

where the direction of borrowing is not a prerequisite for further analysis.23 Naturally, the first step in implementing a diachronic approach requires an exegete to establish a vector of allusion between two related texts: one must determine who borrowed from whom. Usually, determining the vector is performed via an absolute dating of the texts, and if absolute dates prove unobtainable, relative dates—the date of a text relative to its sources—are preferred. With the direction of borrowing established, the next phase is to compare the corresponding compositions with the aim of identifying omissions, additions, and alterations between the source and target texts. The final stage in the analysis involves answering the question: Why did the later author reframe and reshape elements from his source text? The present study performs each stage of investigation mentioned above with regards to Psalm 105. It begins with a brief discussion of the psalm’s relative date, and proceeds to delineate instances in which the psalmist reframes and adjusts material from his source texts with particular attention to God’s role in the recorded events. To conclude, it suggests a motivation behind the alterations implemented by the psalmist, and briefly discusses potential implications for the results. To begin, we turn to the relationship between Psalm 105 and its intertexts. A cursory glance at the psalm undoubtedly reveals the correspondence between events and individuals mentioned within it—such as the exodus, Abraham, and Joseph—and those recalled in the books of Genesis and Exodus.24 Slightly more obscure, however, is the diachronic relationship between the psalm and the Pentateuch. One could argue, for example, that Psalm 105 constitutes the earlier composition, and consequently the source from which the author of the Pentateuch drew.25 compositions; Ramond, Les Leçons, pp. 7-12. For a recent summary of methods used in inner-biblical interpretation, see Karl Weyde, ‘Inner-biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible’, SEÅ 70 (2005), pp. 287-300. 23.  Among the authors who adopt synchronic methodologies are Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality (Studies in Biblical Literature, 26; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), and Kirsten Nielson, ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible’, in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 17-31. 24.  I am not suggesting that these two books existed separately from the remainder of the Pentateuch. In all probability the psalmist would have recognized the Pentateuch as a unity. 25.  Loewenstamm, ‘The Number of Plagues in Psalm 105’, p. 38, apparently verges on this assumption in his analysis of the plagues narrative, stating, ‘This stage of the plague traditions [Exodus] was preceded by different traditions, each of which



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 55

Perhaps the two most prominent arguments against this idea, however, concern vv. 10 and 15. From a linguistic perspective, Avi Hurvitz demonstrates evidence of Postexilic Hebrew in v. 10, with the phrase ‫להעמיד‬ ‫‘( ברית‬to establish a covenant’).26 According to Hurvitz, the expression originates from the Second Temple period, after the Pentateuch was written, and thus postdates the patriarchal accounts and the early history of the Hebrew people.27 With respect to Ps. 105.15, a degree of debate arises concerning the phrase, ‘and to my prophets do no harm’.28 Here, the psalm corresponds with Genesis 20, recalling Abraham’s sojourn to Gerar. After King Abimelech abducts Abraham’s wife, Sarah, God castigates him in a dream, ordering him to return Sarah. Within these words of rebuke, v. 7 states, ‘And now, return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet’. The term ‘prophet’ here in Genesis is frequently understood as an anachronism, and consequently a later addition to the Genesis narrative. Claus Westermann states, ‘The word prophet is not used here of Abraham in a technical but rather in a general sense; he is a “man of God,” an intercessor, familiar to a later era; to speak or conceive of Abraham in such a way is very far removed from the patriarchal period’.29 Furthermore, Hans-Joachim Kraus apparently alludes to the anachronistic interpretation when he states, ‘Psalm 105 in part even refers to sentences of the Pentateuchal redaction’.30 In light of these observations, even though an absolute date remains elusive, it is fair to hypothesize that the psalmist’s work postdates counted seven plagues. From these traditions two are extant in Pss. 78 and 105. We cannot be sure whether Ps. 105 is later than the Pentateuch or not; but in either case, it reflects a poetic tradition which precedes the Pentateuch.’ 26.  See Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982), pp. 94-98. 27.  Consideration of the psalm’s main theme and content resonates with an exilic or post-exilic date for its composition. The theme of ‘land’ dominates the work, reflecting an era when Israel was without a land in Egypt, waiting for the promise’s fulfillment. Similarly, when Israel was in exile, they were without a land, waiting for God to fulfill his promise. 28.  Bible translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. 29.  Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary (trans. J. Scullion; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 324. Terence Fretheim, ‘The Book of Genesis’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), I, pp. 321-674 (482), similarly echoes this sentiment, recognizing the term for prophet (‫ )נביא‬is anachronistic; consequently, its adoption into the psalm reflects a later stage in the Pentateuch’s composition.’ 30.  See Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 309.

56

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

the Pentateuch, after later editorial hands had performed their work. Overall, in addition to the evidence presented above, the preponderant weight of contemporary scholarship overwhelmingly supports a later date for the psalm.31 Power in God’s Spoken Word With the relative dates determined, we begin our examination of the psalmist’s work, particularly his emphasis on the power of YHWH’s spoken word. With regard to biblical literature, God’s omnipotence as expressed through the power of his verbal instruction first manifests itself in Genesis 1,32 when YHWH created the universe. God demonstrates his creative omnipotence via his command, which causes all matter, both animate and inanimate, to materialize. In the midst of chaos, God further displays his omnipotence by creating light through his word, as seen in 31.  Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150 (AB, 17a; New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 51, suggests a pre-exilic date because of the psalm’s reuse in 1 Chron. 16. His logic, however, is slightly flawed because nothing prevents a postexilic author from reusing another exilic or postexilic source. Notwithstanding Dahood’s view, McCann, ‘Psalms’, p. 1104, tentatively leans towards an exilic or postexilic compositional date. Additionally, Hossfeld and Zenger understand the psalm as a product of the exile or later. To support their opinion, they adduce the psalm’s dependence on ‘Priestly creation covenant theology’, in addition to its relationship with Isa. 48 (they view Isaiah borrowing from the psalm); see Frank Hossfeld and Eric Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia; trans. L. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), p. 68. Although their final thesis concerning Ps. 105’s date accords with the data presented above, the evidence adduced is less persuasive. Hoffman similarly understands an exilic context, probably later in the exile (or even during the return), for the psalm’s composition date. He reads a number of typological similarities between the psalm’s content and psalmist’s situation. For example, the mention of divine protection during the patriarchal wandering era corresponds with the protection of the psalmist’s community by God while they dwelt in Babylon (see Yair Hoffman, ‘Chapter 105’ (in Hebrew), in G. Galil [ed.], Psalms II [World of the Bible; Tel Aviv: Divrei HaYamim, 1999], pp. 129-32 [129]). Svend Holm-Nielsen supports an exilic or postexilic date, adducing events reported in the psalms are portrayed in light of the exile. One instance of this relates to Joseph’s binding being more representative of Israel being led into captivity than the narrative of Genesis. See Svend Holm-Nielsen, ‘The Exodus Tradition in Psalm 105’, ASTI 11 (1978), pp. 22-30. 32.  Most modern scholars consider Gen. 1 to be the product of a priestly author; see, e.g., Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), p. 45; and Fretheim, ‘The Book of Genesis’, p. 340.



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 57

Gen. 1.3, ‘Then God said, “let there be light”; and there was light’. This demonstration of power through the spoken word is similarly reflected in the remaining days of creation. As each day begins, the author of Genesis records God speaking the world into order and existence with the words, ‘Then God said…’33 In recounting the creation account, the psalmist reframes various events with an emphasis on the efficacy of YHWH’s spoken words. God’s promise to Abraham in v. 11 is introduced as marked direct speech, a relatively rare feature in the Psalter.34 Similarly, when God intervenes to protect the patriarchs, in v. 15, the scene is portrayed via unmarked direct speech, ‘Do not touch my anointed ones, and to my prophets do no harm’. Moving on to the Joseph account, when a famine strikes the land it is summoned by the divine word in v. 16, ‘He called a famine on the land’ (italics mine).35 Though God undoubtedly carries responsibility for the famine in Genesis’ rendition of events,36 the famine itself is not specifically spoken into existence. With respect to the psalmist’s rendition of the exodus, when the plagues are brought into effect, two of them result from the spoken word. In v. 31 God speaks to invoke the plague of swarms, and in v. 34 he similarly speaks to summon the locust. In both instances the psalmist writes, ‘He spoke, and there came…’ Compared to the source in Exodus, the reader 33.  Moreover, elsewhere in the Psalms, God’s power is exemplified in his creation of the heavens and all that is in them via his spoken word. For example, see Ps. 33.6, ‘By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts’, and in Isa. 11.4, God’s power is demonstrated in his ability to slay the wicked by his mouth, i.e. the words spoken from it. To be sure, the notion of creation via the spoken word is not exclusive to biblical literature. Peter Craigie and Marvin Tate, Psalms 1–50 (WBC, 19; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), p. 272, remind us of the Egyptian literary tradition which sees Ptah first conceiving a divine thought and then bringing it into existence via the spoken word. 34.  See Samuel Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup, 46; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 42, where he specifically states that ‫לאמר‬, a common word used to introduce direct speech in prose, is unusual in poetry. 35.  The Hebrew root ‫ קרא‬signifies a vocal and audible concept. BDB (p. 894b) defines the meaning as ‘call’, ‘proclaim’ or ‘read’, the latter of which, in the context of the ancient Near East, implies a spoken idea. Derivations from this root similarly emphasize vocal actions, such as summoning and proclaiming; see BDB. Concerning this word, Richard Clifford, ‘Style and Purpose in Psalm 105’, Bib 60 (1979), pp. 420-27 (424), notices its divergence from Pentateuchal sources, but offers no further explanation of its use in the psalm. 36.  See Gen. 41.25.

58

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

faces a pronounced variation because, for the most part, God’s spoken word is not directly responsible for the execution of the plagues. At times, God instructs Moses to confront Pharaoh, and after the confrontation, Moses then instructs Aaron to execute the miracle or plague (Exod. 8.5).37 At other times, after the confrontation with Pharaoh, Moses directly instigates the plague without Aaron’s assistance (9.1, 13). Still at other times, no direct confrontation with Pharaoh arises, and Moses executes the plague at YHWH’s behest. In general, Exodus presents us with an intermediary, whether it is Moses, Aaron, or both of them together. More noticeably, the psalmist selects words indicative of speech, such as ‫דבר‬ (‘word) in vv. 8, 19, 27, 28, and 42; and also ‫‘( אמר‬to say’) in vv. 11, 31, and 34, and ‫‘( אמרה‬utterance’) in v. 19. Together, these reinforce the leitmotif of power via God’s spoken word. The psalmist’s intense focus on God’s spoken word undoubtedly influences the interpretation of a problematic phrase in v. 27 (‫מּו־בם‬ ָ ‫ָׂש‬ ‫ֹתֹותיו ּומ ְֹפ ִתים ְּב ֶא ֶרץ ָחם‬ ָ ‫)ּד ְב ֵרי א‬. ִ A valid, though somewhat unpolished, translation of this verse is, ‘They [Moses and Aaron] set against them the words of his signs and miracles against the land of Ham’. In spite of this, numerous Old Testament commentators and translators choose to omit the specific reference to ‫‘( דברי‬words’), opting instead simply to translate, ‘They performed against them his signs’.38 To be sure, for the sake of constructing an ostensibly smoother reading, much commends this translation. Regarding the overall context, however, the actual translation of ‫ דברי‬as ‘words’ is preferable, because it emphasizes the psalmist’s desire to portray the miracles God performed by Moses and Aaron as a result of his spoken word.39 Though the form ‫‘( דברי אתותיו‬the words of his signs’) appears initially awkward, the Psalter, in a few locations, attests similar constructions.40 37.  See also Exod. 7.8-10, where God speaks to Moses and Aaron, but Aaron is the one who actually performs the miracle. 38.  See, e.g., the niv, kjv, esv and the main text of the nasb (though the omission of ‫ דברי‬receives attention in a note). 39.  It should also be noted that the Septuagint includes the word λογος, which reflects the Hebrew ‫‘( דבר‬word’). 40.  See, e.g., Ps. 145.5, which reads ‫( דברי נפלאותיך‬lit., ‘the words of your wonders’). Karl Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), V, p. 139, further adduce ‫דברי‬ ‫ עונת‬in Ps. 65.4 [3] as a related construct. In addition to Keil and Delitzsch, the aforementioned modification is supported by Allen, Psalms 101–150, p. 53; and also Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, p. 65, who argue, ‘The unusual construction “words of his signs” means that the announced signs and wonders are being carried out’.



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 59

Multiplication of Jacob’s Descendants In Ps. 105.24, the psalmist discernibly reinterprets how Jacob’s descendants multiplied soon after they entered Egypt. The Pentateuch records the event in Exod. 1.7, ‘But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, they multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them’. In this rendition of events, underlying the words ‘fruitful’ and ‘become mighty’ are the two Hebrew words, ‫ פרה‬and ‫עצם‬, that together forge a marker,41 linking Exod. 1.7 to Ps. 105.24. Concerning this connection between the texts, however, the psalmist alters the stems in which these roots appear. The source, Exodus, utilizes the qal stem (ּ‫ָּפרו‬ and ‫)וַ ּיַ ַע ְצמּו‬, representing events occurring without specific reference to an instigator or agent. The psalmist’s treatment of the same event in Ps. 105.24, on the other hand, sees the same root being employed, but in the causative hiphil stem (‫ וַ ּיֶ ֶפר‬and ‫)וַ ּיַ ֲע ִצ ֵמהּו‬. The use of the causative directly portrays YHWH as the agent of the event. The seemingly natural occurrence in the Pentateuch’s rendition of the account is transformed by the psalmist into an event in which God is portrayed as the ultimate agent behind the multiplication of his people while they sojourned in a foreign land. By instigating the change, one further notices the psalmist elevating God’s role in Israelite literary history. Sending for Joseph A further instance of the psalmist recasting past events appears in his rendition of the Joseph narrative. His retelling of the turning point in Joseph’s fortunes subtly, but distinctly, promotes God’s role in Israelite literary history. Common readings of Ps. 105.20 portray Pharaoh instigating Joseph’s release from prison. For example, the nasb reads, ‘The king sent and released him, the ruler of peoples and set him free’. Moreover, most English translations, such as the nkjv, niv, and the esv, follow similar interpretations. Contrary to this understanding, a closer look at the simple Hebrew syntax uncovers an alternative rendering. In spite of the king functioning as the natural subject of the verb ‘to send’ (‫ )שׁלח‬in the immediate context, a broader perspective additionally permits God to function as the subject. With this adjustment, the verse reads, ‘He [God] sent the king, and he [the king] set him [Joseph] free’, emphasizing 41.  A marker, in the context of intertextuality, is ‘an identifiable element or pattern in one text belonging to another independent text…a poetic line or sentence or phrase, or it may consist of a motif, a rhythmic pattern, an idea, or even the form of a work or its title’. See Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, p. 11.

60

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

God’s authority over the king. Biblical Hebrew syntax, especially in a poetic text such as this, easily accommodates the adjustment. Though most English translations do not support this view, a few commentators understand God as the subject.42 Opting for YHWH as the subject of ‫ׁשלח‬ complies with the overall context of the psalm better than the commonly viewed interpretation because, in keeping with the psalmist’s modus operandi, it promotes God’s role in the protection of Abraham’s descendants.43 Moreover, the psalmist’s use of the verb ‘to send’ elsewhere in the psalm supports this proposed interpretation: throughout the composition it exclusively appears with God as the subject. God sends ‘a man’ before Jacob’s family into Egypt (v. 17); he sends Moses to help deliver the newly formed nation from their bondage (v. 26); he sends darkness upon the land of Egypt (v. 28). Consequently, it is only natural for the psalmist to cast God as the primary motivational source behind Pharaoh ordering the release of Joseph.44 Remaining focused on Joseph’s life as reported in the psalm, it is important to note that the psalmist’s rewriting of events recognizes God’s active involvement from the beginning. The opening verse of the Joseph pericope declares that God sent a man before Jacob’s family to prepare a way for them in Egypt. Portraying events in this way differs remarkably from the Genesis account. In Genesis, as the narrative unfolds, the author 42.  See, e.g., Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 308. 43.  Here, I am not suggesting that the two ideas represent contradistinctive entities. The notion of deliberate dual causality in the Old Testament is a known, and at least partially documented phenomenon. Within the confines of the Psalms see Paul Raabe, ‘Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 213-27. The topic is covered more extensively in an article by Yair Zakovitch, ‘One Thing God has Spoken Two Things I Have Heard: Expressions of Dual Meaning in Biblical Literature’, in Sara Japhet, B. Schwartz, and Y. Zakovitch (eds.), Memorial Gathering in Memory of Professor Meir Weiss (Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 1999), pp. 21-68. 44.  VanGemeren, Psalms, p. 776, argues that the niv’s rendition of the king setting Joseph free must be correct because it accords with Gen. 41.14. Holding this opinion, however, denies any creative rights to the psalmist, portraying him as a robot restricted only to copying his source text. When the context of this verse is considered, the restricted position of the niv becomes questionable. Furthermore, even as McCann, ‘Psalms’, p. 989, points out in his discussion of Ps. 78, ‘The recital…is not history in the way that we ordinarily understand it in the modern world—a recounting of names, events and dates as accurately and objectively as possible. Rather, Ps. 78 is a creative retelling of Israel’s story, and it has a particular purpose.’ Here, even though he specifically mentions Ps. 78, other historical psalms, including Ps. 105, are included in his description.



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 61

explicitly avoids informing the reader that Joseph fulfils a critical role in the divine plan for the deliverance of Jacob’s family. Even the dreams recorded in Gen. 37.5-11 are not prefixed with a formula such as, ‘And God spoke to Joseph in a dream…’45 Only towards the end of the narrative is the reader notified by Joseph of the broader plan involving his deliverance into slavery by his brothers. In Gen. 50.20, we read Joseph’s words, ‘And you, you intended evil against me, but God intended it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve the life of many people.’ From this, it is possible to conclude that the psalmist’s account favours an emphasis on God’s role in controlling events from start to finish. Execution of the Plagues The presence of intermediaries in the book of Exodus’ rendition of the plagues is well documented. As discussed above, God frequently employs Moses and Aaron together to execute each of the individual plagues against Egypt. The most prevalent scenario constitutes God instructing either Moses, or Moses and Aaron together, to confront Pharaoh and then perform an action initiating the plague.46 The psalmist, on the other hand, merely grants Moses and Aaron a perfunctory mention in v. 26.47 After this, however, they are neither recalled nor play any further role in activating the plagues. In keeping with this proposition, the following verse, should be understood according to the Septuagint’s rendition. Instead of reading ‫‘( ָׂשמּו‬they placed’), it reads ἔθετο, a third masculine singular form, equivalent to ‫‘( ָׂשם‬he placed’). The change from plural to singular promotes YHWH as the sole initiator of the plagues wrought against Egypt.48 Supporting the Septuagint’s interpretation, the continued 45.  Explicit citations of God speaking to individuals in dreams are relatively common in biblical literature; see, e.g., Gen. 20.6; 31.24; 1 Kgs 3.5; Dan. 2.45. 46.  See, e.g., Exod. 7.10, 19; 8.12. 47.  The Septuagint reading in v. 27, ἔθετο ἐν αὐτοῖς τοὺς λόγους τῶν σημείων αὐτοῦ (‘he set against them the words of his signs’), further implies that God performed the plagues, whereas the MT understands Moses and Aaron performing the signs against Egypt. The third masculine singular reading is similarly reflected in the Peshitta. 48.  Allen, Psalms 101–150, p. 53, offers further scholarly support for the Septuagint’s reading, stating that ‫‘ ׂשם‬suits the contextual stress on providential actions’. In addition to complying with the psalmist’s efforts to elevate the works of God, this alteration of the text forges an allusion with phrase in Exod. 10.2, ‫את־אתתי אׁשר־ׂשמתי‬ ‫‘( בם‬my signs which I set among them’). In Exodus, like the psalm, a similar construction appears, wording that reflects God functioning as the primary instigator of the

62

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

de­piction of the plagues utilizes third person masculine singular verbs with God as the subject, ‘He turned their waters to blood…’ (v. 29), ‘He made their rain hail…’ (v. 32), etc.49 In doing so, the psalmist adopts noticeable measures to diminish the role of human intermediaries—in this instance Moses and Aaron—heightening God’s active participation in the events. Conquest Events Devoid of Human Agents In a similar manner to the psalmist’s retelling of the plagues account, God’s profile in the desert wandering narratives is noticeably accentuated. Moses in particular plays a prominent role in Exodus’ rendition of the desert wandering era. He is the instrument through which God provides bread, meat, and water for the people during their desert sojourn. In Exodus 16 the Hebrew community complains against Moses and Aaron for leading them into the desert to starve to death. As a response, God instructs Moses to inform the people that he will rain on them bread from heaven, and further provides instructions concerning how the bread should be collected. Moses’ role receives notable prominence in the provision of water too, as recounted in Exodus 17. There, God commands Moses to strike a rock with his staff in order to provide the people with water. In doing so, the rock would produce water for them and their livestock. plagues. Another striking correlation concerns the context of Exodus. There, Moses instructs the Israelites to retell to future generations God’s acts of might performed against the Egyptians. This exact same context encompasses the introduction of Ps. 105, where the Israelites are encouraged to speak of all God’s acts against Egypt. 49.  This idea is further developed by accepting a possible amendment to v. 30, which reads, ‘Their land swarmed with frogs, even in the chamber of their kings’. In the text, the word translated ‘it [the land] swarmed’, ‫ׁש ַרץ‬, ָ appears in the qal stem, implying the land itself is the subject and that it multiplied, almost unaided, with frogs (a reading that still bears a few problems concerning noun-verb gender agreement). Mitchell Dahood, in his commentary on Psalms, suggests re-pointing the verb, however, to reflect the same root in the piel stem (reading ‫ ֵׁש ֵרץ‬instead of ‫;)ׁש ַרץ‬ ָ see Dahood, Psalms III, p. 60. This change assumes God as the subject; he actively multiplied the frogs in the land of Egypt. Though reinterpreting the verb from a qal to a piel may appear somewhat strained, the end result—improved compliance with the immediate context—apparently justifies the change. Though presenting an elegant solution to the verse, it must nevertheless be stated that the piel form of this verb is not otherwise attested in biblical literature. Notwithstanding this absence, Dahood, Psalms III, p. 61, further observes that the qal verb may adopt a causative quality, and thus we can still read God as the subject without altering the stem of the verb.



Emanuel  The Elevation of God in Psalm 105 63

Countering this portrayal, the psalmist removes the intermediaries in his rendition of events. No sign of disgruntlement passes the people’s lips; rather, they simply utter their request, and YHWH is there, waiting to oblige. The psalmist recalls the event as though God acted directly to supply their needs without the assistance of Moses or Aaron. In v. 40, he states, ‘he [God] brought quail, and with the bread of heaven he satisfied them’. Similarly, v. 41 reads, ‘He [God] opened a rock and water poured out, it ran in the dry places like a river’. God’s prominent role continues into the conquest account. The Pentateuch’s rendition of the Transjordan conquest patently focuses more on Joshua’s involvement.50 In spite of YHWH’s direction, the role of the Israelite’s mortal leader and armies undoubtedly dominates the proceedings. The majority of these narratives concern themselves with the exploits of soldiers and battle leaders.51 Such intermediaries are removed from the psalmist’s portrayal. He simply recalls, ‘He assigned them the lands of the nations and the toil of peoples they possessed’ (v. 44), almost as though no human agents participated in the acquisition of the land. In doing so, the psalmist vividly elevates God’s involvement in the conquest to the detriment of the human heroes depicted in the source texts.52 Conclusion The examples presented above undeniably demonstrate that the author of Psalm 105 was obviously familiar with Israel’s historical traditions, especially those regarding the patriarchal narratives and the exodus motif. Moreover, even though he recognized these traditions—most certainly in a written form in certain instances,53 but also possibly via oral tradition—he purposefully chose to retell them highlighting different features

50.  An exception occurs with the Transjordan conquest in Num. 21.33-35. Here it appears more as an incidental occurrence. The Israelites ask for a passage through the territory of Og and Sihon and the mere request sparks a battle. The end result is that the Transjordan becomes available for Abraham’s descendants to occupy. 51.  See Josh. 8 and 10 for example. 52.  It is additionally worth noting the frequent use of the third person masculine singular pronoun on a variety of nouns, linking them directly to God; see, for example, ‘his oath’ (v. 9), ‘his people’ (vv. 24, 25), ‘his servants’ (v. 26), and ‘his tribes’ (v. 37). Via repetition of the pronoun, the reader is constantly reminded of God’s presence and influence on actions performed by individuals and the nation of Israel. 53.  Overall, it is difficult to assert categorically that the psalmist strictly worked with written traditions because of the inescapable possibility, no matter how slim, of

64

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

than those emphasized in the original contexts. The two most outstanding aspects the present study highlights are the subjugation of human actions and elevation of YHWH’s heroic deeds. With respect to the question of why the author implements such changes, introduced at the start of this essay, it is prudent to turn to the psalm’s beginning. The opening exhortation in vv. 1-2 sets the tone for the complete work as a composition written to declare and praise the great deeds of God. With this established as the psalmist’s primary focus, it should come as no surprise that he should then, at every available opportunity, promote and underscore the works of God in Israelite literary history, even to the point of diminishing the role of humanity. The psalmist’s decision to highlight certain events, and to acquiesce on others, alters the reader’s perception of the original source texts. One who only reads the psalmist’s rendition of events views the patriarchal narratives, exodus tradition, and God’s role in them differently than if one solely read the Pentateuchal accounts. Consequently, the psalmist’s work is best described as an act of biblical interpretation (or reinterpretation). He adopts a source text, rewrites it, and at the same time alters his audience’s interpretation of the event. In the process he creates a new significance for the original accounts. Within the world of biblical scholarship, this act has generally been recognized with respect to prophetic literature, Jeremiah’s re-reading of Deuteronomy for example,54 and also narrative texts, such as Chronicles’ reworking of Samuel and Kings. Presented here in this study, however, is a lucid example of a psalmist engaged in the same activity. Consequently, this view of the psalmist’s work should be considered—along with the authors of prophetic and narrative literature—as an example of early biblical interpretation.

him utilizing an established and well-known oral tradition of the biblical accounts. Notwithstanding this probability, a few scholars, such as Ramond, Les Leçons, p. 276, still lean towards the probability of a written tradition. 54.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 281-317, devotes some time to investigating the phenomenon. Sommer’s book, A Prophet Reads Scripture addresses the subject matter in Isaiah (for Isaiah, see also Patricia Wiley, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah [SBLDS, 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997]); and more recently Michael Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS, 506; New York: T&T Clark International, 2009).

T he P oet ry of C r eat i on and V i ctory in the Psalms

Kevin Chau

Introduction The deliverance at the Red Sea and the Chaoskampf (God’s battle against the primeval chaos) are integral traditions in the study of the book of Psalms.1 While the two traditions differ in that the former concerns national history and the latter mythic-history, they are typologically similar. The former concerns YHWH’s victory over Egypt that led to the formation of Israel as a nation and the latter relays YHWH’s victory over primeval chaos that led to creation. This typological similarity, as explored by Fishbane, also allows the Red Sea deliverance to be re-presented as another Chaoskampf and for the two traditions to be interwoven (e.g., Isa. 11.1516; 51.9-11; Pss. 74.11-17; 77.17-21 [16-20]).2 Examining these two traditions and how they may be interwoven provides a richer understanding of how the ancient Israelites were able to shape their theology and faith in different contexts of the book of Psalms.3 However, because the 1.  O’Dowd notes how cosmogenic imagery forms the basis of both hope and complaint, but his observation can also apply with the Red Sea deliverance. See Ryan O’Dowd, ‘Creation Imagery’, in Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (eds.), The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), pp. 60-63 (62). They provide hope in that God, who defeated primeval chaos and the Egyptians in the exodus, can also manifest the same power to defeat the psalmists’ present foes. However, these same traditions may be used for complaints by noting the discrepancies between present circumstances and those in the past in which God has gained victory. 2.  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 350-57. 3.  While Gillingham does not directly deal with the Chaoskampf tradition, she provides a rich analysis for how the exodus tradition was employed in the book of Psalms for varying theological needs; Susan Gillingham, ‘The Exodus Tradition and Israelite Psalmody’, SJT 52 (1992), pp. 19-46.

66

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

book of Psalms is also poetry, scholars must always consider the poetic dimension of the Psalms. Examining how these traditions were expressed in their poetic medium provides a fuller understanding of how the psalmists as both theologians and poets crafted their messages.4 The present study has two goals: (1) a survey of how poetic structure, parallelism, metaphor, wordplays, and other poetic devices shape the aforementioned traditions in the theological message of select psalms (77; 89; 106) and (2) an extended analysis of Psalm 74 that examines how the psalmist poetically interwove the traditions of the Red Sea deliverance (via allusion) and the Chaoskampf with an allusion to Gen. 1.14 (the creation of the luminaries) in order to provide a theodicy for God’s sovereignty despite Babylonian domination of the day. Psalm 77 In Psalm 77, an exilic or post-exilic psalm, the psalmist ponders and laments the absence of God’s mercy and love (vv. 7-9 [6-8]).5 In vv. 20-21 [19-20], the psalm portrays the enigmatic and hidden nature of God: though the people could follow God’s path through the Red Sea, they were not able to recognize visibly God’s footprints and hence directly witness God.6 Although the psalmist laments the seeming absence of God’s loving kindness (v. 9a [8a]), scholars have noted the portrayal of God as the hidden and mysterious (vv. 20-21 [19-20]) provides a modicum of 4.  Berlin provides numerous examples of how parallelism (the quintessential feature of biblical Hebrew poetry) contributes to meaning; Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), pp. 80-81 (Lam. 5.11), p. 100 (Prov. 26.9), pp. 138-39 (Ps. 136.10-15). For a good survey of poetic form and meaning with examples from non-biblical literature, see Michael D. Hurley and Michael O’Neil, Poetic Form: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 1-52. 5.  Hossfeld, Zenger, and Albertz assume it as exilic; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), p. 276; Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile (trans. David Green; Studies in Biblical Literature, 3; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), pp. 160-61. Mays and Kraus take it as exilic or post-exilic; James L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), p. 253; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 114. 6.  See 1 Sam. 22.6 for a comparable usage of the niphal ‘to know’ (‫ )ידע‬in which David and his men are recognized. The issue is not whether the men were seen (‫)ראה‬ but whether they were recognized.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 67

comfort to the psalmist.7 The following poetic analysis discusses how this important theme of God’s hidden nature develops earlier in the portrayal of the storm theophany. Whereas the Song of the Sea mentions no storm theophany and Exodus 14 only gives the storm theophany a limited role as the barrier between the Hebrew people and the Egyptians, this psalm presents the storm theophany prominently through the usage of janus parallelism. In v. 17 [16], perhaps as an allusion to the Chaoskampf, the personified sea writhes and trembles at the sight of God’s march, though it is not yet obvious in the flow of the poetry’s narrative movement (until vv. 18c-19a [17c-18a]) that God is in a storm theophany. In v. 18ab [17ab], the sea imagery shifts to the heavens with clouds thundering and bursting with water. At first glance, vv. 17a-18b [16a-17b] seem to form a conventional ‘top to bottom’ merism that describes the complete upheaval of the waters in sea and sky.8 However, v. 18ab [17ab] also forms a janus parallelism: reading vv. 18a-19a [17a-18a] as a unit (quatrain) portrays the bursting and thundering clouds as God’s storm theophany. The pronouns on ‘your thunder’ and ‘your arrows’ (vv. 18c-19a [17c-19a]) clarify that the storm is none other than God’s storm theophany. With this clever usage of v. 18ab as a ‘hinge’ couplet, the waters of sky and sea are portrayed as in upheaval before God, but this upheaval also serves as God’s storming veil as he marches on behalf of his nation. This shifting imagery through the janus parallelism presents God dramatically center stage, yet enshrouded, a figure of mystery. God’s hiddenness is additionally portrayed in the six-line section of vv. 18-19 [17-18] through a purposeful reticence in referencing God directly and an ingenious (non)usage of possessive pronouns. God is never a semantic agent or grammatical subject; that is, God is never directly 7.  Mays, Psalms, pp. 253-54; J. Clinton McCann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), IV, pp. 641-1280 (984); John Goldingay, Psalms 42–89 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 472-73 n. 42; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 117. 8.  Verses 17-18b [16-17b] comprise a triplet (v. 17 [16]) followed by a couplet (v. 18ab [17ab]). The first two lines of the triplet and the first line of the couplet parallel in the repetition of ‘waters’ (‫)מים‬. The final lines of the triplet and couplet parallel through ‘to quake/tremble’ (‫ )רגז‬and the ‘sound’ (‫ )קול‬of thunder, specifically God’s thunder causes quaking (cf. Joel 2.10-11; Pss. 18.8 [7]; 99.1). The beginnings of the triplet and couplet portray the watery tumult in sea and sky and the final lines show sea and sky quaking. See Ps. 33.6-7 for a comparable ‘top to bottom’ merism that specifically references ‘heavens’ and ‘waters’.

68

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

portrayed as acting. Only God’s storm theophany moves and acts, though God is implied as being in the midst of this storm. God is only referenced through the ‘your’ possessive pronouns in the middle couplet (vv. 18c-19a [17c-18a]), ‘enshrouded’ by the exterior lines. God is never described as in Ps. 18.7-15 [6-14] in which God as grammatical subject rides upon the clouds, thunders, enshrouds himself with darkness, and lays bare the foundations of the earth. But in this psalm, God’s actions are described obliquely through the movement of his arrows and thunder. Just as the imagery begins to center upon God in the middle couplet, the pronominal references to God disappear in the ending couplet (v. 19bc [18bc]). The imagery shifts to the storm theophany’s exterior in which lightning (without the possessive pronoun in v. 19b [18b]) spreads across the earth, illuminating it, and the earth responds in trembling and quaking.9 Thus, the beginning couplet in this six-line strophe (vv. 18-19) foregrounds God onto nature’s ‘stage’, but just as the middle couplet begins to focus upon God, the ending couplet offers a distant, wide-angle view of the storm theophany within the backdrop of the earth in order to display God’s impenetrable hiddenness.10 Through poetic imagery that is creatively rendered by the (non)usage of pronouns, the psalmist creates his own ‘storm cloud’ of poetry to depict the enigmatic, clouded appearance of God at the Red Sea.11 Thus, when the psalmist focuses on God’s hidden nature in his storm theophany and how God’s footsteps were not recognized when God led his people as a shepherd through the Red Sea,12 the psalmist reassures himself that even for Israel’s greatest deliverance God was concealed. Perhaps God will work or is already working similarly for Israel in the second captivity.13 9.  The word pair ‫ תבל‬and ‫ ארץ‬usually denotes the entire world (e.g., 1 Sam. 2.8; Isa. 24.4; Jer. 10.12; Pss. 24.1; 89.12 [11]; 90.2; Job 34.13; Prov. 8.26), which further portrays the outward-moving scope of v. 19ab. 10.  The qatal (perfective) verbs in the exterior couplets present the events in a distant, wide-angle view of events, and the yiqtol (imperfective) verb in the interior couplet presents the event in a telescopic, close-up view. For the aspectual opposition of qatal and yiqtol verbs, see John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb (LSAWS, 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), pp. 27, 199-201. 11.  In the subsequent and concluding five-line strophe of vv. 20-21 [19-20], God appears as agent and grammatical subject in the final couplet. 12.  While Hossfeld and Zenger identify vv. 17-20 [16-19] as stemming from a cosmological insertion that portrays the ‘mythic-cosmic confrontation’ between God and the chaos of the waters, their analysis does not preclude how the structure and movement of the poetry focuses upon God’s hiddenness; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, pp. 279-80. 13.  So also Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 472.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 69

Psalm 89 The following poetic analysis focuses upon Psalm 89’s parallelisms between the depictions of God’s subjugation/sovereignty over creation and the Davidic king’s divine empowerment.14 Verses 10-14 [9-13], from the psalm’s hymnic section (vv. 2-20 [1-19]), clearly employ the Chaoskampf tradition: God must first conquer the agents/icons of chaos (e.g., Rahab) before establishing his rule over creation. The imagery of God’s creation and subjugation of chaos parallels the Davidic king’s sovereignty over the nations (vv. 21-28 [20-27]) in the related motifs of strength, power, and victory. The most obvious parallelisms involve lexical repetitions that relate to God, the Davidic king, and their adversaries.15 Lexeme

God

Davidic King

‫‘( זרוע‬arm’)

vv. 11 [10], 14 [13]

v. 22 [21]

‫‘( יד‬hand’)

v. 14 [13]

vv. 22 [21], 26 [25]

‫‘( ימין‬right hand’)

v. 14 [13]

v. 26 [25]

‫‘( רום‬to be high’)

v. 14 [13]

v. 25 [24]

‫‘( איב‬enemy’)

v. 11 [10]

v. 23 [22]

‫‘( ים‬sea’)

v. 10 [9]

v. 26 [25]

As a result of these parallelisms, many see a link between the king’s hand as being on the ‘sea’ and ‘river’ (v. 26 [25]) and God’s mighty arm defeating Rahab and the waters of chaos (v. 11 [10]). Specifically, the Davidic king shares in God’s rule over creation through his participation in the continual subjugation of chaos’ forces (‘sea’ and ‘river’).16 Although the lexical repetitions between these two sections are evident, a detailed poetic analysis reveals the inconsistencies with this prevalent interpretation. 14.  Hossfeld and Zenger note that Ps. 89 begins like a typical royal psalm because of the focus on the Davidic king/covenant and God as king over creation, but it differs in that after the sections concerning God and the Davidic king (vv. 2-38 [1-37]), the psalmist reveals the true intent of this psalm as he surprisingly launches into a lengthy complaint against God for violating the Davidic covenant (most clearly in vv. 39-40 [38-39]); Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, pp. 405, 411-12. 15.  For the sake of brevity, the lexical repetitions that do not directly describe God, the Davidic king, or their adversaries have been excluded. For example, v. 13 [12] also repeats the lexeme ‫ימין‬, but it is used to denote the ‘south’ rather than ‘right hand’. 16.  Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 22-23; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 209; Mays, Psalms, p. 286; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 410; J. Clinton McCann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 1036.

70

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

In contrast to how word-level parallelisms usually occur in adjacent lines, many of the parallelisms between God and the Davidic king are achieved through word-level (synonymous) parallelisms in nonadjacent lines. In the paralleled sections of vv. 11 [10] and 24 [23], God ‘crushes’ (‫ )דכא‬and ‘smashes’ (‫ )כתת‬his opponents,17 his ‘enemies’ (‫ )איב‬and also the king’s ‘adversaries’ (‫ )צרר‬and ‘those that hate him’ (‫)שׂנא‬.18 In vv. 11 [10] and 14 [13], God’s arm and hand are described as ‘strong’ (‫ )עזז‬and ‘mighty’ (‫)גבר‬, and in v. 26 [25], God’s arm strengthens (‫ )אמץ‬the king.19 These parallelisms highlight God as the victor in both the arenas of primeval chaos and the earthly kingdoms. As a result, the Davidic king’s sovereignty is ultimately dependent upon God’s empowerment and God’s victory over the king’s opponents. Through wordplay, the psalmist links the ‘raising’ (qal, ‫[ נשׂא‬nāśā’]) of the waves against God (v. 10 [9]) with the enemy’s attempt ‘to deceive’ (hiphil, ‫[ נשׁא‬nāšā’]) the king (v. 23 [22]). Thus, just as the waters attempt to raise its waves (‫[ יִ ָשׂא‬yiśśā’]) against God to no avail, the king’s enemies similarly are unable to deceive (‫[ יַ ִשּׁא‬yaššī’]) him so as to overpower him.20 In both confrontations, it is God who smashes Rahab and crushes the king’s foes (cf. ‫כתת‬/‫)דכא‬. After God’s victory over the watery chaos, God gains rule over all the ‘heavens’ and ‘earth’ (v. 12 [11]),21 a merism for all of creation. And after God 17.  For the pair ‫כתת‬/‫דכא‬, see Job 4.19-20. 18.  The pairs ‫צרר‬/‫ איב‬and ‫שׂנא‬/‫ איב‬occur widely, see respectively (though not exhaustively) Exod. 23.22; Isa. 1.24; Nah. 1.2; Pss. 8.3 [2]; 74.10; 143.12 and Num. 10.35; Pss. 18.18 [17]; 21.9 [8]; 55.13 [12]. 19.  For the pair ‫גבר‬/‫אמץ‬, see Amos 2.14; for ‫עזז‬/‫אמץ‬, see 2 Sam. 22.18; Ps. 18.18 [17]; Prov. 8.28; 24.5; 31.17. 20.  The verb ‫ נשׁא‬may additionally function as wordplay with ‘to lift up’ a weapon (e.g., Mic. 4.3) in which the direct object is implied; see Isa. 42.2 for a comparable expression (‘he will not lift [his voice]’). Just as the seas lifted up their waves against God, the king’s enemy is not able to lift up a weapon against the king. This double reading is not likely an accident since the beyt prepositional phrase in the literal reading can serve as the direct object (more accurately in linguistics terms, a prepositional phrase complement) for ‘to deceive’, but for the wordplay, it can also be understood as an adverbial prepositional phrase ‘against him’. Because the verb ‘to deceive’ takes its direct object (complement) either as an accusative noun or a lamed prepositional phrase (e.g., Gen. 3.13; 2 Kgs 18.29; 19.10; Isa. 36.14; 37.10; Jer. 4.10; 29.8; 37.9; 49.16; Obad. 3, 7; 2 Chron. 32.15), the unconventional usage of the beyt prepositional phrase as a direct object (only such usage in the Hebrew Bible) was likely intended for this wordplay. For more on topic of verbal complements, see Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jacobus Naudé, and Jan Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2006), §§32-33. 21.  So also Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 206.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 71

defeats the king’s enemies, the Davidic king similarly has his hands set over ‘sea’ and ‘rivers’, a merism denoting the king’s sovereignty over the ancient Near East (from Mediterranean Sea to the Mesopotamian rivers).22 Thus, by precisely establishing the parallel imagery between God and Davidic king, it is clear that the Davidic king is not called to sustain creation against chaos. Rather, the Davidic king’s reign over the nations is purposely mirrored with God’s victory and reign over chaos in order to show how the same awesome divine power that defeated primeval chaos has also been used to establish the Davidic kingship over the nations.23 Psalm 106 Psalm 106, a historical psalm that contrasts God’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness, after opening with a call to praise (v. 1), asks who may recount the mighty deeds of God (v. 2). However, the answer (v. 3) is oblique, ‘Blessed are the ones who do righteousness and justice’. In other words, the psalmist equates those who have truly remembered God’s mighty deeds of righteousness and justice with those that have indeed comprehended these deeds with the result that their lives are marked by righteousness and justice.24 As a result, only the righteous and just are qualified as having properly remembered God’s deeds and are allowed to proclaim them. For the psalmist, the mighty acts par excellence are the miracles in Egypt and the Red Sea deliverance. In v. 12, after the people 22.  Hossfeld and Zenger explicitly argue against this merism as denoting the physical extent of the king’s rule; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 410. For similar merisms see Zech. 9.10; Ps. 24.1-2. Although Tanner follows most scholars in seeing the king as participating in the continual subjugation of creation’s chaos, she also similarly identifies the word pair as denoting the distant reaches of the Davidic kingdom; Nancy L. deClaisse-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), p. 682. 23.  Ultimately, the psalmist describes the Davidic kingship through the lens of the Chaoskampf in order to heighten his lament for how the Davidic dynasty is in ruins as a result of God’s abandonment of the Davidic covenant (vv. 39-46 [38-45]). Hossfeld and Zenger note that the psalmist essentially boxes God into a corner to act for the good of his people through his covenant to the king; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, pp. 412-13. 24.  In contrast, McCann sees the question of v. 2 as rhetorical (no one is adequate to do so properly) and that all one may do is live a life according to God’s will (justice and righteousness [v. 3]); McCann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 1110. In v. 47, the request for salvation so that the community may praise God implies that the psalmist views his community as potentially worthy to praise God. Moreover, in the context of the Psalter, Ps. 33.1 argues otherwise to McCann.

72

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

witness God’s work at the Red Sea, the people sing his praise and recount his great deliverance. However, in the succeeding v. 13, the psalmist portrays these ancestors as not truly comprehending (remembering) God’s mighty, faithful works because they quickly forget God and his counsel.25 Similarly in vv. 19-22 (golden calf), with enjambment,26 the psalmist slows the poetry’s narrative movement to focus upon the people forgetting (abandoning) God’s great (‫גדלות‬, v. 22b), wondrous (‫נפלאות‬, v. 23a), and awesome (‫נוראות‬, v. 23b) deeds in Egypt and at the Red Sea.27 As a result, the psalmist presents the exodus community and its descendants as possessing an inadequate remembrance and understanding of God’s mighty deeds that directly caused their faithlessness, unrighteousness, and injustice, which is recounted extensively in the narrative poetry of vv. 14-39.28 Thus, the psalmist implicitly indicts the exodus community as never having been truly worthy to extol God and his mighty deeds. Although in v. 6 the psalmist identifies his present community’s sin with that of his ancestors, in v. 7 he focuses on his ancestors as the ones that did not understand God’s wondrous works or remember the abundance of God’s faithful love.29 Ultimately, the psalmist portrays his community as a 25.  Emanuel helpfully identifies the repetition of ‘to have faith’ (hiphil ‫)אמן‬ between vv. 12 and 24 that highlights the people’s fleeting faithfulness; David Emanuel, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), pp. 89, 102-103, 114-15. 26.  Dobbs-Allsopp defines enjambment as ‘the continuation of syntax and sense across line junctures without a major pause’; F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, ‘The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1)’, ZAW 113 (2001), pp. 219-39 (219). Verse 20b continues the verbal predicate of v. 20a with a prepositional phrase and vv. 21b-22b continue with appositions. 27.  Dobbs-Allsopp notes how the narrative poetry in vv. 20-22, in contrast to the prototypical sequence of lines which begin with wayyiqtol verbs (e.g., vv. 28-30), succeeds through enjambed lines; F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 138. However, for vv. 21-22, it may be more precise to argue that narrative progression is suspended in order to provide flashbacks to the specific mighty acts that the people have failed to remember. 28.  The seemingly out-of-place reference to Phineas’ intercession (vv. 30-31) as ‘righteousness’ (‫ )צדקה‬highlights the paucity of righteousness in those generations from the psalmist’s perspective. 29.  This disparity between the communities is even more apparent through the pragmatically fronted subject ‘our ancestors in Egypt’, which focuses upon the ancestors (in contrast to the psalmist’s community) as the ones who forgot and did not remember. Lunn, however, takes this subject as an unmarked (i.e., no temporal subordinator) temporal nominal clause ‘when our ancestors were in Egypt’, a poetic line in itself. Lunn’s argument is less convincing since he offers no evidence of



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 73

new and different community, one that is ostensibly righteous and just as a result of recognizing and learning from their ancestors’ sins. As a poetic means to persuade God to deliver the psalmist’s community from foreign oppression, he parallels the Red Sea deliverance (v. 10) with the consignment of the nation into enemy hands (vv. 40-42).30 The psalmist reutilizes words from the couplet concerning the Red Sea deliverance (v. 10) in the quatrain concerning the Babylonian captivity (vv. 41-42). The two-fold repetition of ‘hand’ (‫ )יד‬appears in the exterior lines of the quatrain (vv. 41a, 42b), and ‘enemy’ (‫ )אויב‬and ‘foe’ (‫)שׂנא‬ appear in the internal lines of the quatrain (vv. 41b, 42a). Emanuel and Goldingay understand the verses as depicting the ironic reversal of the nation in its return to oppression and subjugation as in Egypt.31 However, though these observations are profitable, this conspicuous and explicit parallelism requires a more nuanced explanation that accounts for the psalm’s overall message. The psalmist presents his people’s plight under foreign oppression as opportunity for God to have a ‘do-over’.32 In the psalmist’s conception, God failed to have his name and mighty works (in Egypt and at the Red Sea) properly praised and remembered since he did not have a people worthy to do so. Although vv. 43-46 describe God’s mercies, the psalmist portrays the nation’s salvation from their enemies as incomplete (e.g., in v. 46, the people are given compassion in captivity nominal clauses serving as unmarked temporal clauses. Nevertheless, for an extensive study on differentiating between pragmatically fronted elements (e.g., focus) and fronted elements for stylistic reasons (e.g., chiasmus), see Nicholas P. Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Exeter: Paternoster Press; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), pp. 95-156; for discussion concerning v. 7, see pp. 55-59, 232-33. 30.  Verses 41-42 are not historically specific: they may be generally referring to the nation’s numerous international conflicts over the centuries; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 321; John Goldingay, Psalms 90–150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 237. But because vv. 44-47 refer to captivity and ingathering from among the nations, it is most likely that the verses refer to the Babylonian exile; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 85, 93. 31.  Emanuel, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes, pp. 101, 130-31; Goldingay, Psalms 90–150, p. 237. 32.  House identifies the psalm’s narration of past deliverances and the people’s failures as the basis for which the psalmist may confidently plea to God; Paul R. House, ‘Examining Narratives of Old Testament Narrative’, WTJ 67 (2005), pp. 229-45 (242-43). House’s proposal does not contradict the given analysis, but it is less satisfying on account of its generic nature: one can argue similarly with many other psalms.

74

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

but not delivered from it). Thus in vv. 47-48,33 when the psalmist pleads for salvation and to be gathered from the nations so that God’s name may be praised, he portrays how his nation has been given over to the very same type of powerful and oppressive enemies as that of the first Egyptian captivity.34 The psalmist presents God with an occasion to act mightily again as in the Egyptian exodus so that God may finally have his name properly recounted and praised by a people worthy to do so. Psalm 74 ‫זכר עדתך קנית קדם‬

2a

‫גאלת שׁבט נחלתך‬

b

‫הר ציון זה שׁכנת בו‬  c ‫ ‏שׁאגו צרריך בקרב מועדך‬4a ‫שׂמו אותתם אתות‬  b ‫ ‏יודע כמביא למעלה‬5a ‫בסבך עץ קרדמות‬  b ‎‫ ‏ועת ועתה פתוחיה יחד‬6a ‫בכשׁיל וכילפת יהלמון‬  b

Remember your congregation which you acquired ago, which you redeemed as the tribe of your inheritance. [Remember] Mount Zion which you settled on it. Your enemies roared in your holy place; they set up their signs as signs. They cut down at the upper entrance the wooden trellis (lit. forest thicket) with axes.35 Its carvings together,36 they smashed with hatchets and hammers.

33.  Although v. 48 serves as the concluding doxology for the fourth book of the Psalms, it need not be disregarded as an addition. The verse continues the previous verse by providing a doxology that envisions when all people will praise God, presumably on account of a community truly worthy to extol his mighty acts. Wilson argues that quite likely the verse is an original ending for the psalm which was purposely selected for its position in the Psalter because of its fitting usage as a concluding doxology; Gerald Henry Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76; Chico: SBL, 1985), pp. 81-82. Emanuel identifies the verse as an addition but concedes that this verse has numerous connections to the psalms itself; Emanuel, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes, p. 138. 34.  Emanuel identifies numerous repetitions between vv. 47-48 and key points of the psalm that highlight the psalmist’s plea for a salvation as being in the same order of the Red Sea deliverance so that God’s name may be praised. The verb ‘to save’ (hiphil ‫ )ישׁע‬appears in vv. 8, 10 (God saving in Egypt and at the Red Sea). In v. 8, God acts for the benefit of his name (‫)שׁם‬. The verb ‘praise’ (piel ‫ )הלל‬appears in vv. 1 and 48 to form an inclusio for the whole psalm. See Emanuel, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes, pp. 135-36. 35.  Following BHS, the verb ‘to know’ (‫ )ידע‬is emended to ‘to cut down’ (‫)גדע‬. 36.  The qere reading ‘and now’ and follows the ketib ‘and time’. Both the qere and ketib are exceedingly difficult to understand in context, and textual corruption is certainly possible. But the general sense of the clause in v. 6ab is understandable regardless of not translating the word.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 75 ‫ שׁלחו באשׁ מקדשׁך‬7a ‫לארץ חללו משׁכן שׁמך‬  b

They set your sanctuary on fire. Into the earth they profaned your name’s dwelling.37 ‫ ‏אמרו בלבם נינם יחד‬8a They said in their heart, ‘We will subjugate them altogether’. ‫שׂרפו כל מועדי אל בארץ‬  b They burned the meeting places of God in the land. ‎‫ ‏אותתינו לא ראינו‬9a We have not seen our signs; ‫ אין עוד נביא‬b there is no longer a prophet, ‫ולא אתנו ידע עד מה‬  c and there is no one with us who knows how long. ‫ ‏למה תשׁיב ידך‬11a Why do you turn back your hand, ‫וימינך מקרב חיקך כלה‬  b and keep your right hand at your chest?38 ‎‫ ‏ואלהים מלכי מקדם‬12a But God is my king from old, ‫פעל ישׁועות בקרב הארץ‬  b worker of salvations in the midst of the earth. ‎‫‏אתה פוררת בעזך ים‬ ‫שׁברת ראשׁי תנינים על המים‬  ‎‫‏אתה רצצת ראשׁי לויתן‬ ‫תתננו מאכל לעם לציים‬  ‎‫‏אתה בקעת מעין ונחל‬ ‫אתה הובשׁת נהרות איתן‬  ‎‫‏לך יום אף לך לילה‬ ‫אתה הכינות מאור ושׁמשׁ‬  ‫‏אתה הצבת כל גבולות ארץ‬ ‫קיץ וחרף אתה יצרתם‬

13a b 14a b 15a b 16a b 17a b

You split the sea by your might; you broke the heads of dragons upon the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave it as food for people, desert creatures.39 You cut channels for springs and torrents; you dried up eternal streams. Day belongs to you, also to you belongs night; you established the luminaries and the sun. You fixed all the limits of the earth; Summer and winter, you formed them.

Psalm 74, an exilic prayer for God to deliver the community from the brash Babylonians,40 serves as a theodicy by poetically portraying how God still 37.  The prepositional phrase portrays humiliation, which is conceptualized through physical lowliness (e.g., Lam. 2.2). 38.  Reading with qere. 39.  The proposal ‘desert creatures’ by HALOT (‫[ צי‬II]) makes good sense (nrsv and njps follow). God’s defeat of Leviathan and the seas monsters culminates in the creation of dry land upon which the desert creatures (the antithesis of water creatures) may feed upon the defeated. The LXX similarly translates with Αἰθίοψιν (‘Ethiopians’; i.e., people of the desert). 40.  The majority of commentators identify the composition as exilic or early post-exilic (before the rebuilding of the temple); Mays, Psalms, p. 244; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 243; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 97; McCann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, pp. 972-73. Albertz identifies vv. 3 and 4-7 as referencing the Babylonian destruction of the temple, but proposes the psalm was revised in the Maccabean period, which is reflected in vv. 18-21; Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 142-43.

76

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

reigns supreme despite Babylonian hegemony.41 The psalm’s structure is taken accordingly as: (1) introductory lament and plea (vv. 1-3), (2) recounting of Babylonian incursion and destruction of temple (vv. 4-8), (3) complaint regarding God’s absence (vv. 9-11), (4) creation hymn (vv. 12-17), and (5) request for deliverance (vv. 18-23). The following poetic analysis examines how the allusions to the Song of the Sea and Gen. 1.14 (in vv. 16-17) function in conjunction with the Chaoskampf tradition in the (theodicy-centered) message of this psalm. With regard to the allusions to the Song of the Sea, v. 2 of this psalm has the obvious lexical connections that have been well noted: ‘to redeem’ (‫גאל‬, v. 13), ‘to acquire’ (‫קנה‬, v. 16), ‘possession’ (‫נחל‬, v. 17), and ‘mountain’ (‫הר‬, v. 17).42 Exodus 15 ‫נחית בחסדך עם זו גאלת‬

13a

‫נהלת בעזך אל נוה קדשׁך‬  ‫תפל עליהם אימתה ופחד‬ ‫בגדל זרועך ידמו כאבן‬

b 16a b

‫עד יעבר עמך יהוה‬ ‫עד יעבר עם זו קנית‬  ‫תבאמו ותטעמו בהר‬ ‫נחלתך‬ ‫מכון לשׁבתך פעלת יהוה‬

c d 17a

‫מקדשׁ אדני כוננו ידיך‬ 

b c

You lead in your kindness a people which you redeemed. You guided in your strength to your holy place. Terror and dread fell upon them. Through the power of your arm they resembled stone, until your people passed, until the people which you acquired passed. You brought them and planted them in the mountain of your possession, the place which you made O Lord for your dwelling, the sanctuary which O Lord your hands established.

The allusion is further evident in how the psalmist tightens the poetic parallelism from the source verses. Though Exod. 15.13a, 16d are parallel semantically and syntactically (both lines have ‘people’ [‫ ]עם‬+ relative clause [‫ זו‬archaic relative pronoun]), they are several lines removed. The 41.  So also Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 426; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, pp. 244-45. 42.  For example, see McCann, ‘The Book of Psalms’, p. 973; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 244; Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 426. In the minority, Gillingham is unsure as to whether Ps. 74 specifically employs the exodus tradition because vv. 12-15 in themselves may just be a reference to Chaoskampf tradition; Gillingham, ‘The Exodus Tradition and Israelite Psalmody’, p. 24 n. 26.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 77

psalmist reworks the originally distant lines as adjacent parallel lines which utilize a pair of stacked, unmarked relative clauses.43 Because, other than in the Song of the Sea and in this psalm, the two verbs ‘to acquire’ (‫)קנה‬ and ‘to redeem’ (‫ )גאל‬never occur as a word pair or in adjacent parallel lines, v. 2 is likely a purposeful reworking of Exod. 15.13a, 16d. For v. 11, Hossfeld and Zenger astutely note how God with his non-stretched out right hand is antithetically paralleled to God in Exod. 15.6, 12 with his outstretched, majestic, victorious right hand.44 Their argument is further substantiated in how the psalmist specifically uses the verb ‘to turn back’ (‫ )שׁוב‬as the complement to ‘to stretch out’ (‫ )נטה‬from an established antithetical word pair. By employing the allusions to the Song of the Sea in vv. 2 and 11, the psalmist expresses the nation’s desire for deliverance and their frustration in God’s seeming disinterest to act despite their desperate situation. As a result of these allusions to the Song of the Sea in vv. 2 and 11, vv. 12-13a are primed to be understood in the context of the Red Sea deliverance, but it also serves as a poetic ‘hinge’ in how it can refer to both the Red Sea deliverance and the Chaoskampf; that is, it forms a janus parallelism that presents both primordial and national origins. Specifically, v. 13a can refer to God splitting the sea as in the exodus, or it can refer to the taming of the sea during God’s battle against the primeval chaos, which is explicitly portrayed in the subsequent verses. The psalmist skillfully sets up the Song of the Sea allusions in order to transition to the Chaoskampf tradition. By framing sections 2–3 (Babylonian incursion and destruction of the temple; complaint regarding God’s absence) with the Song of the Sea allusion in vv. 2 and 11-13, the psalmist parallels how the present nation requires another deliverance on par with the deliverance at the Red Sea.45 But in v. 13b onward, the psalmist ceases to portray the Red Sea deliverance and instead dovetails in the Chaoskampf tradition. The psalmist uses this transition as a ‘bait and switch’ to portray God’s supremacy over the Babylonian hegemony. By focusing upon God’s supremacy over the primordial chaos instead of human foes like the Egyptians at the Red Sea, the psalmist reminds his readers that God had faced far greater opponents long before the Babylonians. 43.  Stacked relative clauses appear consecutively and modify the same head; see Robert D. Holmstedt, The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS, 10; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), p. 158. 44.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 247. 45.  Ramantswana comes to similar conclusions; Hulisani Ramantswana ‘Conflicts at Creation’, Old Testament Essays 27 (2014), pp. 553-78 (561-63).

78

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

The poem’s second major poetic element to consider is the role of the Gen. 1.14 allusion with respect to the psalm’s portrayal of the Red Sea deliverance and Chaoskampf. But before proceeding to the discussion of how this allusion functions in the message of the psalm, it is important to review the arguments for this allusion. Genesis 1.14 ‫ויאמר אלהים יהי מארת ברקיע השׁמים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאתת‬ ‫ולמועדים ולימים ושׁנים‬ And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate between the day and the night. And they will be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.’

Hossfeld and Zenger are unsure whether vv. 16-17 allude to Gen. 1.14 due to the uncertain dating for Genesis 1 and Psalm 74.46 Goldingay helpfully identifies how ‫מאור‬, the less frequently occurring word for ‘light’ (as opposed to the conventional term [‫ )]אור‬occurs here in v. 16 and Gen. 1.14.47 Further substantiating Goldingay’s observation is that in the book of Psalms ‘light’ as ‫ מאור‬only occurs in v. 16 (in the plural), but ‘light’ as ‫ אור‬occurs 19 times in the rest of the book.48 The strongest argument for the psalmist’s allusion to Gen. 1.14 stems from the psalmist conspicuously employing the source passage’s ‫אות‬ (‘sign’) and ‫‘( מועד‬meeting place’ or ‘season’). The two words are strategically placed in consecutive poetic lines (similar to how they appear in successive phrases in Gen. 1.14).49 ‘Meeting place’/‘season’ (‫)מועד‬ appears in the first and last lines (vv. 4a, 8b) for section 2, forming an inclusio for the vignette of the Babylonian incursion and destruction of the temple. And not coincidentally, ‘sign’ (‫ )אות‬appears in the succeeding poetic lines of vv. 4b, 9a. The usage of ‫ מועד‬in v. 4a as a reference to the Jerusalem temple is unconventional. In the Pentateuch, it is used in the phrase ‘tent of meeting’ (‫)אהל מועד‬, but it is rarely ever used solely to 46.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 249. 47.  Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 432. 48.  Pss. 4.7 [6]; 27.1; 36.10 [9]; 37.6; 38.11 [10]; 43.3; 44.4 [3]; 49.20 [19]; 56.14 [13]; 78.14; 89.16 [15]; 97.11; 104.2; 112.4; 119.105; 136.7; 139.11; 148.3. 49.  Moreover, the object ‘our signs’ in v. 9 is fronted (i.e., appears preverbally) to introduce the new topic of the absence of God’s signs. For more concerning topicalization and fronting, see van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §§46-47.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 79

denote the temple.50 This rare usage suggests that the word is meant to be highlighted. Similarly, the seemingly awkward repetition of ‫‘( אתות‬signs’) in v. 4b also makes sense if it is to be similarly prominent.51 As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the psalmist employs these key words noticeably at the beginning and end of section 2. The shared terms between vv. 16-17 and Gen. 1.14 (‘day’ [‫]יום‬, ‘night’ [‫]לילה‬, and ‘light’ [‫ )]מאור‬may not by themselves be enough to activate the allusion. But because ‫מועד‬ and ‫ אות‬have been conspicuously featured in the previous verses and also appear in Gen. 1.14, they provide the reader ‘priming’ and ‘momentum’ for recognizing the allusion to Gen. 1.14. In v. 16, the ‘lights’ of God’s creation are the ‘signs’ (‫ )אות‬that mark God’s temporal divisions of ‘day’, ‘night’, and ‘season’. In v. 17, ‘summer’ and ‘winter’ are nothing more than the ‘seasons’ (‫ )מועד‬that God has determined through his establishment of these luminaries (‘signs’).52 Moreover, the poetic structure of the hymn also reveals how the psalmist highlights the Gen. 1.14 allusion for the readers. After the introductory couplet of v. 12, all the poetic lines in vv. 13-15 begin with a second person subject pronoun or a second person verb.53 Not coincidentally these verses form a coherent section regarding the defeat of the watery chaos and the separation of waters. However, the psalmist presents vv. 16a and 17b with dissimilar syntax in order to highlight the climax of the hymn, a quatrain alluding to the creation of luminaries in Gen. 1.14.54 Verse 16a employs no finite verb (uses a verbless clause) but instead begins with a prepositional phrase (‘to you’), and v. 17b has the second person pronoun appearing medially in the line after a direct object phrase.55 Thus, the psalmist utilizes atypical syntax (in comparison to the surrounding lines) in the quatrain’s exterior lines to draw attention to the 50.  The term only denotes the temple here in v. 4 and Lam. 2.6. 51.  Kraus reads ‫ אתות‬as dittography, and nrsv presumably similarly since they translate as ‘they set up their emblems there’; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 95. 52.  Cf. Ps. 104.19. 53.  Dobbs-Allsopp notes the dominance of the second-person subjective pronoun as a syntactic-based means for this section’s line fixing and poetic rhythm; DobbsAllsopp, On Biblical Poetry, pp. 51-52. 54.  Hossfeld and Zenger argue similarly in terms of poetic structure: vv. 13-15 and 16-17 form two subunits in which the former portrays God’s powerful victories over chaos and the latter describes the visible proof within creation for these victories; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 242. 55.  The direct object is not technically a pragmatically fronted element, but rather a dislocated construction, which functions similarly to pragmatic fronting; see van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §46.1.2.

80

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

creation of the luminaries, days, seasons, and boundaries of the earth, which eventually are to be understood with the highlighted words ‫מועד‬ and ‫אות‬.56 In terms of the psalm’s message, the wordplays of ‫ מועד‬and ‫ אות‬within the conceptual framework of the Gen. 1.14 allusion resolves the problems of God’s seeming powerlessness and silence upon the destruction of the temple. Although the creation hymn (section 4) opens with God’s victories at creation and at the Red Sea, the psalmist’s theological dilemma still remains. Despite these victories, God’s temple remains destroyed and God remains silent (possibly because God has been defeated). Also, the subsequent portrayal of the creation of day/night, heavenly lights, and the seasons (vv. 16-17) following the Chaoskampf is seemingly peculiar. While these verses may just further attest to God’s power through creation, one must ask: Why are these aspects of creation referenced as opposed to the other aspects of creation (plants, animals, and humanity)? The allusion to Gen. 1.14 builds upon the previous usages of ‫ מועד‬and ‫ אות‬as wordplays to subvert notions of Babylonian hegemony. With ‫אות‬, the psalmist resolves the humiliation suffered from the enemies’ erection of their own signs in the temple (v. 4),57 and the subsequent complaint of the absence of signs from God after the temple’s razing (v. 9). In v. 16, the heavenly luminaries and their subsequent markings of day, night and seasons serve as God’s eternal, indestructible, and ever-testifying signs.58 The psalmist answers the people’s complaint by showing how there are indeed divine signs which have been present all along and, most importantly, provide the present, visible proof that God is still sovereign. Although the Babylonians have set up their own emblems/signs of victory in the temple, God’s eternal signs of power remain unassailable in the heavens. With ‫מועד‬, because a temple is a god’s house, and its destruction would imply the god’s impotence, defeat, etc., the wordplay of ‫ מועד‬reaffirms God’s 56.  Verse 17a may seem not exactly to fit the topic of luminaries and their related seasons and times, but it is a fitting parallel. God fixes both the temporal and physical boundaries as sovereign over time and space. 57.  These signs are likely military banners and/or cultic icons which credit the god(s) for the victory; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, p. 245; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, p. 98. Goldingay translates as, ‘they treated their signs as signs’, divine messages to attack; Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, p. 427. However, his argument is less convincing since it disrupts the chronological narrative of vv. 4-8: receiving signs to attack (v. 4a) does not logically follow roaring (and incursion) in the temple (v. 4b). 58.  Sylva arrives at a similar analysis without identifying the wordplays; Dennis Sylva, ‘Precreation Discourse in Psalms 74 and 77: Struggling with Chaoskämpfe’, Religion and Theology 18 (2011), pp. 244-267 (251).



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 81

power and presence with God’s nation. Though the temple (‫ )מועד‬and associated cultic sites (‫ )מועדים‬have been desecrated and razed, God still reigns supreme because God has created ‫‘( מועדים‬summer’ and ‘winter’ in v. 17) that, unlike the temple, have been present since the dawn of creation and, most importantly, are inviolable. Although the Babylonians have destroyed the temple, God reigns from season to season, a true testament to his authority and supremacy in time and space. Thus, the psalmist creatively reinterprets ‫ מועד‬and ‫ אות‬from Gen. 1.14 to artfully deconstruct notions of Babylonian hegemony in his day.59 As a result, in the succeeding v. 18, the psalmist labels the reproachful (‫ )חרף‬Babylonians as a ‘foolish nation’ (‫)עם נבל‬.60 The mocking enemies that believe that they have defeated and vanquished Israel’s God are merely jesters in God’s court of creation.61 Conclusion The survey of how these select psalms have used the Red Sea and Chaoskampf traditions has provided a glimpse into the many ways in which the psalmists as poets crafted their theological messages. The poetic expression of these traditions is part and parcel of the theological shaping of these traditions. While both traditions are victory accounts, each psalm has utilized the poetic medium to nuance select aspects of the respective traditions in order to construct a specific message. In Psalm 77, God’s hidden appearance in the storm theophany at the Red Sea is accentuated by the poetry. Whereas God’s hiddenness can be a source of frustration, the psalmist employs the unconventional sense of this concept as a source of hope in order to provide a fresh understanding of 59.  The allusion-based wordplays between the creation hymn and vv. 4-9 provide good evidence that this hymn was not an interpolation. For the psalmist to interpolate a hymn that could be exactly exploited with wordplays to the original core seems unlikely. Even if the psalmist drew upon a pre-existing hymn, it is quite likely that he re-worked it in order to create his wordplays. Green builds upon Levenson’s hypothesis of interpolation by arguing how if the creation hymn of vv. 12-17 is removed, the original core can be observed in how vv. 1b-11 and 18-23 flow naturally and display coherence in poetic structure; Nathaniel E. Greene, ‘Creation, Destruction, and a Psalmist’s Plea: Rethinking the Poetic Structure of Psalm 74’, JBL 136 (2017), pp. 85-101 (89-90); Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 18. 60.  Similarly, in vv. 22-23, God is called to remember and act against the enemy’s foolish reproach. 61.  Compare to Ps. 92.5-7 [4-6] in which the ‘brute man’ (‫ )אישׁ־בער‬and ‘fool’ (‫ )כסיל‬cannot recognize the majesty of God’s works.

82

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

God’s workings through a re-portrayal of the Red Sea deliverance that harnesses poetry’s montage-based imagery and semantic multivalence. In Psalm 89, the psalmist carefully uses parallelism to show how the Davidic king’s empowerment is derived from the same sort of power that God utilized at the dawn of creation. But because poetry often employs figurative language, the paralleled imagery between God and the Davidic king has been inadvertently misunderstood. The analysis for Psalm 89 demonstrated how the paralleling of the Chaoskampf with the Davidic king’s empowerment must be analyzed in consistence with the psalm’s other poetic devices (metaphor, metonymy, and wordplay) in order to arrive at a coherent understanding of the psalm. In Psalm 106, in order to mitigate the audacity of arguing and striking a deal with God, the psalmist ingeniously portrays his people’s current state of imperial domination as a reversal of the Red Sea deliverance only through poetic parallelism and without any semantic or explicit references to the Red Sea deliverance. The psalmist exploits how poetic parallelism can subtly convey meaning in order to present delicately God with a ‘new deal’ for his glory to be properly declared through a second exodus. Psalm 74 is extraordinary in its showcasing of the psalmist as both theologian and poet. The psalmist uses the poetry of the psalm to develop a theological message of hope that is actually quite simple (God has always reigned and continues to reign). However, it is the poetic delivery of this theological message through an authoritative text (Gen. 1) that utilizes the aesthetic experience of nature’s majesty to answer the theological problems of the day that satisfies the mind, heart, and soul.62 Although the Chaoskampf tradition and creation imagery are utilized as theological arguments for how God is still sovereign and can deliver Judah from its enemies, the creation imagery crucially provides the affective element that makes continued faith possible. The creation imagery, specifically in the climax of the Gen. 1.14 allusion, brings hope to both the heart and mind. The psalmist taps into the aesthetic experience of creation through the elegance, exquisiteness, and splendor of the heavenly lights (sun, moon, stars) and the seasons’ movements. The heavenly lights and the seasons engender an unparalleled sense of majesty in how they are elements of creation that are completely beyond the physical and cognitive grasp of humanity (e.g., humans may create other humans, breed animals, and cultivate plants). The everyday, taken-for-granted luminaries and seasons are reconfigured into the inviolable, exquisite, eternal signs which attest to 62.  For more on the concept of aesthetic experience in lyric poetry and lyrical ethics, see Sarah Zhang, I, You, and the Word ‘God’: Finding Meaning in the Song of Songs (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), pp. 1-26.



Chau  The Poetry of Creation and Victory in the Psalms 83

God’s power, presence, and sovereignty in the midst of the people’s daily pleas to see a sign from God. The psalmist provides hope not by telling the people what to believe but by providing a new poetic-based view of creation through a change in both heart and mind. Moreover, by utilizing a relatively complex allusion which requires careful listening/reading, the psalmist provides a theological message which encourages people to see how God’s presence must be searched out. As a result, those that recognize the veiled message through the allusion are initiated into the special community of the faithful wise that can both recognize and feel God’s power in the places and times in which God may seem most hidden.

A R i d i c ul ous G od : J ob U s e s P s a l m 8.5 [ 4] T o R espond T o E li phaz

Charles Yu

The allusion in Job 7.17-18 to Ps. 8.5 [4] is widely recognized: Job 7.17-18 ‫מה־אנוׁש כי תגדלנו‬ ‫וכי־תׁשית אליו לבך‬ ‫ותפקדנו לבקרים‬ ‫לרגעים תבחננו‬ What is man that you make so much of him? That you set your mind on him? That you visit him every morning? That you test him every moment?

Psalm 8.5 [4] ‫מה אנוׁש כי תזכרנו‬ ‫ובן אדם כי תפקדנו‬

What is man that you remember him? And son of man that you visit him?

The repetition of ‫‘( מה־אנוׁש כי‬What is man that’) and the verb ‫תפקדנו‬ (‘you visit him’) suffices to establish an intentional allusion; biblical scholars generally interpret this allusion as bitter parody or irony, an expression of Job’s distaste for God’s ‘concern’ for humanity.1 This present study explores a relatively neglected avenue of reading; that is, Job’s allusion to Ps. 8.5 [4] serves as a rhetorical response to Eliphaz’s prior speech. My thesis can be summarized in two parts: (1) within the narrative world of the book of Job, the allusion plays a central role in Job’s 1.  David J.A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 192. For a dissenting voice, see Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17-18: A Mistaken Scholarly Commonplace?’, in P.M. Michele Daviau et al. (eds.), World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (JSOTSup, 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 205-15.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 85

rebuttal of Eliphaz’s main arguments; (2) within the larger world of the implied author and implied readers, the allusion serves to buttress Job’s credential as God’s loyal servant by showing him defending God’s reputation from Eliphaz’s spurious defamation of God’s character. Many commentators do not read the allusion to Ps. 8.5 [4] as a rebuttal to Eliphaz for two reasons. First, there is a near consensus among Joban scholars that the interlocutors in the book of Job do not respond to each other’s arguments. I disagree with this consensus, but I cannot hope to rebut it within the confines of this chapter.2 Here, my more limited aim is to demonstrate a plausible reading of Job 6–7 as Job’s direct reply to Eliphaz’s speech in Job 4–5. Second, the allusion is in a section of Job’s speech where he explicitly addresses God (vv. 12-21). Commentators generally divide the speech in Job 6–7 into two sections.3 The first section, Job 6 (with some attaching the first six verses of Job 7) is read as Job’s address to his human interlocutors. Job 7 (or only vv. 7-21) is interpreted with God as Job’s primary audience. On the issue of audience, I posit a different approach. Since all of Job’s interlocutors (God and humans) hear all his speeches,4 we must consider the possibility that Job as a skilled 2.  I make the full counter-argument in my dissertation: Charles Yu, ‘To Comfort Job: The Speeches in the Book of Job as Rhetorical Discourse’ (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2011). 3.  Habel argues for a bipartite division of the speech with Job 6.2-30 as an indictment of the friends and Job 7.1-21 as a lament directed to God; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 141. Newsom agrees with the division but reads the first part less as an indictment but more as Job’s justification of his ‘way of speaking and his insistence on what is necessary for a true dialogue with his friends’; Carol A. Newsom, ‘The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), IV, pp. 317-637 (384). Clines follows the principle of allowing Job’s explicit addressee to determine the structure of the speech; however, he discerns an initial monologue where Job ‘ignores the friends entirely and speaks of God in the third person’. Thus, Clines proposes a tripartite division of the speech: Job 6.2-13, 6.14-30, and 7.1-21; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 167. 4.  Gerald Sheppard argues that prayers are overheard; thus, direct speech functions also as indirect address; Gerald T. Sheppard, ‘ “Enemies” and the Politics of Prayer in the Book of Psalms’, in David Jobling, Peggy L. Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifty Birthday (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991), pp. 61-83 (72-75). Suderman draws a similar conclusion, ‘Put succinctly, while prayer in the common definition addresses God, individual complaints frequently address others as well. Thus, although such persons indeed “overhear” those elements directed to God,

86

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

rhetor addresses all his audiences even in passages where he specifies one audience.5 I posit that Job 7 is such a speech. While it is explicitly addressed to God, in substance it is a direct rebuttal to Eliphaz. To understand how Job 7 might be construed as a rebuttal, we briefly survey the major sections of Eliphaz’s speech:

they also may “hear” elements spoken directly to them’; W. Derek Suderman, ‘Are Individual Complaint Psalms Really Prayers? Recognizing Social Address as Character­istic of Individual Complaints’, in Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin (eds.), The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions (LHBOTS, 469; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp. 153-70 (165-66). 5.  Contrary to almost all commentators. Some commentators insist that the address to God begins only at v. 7: Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC; 2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921), I, p. 69; Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973), p. 60; J. Gerald Janzen, Job (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), pp. 80-83. Others, while noting the possibility that vv. 1-6 could be directed at the human comforters, tend to lump the six verses with Job’s direct address to God in vv. 7-21: Habel, The Book of Job, p. 153; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 183; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 393. I have not encountered any commentator that argues for the entirety of Job 7 as a refutation of Eliphaz (Job 4–5). Indeed, Habel and Clines argue for precisely the opposite conclusion: Habel writes, ‘In the second section (ch. 7), Job is no longer addressing the specific claims or actions of the friends’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 153. Clines writes, ‘Far from replying decorously to the encouragements of Eliphaz, Job has burst out again in lament over his suffering and has, for the first time, begged for sudden death (6:1-13). The man is in the grip of his anguish, which neither reason nor consolation can touch. In ignoring Eliphaz’s speech, Job shows not only that his psychic and physical pains form his whole horizon, but that talk like Eliphaz’s must miss the mark when deep hurt is being suffered’; Clines, Job 1–20, pp. 195-96. Frevel argues against reading the death wish in 6.1-13 as a literal demand for death and sees it as petitionary: ‘Ist in der Unschuldsbeteuerung Ijobs schon der appellative Subtext mit Händen zu greifen, so zeigen die verzweifelt fragenden V. 11–13 noch deutlicher, dass Ijob am Ende seiner Kraft ist’; Christian Frevel, ‘Dann wär’ ich nicht mehr da. Der Todeswunsch Ijobs als Element der Klagerhetorik’, in Angelika Berlejung and Bernd Janowski (eds.), Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 25-41 (30). Concerning the death wish in Job 7.15, Frevel concludes, ‘Von einem tatsächlichen Todeswunsch [italics his] kann also keine Rede sein. Das Spiel mit dem Tod has argumentative Function und ordnet sich damit in die Pragmatik der Vergänglichkeitsklage ein’; Frevel, ‘Dann wär’ ich nicht mehr da’, p. 36.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 87 a. Introductory Formula b. 4.2-6 1. The Inappropriateness of Job’s Emotional Fragility c. 4.7-11 2. The Conventional Principle of Retribution d. 4.12-21 3. The Revelation of Universal Human Unrighteousness 12-16 The Circumstances of the Revelation 17-21 The Content of the Revelation and its Implication for Human Fate e. 5.1-7 4. Vexation as the Fools’ Response to Human Fate f. 5.8-16 5. Self-Abasing Petition as the Superior Response g. 5.17-26 6. The Promise of Restoration h. 5.27 Concluding Remark6

In the first section, Eliphaz seeks to shame Job into ending the inappropriate outbursts found in Job’s Lament (Job 3):7 4.2-5 ‫הנסה דבר אליך תלאה‬ ‫ועצר במלין מי יוכל‬ ‫הנה יסרת רבים‬ ‫וידים רפות תחזק‬ ‫כוׁשל יקימון מליך‬ ‫וברכים כרעות תאמץ‬ ‫כי עתה תבוא אליך ותלא‬ ‫תגע עדיך ותבהל‬

Should anyone venture a word with you since you are so weary?8 But who is able to hold back his words? Look, you have instructed many, and you have made firm feeble hands. Your words have raised up the stumbling one, and you have braced weak knees. But now it has come upon you, and you are weary; it strikes you, and you are dismayed.

Eliphaz begins by posing two questions, one regarding Job’s mental state, the other his own. The first acknowledges Job’s weakened emotional and physical state and questions whether he is too weary to deal with ‘a word’; the second communicates Eliphaz’s inner compulsion and seems to declare his intention to speak regardless of whether Job is ‘weary’. 6.  The breakdown of this speech is fairly standard among commentators (e.g., Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 375). Both Habel and Clines combine 4.2-6 and 4.7-11 into a single section, but they both note the division as sub-sections; Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, p. 123, and Clines, Job 1–20, p. 119. 7.  This analysis comes out of my dissertation, Yu, ‘To Comfort Job’. In it, I argue that Job’s Lament is a form of non-literal death wish designed to petition those in charge. It operates from a stance of aggrieved innocence and a desire to call those in charge to account. From this analysis, I argue that Job intends the lament to shame God into showing up for a theophany; Yu, ‘To Comfort Job’, pp. 197-214. 8.  The two clauses are joined asyndetically. I insert ‘since’ to clarify the relationship between the two clauses.

88

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Together, the questions acknowledge Eliphaz’s awareness that his own speech is somewhat inappropriate, given Job’s circumstances;9 indeed, Eliphaz communicates that he would refrain from the speech if it were humanly possible. At the same time, while operating as a note of apology, the initial comment concerning Job’s ‘weariness’ anticipates v. 5, where Eliphaz declares that Job is weary and that this weariness is inappropriate.10 Some commentators read vv. 3-4 as Eliphaz affirming Job’s former role as a counselor,11 but the rhetorical purpose of the two verses cannot be separated from v. 5, which is linked to the two previous verses by the connector ‘but now’ (‫)כי עתה‬. Reading vv. 3-5 together, we see that not only does Eliphaz again mention Job’s weariness (‘weary’ and ‘dismayed’), but he also points out the incongruity between Job’s weariness and his former identity as a counselor. Implicit in this statement is the social expectation that people like Job do not show weariness or dismay. Eliphaz, by calling attention to Job’s failure to live up to expectations,

9.  Pope calls the beginning of the speech ‘a note of apology’; Pope, Job, p. 35. Habel senses in this first sentence a ‘diplomatic hesitancy in Eliphaz’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 124. Clines writes, ‘Eliphaz’s speech begins in the most conciliatory manner possible. Not only is it introduced, like most of the friends’ speeches, by a rhetorical question, which Job is not expected to answer, but it shows Eliphaz’s sensitivity to Job’s present anguish’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 121. Newsom writes, ‘The solicitude in Eliphaz’s opening words indicates his concern for Job’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 375. 10.  Deborah Tannen notes the inherently ambiguous nature of expressions of sympathy in relation to status, ‘The essential element of connection is symmetry: People are the same, feeling equally close to each other. The essential element of status is asymmetry: People are not the same; they are differently placed in a hierarchy. This duality is particularly clear in expressions of sympathy or concern, which are all potentially ambiguous. They can be interpreted either symmetrically, as evidence of fellow feeling among equals, or asymmetrically, offered by someone one-up to someone one-down’; Deborah Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand (New York: Ballantine Books, 1990), p. 28. 11.  Habel focuses on Eliphaz taking on the role that ‘Job had played in better times. His wise word of counsel had been salutary for those in need…’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 124. Clines argues that the two verses are Eliphaz paying Job ‘the tribute of having known how to speak to the condition of the “weak” and “stumbling” ’. He has no fault to find with Job’s past life, and without being aware of it, confirms both God’s testimony to Job given in the prologue (1:8; 2:3) and Job’s own account of his life before disaster struck (29:11-17; 31:3, 16-20)’; Clines, Job 1–20, pp. 121-22.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 89

shames Job.12 Eliphaz’s final sentence of the section, while affirming Job’s ethical integrity, points out the incompatibility between Job’s selfproclaimed integrity and his current state. Thus, Eliphaz again uses Job’s former status to drive home his main point of the first section: someone like Job should not behave this way, i.e., proclaiming death wishes, which Eliphaz takes to be a sign of weariness and dismay. The logical question that comes to mind at this point is: Why should Job not behave this way? Eliphaz’s answer is: He should know better— Job should know about the typical fate of humanity and thus should remain unflustered by calamities. Thus, he begins the second section by calling on Job to recall what he already knows (‘Remember!’ [4.7]). This imperative to ‘remember’ augments the discordance between Job’s behavior and his identity; a comforter and counselor should not need a reminder on such basic knowledge. What Job should already know is the conventional principle of retribution, which states that while the wicked are destroyed (4.8-11), the righteous are not (4.7). A fine point needs to

12.  While Newsom reads the initial question as reflecting Eliphaz’s kindly solicitude, she concludes that the entire section functions as an admonition, ‘designed to show Job how he has lost perspective, unable to appropriate for his own situation the very instruction he had given to others (vv. 3-5). In Eliphaz’s view, Job has lost sight of who he is and consequently of the stability that comes from such knowledge’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 376. Driver and Gray read the first section as an apology for his upcoming speech, but take note of some of the elements in the section that are not suitable for an apology, ‘At the first taste of trouble, so it seems to Eliphaz the onlooker, Job has broken down entirely, losing patience and self-possession’; Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, pp. 40-42. Similarly, Habel arrives at a similar view of Eliphaz’s perspective, ‘Job, however, cannot cope with this disaster even though he has already witnessed it among others’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 124. While the commentators take note of this element, they do not observe that this sentiment, when declared directly to Job’s face, is deeply insulting. Clines does note this, but argues that the insult is unintended; he argues that ‘4:5… is to be read not as a smug and hostile criticism, but at the worst as a mild reproof and at the best as a sympathetic encouragement’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 121. A couple of pages later, Clines argues that while Eliphaz may not have intended the insult, the insult is nonetheless effected. Clines cites Fullerton approvingly, ‘Fullerton accurately assesses Eliphaz as “simply a rather stupid good person, blundering into words that would cut Job to the quick because he did not have a sufficiently sympathetic imagination to realize what impression he was likely to make by them” ’; Kemper Fullerton, ‘Double Entendre in the First Speech of Eliphaz’, JBL 49 (1930), pp. 320-74 (340) cited in Clines, Job 1–20, p. 123. I am of the mind that Eliphaz intends to insult Job in order to change his behavior.

90

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

be made here: Eliphaz clearly counts Job among the righteous (4.6). His statement of the principle of retribution does not claim that the righteous never suffer, but that they do not perish in their prime.13 This statement of the principle of retribution leads logically to the question: If Job is one of the righteous, why does he suffer? Eliphaz answers this question by appending the third section to his initial statement of the principle of retribution, arguing that no one is truly righteous before God (4.12-21). The importance of this section is highlighted by a protracted introduction (4.12-16) that recounts Eliphaz’s late-night, hairraising encounter with a non-corporeal being who poses the question: 4.17 ‫האנוׁש מאלוה יצדק‬ ‫אם מעׂשהו יטהר־גבר‬

Can a man be righteous before God, or a man be pure before14 his maker?

The expected negative response to this rhetorical question characterizes God as a stringent critic whose exacting standards find flaws even among the divine beings (4.18), an assertion that argues, a fortiori, the depth of human unrighteousness before God (4.19). The combination of this categorical declaration of humanity’s unrighteousness with the previously affirmed principle of retribution entails that all humankind is under the doom of punishment: 13.  Driver and Gray, ‘If the righteous suffer, their afflictions are disciplinary only, and not intended for their destruction. It is the wicked who, if they fall into misfortune, are reaping the fruits of their own misdeeds’; Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 43. Clines, ‘This unquestionable truth, as it is in Eliphaz’s eyes, is not that the righteous never suffer, but that they never wholly “perish”…nor are “annihilated” ’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 124. 14.  I follow many commentators and read the ‫ מן‬prefix as meaning ‘in the presence of’ or ‘in the sight of’. See Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 46, and Pope, Job, p. 37. Habel adopts ‘before God’ in his translation but thinks that the ambiguity of the original is probably deliberate; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 129. Clines argues that the min- prefix has this sense in Num. 32.22 and Jer. 51.5. Reading the ‫ מן‬prefix before ‫ אלוה‬and ‫ עׂשהו‬as comparison does not make sense in the context. Clines notes that this sentiment of humans not being more righteous than God is so banal that it cannot be the culminating point of Eliphaz’s drawn-out vision; furthermore, Clines argues that the point is irrelevant because Job never argues for humans being more righteous than God. Clines concludes, ‘To save the reputation, therefore, of both Job and Eliphaz, as well as that of the author of the book, the broader context must be allowed to prevail and the words and must be translated “before God” and “before his maker” ’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 132.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 91

4.19-21 ‫אף ׁשכני בתי־חמר‬ ‫אׁשר־בעפר יסודם‬ ‫ידכאום לפני־עׁש‬ ‫מבקר לערב יכתו‬ ‫מבלי מׂשים לנצח יאבדו‬ ‫הלא־נסע יתרם בם‬ ‫ימותו ולא בחכמה‬

How much more those who dwell in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed15 sooner than the moth?16 From morning to evening they are pulverized, without anyone giving a thought, they perish forever.17 Is not their tent-cord pulled up, so that they die—and without wisdom?18

Thus, according to Eliphaz, human lives are ephemeral, insubstantial, unworthy of consideration, and marked by sudden destruction; the tackedon phrase ‘and without wisdom’ is the final indignity, a reminder that human lives are not only short, but also brutish.19 Clines aptly summarizes how this section applies to Job’s situation, The purpose of this remarkable and evocative passage is essentially to explain how, though the distinction between righteous and wicked is firm, the righteous can never be perfectly righteous, and therefore must expect to experience—at least to some small extent—the misfortunes of the wicked. Though the righteous will never ‘perish’ in the sense of being cut off in 15.  Literally, ‘they crush them’; the passive sense is possible with an indefinite subject in the Aramaic. Job 4.19 is cited as such a construction due to the influence of Aramaic; P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27; Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 3rd reprint of 2nd edn, 2005), §155c. 16.  Clines argues that ‫ לפני‬can mean ‘like’ (cf. 3.24) (Clines, Job 1–20, p. 135), but reading it temporally as ‘before’ (or ‘sooner than’) fits the slightly hyperbolic tone of the speech. ‘Moth’ here conveys the sense of fragility, accentuating fragility of human life. 17.  The phrase ‫ מבלי מׂשים‬is impossible to translate as is, and some commentators (e.g., Clines, Job 1–20, p. 113) argue that the clause is an elided form of ‫לב‬ ‫מבלי מׂשים‬, ‘without anyone setting it to heart’, or more idiomatically, ‘without a thought’. Different emendations have been proposed. One such emendation, ‫מׂשים‬ to ‫‘( ׂשם‬without a name’), receives wide support (Habel, The Book of Job, p. 116). I follow the ellipsis reading, and note that the overall sense conveyed in this passage (i.e., human insignificance) suggests reading the clause with an unspecified subject (rather than God or those who are crushed). 18.  The final indignity of human insignificance is that they die without ever reaching a state of wisdom; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 136; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 113. 19.  Thomas Hobbes, who coined the famous dictum, ‘And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’, acknowledges the connection of his work to the book of Job by entitling it, The Leviathan, the sea monster described in Job 41; Leviathan (Penguin Classics; London: Penguin Books, 1986).

92

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms their prime, nevertheless they do suffer—as Job is witness. Eliphaz elaborately impresses upon Job that the cause of such—temporary—suffering lies not in Job alone: all created beings, even heavenly creatures, share in imperfection.20

Combined, section 3 brings nuance to the retributionist framework summarized in section 2, outlining the principles that govern human fate in the world-according-to-Eliphaz: Job the righteous man is suffering because he is human, and all human beings are subject to the vagaries of circumstances that stem from the inherent flaws of human nature. For Eliphaz, there are two ways to respond to human suffering, and he outlines them in section 4 (5.1-7) and section 5 (5.8-16). In section 4, Eliphaz explains how a fool responds to the situation, and in section 5, he explains the superior response. Both sections begin with a reference to petitioning God: 5.1, 8 ‫קרא־נא היׁש עונך‬ ‫ואל־מי מקדׁשים תפנה‬ ‫אולם אני אדרׁש אל־אל‬ ‫ואל־אלהים אׂשים דברתי‬

Call out! Is there anyone who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn? But [if I were you], I would seek El, and to God I would bring my case.

While in Job 5.1, Eliphaz points out the futility of ‘calling out’ to the divine realm, in Job 5.8, he recommends ‘seeking’ El.21 It seems that 20.  Clines, Job 1–20, p. 128. Other commentators interpret the section in similar ways. Thus, Driver and Gray write, ‘Eliphaz has insisted that no righteous man perishes in his afflictions; but the question still remains, What is the cause of Job’s afflictions? This, he proceeds to impress upon Job, was not anything peculiar to Job himself: it was the general imperfection of all created things, which Job shares not only with other men, but even with angels, the highest and purest of God’s creatures’; Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 44. Habel writes, ‘Eliphaz’ message is simply that all humans inherit the ills of their creaturehood. Job, therefore, need not consider his lot abnormal’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 128. 21.  Many commentators read Job 5.1 as stating the hopelessness of appealing to lesser divine beings as intercessors. Thus write Driver and Gray, ‘Let not Job appeal to the angels, thereby manifesting the irritation of the foolish; but let him turn in the right temper to God Himself’; Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 49. Pope sees this verse as ‘a polemic against the Mesopotamian idea of a personal god on whom a man could rely to make his appeal heard in the assembly of the great gods’; Pope, Job, pp. 41-42. Newsom argues that Job 5.1 ‘insists on the futility of appealing to angelic being for help’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 379. This interpretation of Job 5.1 as Eliphaz asserting the futility of appealing for angelic



Yu  A Ridiculous God 93

Eliphaz considers these as two different types of activities. It is not necessary to find the distinction in the verb choices between ‫‘( קרא‬to call’) and help makes no sense in this context. It does not arise out of the logic of his argument, and Job has made no mention of it in Job 3. Habel notices the problem and attempts to connect Job 5.1 with Job’s cursing of his day in Job 3, ‘A connection between the opening verse and what precedes or follows is not immediately apparent. In its present location, however, v. 1 could perhaps be taken as a veiled rebuke of Job for summoning the forces of destruction to erase his origins (3:3-9)….’; Habel, The Book of Job, p. 130. Clines’s solution is to argue that Job 5.1 refers to the futility of seeking any divine help at all, interpreting Job 5.1 thus, ‘Now if such a cry for deliverance is in Job’s heart, Eliphaz says, he may as well stifle it, for there is no power, not even among the heavenly beings, that can release Job from the nexus of sin and punishment in which he is caught’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 137. However, Clines’s solution causes more interpretive difficulties; the futility of any appeal to the divine realm compels Clines to conclude that Job 5.8 is not an exhortation for Job to appeal to God, ‘Having advised Job that appeal for deliverance from his affliction is futile (v. 1), since his suffering is his own fault (v. 7) and must therefore be endured, what can Eliphaz now say that is more positive? He can only testify to what he himself does… But it is a sign of Eliphaz’s attempted delicacy, as also of his self-assuredness, that he speaks only of himself and does not presume to tell Job what to do’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 143. This conclusion does not sit well with the catalogue of God’s propensity for reversing fortunes (5.11-16) and the entire last section (5.17-27), which pictures Job’s restoration in consequence of his acceptance of God’s discipline (5.17). Reading Job’s Lament as a non-literal death wish that functions as a non-penitential petition goes some distance in resolving the difficulties in dealing with this verse (Yu, ‘To Comfort Job’, pp. 197-215). First, Job 5.1 refers to Job’s Lament as a petition (Job 5.1 is not an assertion of the futility of appeals to angels since Job’s Lament makes no mention of it). Second, the futility of the appeal to divine realm derives not from any inherent futility of the act (contra Clines), but from the ‘vexation’ and ‘jealousy’ that is at the root of Job’s appeal in his lament (5.2). In this regard, my reading comes closest to Newsom’s, who, while arguing that 5.1 is a rejection of angelic appeals, asserts Job 5.2 as a reference to Job’s Lament and argues for a reading of 5.1-7 and 5.8-16 as contrasting stances toward God, ‘The proverb [in 5.2] appears to be logically disconnected, although it should probably be viewed as Eliphaz’s rebuke of Job’s violent outburst in chap. 3… The wisdom ethos Eliphaz represents considered extreme anger and its unregulated expression as not just unwise (Prov. 12:16) but dangerous, since uncontrolled anger has the power to consume a person’s very essence (Prov. 14:30). Since human being are inescapably subject to sudden death, railing against the inevitability of the human condition is just such a dangerously foolish obsession in Eliphaz’s view’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 379. Newsom writes further concerning Job 5.8-16, ‘Eliphaz shifts the focus from human nature to divine nature and from the inappropriate stance of uncontrolled anger to what he urges as the proper stance: committing the situation to God’; Newsom,

94

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

‫‘( דרשׁ‬to seek’); rather, it is found in the immediate context of the verses. The petition of Job 5.1 proceeds from vexation and jealousy: 5.2 ‫כי־לאויל יהרג־כעׂש‬ ‫ופתה תמית קנאה‬

Surely, vexation kills the fool, and passion slays the simpleton.

According Eliphaz, only fools and simpletons who do not understand human fate petition God in vexation and jealousy; thus, Job is not going to get a response. The imperative to ‘Call out!’ in Job 5.1 is in the second person, addressed to Job directly; in so doing, Eliphaz clearly links Job’s Lament in ch. 3 (which Eliphaz understands as an appeal to God) to a fool’s angry petition.22 The problem with the foolish, angry rant at God is that it brings about the fool’s destruction (5.3-5);23 if only the fool had ‘The Book of Job’, p. 380. My reading shares the focus on inappropriate emotions as being the underlying paradigm for understanding Job 5.1-16; in this regard, one significant difference is that I argue this theme of inappropriate emotions as the underlying rhetorical tactic for the entire speech, thereby drawing a connection between the foolish ‘vexation’ in Job 5.2 with the inappropriate ‘weariness’ in Job 4.2-6. Clines disagrees with this entire line of reading, ‘It is often supposed, for example, that any appeal to the “holy ones” would be an act of wrath such as is said in v. 2 to slay the fool; several commentators similarly propose that Eliphaz is likening Job’s behavior to that of the “fool” whose fortune will be described in vv. 2-5. But it seems improbable that an appeal for deliverance from suffering should be regarded by Eliphaz as a fatal form of anger (impatience is not the topic in v. 2), and unlikely that Eliphaz should regard Job’s reaction to his suffering as anger when the only feeling has ascribed to Job are “weakness” and “dismay” ’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 137. However, Clines’s objection does not deal with my proposed reading of Job’s Lament as a non-literal death wish, a sharply critical form of rhetoric that expresses anger, rebellion, and a desire to call God to account. 22.  Reading Job’s Lament as a cry for literal death creates interpretive difficulties. For example, Clines in reading Job 5.1 is compelled to interpret Eliphaz as misunderstanding or ignoring the intention of Job’s Lament: ‘Job’s cry hitherto has been a cry against life (3:3, 11, 16, 22) and so it will be also in the speech that responds to Eliphaz (chs. 6–7; cf. 6:8-9; 7:16). But Eliphaz supposes, since he cannot bring himself to believe that anyone would really want to die, that Job may be nurturing an appeal for the healing of his suffering’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 137. The reading embraced in this study is that Eliphaz understands Job’s Lament perfectly, and he disagrees not with its general illocution (petitioning God) but with its tone (angry versus resigned), stance (haughty versus humble), and goal (calling God to the floor versus restoration). 23.  Driver and Gray summarize this section, ‘Since no man can be just before God, it is only the foolish who resent God’s dealings with them and, in consequence,



Yu  A Ridiculous God 95

known the wisdom about the human condition that Eliphaz offers (5.6-7). In comparison, Eliphaz’s exhortation to ‘seek’ El is contextualized by the deity’s propensity to reverse fortunes (5.9-16): he raises the fortunes of the ‫‘( ׁשפלים‬the low ones’; 5.11), the mourners (5.11), and the poor (5.15), and topples the fortunes of the crafty ones (5.12), those who are ‘wise’ in their craftiness (5.13), and the wily ones (5.13). The litany of God’s acts clarifies who is likely to receive God’s help. As such, to ‘seek’ El in this context means to petition God from a position of humility and lowliness; in other words, Eliphaz exhorts Job to adopt the conventional petitionary stance for mourners, self-abasement in both words and rites. Thus, in these two sections, Eliphaz lays out Job’s options. He can continue to rant at God, demanding a theophany and an accounting, a foolish course of behavior that stems from inappropriate emotions and is likely to lead to destruction. Or he can choose the path of wisdom, a path that recognizes human imperfection and the nature of God’s mercy, and ‘seek’ the deity from a position of humility and penitence. The sixth and final section clarifies the terms on which Job would emerge from his ritual state. In it, Eliphaz portrays the relationship between God and Job as that between a disciplinarian and a favored disciple (5.17-18), recasting Job’s misfortunes not as punishment out of vindictiveness, but as reproof out of caring; the image of the chastened counselor preserves for Job to a significant degree his former status. Eliphaz spends the final portion of his speech (5.19-26) picturing Job’s glorious restoration with images of Job’s survival in the face of catastrophe (5.20-22a), of his harmony with wild animals (5.22b-23), of his security and progeny (5.24-25), and of his longevity (5.26). Thus, the six sections of Eliphaz’s speech work together in a single discourse.24 Its twin goals of forestalling any further inappropriate outbursts from Job and exhorting him into self-abasing petitions rely on the twin tactics of shaming Job away from foolish, vexation-based appeals bring upon themselves disaster’; Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 48. The implication of this passage is that if Job insists on responding to the situation as a fool, he too will be destroyed. 24.  Nicholson reads the second, third, and fourth sections of this speech as offering three distinct explanations of Job’s troubles, ‘punishment for transgression, human fate, and divine chastisement intended for learning’; E.W. Nicholson, ‘The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job’, in John Day, R.P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 71-82 (74). The problem with this reading is that, separately, the three contradict each other, while together, they cohere into a single discourse that accomplishes clear rhetorical goals.

96

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

and luring Job toward self-abasement via the carrot of restoration. Aside from these two main goals, Eliphaz’s speech also asserts his own superior wisdom. First, Eliphaz places Job among the ranks of ‘weak hands’ and ‘tottering knees’ (4.3-4), thereby elevating Eliphaz into the role of the teacher. By comparing Job to the former recipients of his encouragement (4.5), Eliphaz implicitly stakes his claim to be Job’s counselor, doing for Job what Job has formerly done for others. His exhortation to ‘Remember!’ in Job 5.7 affirms his own fluency with traditional wisdom and his role as Job’s teacher. His narrative of his divine encounter (4.1216) argues for a status beyond that of mere purveyor of traditional sayings; indeed, he has new wisdom to offer, directly revealed from the divine realm. The final sentence of his speech, in the first person plural to allow the participation of the other two friends, declares the complete reversal of the former status relationship: ‘Look! This we have figured out; it is true. Pay attention, and know it yourself’ (5.27). This verse summarizes both elements of Eliphaz’s claim to leadership; he is Job’s teacher and a source of new wisdom. If we are to summarize the core of Eliphaz’s argument, then we would say that in the world-according-to-Eliphaz, God punishes the wicked (4.711), but since humankind are such lowly creatures, they cannot possibly be completely righteous before a God with impossibly high standards; thus, human beings are born into a life of calamities and sufferings followed by an abrupt ending (4.17-21). A counselor like Job should know that this is the fate of humanity; while fools are vexed by reversals of circumstances (5.1-7), a counselor would accept his lot in life (5.8-16) and seek God’s mercy for restoration (5.17-26). As we now ponder how Job 7 may be considered a rebuttal to Eliphaz, we note that Eliphaz’s portrayal of the way the world works is open to a charge of divine absurdity; that is, if humans were indeed such low and brutish creatures, they would be unworthy of divine attention, and it would be absurd for God to take such careful note of human behavior and to punish them for minor sins, especially if they really cannot help themselves. Strikingly, this is precisely the line of argument that Job takes up, but not via a point-by-point rebuttal; rather, Job molds his critique into performance art, adopts the persona of one who lives in a world that is organized along the principles espoused in Eliphaz’s speech, and performs an apostrophe;25 in so doing, this persona, by assuming what Eliphaz argues, demonstrates reductio ad absurdum the incoherence and 25.  ‘A figure of speech, by which a speaker or writer suddenly stops in his discourse, and turns to address pointedly some person or thing, either present or absent; an exclamatory address’; Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 edn, s.v. ‘Apostrophe’.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 97

absurdity of living in the world-according-to-Eliphaz. Thus, the speech strikes at the foundation of Eliphaz’s argument by pointing out how ridiculous it is for God to pay close attention to the insignificant sins of insignificant human beings. To validate this reading, we observe features of Job’s speech that are best explained by this approach. We begin by noting that the passage immediately before ch. 7 indicates that Job is about to respond to Eliphaz: 6.28-30 ‫ועתה הואילו פנו־בי‬ ‫ועל־פניכם אם־אכזב‬ ‫ׁשבו־נא אל־תהי עולה‬ ‫וׁשובו עוד צדקי־בה‬ ‫היׁש־בלׁשוני עולה‬ ‫אם־חכי לא־יבין הוות‬

But now, if you will, turn towards me. I swear I will not lie to your face.26 Turn, let there not be injustice. Turn, my vindication is yet in it [in this speech]. Is there deception on my tongue?27 Cannot my palate figure out calamity? 28

While there are difficulties in this text, the thrust of the passage is hard to miss: Job is calling for the attention of his interlocutors, claiming the need for justice, and proclaiming the honesty of his speech.29 As such, these verses seem an odd way for Job to conclude his speech to the human comforters (as many commentators posit); indeed, it reads less like a concluding section and more like a transition passage to a new argument. 26.  The particle ‫ אם‬invokes the oath formula. 27.  HALOT lists ‘badness, malice, injustice’ as glosses (HALOT, ‫)עולה‬. In context of Job’s speech, the word likely refers to ‘deception’ or ‘lies’. Clines render the clause as ‘Is my tongue a liar?’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 162. 28.  Some commentators suggest understanding ‫ הוות‬to mean ‘deceit’ or ‘falsehood’ in order to parallel ‫ עולה‬in v. 30a; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 162. I do not follow this reading because the two versets are not parallel. Verse 30a asserts the absence of any deception or crookedness in his own speech with tongue, an organ for speech, a synecdoche for speech; v. 30b asserts his ability to discern or to understand with palate, an organ for taste, as an extended metaphor for the capacity to discern or to understand. As such, v. 30b simply asserts that Job has the ability to figure out the significance of the calamities that has befallen him. 29.  As noted earlier, some commentators argue that Job’s speech to the comforters ends with Job 6.30. For them, this means that Job 6.28-30 concludes the section; Habel, The Book of Job, pp. 150-51; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 183; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, pp. 389-90. Yet, these verses do not fit well as a closing appeal: Job asks his friends to turn and face him (presumably because they have turned away from him during his assault on their character), and he declares his ability to speak and discern the truth. These statements seem more suited as a plea for attention that prepares his audience for more speech. Newsom notes this nature of these three verses as Job

98

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

For Job to end his speech to the human comforters at this point and switch abruptly to an address to God seems ‘inappropriate’ and ‘out of place’, as noted by Clines.30 Reading Job 7 as a rebuttal removes this sense of inappropriateness and out-of-place-ness. Turning to ch. 7 itself, we note that it divides into two sub-sections, vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-21. For the first sub-section, we note that the speech does not begin with Job’s own experience (one who feels like he has been unjustly singled out by God for mistreatment); on the contrary, it adopts the voice of the everyman, one of the lowly humans in the worldaccording-to-Eliphaz. Speaking through the voice of this persona, Job compares human existence to that of a hireling or a slave (7.1-2); it is a harsh and brutish life, one that echoes Eliphaz’s assessment of the human condition (4.19-21)—that is, humans are lowly creatures who die quickly and are unworthy of notice. Job goes on to connect the universal human experience to his own life, noting the difficulty of his existence (7.3-5); by this, Job makes explicit and embraces what Eliphaz merely hints at (5.2, 4): the relevance of the universal human suffering to Job’s circumstances.31 From there, Job moves to explore the ephemeralness of his own life and by extension the ephemeralness of all human existence and the attempting ‘to set the conditions for a true dialogue about his situation’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 389. It seems peculiar that Job would, having set the condition for a true dialogue, end his speech to the friends and turn to a different audience entirely. 30.  Clines notes that this direct address to God is ‘inappropriate’, ‘out of place’, and ‘quite unexpected’ in the midst of a debate with his comforters; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 196. My proposed reading renders this direct address to God an entirely appropriate part of the debate with Eliphaz. 31.  Habel recognizes this very point, but does not recognize how this line of argument is a most apropos response to Eliphaz, ‘The argument now moves from the universal plight of humans (vs. 1-2) to the particulars of Job’s situation (vs. 3-6). Job’s miserable lot exemplifies and validates the opening axiom. It is not that he has experienced an unusual act of divine intervention in his life, but that he like other humans has been “allotted” a lifetime of hardship… Thus Job inherits the “empty” existence of all humans’; Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, p. 158. In contrast, Clines discounts the connection between Job’s experience and the human condition in the abstract, arguing that Job ‘projects upon the human condition his own experience, finding it now impossible to doubt that suffering, not joy, and futility, not fulfillment, are the ultimate truths about life. Yet Job is not really presenting a philosophy of life—and far less is the author of the book depicting some form of Hebrew pessimism…’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 183. While it is possible that Job is projecting his experience onto the human condition, why he would choose to do so at this point in the main dialogue is an issue that Clines does not address.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 99

irreversibility of human mortality (7.6-10);32 here, Job again echoes Eliphaz’s assessment of the human condition (4.19-20). In the second sub-section (7.11-21), Job’s persona33 rants against a state of affairs where humans as brutish creatures are inexplicably held to high standards that they cannot possibly fulfill;34 as a result, he lashes out at the deity that lies at the heart of the world-according-to-Eliphaz, a human-stalking God with no sense of proportion. Job begins by using the nastiness and the shortness of human existence to justify his complaints (7.11). He then accuses God of mistakenly setting a guard over him as though he were a sea monster and of terrifying him with dreams and visions (‫חזינות‬, 7.12-14). This tongue-in-cheek allusion to Eliphaz’s own hair-raising nighttime visions (‫חזינות‬, 4.12-16) corroborates the idea that the persona of the speaker lives in the world structured by Eliphaz’s speech, a world in which God sends terrifying dreams to humans.35 It also 32.  Clines notes the seeming inconsistency between Job’s death wishes and his lament over the brevity of life, ‘Formerly (3:21-23; 4:8-9, 11) he had cried out for sudden death; now he seems to reflect regretfully upon the brevity of the days still left to him. The circumstances here, however, are different. He is not lamenting the imminence and certainty of his death, but grounding upon his inescapable end (vv. 6-10), as well as upon his present misery (vv. 1-5), his ensuing appeal to God to cease tormenting him (vv. 11-21)’; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 185. My explanation of the seeming inconsistency would be that Job does not want to die (the death wishes are not literal) and that he is not speaking through his own circumstances, but through the persona of the everyman in a world where humans are slaves and God is the cruel taskmaster. 33.  We should take care to distinguish the perspective of Job’s persona from Job’s. Job’s persona resides in the world according to Eliphaz and speaks as one of the brutish human slaves that have the misfortune of living in a world ruled by a divine terror. Job does not live in that world; he does not believe that God is an absurd deity who waits to pounce on every slight human error. 34.  Once again, Habel rightly assesses the main thrust of Job’s rhetoric (lowly human beings are justified in railing against their creator), but does not recognize how this directly refutes one of Eliphaz’s main points (only fools are vexed by the lot of humanity [5.2]). Habel writes, ‘If humans are forced to live as transients (vs. 9-10), they have a need to rail against their Creator when, as Job does, they spend their brief stay in utter torment…. Job, however, is conscious of the defiant nature of his outbursts, which he insists humans have a right to express (10:1; 13:3)’; Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, pp. 161-62. 35.  Both Clines and Pope mention Eliphaz’s vision in this context. Pope (Job, p. 62) does not explain the significance. Clines (Job 1–20, p. 191) contrasts the educative nature of Eliphaz’s speech with Job’s. Habel also recognizes the parallel with Eliphaz’s speech. He writes, ‘Interestingly, Eliphaz uses similar imagery to describe his uncanny revelation experience. What Eliphaz parodied, Job experienced as a traumatic reality’; Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, p. 163. This assessment

100

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

mocks Eliphaz for using these terrifying dreams and visions as a source of wisdom, rather than recognizing them as mere nightmares sent by an irrational deity. Then he gets to the substance of the incoherence and absurdity of this Eliphaz-constructed world: 7.17-21 ‫מה־אנוׁש כי תגדלנו‬ ‫וכי־תׁשית אליו לבך‬ ‫ותפקדנו לבקרים‬ ‫לרגעים תבחננו‬ ‫כמה לא־תׁשעה ממני‬ ‫לא־תרפני עד־בלעי רקי‬ ‫חטאתי מה אפעל לך נצר האדם‬ ‫למה ׂשמתני למפגע לך‬ ‫ואהיה עלי למׂשא‬ ‫ומה לא־תׂשא פׁשעי ותעביר את־עוני‬ ‫כי־עתה לעפר אׁשכב‬ ‫וׁשחרתני ואינני‬

What is man that you make so much of him? That you set your mind on him? That you examine him every morning? That you test him every moment? Will you never look away from me? Why do you not leave me alone until I swallow my spit? If I have sinned, what do I do to you? O Watcher! Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you? Why do you not forgive my transgression and overlook my iniquity? For now I will lie in dust? You will look for me, and I will not be there.

The underlying logic of these complaints is clear; if human beings are indeed insubstantial creatures of such mean status, it makes no sense for God to pay them so much attention or hold them to such high standards. At the center of this complaint, we come to the allusion to Psalm 8, a psalm that celebrates God’s exaltation of human beings as kings over the created world: Psalm 8.5-7 [4-6] ‫מה אנוׁש כי תזכרנו‬ ‫ובן אדם כי תפקדנו‬ ‫ותחסרהו מעט מאלהים‬ ‫וכבוד והדר תעטרהו‬ ‫תמׁשילהו במעׂשי ידיך‬ ‫כל ׁשתה תחת רגליו‬

What is a man that you remember him, or the son of man that you care for him? But you have made him a little lower than heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and majesty. You have given him rule over the works of your hands; You have set everything under his feet.

is problematic because Eliphaz cannot have been parodying Job since Job has previously made no mention of any terrifying dreams. If there is any parodying going on (and I argue there is), it is surely the other way around.



Yu  A Ridiculous God 101

As mentioned at the beginning, this allusion, when read as addressed to God, is usually taken ironically—a ‘bitter parody’, as Clines calls it, that mocks God’s attention as ‘merciless scrutiny and perpetual examination’.36 In contrast, reading the allusion to Psalm 8 as a rebuttal to Eliphaz drastically alters the function of the allusion. First, by invoking Psalm 8, Job reveals Eliphaz’s ignorance of traditional wisdom; that is, since Psalm 8 celebrates God’s exaltation of humanity, it directly contradicts Eliphaz’s idea of low human status before God—someone who presumes to teach Job should know that. Second, Job accentuates the force of this contradiction by placing Ps. 8.5 [4] in the mouth of his adopted persona, creating an intersection between this psalm and Eliphaz’s world. As Psalm 8 collides with the governing principles of the world-according-to-Eliphaz, celebration turns into bitter complaint; God’s attention, worthy of joyous exclamation, becomes a burden, and the exalter of humanity becomes the ‘man-watcher’, a fastidious martinet who stares at Job to make certain that Job disposes his spit properly. Thus, Job responds to Eliphaz’s implicit argument that God has punished Job for minor faults by disdainfully posing the question, ‘How minor are we talking about? Was it for something like improper disposal of spit?’37 By these series of questions, Job renders silly the deity that lies at the center of the world-according-to-Eliphaz—a rule-bound, human-stalking, divine terror with no sense of proportion. In other words, Eliphaz’s selfproclaimed innovation, his combination of the retributive principle with an exacting deity and a low view of human status, turns out to have a ridiculous god at the center of it. As such, living in an Eliphaz-constructed world would be so despairing that it would compel someone to challenge God—the precise behavior that Eliphaz seeks to proscribe. By adopting the persona to satirize the world-according-to-Eliphaz, Job not only refutes Eliphaz’s arguments, but also undermines his claim to superior sagacity and devastates any pretension Eliphaz might have harbored toward claiming the role of Job’s teacher.

36.  Clines, Job 1–20, p. 192. 37.  Many commentators, finding the literal meaning of the phrase ‘swallow my spittle’ difficult, appeal to the Arabic expression ‘Let me swallow my spittle’ and imports the meaning ‘Wait a moment’ into the verse (Driver and Gray, Commentary on the Book of Job, I, p. 74; Pope, Job, p. 62; Clines, Job 1–20, p. 193). Newsom finds the image entirely suitable to the context, suggesting ‘the invasive quality of divine scrutiny, which interferes with even the most intimate of bodily functions’; Newsom, ‘The Book of Job’, p. 396.

102

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

In closing, we should also consider the function of the allusion at the level of the implied author and readers. First, the author has Job demonstrate his superior wisdom and verbal prowess via his brilliant, satiric demolition of Eliphaz’s ideas, including his use of Psalm 8. Second, the author shows Job as God’s true servant by having him defend God against a spurious assault on his character. In the first place, Eliphaz’s characterization of Job’s calamities as divine chastisement is falsified by our knowledge of the nature of the satanic experiment in chs. 1 and 2. In addition, Eliphaz’s message of universal human unrighteousness before God’s exacting standards contradicts God’s own sentiment. While Eliphaz proclaims that ‘(God) mistrusts his servants and charges his angels with error’ (4.18), God effuses to the satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job for there is no one like him on earth, a pure and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil?’ (1.8). By this direct contradiction, the author renders Eliphaz as one who misstates God’s character and perspective; God is clearly less exacting than Eliphaz would have him be. Thus, Eliphaz’s assertion of excessive divine exactitude is defamatory, and Job’s rebuttal a defense of God’s character.

P oe t i c A l l u s i on s i n A g ur ’ s O r acle i n P r ov er b s 30.1- 9

Ryan P. O’Dowd

For the way of comets is the poet’s way. And the blown-apart links of causality – are his links.

—Marina Tsvetayeva, ‘The Poet’1

What has been written with imagination must be read with imagination. —Knut Heim2

Proverbs 30.1-93 may be the most difficult and contested passage in the book of Proverbs and yet the following three advances in research shed much needed light on its obscure collection of sayings. 1.  In Eileen John, ‘Poetry and Cognition’, in John Gibson, Wolgang Huemer, and Luca Pocci (eds.), A Sense of the World: Essays on Fiction, Narrative, and Knowledge (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 219-32 (219). 2.  Knut Heim, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry (BBRS, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), p. 645. Earlier Heim says, ‘[the] truly creative features of poetry are hard to pin down and this is where intuition and imagination become crucial. Imaginative and skillful interpretation of poetry recognizes poetry as a normal form of human communication. It values the un-usual features of poetry as normal features of the poetic language. And it celebrates the truly unusual as the supreme expression of the poetic imagination’ (p. 644). 3.  I constrain my paper to vv. 1-9 primarily for reasons of space, but also because, (1) despite a lack of consensus on the unity and structure in Prov. 30, most scholars agree that vv. 1-9 comprise the first coherent unit, and (2) most of the recognized intertextual allusions in this chapter occur in these first nine verses. See Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (Anchor Yale Bible, 18B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 850-51, and Bruce K. Waltke, Proverbs 15–31 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 464-67.

104

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Source Material: Arndt Meinhold and Rick Moore draw our attention to the historical, literary, and theological selection of Hebrew texts and traditions that echo throughout Proverbs 30.4 In a similar vein, Bernd Schipper renews the interests of Franz Delitzsch and Moshe Weinfeld, regarding the close relationship between Deuteronomy and Proverbs, specifically, that Proverbs 30 provides a mature theological statement about the relationship between wisdom and law.5 Topics and Themes: Raymond Van Leeuwen’s study of the ancient topos of heavenly ascent and descent in Prov. 30.4, meanwhile, opens a window into the role of other related topics and themes in the chapter.6 Poetics: Finally, James Crenshaw’s close attention to the poetic techniques and wordplay in Prov. 30.1-14 taps into previously overlooked aspects of artistry and imagination in ch. 30.7 The present study begins by expanding the poetic insights in Crenshaw’s work into a full description of Agur’s poetic technique. The consistent patterns in Agur’s poetic method, in turn, provide a means to identify the links and rationale between the variety of sources, topics, and themes found in this oracle. In the end, I will characterize Prov. 30.1-9 as a wisdom poem written through the eyes and words of Israel’s sacred traditions in the Torah, Writings, and Prophets. These sources, until now mostly absent from the book of Proverbs, emerge climactically at the end of the individual sayings in chs. 10–29 to produce a timely reflection on wisdom. 4.  Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche (2 vols.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), II, pp. 495-500, and Rick Moore, ‘A Home for the Alien: Worldly Wisdom and Covenantal Confession in Proverbs 30.1-9’, ZAW 106 (1994), pp. 96-107, who argues that Agur collects texts from various traditions to provide a point-in-time commentary on Israel’s past. 5.  Bernd Schipper, Hermeneutik Der Torah: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1–9 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012), pp. 221-80. Schipper argues that Prov. 2 and 30 play strategic roles in establishing wisdom as good but ‘not enough’ to know God and live a righteous life. Schipper’s failure to attend to Prov. 30 as a work of poetry limits his search to echoes of legal, specifically Deuteronomic origin, overlooking the role of other sources and themes behind this passage. 6.  Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, ‘The Background to Proverbs 3.4aα’, in Michael S. Barre, S.S. (ed.), Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (CBQMS, 29; Washington: CBA, 1997), pp. 102-21. 7.  James Crenshaw, ‘Clanging Symbols’, in Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris (eds.), Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 51-64.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 105

Agur’s 8 Sources, Topics, and Poetry The basic framework of Agur’s prologue consists of a statement of humility (vv. 1-3), an affirmation of divine power and revelation (vv. 4-6), and a prayer for divine protection (vv. 7-9). As already noted, these three sections appear to weave together sources from the Pentateuch, Writings, and Prophets, but the diversity of these allusions and echoes and their varying strength or volume lead to confusion and disagreement about which sources might actually be in view and whether the original context of the sources has anything to do with the overall message.9 It is possible to breach this long-standing impasse by distinguishing carefully between the three poetic patterns in these sayings. First, Agur draws our attention to names, whether by withholding names from expected places, using unexpected names, or asking questions about names. Agur’s second and third techniques involve two types of relecture, or rereading of sacred texts.10 In Relecture I Agur borrows a familiar saying, or phrase from a family of sayings, and emends it ever so slightly to repurpose it for a new setting. Compare this to Warren Buffet’s statement during the financial collapse of 2009, which turned the ancient saying ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts’ to ‘Beware of geeks bearing formulas’.11 In Agur’s work such changes surprise the reader and provoke speculation about what is present and absent in the riff.12 In Relecture II Agur 8.  We can only guess at whether someone named Agur or some unknown number of redactors compiled the final version of this text. Since Agur sits as the heading for all 33 verses, I use his name in place of constant reference to author(s) and redactor(s). 9.  See R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup, 128; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p. 150, who says that it is ‘almost impossible to grasp the intention of the passage as a whole’. Whybray then contradicts his own judgment in the next sentence: ‘Verses 1-9 are probably best regarded as the result of a series of attempts to integrate an originally non-Israelite and non-Yahwistic saying into the sphere of Yahwistic wisdom teaching’, suggesting that there is an intention to the whole. 10.  On this use of relecture in Second Temple Judaism and Prov. 30, see Richard Clifford, Proverbs (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1999), p. 258. 11.  In David Segal, ‘In Letter, Warren Buffet Concedes a Tough Year’, New York Times (February 28, 2009). 12.  Crenshaw captures this literary technique in his above-cited article, ‘Clanging Symbols’, which plays on the tension between symbol as a sign and cymbal as a brass percussion instrument to illustrate the powerful way a familiar word or phrase can clash against a homonym or similar phrase. His essay treats vv. 1-14 and not just vv. 1-9.

106

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

cites a shortened excerpt from passages that would be known to educated readers, such as ‘Four score and seven…’ for Americans or ‘Keep calm and carry on’ for Britons. The popularity of these sayings naturally leads many if not most readers to recall the narratives, history, and/or characters within the sayings.13 Working in tandem, these three literary techniques elevate the level of the poem by way of metonymy or metalepsis, such that characters and narratives otherwise external to Proverbs—the patriarchs, the Torah, Davidic kingdom, and the Prophets—come to testify to the limits of wisdom.14 Articulating the consistent patterns at play in vv. 1-9 in this way throws into stronger relief the topics and themes held in common in these sources and vv. 1-9: wisdom, torah, humility, old age, cosmic imagery/creation, judgment, oaths, true and false oaths, divine ascent and descent, the divine name Yahweh, and the family name-pair, Jacob-Israel. A Poetic Reading to Proverbs 30.1-9 We turn now to illustrate these techniques and topics at work in Agur, beginning with the superscription in v. 1: The words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the oracle of the man, to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ukal:

The first line demonstrates two techniques at work. One, the formula, ‘the words of’ so-and-so is a form of Relecture II since it is a phrase used often in the Hebrew Bible as a way of introducing collected sayings (e.g. Deut. 1.1; Neh. 1.1; Jer. 1.1; Amos 1.1). Notably, Solomon uses a similar introduction to authenticate the divine authority behind his own words (Prov. 1.1; 10.1; 25.1; Eccl. 1:1).15 And yet, two, Agur’s name 13.  Folklorists, literary scholars, and anthropologists provide extensive evidence of proverbs that have emerged from common fables and popular sayings and narratives. Cf. Archer Taylor, The Proverb (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), pp. 31-34. See also the introductory essays by James Obelkevich, ‘Proverbs and Social History’, pp. 211-51, and Carole R. Fontaine, ‘Proverb Performance in the Hebrew Bible’, pp. 393-413, in Wolfgang Mieder (ed.), Wise Words: Essays on the Proverb (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994). 14.  This is similar to a common pattern of ‘repetition with variation in Proverbs’ (Heim, Poetic Imagination, p. 645). For a lengthier explanation of metalepsis and meta-diagetic voice, see Gerard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), pp. 234-37. Cf. also John, ‘Poetry and Cognition’, for a discussion of the natural usage of the present tense in poetry. 15.  Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, p. 465.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 107

and lineage are totally unexpected, particularly because every author in the book of Proverbs thus far has been a recognized, royal, and Israelite source of wisdom. Interpreters often try to get around these unexpected names, either by changing them or else reading them allegorically or symbolically. The LXX, for example, eliminates the names altogether and moves 30.1-14 to the end of Solomon’s collection at Prov. 24.22, retaining the Solomonic authority behind this material.16 The midrash, meanwhile, understands Agur and Jakeh as pseudonyms for Solomon and David.17 While speculative, it is noteworthy that midrash is sensitive to the fact that Agur’s anonymity draws our attention to Agur’s play on names. A second point to notice in this verse is Agur’s use of ‫נאם הגבר‬ (‘oracle of a man’), a phrase foreign to wisdom literature but found in other genres. Another instance of Relecture II, it is usually believed that Agur borrows this phrase from the superscriptions used for Balaam (Num. 24.3-4) and/or David (2 Sam. 23.1), where it appears in identical form.18 Both figures could obviously be in the background; David’s writing appears again in v. 5 (cf. 2 Sam. 22.31; Ps. 18.31 [30]), and, like Agur and other authors alluded to in this cluster, speaks in the fading years of life.19 ‘Oracle of a man’ is then oddly combined with the term ‫המשׂא‬ (‘inspired utterance’). Many scholars are troubled both by the apparent redundancy in the introduction of ‘oracle’ alongside ‘inspired utterance’ as well as the unusual appearance of prophetic language in Proverbs.20 16.  The LXX is a translation, and yet ‘every translation is at the same time an interpretation’; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1985), p. 346. For more on the interpretive inclinations of the LXX, see Bruce Waltke, Proverbs 1–15 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 2-5. 17.  Patrick Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQMS, 1; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971), pp. 42-43, has more recently argued that the MT pointing ‫אָגוּר‬, which could be translated ‘I sojourn’, points to Jacob who is remembered as a ‘wandering Aramean’ (Deut. 26.5; cf. Gen. 28–32; Ps. 39.13 [12]), while Yakeh is an acronym for ‫‘( יהוה קדושׁ הוא‬Yahweh is holy’). However, neither of these names is attested elsewhere, so the proposal meets with little sympathy. 18.  See Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 853. For the connections to Balaam, see Clifford, Proverbs, pp. 260-61. 19.  See Paul Franklyn, ‘The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Skepticism?’, ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 238-52 (241). 20.  See William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), p. 644.

108

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

These scholars tend to emend ‫ המשׂא‬to ‘Massaite’, a term of national origin.21 This is possible but certainly not necessary because, as I argue, Agur has a pattern of placing unexpected words in unexpected places. It is more likely that Agur is using Relecture I to include language of the prophets, as we will see below.22 While English versions differ considerably, the MT of v. 1 is addressed to two more unfamiliar names, Ithiel and Ukal, with Ithiel’s name somewhat oddly repeated. Some scholars propose hypothetical reconstructions of some original source from which these later names emerged;23 but the extreme complexity of these proposals and the vast differences between them lead the majority of scholars to favor the simpler solution of revocalizing the text to ‫יתי ֵאל וָ ֵא ֶכל‬ ִ ‫יתי ֵאל ָל ִא‬ ִ ‫‘( ָל ִא‬I am weary, O God, I am weary, O God, and worn out’).24 It is difficult to say which of these two options is more likely from a poetic perspective: the choice of names in the MT is consistent with Agur’s literary style elsewhere in the passage and supported by Theodotion and Aquila.25 The emended translation, however, anticipates the tone in v. 2: Surely I am more stupid than a man and I do not have the understanding of a man.

Here Agur most likely uses Relecture I, loosely paraphrasing language found elsewhere in Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Sirach to express humility and a sense of human deficiency that have no parallel in Proverbs (Pss. 73.16; 139.6-16; Eccl. 1.17; 7.23; Sir. 29.7). The closest connection

21.  See McKane, Proverbs, p. 258, and Leo Perdue, Proverbs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000), p. 252. 22.  See Franklyn, ‘Sayings’, p. 238, who says that the use of ‫‘ המשׂא‬conjoins the sapiential and prophetic utterances of a perishing sage’; see also Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, p. 455. 23.  See Crenshaw, ‘Clanging Symbols’, pp. 51-64, and Crawford H. Toy, Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), pp. 519-20. 24.  Tremper Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), pp. 519-20. Longman’s opinion that translating unknown words as ‘personal names…[is] always a choice of last resort’ oddly takes no notice of the emphasis on names in this chapter. Why then let ‘Agur’ stand? At least Ithiel is a known Hebrew name. 25.  See Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, p. 455. Meinhold, Die Sprüche, II, pp. 496-97, may be correct that Ithiel, which appears in Neh. 11.7, is an allusion to prophetic sources.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 109

may be with Ecclesiastes, which begins with a superscription similar to Agur’s (‘Qohelet, the son of David’ [Eccl. 1.1]) and portrays Qohelet, like Agur, as one who could not find wisdom (Eccl. 7.23). Qohelet is also a veiled reference to Solomon, echoing Agur’s interest in name-play, and Solomon is depicted as a man in his old age, paralleling Agur’s subtle references to names and men in their fading years of life (including himself, v. 7).26 Verse 3 now employs Relecture I, borrowing and editing familiar sayings to alter their original meaning.27 Whereas Prov. 2.4-5 and 9.10 both equate wisdom and understanding with the knowledge of ‘God’ and the ‘Holy One’, Agur claims to possess neither wisdom nor knowledge of the divine.

I have not learned wisdom, nor do I have knowledge of the Holy One (30.3)

If you seek [wisdom] and search for her as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of Yahweh and find the knowledge of God (2.4-5) The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (9.10)

He also conspicuously omits the divine name as it appears in both of these texts. Schipper takes this as a negation of the wisdom in Proverbs 2 and 9, but such a reading is simply too shallow.28 Agur’s oracle is sophisticated and full of sayings that echo traditional wisdom, so it makes more sense to read this as rhetorical self-deprecation. While Agur’s overall purpose may not be clear at this point, his use of poetic techniques involving familiar 26.  Though some scholars believe that the veiled reference to Solomon is limited to Eccl. 1–2. For a full list of scholars on various sides of these issues, see Eric Christianson, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup, 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 128-72. On Agur’s allusions to last words, see Gen. 27.2-4; 45.28; 2 Sam. 23.1; Ps. 73.26, and Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 853. 27.  See Bernd U. Schipper, ‘When Wisdom Is Not Enough! The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs’, in Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 55-79 (71-75). 28. 28 Cf. Schipper, Hermeneutik, p. 252.

110

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

sayings is.29 This prepares us for a pivotal and perplexing group of questions in v. 4, Who has ascended to the heavens and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up in the waters as a garment? Who has marked out the foundations of the earth? What is his name? And what is his son’s name, if you know?

These five rhetorical questions comprise the longest portion of these first nine verses and sit prominently at the center of this passage, enticing readers to puzzle out the many emerging patterns and gaps in Agur’s sayings. As I will show, the style and content of these questions resembles legal, prophetic, and sapiential contexts where we find various combinations of the topics of heavenly ascent, oath taking, the names Yahweh and Jacob-Israel, and cosmic hymnody.30 True to form, however, Agur applies techniques of name games and relecture with his borrowed sources. Scholars generally agree that Agur borrows the image of heavenly ascent (v. 4a) from another source, Relecture II (Job 28; 38–39;31 also Gen. 11.1-5;32 29.  See Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 91, who believes that Agur is advancing the sapiential and legal understandings of wisdom and the knowledge of God. While I agree, he does not go on to ask why Agur would use these images in the context of Prov. 30. 30.  As we will see below, James L. Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 75-114, demonstrates the prevalence of these topics in oath formulas and divine hymns in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos as well as in Job and Psalms. 31.  Job 28 is Job’s longest speech, in which he first celebrates human achievements of wisdom in crafts (vv. 1-11), before arguing that humans do not have wisdom of the mysterious and divine (vv. 12-22). In the end, Job confesses that only God knows wisdom (v. 23) and that for humans, ‘The fear of the Adonai, that is wisdom…’ (v. 28). Interpreters highlight the fact that Adonai is used in pace of YHWH or Elohim, as one might expect from almost all of the other uses of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible. Norman Habel, The Book of Job (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 401, calls the use of Adonai an ‘ingenious ploy of the poet’ that provides a ‘striking contrast with the titles which have preceded [and] allows the listening audience to hear a veiled reference to the name of Yahweh’. The resemblance to Agur is striking. 32.  Gen. 11.1-5 provides three thematic parallels: the people gather at Babel and seek to ‘establish a name’ for themselves, their efforts to build an artifice which will reach (up) to the divine abode of the heavens, and Yahweh ‘comes down’. See Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 856.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 111

28.10-22; 32.22-32;33 Deut. 30.11-14; 2 Sam. 22–23; Amos 5.8; 9.6-9; Bar. 3.29–4.2), though there is no consensus on which one or ones.34 Genesis 28.12 provides the closest parallel, linguistically speaking, describing the angels of Yahweh ascending and descending the ladder in Jacob’s dream.35 As noted by Schipper for slightly different reasons than my own, there are also significant connections here to the cosmic passages in Prov. 3.18-19 and 8.22-29 as well as to those passages that either show the close relationship between cosmos and torah (e.g. Ps. 19) or the accessibility of God’s heavenly torah to human beings (Deut. 30.11-14). Schipper shows that Deuteronomy is drawn in again in the command ‘do not add to his words’ in v. 6 (Deut. 4.2) and the three commands from the Decalogue cited in the prayer in v. 9 (Deut. 5.11, 16, 19).36 For Schipper, these allusions serve to close a conversation within Proverbs itself, concluding that ‘wisdom is not enough’.37 Unfortunately Schipper virtually ignores the poetic play on names and the relecture that draw on the oath formulas within Deuteronomy and topics and passages beyond Deuteronomy. Baruch also makes specific reference to heavenly ascent and theophany (3.29), doing so in the larger context of a narrative in which Yahweh has given wisdom to Jacob-Israel (3.36), Israel has rebelled and committed idolatry (4.7-8), and God has brought divine judgment (4.1-19) and promised salvation (4.21-37). This weaving together the themes of wisdom, torah (4.1), creation, names, and judgment in Baruch overlaps with the central topics in the four questions in Prov. 30.4b-e. The questions have several other parallels in the Hebrew Bible yet seem to lack any unique language or images that make any one stand out as an obvious source (Exod. 19.20; Job 38–42; Ps. 19.1-10 [9]; Prov. 3.19-20; 8.22-29; Isa. 40.12-17). Still, the fuller narrative context and collection of topics in Baruch parallels the popular style of doxologies, oaths, creation themes, and judgment formulas that also existed in large number in the Latter Prophets. Amos, for example, also contains several doxologies that make use of these major topics in v. 4: theophany, the divine name, and judgment (4.11-13); waters (5.8; 9.6), an oath by Yahweh (8.7), heavens 33.  See Skehan, ‘Wisdom’s House’, pp. 42-43. 34.  Many of these passages do not explicitly mention ascent, but Agur could have drawn on their vertical portrayal of heaven and earth in constructing his own trope. See, e.g., Clifford, Proverbs, p. 261; Longman, Proverbs, pp. 521-22; and Roland Murphy, Proverbs (WBC, 22; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), p. 228. 35.  Technically, Gen. 28.12 calls them ‘angels of God’, but the next verse depicts ‘Yahweh’ speaking to Jacob. 36.  Schipper, ‘When Wisdom Is Not Enough!’, pp. 70-71. 37.  Schipper, ‘When Wisdom Is Not Enough!’, pp. 55-79.

112

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

and earth (9.6); and the close gathering of the names Yahweh, Jacob, and Israel (9.8-9).38 Similar doxologies involving theophany, creation, judgment, and oaths appear in Jeremiah (10.12-16; 31.35; 32.17-35; 51.15-19) and Isaiah (48.4-10; 51.9-16; cf. Hos. 12.5 [4]). As with the possible allusions to Balaam and David in v. 1, there is no need to make any specific assumptions about textual influence or dependence between these sources to recognize that there are strong affinities in the poetic form of v. 4 and the prophetic and legal doxologies and their pattern of combining themes of creation, oaths, judgment, and names—Yahweh, Jacob, and Israel. In Proverbs 30, Agur simply asks a question about the divine name in place of the expected oath formula, another example where he combines name play and Relecture II. By now, Agur’s relecture and play with names is unmistakable and so I return to a closer look at the parallel text in Baruch 3–4 to illustrate more of the breadth of literary sources and topics at his disposal and the likely rationale for combining and emending them as he has. Baruch 3.9–4.2 Hear the commandments of life, O Israel; give ear, and learn wisdom!

(3.9)

Young men have seen the light of day, and have dwelt upon the earth; but they have not learned the way to knowledge, nor understood her paths, nor laid hold of [wisdom].

(20)

Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?

(29)

Proverbs 30.1-9 The words of Agur… I am a dullard and not a man, I do not have the wisdom of a man. (3) I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down?…

(4a)

What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! (4e)

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (6) Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar… (5)

He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to Jacob his servant and to Israel whom he loved. (4.1) She is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that endures forever. (2) Turn, O Jacob, and take her; walk toward the shining of her light. (36)

lest I be full and deny you and say, ‘Who is Yahweh?’ or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God. (9)

38.  See Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmation, pp. 112-13.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 113

Notice that Baruch 3–4 and Proverbs 30 trace a similar progression of themes and topics: the limits of human knowledge; rhetorical questions in a search for wisdom; the nature of divine transcendence—specifically calling out the image of heavenly ascent; the divine name; and, finally, God’s commands, which are explicitly equated with wisdom in Baruch and implicitly in Proverbs 30.39 One of the main differences between these texts is a contrast in emphasis: Baruch names Jacob-Israel as Yahweh’s chosen and, while the text does not call Jacob-Israel a ‘son’, it assumes as much in that God ‘loved’ (3.36) and ‘reared’ (4.8) Israel. Proverbs, meanwhile, refrains from mentioning Jacob-Israel, but asks explicitly about the name of the ‘son’. The absence of Jacob’s name in wisdom literature is not all that surprising, but the fact that Agur so closely follows a textual tradition that provides something of an answer in the form of a proper name, but ultimately refuses that name, should not be passed by.40 It helps here to point out that the prophetic refrains and doxologies cited above also occur in various forms in the Torah and Writings as well (Exod. 15.3-8; Pss. 23.3; 106.8). While it is clear that the logic and themes of transcendence, wisdom, Jacob, Israel, and God’s name were a common part of these texts, among all of these, only the text in Proverbs 30 asks the name of God rather than supplying it.41 Furthermore, advanced readers familiar with any of the similar hymns or oath formulas would notice the absence of Yahweh’s name here.42 In other words, it seems clear that Agur uses Relecture I together with his technique of playing with names, omitting ‘Yahweh’ where one most expects it. But why pose a question if the answer is so obvious? In the context of the first nine verses, Agur wants to emphasize humility and discretion in the use of God’s name, and a list of questions, as in Job 38–41, does more to emphasize God’s transcendent wisdom and power than blunt statements. But why ask for the name of the son? It could be for emphasis.43 Or might it be an allusion to David, the royal son (2 Sam. 7.14; Pss. 2.7; 89.27-28 [26-27]), or the archetypal son addressed in Proverbs 1–9? All of 39.  See Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, pp. 472-74, who cites others noting the intertextual use or relecture of material from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Baruch. 40.  As is done by those who rightly reject these questions as riddles and discern the ultimate emphasis on the contrast between God and humans, and yet overlook the fact that Agur’s passage draws upon a breadth of prophetic sources that call for closer analysis. Cf. Schipper, Hermeneutik, p. 252, and Fox, Proverbs 10–31, pp. 856-57. Every answerable question is not a riddle. 41.  Cf. Crenshaw, ‘Clanging Symbols’, p. 57. 42.  See Moore, ‘Home for the Alien’, p. 97. 43.  So Clifford, Proverbs, pp. 261-62.

114

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

these are logical possibilities, especially since David’s words are alluded to in v. 5. But David’s story has no obvious connections with the humility that dominates these nine verses nor the major topics in v. 4. The son in Proverbs, however, humbly represents the student/novice charged with heeding the instructions of parents and elders (1.8; 2.1; 3.1; 4.1-5, etc.). This paradigmatic son has also been instructed in the fear of Yahweh and Yahweh’s work in making the world by wisdom (cf. 1.7; 3.19-20; 8.1-36). But this does not explain why we are asked for a ‘name’, especially when names play such a significant role in these verses. The strong connections between Baruch 3–4 and Prov. 30.4 make it possible that Jacob-Israel is depicted here as a type of the representative of the son in Proverbs 1–9. Notice that Jacob and Israel are used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to God’s chosen people and, at the same time, Israel is consistently portrayed as God’s son and firstborn (Exod. 4.22; Deut. 14.1; 32.5-6, 18-19; Isa. 43.6; 45.11; 63.16; Jer. 3.4, 19; 31.20; Hos. 11.1).44 Further, the names ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ are used interchangeably in Genesis 32–50 and increasingly merge at points throughout Israel’s broad literary tradition (e.g. Exod. 1.1; 3.15; Num. 23.7; 2 Sam. 23.1; Ps. 14.7; Isa. 9.7 [8]; Hos. 12.1-5 [11.12–12.4]; Bar. 3.37 [36]; 4.2). The names ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ thus take on a fluid identity that can easily fit as the representative son in Proverbs 1–9, but reimagined here with reference to his unknown name.45 Humility and sonship also complement the command to respect God’s name (vv. 5-9) and honor one’s parents (v. 11). Jacob and Israel’s lives are, furthermore, both characteristically memorable for their failure to respect their fathers, literal and metaphorical. This Jacob-Israel phenomenon may seem to be a stretch, but it does provide the best rationale for Agur’s poetic play on names. Jacob’s story (Gen. 27–32) is carried along by a play on his names, the first of which he receives for grasping at his brother’s heel in the birth canal and the second from the angelic figure in Gen. 32.28. Third, in the scene in which Jacob comes in a disguise to his father Isaac, blind and on his deathbed he says, ‘My father’, to which Isaac replies, ‘Here I am. Who are you my son?’ Jacob answers this deceitfully, ‘I am Esau, your firstborn’ (Gen. 27.1819). When Esau learns of Jacob’s lie and attempt to steal the birthright, he appropriately asks, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob?’ (Gen. 27.36). In Genesis, the simultaneous reliability and unreliability of names create a 44.  See Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, p. 474. 45.  A similar fluidity applies to Esau-Edom (Gen. 36.1, 8, 19; Num. 20.14-20; 24.17-18; Amos 1.11; Obad. 8-10).



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 115

stark contrast between the family of Jacob-Israel and the faithfulness of their God, Yahweh, and this fits with Agur’s larger purpose of emphasizing the distance between God and humans. Agur now turns from these five questions to two truncated citations— the first an affirmation of trust and the second a warning to remain faithful to God’s words (vv. 5-6): Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who trust in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Some scholars observe a parallel here between Psalm 73 and Agur’s turn from cosmic questions (v. 4) to a call to an orthodox confession (v. 5). Yet the language is more likely Relecture I from David’s oath after he escaped from his pursuers in 2 Sam. 22.31, a saying that is repeated in several psalms (cf. Pss. 12.7 [6]; 18.30-31 [29-30]; 119.114; 144.2). Only in this case Proverbs abbreviates David’s prayer and replaces ‘Yahweh’ in David’s oath with ‘Eloah’. This change of names is significant not only because it is the only use of this divine name in Proverbs, but also because it is the third name Agur has used for God.46 This emendation also fits Agur’s pattern of changing names in his citations—Relecture I. In each case, the slightly modified echo of another source elevates the literary complexity and allusiveness of the poem.47 Agur abruptly shifts from an allusion to David (king) to a warning that is usually believed to come from Deut. 4.2 and 13.1 [12.32], ‘do not add to his words’ (law).48 Consistent with other forms of Relecture II, Agur only cites a small part of the original text, combining it with his own nuance, in this case the presentation of consequences, ‘lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar’ (30.6). The initial prohibition recalls the sermons in Deuteronomy on the final day of Moses’ life (Deut. 34.4-5), which complements Agur’s implied old age (vv. 2, 7), his allusion to Solomon’s final words (v. 3), and the final prayer of David’s life (v. 5).49 Agur’s 46.  In fact, Eloah is rare in the Old Testament apart from the book of Job, which increases the possibility material in the book of Job has influenced Prov. 30.1-9. 47.  Cf. Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, p. 476, who says, ‘Agur’s changes of David’s text suggest that he is employing the trope of metalepsis, a rhetorical and poetic device in which a later text alludes to an earlier one in a way that draws on resonance of the earlier text beyond the explicit citation.’ 48.  Schipper, ‘When Wisdom Is Not Enough!’, p. 71. 49.  See Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 853.

116

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

sequential move from cosmos to kingship to law in vv. 4-5 also mimics a pattern seen throughout the Torah, Writings, and Prophets (e.g. Exod. 15.1-21; the book of Job; Pss. 72; 89; 93–97; Jer. 31.35-37).50 This leads us to ask why Agur isolates lying over against any number of other transgressions like murder, idolatry, injustice, covetousness, or theft. Most scholars simply pass this question by.51 And yet this peculiar addition serves two important functions. First, falsehood echoes the oath formulas in legal and prophetic sources behind v. 4. We return to this shortly. Lying and falsehood also play a central role in the life of Israel’s patriarchal narratives, Jacob’s life in particular. Not only did Jacob deceive his father Isaac by disguising his identity (Gen. 27.18-25), he also misled his brother Esau by creating a red lentil stew to look like Esau’s treasured red meals with meat and blood (Gen. 25.28-34; cf. 27.4, 7, 14). Furthermore, Jacob’s deceitfulness is intended to force Esau into a rash oath, renouncing his birthright. These false actions are pivotal in setting up Jacob’s encounter with a divine visitor in Genesis 28 and especially Genesis 32 at Peniel where Jacob and his assailant engage in a contest of physical strength that ends in a desire for each to know the other’s name. The angelic figure, of course, will not reveal his name, but, in his renaming Jacob to ‘Israel’, he reinforces the fact that Jacob’s name—and specifically questions about Jacob’s name—are intertwined with acts of falsehood and deceitfulness. This may also explain why Agur continues to emphasize falsehood in his prayer in the final three verses of this section. This is the only prayer in Proverbs, and it asks for help resisting five offenses (30.7-9): Two things I ask from you; do not withhold them from me before I die: Remove from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; give me only the food I need. Lest I be sated and deny you, saying ‘Who is Yahweh?’ Or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.

50.  See Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25–27 (SBLDS, 96; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 75-76. 51.  Longman, Proverbs, p. 524, offers that since ‘God’s words are true’, adding to God’s words amounts to lying.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 117

One is theft and the others are all tied to negative forms of speech-acts: falsehood, lying, denying God, and profaning God’s name. A closer look at his requests reveals connections between oaths, divine names, prayers, commitments to moderation, and Israel’s patriarchs. This lone prayer in Proverbs is, no doubt, a form of relecture, likely constructed from similar elements in patriarchal, Davidic, and prophetic prayers and oath formulas. The first Israelite oath is in Genesis uttered by Abram who swears in the name of ‘Yahweh most high’ that he will not accept riches and plunder from the king of Sodom (Gen. 14.22-24). Similarly, Jacob’s first prayer and oath are at Bethel, where he asks specifically for God to provide only what he needs (Gen. 28.20-22). At Peniel, Jacob wrestles the angel that changes his name to ‘Israel’ following a painful reminder of his shameful first lie to his father about his name. The scene also brings to mind the oaths and divine visits of his father and grand­ father. It is significant as well that Jacob prays for provision for his family after leaving Laban, and for protection from Esau whom he will soon meet. Both relationships are overwhelmingly marked by repeated acts of falsehood and deceit in the interest of self-preservation. In the middle of this story Laban swears to Yahweh that he will honor Jacob, while both of them stand before a pillar and a heap—symbols of heaven and earth and oaths (Gen. 31.43-54; cf. Gen. 28.18-22). Jacob is only willing to swear on the honor of his father Isaac (v. 53), whom Jacob had ironically deceived about his own identity (Gen. 27.18-29). Such a combination of oaths, deceit, changing names, cosmic symbolism, and Yahweh’s name provide noteworthy echoes between Agur, the patriarchs, and the prophetic hymns noted above. From a poetic perspective, Agur exhibits his characteristically salient choice of language in vv. 8-9. Clifford comments that ‫‘( שׁוא‬falsehood’) in v. 8 ‘can refer to false oaths sworn before Yahweh’.52 Fox, moreover, explains that the verb ‫‘( תפשׂתי‬profane’ or ‘misuse’) in v. 9 is an ‘idiom [that] implies taking possession of God’s name and misusing it to one’s own ends’.53 In v. 9, Agur reasons that a moderate life will keep him from ‘denying’ God. The Hebrew verb here is neither ‫ כזב‬nor ‫שׁקר‬, as typically used for lying or blaspheming, but ‫כחשׁ‬, which, according to TDOT, denotes ‘disguising, concealment or denial of a given situation contrary to better knowledge…a deliberate accountable act’.54 So, while denying and profaning God’s name are common infractions in the Hebrew Bible, the 52.  Clifford, Proverbs, p. 263. 53.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, p. 860. 54.  TDOT, VII, p. 133.

118

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

wording chosen here specifically designates intentional deception, theft, and disguise. Just as the prayers of Abram in Gen. 14.22-24 and Jacob in Gen. 28.20-22 reveal their belief that a modest lifestyle provides the best conditions for keeping an oath, so in Agur’s case modest resources will keep him from asking the desperate question, ‘Who is Yahweh?’ Not unrelated, this question is Relecture II of Pharaoh’s question when Moses came to demand that Jacob-Israel be set free (Exod. 5.2). This question plays on the hypothetical question earlier in Exod. 3.13 (‘What is his name?’) that Moses suspects that Israel will ask when he tells them of God’s plans to redeem them from Egypt. These two scenes and questions memorably converge in the divine hymn in Exod. 15.3, which again combines Yahweh’s name with an oath, cosmic water imagery, and salvation. Here is Crenshaw’s explanation of the full import of these divine refrains in the Prophets and Pentateuch, The prophetic response is seen in the taking up of the ancient cultic refrain “Yahweh of Hosts is his name” which almost always stands in direct connection with the asseveration that Yahweh is creator. The emphasis is clear: “Yahweh is the name of the only God, the Creator of heaven and earth, in whose name all oaths must be taken.” This creation is soteriological, recalling the ancient myth of the splitting of the seas (Ex. 15:3)… The prophets demand that oaths be taken in the name of Yahweh the creator, and that they be made in truth (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Jer. 5:1-2; 12:16; Isa. 65:16-17; 43:18; 48:2). Moreover, cultic prayers represent to educate people in this direction (Dan. 9:11, where curse and oath as well as the “name” made at the Reed Sea are recalled; Jer. 32; Neh. 9).55

Agur has his own purpose, to be sure, but all of his previous instances of relecture thus far have, by definition, ‘reread’ traditional sources into a new context. In this case, Agur draws on the connections between cosmic hymns, oaths, truthfulness, prayers, and names (Yahweh and Jacob-Israel) to back his sayings with the authority and the religious commitments of Moses and the prophets. The links between Agur’s oracle and salvation narratives and the Prophets extend to the legal rules of the Torah as well. I noted above that Prov. 30.1-11 relectures or echoes up to four of the Ten Commandments: the third (vv. 8-9; Exod. 20.7; Deut. 5.11), fifth (v. 11; Exod. 20.12; Deut. 5.16), eighth (v. 9; Exod. 20.15; Deut. 5.19), and ninth (vv. 8-10; Exod. 20.16; Deut. 5.20).56 Both lists of the Decalogue, moreover, begin with 55.  Crenshaw, ‘Hymnic Affirmation’, pp. 92-93. 56.  Cf. Meinhold, Sprüche, II, p. 496, who does not include the ninth commandment.



O’Dowd  Poetic Allusions in Agur’s Oracle in Proverbs 30.1-9 119

the divine refrain (Exod. 20.2; Deut. 5.6), ‘I am Yahweh your God…’—a phrase that is very close to the oath formulas in the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Furthermore, while Lev. 19.11-12 has few exact linguistic parallels, it nevertheless gathers the same group of themes found in Agur’s prayer: theft, falsehood, and dishonoring the divine name (‘You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. You shall not swear by my name falsely, and [so] profane the name of your God: I am Yahweh’). This passage also demonstrates the close associations between torah-keeping—specifically truthfulness—and the sanctity of the divine name in Prov. 30.5-9. It seems very likely that Agur has used Relecture I of ‘I am Yahweh your God’ in the Law and Prophets and changed it to ‘Who is Yahweh?’ (v. 9) to reinforce his own rhetorical emphasis on the wisdom of humility and guarded speech. The divine name, or its absence, in this oracle serves as a proxy for a truthful oath, that is, a wisdom that is faithful to the law and the covenants. Conclusion While it is generally agreed that Prov. 30.1-9 echoes a considerable number of other sources, this essay has argued that when it is read as poetry, Agur’s oracle systematically and consistently shortens or edits these sources, omits names, and asks questions in the place of affirmations, drawing our attention to a common group of topics and themes throughout Israel’s traditions. The oracle essentially casts shadows of Moses, David, and the prophets as it makes a final warning about the true nature of wisdom in Proverbs. And yet, fittingly, the lessons are expressed in the humble words of an unknown and undistinguished sage, Agur. And just as Moses, David, and Solomon are cited in passages attributed to the final days of their life, so Agur also appears alongside them as the everyman speaking wisdom out of the experiences of a long life of following Yahweh (vv. 1, 9). If Eileen John is correct that poetry, by its nature, draws us to speculate about the choice of words and the ‘deliberate effort’ behind their arrangement, then this is the kind of reading we should expect of the poetry in Proverbs 30.57 The fact that the book of Proverbs begins with a promise that wisdom is the key to working out the meaning of proverbs and sayings (1.6) makes it all the more natural to conclude that the sages have left this sophisticated text to test the reader’s acquisition of wisdom. 57.  John, ‘Poetry and Cognition’, p. 220.

T h e R eu s e of D eu t er onomy ’ s ‘ L aw   of   t h e  V ow ’  i n E ccl esi aste s 5.3- 5 [ 4- 6] a s a n E x em p l a r of I n t e rte xt uali ty a nd R e i n t erp r etat i on i n E ccle si ast e s 4.17–5.6 [ 5.1-7] *

Richard L. Schultz

Ever since Gerhard von Rad in his final work, Wisdom in Israel, presented wisdom as a third theological tradition alongside historical and prophetic traditions, it has been common to speak of the independence of the wisdom corpus within the Hebrew canon.1 Wisdom literature’s apparent lack of reference to Israel’s salvation history and to the characteristic elements of Yahwism resulted in the much-rehearsed neglect of wisdom in twentieth-century syntheses of Old Testament theology.2 A series of intertextual studies, however, some of them quite recent, have tempered this judgment concerning the independence of the wisdom corpus. With regard to the book of Ecclesiastes, building on the earlier publications of Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1936) and C.C. Forman (1960), Clemens (1994) details Ecclesiastes’ dependence on Genesis 1–3, and Jennifer Barbour (2012) finds striking traces of Israelite history in Ecclesiastes.3 *  Much of this essay was previously published as R.L. Schultz, ‘ “Fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13): An Examination of Some Intertextual Relationships between Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes’, in J.S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K.J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), pp. 327-43. The author is grateful to Jim Eisenbraun for permitting its republication in revised form here. 1.  G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J.D. Martin; Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1972). 2.  See the survey by C.H. Scobie, ‘The Place of Wisdom in Biblical Theology’, BTB 14 (1984), pp. 43-48 (43-44). 3.  Hertzberg, in H.W. Hertzberg and H. Bardtke, Der Prediger, Das Buch Esther (KAT, 17.4-5; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963); C.C. Forman, ‘Koheleth’s Use of Genesis’,



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 121

These two intertextual emphases suggest that, despite the continuing validity of the claim that one of wisdom literature’s theological feet is firmly planted in creation, as memorably affirmed by Walter Zimmerli, its other foot stands in covenantal history.4 The Law of the Vow in Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy Related to the questioning of wisdom literature’s independence from Israel’s redemptive-historical traditions is Leo Perdue’s argument that the Old Testament sages were not ‘anti-cult’.5 Although Perdue focuses on cult-related statements in Proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes also contains brief references to sacrifice and ritual purity in 4.17 [5.1] and 9.2 and may also speak of temple worship in 8.10. Most intriguing in this regard is the close intertextual relationship between the law of the vow from Deut. 23.22-24 [21-23] and Eccl. 5.3-5 [4-6]. (The following passages are arrayed for the purposes of comparing their content and not necessarily according to poetic lineation.) Ecclesiastes 5.3-5 [4-6] ‫) כאשׁר תדר נדר לאלהים‬3( ‫אל־תאחר לשׁלמו‬ ‫כי אין חפץ בכסילים‬ ‫את אשׁר־תדר שׁלם‬ ‫) טוב אשׁר לא־תדר‬4( ‫משׁתדור ולא תשׁלם‬ ‫) אל־תתן את־פיך לחטיא את־בשׂרך‬5( ‫ואל־תאמר לפני המלאך‬ ‫כי שׁגגה היא‬ ‫למה יקצף האלהים על־קולך‬ ‫וחבל את־מעשׂה ידיך‬

Deuteronomy 23.22-24 [21-23] ‫) כי־תדר נדר ליהוה אלהיך‬22( ‫לא תאחר לשׁלמו‬ ‫כי־דרשׁ ידרשׁנו יהוה אלהיך מעמך‬ ‫והיה בך חטא‬ ‫) וכי תחדל לנדר‬23( ‫לא־יהיה בך חטא‬ ‫) מוצא שׂפתיך תשׁמר ועשׂית‬24( ‫כאשׁר נדרת ליהוה אלהיך נדבה‬ ‫אשׁר דברת בפיך‬

JSS 5 (1960), pp. 256-63; D.M. Clemens, ‘The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3’, Themelios 19 (1994), pp. 5-8 (5); but see K. Dell, ‘Exploring Intertextual Links Between Genesis 1–11 and Ecclesiastes’, in K. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually (LHBOTS, 587; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), pp. 3-14; J. Barbour, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 4.  For a more detailed discussion of this claim, see R. Schultz, ‘Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Canonical and Covenantal Perspective’, TynBul 48.2 (1997), pp. 289-305. 5.  L.G. Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS, 30; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).

122

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms niv

niv

1.

(4)

When you make a vow to God,

12.

(21)

2.

do not delay to fulfill it.

13.

do not be slow to pay it,

3.

He has no pleasure in fools;

14.

for the Lord your God will certainly demand it of you

4.

fulfill your vow.

15.

and you will be guilty of sin.

5.

(5)

It is better not to make a vow

16.

(22)

6.

than to make one and not fulfill it.

17.

you will not be guilty.

7.

(6) Do not let your mouth lead you into sin.

18.

(23)

8.

And do not protest to the temple messenger,

19.

9.

‘My vow was a mistake’.

because you made your vow freely to the Lord your God with your own mouth.

10.

Why should God be angry at what you say

11.

and destroy the work of your hands?

If you make a vow to the Lord your God,

But if you refrain from making a vow,

Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do,

Commentators who acknowledge this extensive and striking verbal parallel characterize it in weaker or stronger ways. Garrett views Ecclesiastes 5 as ‘similar’ to Deuteronomy 23; Delitzsch sees here an ‘echo’ of Deuteronomy ‘in thought and expression’; and according to Murphy the former ‘resembles’ the latter ‘rather closely’. Crenshaw, Bartholomew, Krüger, and Fox speak of a ‘quotation’ or ‘near-quotation’, while Provan offers the non-committal comment: ‘Other biblical passages also touch on this topic’.6 Barry Webb and Martin Shields present two contrasting positions. Webb sees here an indication of Qoheleth’s knowledge and 6.  D.A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC, 14; Nashville: Broadman, 1993), p. 310; F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (trans. M.G. Easton; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 287; R.E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC, 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992), p. 46; J.L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 116-17; C.G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), p. 203; T. Krüger, Qoheleth (trans. O.C. Dean Jr; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), p. 213; M. Fox, Ecclesiastes (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004), p. 33; I. Provan, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), p. 117.



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 123

affirmation of Torah as divine revelation, since this exhortation about keeping one’s vows ‘presupposes the instruction on this matter in the Torah’. Referring to Eccl. 4.17 [5.1], Webb claims that ‘to go to the house of God to listen is to conform one’s behavior to it’, and Bartholomew takes a similar view.7 Shields, however, argues for Qoheleth’s independence from—or even disagreement with—Deuteronomy. On the one hand, Webb may be reading too much into the presumed revelatory nature of all speech within the temple precincts. On the other hand, Shields also goes beyond the text in seeing here an ‘exhortation to abstain from speaking to God’ (in both prayer and making vows), since Qoheleth’s God ‘has little or no interest in the concerns of individuals’.8 The fact that these texts begin with two nearly identical Hebrew clauses is a sufficient basis for concluding that there is a relationship of dependence here.9 This author is not aware of anyone who has argued that Deuteronomy is borrowing here from Ecclesiastes, although it is notoriously difficult to demonstrate decisively in which direction the borrowing has occurred in a given verbal parallel in the Hebrew Bible.10 This initial, almost verbatim, repetition serves as a strong literary marker helping the reader to identify the parallel in Deuteronomy and suggests that the differences in the subsequent clauses most likely stem from Qoheleth’s own modifications of the borrowed legal formulation in order to better fit the new textual context and the author’s thematic emphases. Each of these differences (i.e., changes) will now be examined. Lines 1 and 12 differ only in their opening word and in their designation of the deity. The Hebrew subordinator ‫ כי‬used by Deuteronomy is common in legal formulations (see also Deut. 23.10 [9], 11 [10], 25 [24], 26 [25]), while Ecclesiastes’ ‫ כאשׁר‬may intentionally parallel the use of the same expression in the opening verse of the larger textual unit in 4.17 [5.1]—‘when you go to the house of God’. Ecclesiastes makes no use of the tetragrammaton throughout the book, so it is not surprising that Deuteronomy’s 7.  B.G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther (New Studies in Biblical Theology; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), p. 97; C.G. Bartholomew and R.P. O’Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove: IVP, 2011), p. 294. 8.  M. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), p. 159. 9.  For a discussion of criteria in identifying literary dependence, see R.L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 222-27. 10.  Schultz, The Search for Quotation, pp. 63-71.

124

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

‘the Lord your God’ (‫ )יהוה אלהיך‬is replaced in Ecclesiastes simply with ‘God’ (‫)אלהים‬. Lines 2 and 13 are identical in the Hebrew, despite being translated divergently, for instance, in the nasb, niv, and nrsv, except in one respect. Deuteronomy uses the negating particle ‫לא‬,11 whereas Ecclesiastes uses ‫אל‬. Prohibitions in Deuteronomy commonly use ‫לא‬, while Ecclesiastes prefers ‫אל‬. For example, in the larger textual unit 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7], ‫ אל‬occurs twice in the parallel lines in Eccl. 5.1 [2], 5 [6]: ‫אל־תבהל על־פיך‬ ‫ולבך אל־ימהר להוציא דבר לפני האלהים‬ ‫אל־תתן את־פיך לחטיא את־בשׂרך‬ ‫ואל־תאמר לפני המלאך כי שׁגגה היא‬

The same negative particle occurs once in 5.3 [4], as well as in the verse that begins the next subunit, 5.7 [8]. Although the word ‫ אל‬typically occurs in wisdom admonitions like these, its paired use in 5.1 [2] and 5.5 [6] may reflect the repetition of poetic (i.e., parallelistic) style. (Note also the chiastic word order in the first two clauses in Eccl. 5.1 [2].) In the remainder of the corresponding expressions (lines 3-11 and 14-19), Deuteronomy 23 and Ecclesiastes 5 diverge more significantly; Ecclesiastes 5 is both briefer and simpler in formulation. Nevertheless, the same basic elements are found in both texts, offering additional support for the claim of literary dependence. Lines 3 and 14-15 offer comparable motivations for heeding the preceding admonition in terms of the deity’s response. Deuteronomy contains a threat that the violator will be called to account by God for one’s actions, a similar expression occurring in Deut. 18.19 (‫ עם‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫)דרׁש‬. In Deuteronomy we repeatedly find the warning that God will not leave punishment up to the Israelite judiciary but will instead personally execute judgment. Ecclesiastes simply labels those who make rash vows as ‘fools’ (‫)כסילים‬, a common category in wisdom rhetoric. (Terminology from the semantic field of ‘folly’ occurs in Deuteronomy only in ch. 32 [‫נבל‬, vv. 6, 15, 21].) Fools, by definition, are unable to please God by their actions and may provoke divine judgment. Ecclesiastes 7.17 expresses a similar thought: ‘Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time?’ (niv). But when a rash vow is accompanied by excuse-based reneging on what one has promised when confronted by the cultic debt-collector (‫המלאך‬, lines 8-9), divine displeasure turns to anger and punitive destructive action (lines 10-11, which give a vivid description of Deuteronomy’s 11.  In the central ‘law’ section of Deut. 6–26, ‫ אל‬only occurs in 9.4, 7 and 21.8.



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 125

threat in line 14 being executed). Hence Seow is somewhat misleading when he contrasts Ecclesiastes with Deuteronomy in speaking of the motive clause in line 3 (‘[for] He has no pleasures in fools’) as ‘typical of the wisdom tradition’s tendency to avoid any language of divine causality’.12 Rather, in Ecclesiastes we see a dramatic progression from (1) being labeled a ‘fool’ to (2) sinning with one’s mouth and confessing oneself to be guilty of a ‫‘( שׁגגה‬mistake’) to (3) incurring divine wrath and punishment. Line 4 in Ecclesiastes simply expresses the admonition of line 2 as a positive command, repeating the piel verb ‫‘( שׁלם‬fulfill’), which will occur again in line 6. This is parallel in formulation to 5.1 [2] (‘Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few’ [niv]), in which a two-fold admonition is also followed by an explanation and a positive command. Word repetition is also a stylistic feature of Qoheleth (see also 3.16 and 4.1). Ecclesiastes’ positive command in line 4 (‘fulfill your vow’) corresponds to the wordier command in line 18 in Deuteronomy (‘Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do’), which is followed by another explanatory or motive clause in line 19. Lines 5-6 offer a further rationale for the positive command in line 4. Ecclesiastes uses a favored ‘better than’ parallelistic proverbial formulation (see Eccl. 4.6, 13; 6.9; 7.1, 2, 3, 5, 8; 9.4, 16, 18). This can be viewed as a sapiential paraphrasing of Deuteronomy’s additional rationale in lines 16-17, with line 17 repeating and negating the expression for incurring guilt from line 15 (line 15: ‫והיה בך חטא‬, ‘and you will be guilty of sin’; line 17: ‫לא־יהיה בך חטא‬, ‘you will not be guilty’; compare also Deut. 15.9 and 24.15). In other words, lines 16-17 describe the ‘better’ option; lines 12-15 the ‘worse’. Deuteronomy thereby explicitly highlights the voluntary nature of a vow, reinforcing this in line 19—‘because you made your vow freely to the Lord your God with your own mouth’, using the cultic term ‫נדבה‬, which in Deut. 12.6-7; 16.10 designates a ‘freewill offering’. Thus Deuteronomy places a greater emphasis on one’s ‘obligation to Yahweh in terms of personal truthfulness and integrity’,13 whereas Ecclesiastes, in typical wisdom style, emphasizes the negative consequences of ‘foolish’ behavior. In line 7 (‘Do not let your mouth lead you into sin’), Qoheleth may pick up the term ‘sin’ (‫ )חטא‬from the Deuteronomy parallel, although the former uses a hiphil infinitive construct (‘to cause to sin’), whereas the 12.  C.L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 200. 13.  J.G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), p. 352.

126

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

latter uses the nominal form (‘sin’). Elsewhere Ecclesiastes normally uses the verb as a participial noun (Eccl. 2.26; 7.26; 8.12; 9.2, 18; the only exception is 7.20). Both parallel texts emphasize the mouth as the instrument of sin-producing vows. Lines 7 and 19 both refer to ‘your mouth’ (‫)פיך‬, while line 10 refers to ‘your voice’ (‫ )קולך‬and 18 refers to ‘your lips’ (‫)שׂפתיך‬. In Ecclesiastes, the expression ‘your mouth’ resumes 5.1 [2]: ‘Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God’. This sets up an ironic situation—the fool is both too quick (in speaking) and too slow (in acting).14 To sum up, the law of the vow in Deuteronomy exhibits a typical legal formulation and a non-poetic style. Subsequent clauses are linked by ‫כי‬, ‫וכי‬, and ‫ו‬, so that the jps Tanakh translation appropriately renders Deut. 23.22-24 as two sentences. Ecclesiastes 5.3-5 [4-6] arguably exhibits poetic parallelism throughout, most obvious in the ‘better than’ proverb in v. 4 [5] and in v. 5 [6] in which the half-lines correspond (my translation), emphasizing body parts: Do not allow your mouth And do not say before the (temple) messenger, Why should God become angry concerning your voice

to cause your flesh to sin “Surely it was an inadvertent sin!” and destroy the work of your hands?

Although acknowledging Qoheleth’s dependence on the law of the vow in Deuteronomy 23, some commentators view the two texts as expressing different attitudes toward making vows. That is, whereas Deuteronomy emphasizes, even encourages, making vows, in the opinion of Crenshaw, Seow, and Murphy, Ecclesiastes emphasizes not making, or even discourages making vows. Some scholars even see in Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] a sweeping Religionskritik questioning the utility of sacrifices, prayer, as well as vows.15 This goes beyond the textual data, however. What Qoheleth explicitly warns against here is making rash, or hasty, vows (‫אל־תבהל…אל־ימהר‬, Eccl 5.1 [2]), that is, vows that one is not necessarily intending to keep, rather than warning against making vows altogether. 14.  See the discussion of the ‘timing’ theme in Richard L. Schultz, ‘A Sense of Timing: A Neglected Aspect of Qoheleth’s Wisdom’, in R.L. Troxel, K.G. Friebel, and D.R. Magary (eds.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 257-67. Ecclesiastes gives additional examples of the dangers of acting either too quickly or too slowly in Eccl. 8.3, 11; cf. 10.10-11. 15.  So Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, p. 117; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, p. 50; Seow, Ecclesiastes, p. 200.



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 127

What about Shields’s stronger claim that the differences in wording between Deuteronomy 23 and Ecclesiastes 5 indicate that Qoheleth is, at most, distancing himself from the Torah or perhaps even unaware of the Pentateuchal material?16 Shields implausibly downplays the significance of the Deuteronomy 23 parallel by arguing that vows ‘were made throughout the ancient Near East, so the practice in Israel…in Qoheleth’s time need not have been governed by the stipulations made in the Pentateuch’. Shields can claim this because he sees no significance (that is, literary dependence) in the closeness of the verbal correspondence and because he reads the divergences between the two texts in light of his conclusions from the book as a whole regarding God’s transcendence, inaccessibility, and capriciousness. Instead, I would suggest that Qoheleth quotes the law of the vow from Deuteronomy 23 here to illustrate what can happen when one fails to exercise due caution when approaching the house of God, thereby offering ‘the sacrifice of fools’ (i.e., their rashly promised vow offering, Eccl. 4.17 [5.1]) rather than listening. Beginning with a near-verbatim quotation in Eccl. 5.3 [4] to signal the Deuteronomic source, the sage then modifies the borrowed text to fit into its new context in 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and to conform it to wisdom literature’s poetic style and emphases. Links between Ecclesiastes 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and the ‘Deuteronomistic History’17 Ecclesiastes 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] is not only dependent on Deuteronomy 23, but there are also striking intertextual links between this passage and 1–2 Samuel. Perdue suggests that Eccl. 4.17 [5.1] (‘Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong’ [niv]), especially the portion ‫וקרוב לׁשמע מתת הכסילים זבח‬, alludes to Saul’s rash deed, as rebuked by Samuel in 1 Sam. 15.22—‘Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams’ (niv). Two key words used twice in 1 Sam. 15.22 (‫זבח‬, ‘sacrifice’; ‫ׁשמע‬, ‘obey’; lit. ‘hear’) also occur in Eccl. 4.17 [5.1], in addition to the expression ‘Does the Lord delight…?’ (‫)החפץ ליהוה‬, which parallels ‘he has no pleasure’ (‫ )אין חפץ‬in Eccl. 5.3 [4].18 The use of the term ‫‘( ׁשגגה‬mistake’) in Eccl. 5.5 [6] could be a further intertextual link to Old Testament legal 16.  Shields, The End of Wisdom, p. 162. 17.  Quotation marks are used here to indicate the ongoing debate regarding the origin, nature, and extent of the so-called Deuteronomistic History. 18.  Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, p. 182. Perdue incorrectly lists the parallel verse as 1 Sam. 15.27.

128

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

material (i.e., to Lev. 4–5 or Num. 15, where it also occurs repeatedly; it never occurs in Deuteronomy), but Barbour suggests more plausibly that it is an additional allusion to Saul’s foolish reign (see Eccl. 10.5—‘the sort of error [also ‫ ]ׁשגגה‬that arises from a ruler’ [niv]), since Saul admits in 1 Sam. 26.21, ‘Behold, I have played the fool and have committed a serious error’ (nasb; ‫)הנה הסכלתי ואׁשגה הרבה מאד‬.19 In this regard, one also could point to Saul’s rash oath forbidding the consumption of food during battle in 1 Sam. 14.24-30 and his insincere oath in pledging to spare David’s life in 1 Sam. 19.6. If Perdue and Barbour are correct in seeing allusions to Saul here, the Solomonic voice in Ecclesiastes, which somewhat ironically is quite critical of the abuse of royal power, would be warning against repeating the failures of his well-known predecessor, Saul. Such verbal links to 1–2 Samuel would lend further support to the disputed claim that Ecclesiastes is theologically ‘mainstream’ rather than ‘unorthodox’. Additional Links between Ecclesiastes 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and Deuteronomy The enigmatic reference to a dream in Eccl. 5.2 [3] (‘A dream comes when there are many cares, and many words mark the speech of a fool’ [niv]) and 5.6 [7] (‘Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore fear God’ [niv]) also has prompted scholars to seek to identify an intertextual allusion here. Given our previous discussion of intertextual connections between Ecclesiastes 5 and Deuteronomy 23, Gutridge’s suggestion that the ‘comparison in Qoh. 5.3, 7 of dreaming with talking too much seems to imply that false (and maybe even superfluous) words are as odious as the false dreams of Deut. 13.1-5’ is attractive.20 In comparing these two texts, it is interesting to note that in both Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and Deut. 13.2-6 [1-5], dreams and words (of the prophet in Deut. 13) are contrasted with revering God and keeping his commands. 19.  See the more detailed study of this parallel by J. Barbour (‘ “Like an Error which Proceeds from the Ruler”: The Shadow of Saul in Qoheleth 4:17–5:6’, in M. Augustin and H.M. Niemann [eds.], Thinking Towards New Horizons: Collected Communications to the XIXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Ljubljana 2007 [Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008], pp. 121-28). 20.  C.A. Gutridge, ‘The Sacrifice of Fools and the Wisdom of Silence: Qoheleth, Job and the Presence of God’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOTSup, 333; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 83-99 (86-7).



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 129

This suggestion is more convincing than that of H. Tita, who sees in this passage an intertextual allusion to the narrative of Solomon’s dream in Gibeon (1 Kgs 3.5, 15). Whereas the ‘dream’ in Ecclesiastes 5 is apparently used negatively, since it is associated in v. 6 [7] with what is ‘meaningless’ (‫)הבלים‬, Solomon’s dream is to be viewed positively.21 There are several additional possible intertextual links between Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] and Deuteronomy: (1) ‘God is in heaven and you are on earth’ in 5.1 [2] parallels Deut. 3.24 and 4.39 (‘Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below’ [niv]). Schoors is quite certain about the purpose of the intertextuality here: ‘There can be no doubt that Qoheleth here deliberately adapts Deuteronomy 4:39 converting a saying about God’s unicity [sic for ‘ubiquity’?] in heaven and on earth into a sharp contrast between God and man’.22 According to some scholars, such as Lauha, whereas Deuteronomy’s God is active ‘in heaven and on earth’, Qoheleth’s God is remote and unreachable.23 Deuteronomy 26.15 and 33.26, however, similarly exclusively mention God’s heavenly location, while Qoheleth repeatedly notes God’s involvement with those on earth, emphasizing the good gifts—as well as the burdens—he gives to humanity (Eccl. 2.26; 5.18 [19]; 6.2; 8.15; 12.7). (2) The anger of God aroused by insincere vows, according to Eccl. 5.5 [6] (‫)קצף‬, is also mentioned in Deut. 1.34; 9.7, 8, 19, 22; 29.27 [28], there provoked by Israel’s rebellious disobedience and doubt. According to Deuteronomy, divine wrath threatened to destroy God’s people; according to Ecclesiastes, divine wrath can result in the destruction of the ‘work of your hands’ (line 11, ‫)מעשׂה ידיך‬. (3) Deuteronomy also uses the same expression (‫ )מעשׂה ידיך‬to describe the product of human activity in Deut. 16.15 and 24.19, as well as the similar expression using the singular ‘hand’ (see Deut. 2.7; 14.29; 28.12; 30.9, all references using ‫‘[ כל‬all’]). Although none of these three examples involves indisputable verbal links with Deuteronomy, each nevertheless contributes to the overall impression that Ecclesiastes resonates with various aspects of Deuteronomic theology. 21.  H. Tita, ‘Ist die thematische Einheit Koh 4,17–5,6 eine Anspielung auf die Salomo-Erzählung?’, BN 84 (1996), pp. 87-102. See also R. Fidler, ‘Qoheleth in “The House of God”: Text and Intertext in Qoh 4:17–5:6 (Eng. 5:1-7)’, Hebrew Studies 47 (2006), pp. 7-21, who instead sees the Jacob-Bethel dream tradition as the primary intertextual referent here. 22.  A. Schoors, ‘(Mis)Use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis’, in A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 45-59 (51). 23.  A. Lauha, Kohelet (BKAT, 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 2003), pp. 98-99.

130

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

The Concluding Epilogue (Ecclesiastes 12.13-14), Ecclesiastes 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7], and Deuteronomy ‫סוף דבר הכל נשׁמע את־האלהים ירא ואת־מצותיו שׁמור כי־זה כל־האדם‬ ‫כי את־כל־מעשׂה האלהים יבא במשׁפט על כל־נעלם אם־טוב ואם־רע‬ Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (12.13-14 [niv])

According to Michael Fox, many commentators since the nineteenth century have attributed the epilogue of Ecclesiastes to a later editor who ‘supposedly considered Koheleth’s words too unorthodox and sought to counteract them with pious assurances and precepts’.24 The three foundational claims of these verses, namely, that (1) there is value both in revering God and (2) in obeying God’s commands, because (3) God’s future judgment is certain, however, do not constitute an orthodox corrective, since they state nothing that the main body of the book has not affirmed previously in Eccl. 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7]. First, reverence for God will prevent us from uttering frivolous vows (5.5 [6]). The similarity between Eccl. 5.5-6 [6-7] and 12.13 in relating the fear of God to obeying his commandments has even led some scholars to label 5.6b [7b] as a redactional gloss.25 Second, the need to obey God’s commands is affirmed by Qoheleth’s teaching (Eccl 5.4-6 [5-7]) as it explicitly draws on the law regarding vows from Deut. 23.22-24 [21-23]. This text warns against disregarding the Deuteronomic instructions by trivializing making vows (see also the suggestive reference to a ‫ׁשומר מצוה‬, literally ‘a commandkeeper’, in Eccl. 8.5). Third, Eccl. 5.5 [6] (‘Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?’), speaks of the threat of, most likely pre-mortem, divine judgment. Regardless of whether or not one considers Eccl. 12.9-14 redactionally to be a secondary addition to the book, as many scholars do for a number of reasons, there is insufficient cause to consider the key assertions of vv. 13-14 to be theologically at odds with the rest of the book, including the passage under examination in the present study. Fox affirms, succinctly, with regard to the closing admonition to ‘revere God and observe His commandments’ that ‘Koheleth would not disagree’.26 The key affirmation of the epilogue 24.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, p. 82. 25.  See D. Michel, Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet (BZAW, 183; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), p. 257. 26.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, p. 85.



Schultz  The Reuse of Deuteronomy’s ‘Law of the Vow’ 131

of Ecclesiastes—namely that reverence for God is a foundational relationship that is closely associated with obeying his commandments—is also emphasized in Deuteronomy. The most significant corresponding verses in this regard in Deuteronomy are 6.2, 8.6, 13.5 [4], and 17.19, although they use several different words to refer to the legal requirements (the following translations are from niv): 6.2—‘so that you, your children, and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands (‫ )את־כל חקתיו ומצותיו‬that I give you’. 8.6—‘Observe the commands (‫ )את־מצות‬of the Lord your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him’. 13.5 [4]—‘It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands (‫ )ואת־מצותיו‬and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.’ 17.19—‘he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees (‫’)את־כל־דברי התורה הזאת ואת־החקים האלה‬.

The close verbal and conceptual relationship between Eccl. 12.13-14 and Deuteronomy is clear here. As William Brown concludes with respect to Ecclesiastes, ‘For the epilogist, as for the Deuteronomist, true wisdom is displayed in obedience’,27 and the sage Qoheleth surely would nod in assent.28 Conclusion Taken together, the intertextual connections discussed in this essay suggest that both the book of Deuteronomy and the ‘Deuteronomistic History’ were quite influential on the thinking of both Qoheleth and the final author/editor of the book of Ecclesiastes. Why would a sage cite the law of the vow from Deuteronomy 23? Examining the preceding textual unit, Eccl. 4.1-16, and comparing it with 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] may provide a hint. Ecclesiastes 4.1-16 is a gloomy section that describes societal fractures 27.  W.P. Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 118. 28.  This is also the conclusion of G.D. Salyer, who writes that ‘the implied author stresses what Qoheleth himself stressed; that the commandments of God are important (cf. 5.3-5)’ (Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes [JSOTSup, 327; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], p. 375).

132

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

without offering any solutions or even mentioning God, while 4.17–5.6 [5.1-7] mentions God six times and employs imperatival verb forms for the first time in the book. Perhaps Qoheleth may be suggesting by this juxtaposition of texts that the addressee of his book may be tempted, like Jephthah in Judges 11, to utter a vow in order to leverage God’s assistance in the midst of a puzzling and impersonal world, prompting the first admonition issued in the book. For the author of Ecclesiastes, an insincere vow would serve as a vivid example of the kind of foolish cultic behavior that could ‘backfire’. This would parallel the later warnings in 7.16-17 against resorting, in response to unrewarded righteous conduct (7.15), to the kind of extreme behavior that will not protect against injustice but might instead provoke divine punishment. Is Qoheleth’s world a moral chaos in which one cannot know anything for certain, as often claimed, or does it rather operate according to the Deuteronomic pronouncements regarding covenantal blessings and curses? It is beyond the scope of the present study to seek to address this fully here, and there may be insufficient intertextual evidence in Ecclesiastes for a definitive answer to this question. This study, at least, has argued that Qoheleth and the book of Ecclesiastes as a whole affirm some central covenantal claims of the book of Deuteronomy. It is clear, for example, that disobeying the instructions in Deuteronomy 23 regarding making vows can bring an individual under divine judgment, because, in the words of Qoheleth, ‘it will go better with those who fear God’, but, with regard to the wicked, ‘it will not go well with them (Eccl. 8.12-13). In the meantime, the authors of both Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes29 strongly urge their listeners to rejoice before God as they enjoy his everyday blessings of food and drink, spouse, and life itself. The former charges them: ‘There, in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the Lord your God has blessed you’ (Deut. 12.7). And the latter echoes this encouragement: ‘Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do’ (Eccl. 9.7, niv).30

29.  In light of the Solomonic persona that clearly underlies Qoheleth’s description in Eccl. 2–3 of his efforts and achievements, it is intriguing to note that the Solomonic era is characterized in 1–2 Kings as a time when ‘they ate, they drank and they were happy’ (1 Kgs 4.20). 30.  See also Deut. 12.12, 18; 14.26; 16.11, 14, 15; 24.5; 26.11; 27.7; 33.18; Eccl. 2.10; 3.12, 22; 5.18-19 [19-20]; 8.15; 10.19; 11.8-9.

S ome R e flec t i on s on I n t erpr e ti ng A llusi on : T he C as e of C r eat i on M ot i fs i n I sai ah *

Job Y. Jindo

Note for the reader: The theme of the present volume—“Inner-Biblical Allusion and Poetry in Hebrew Wisdom”—is extremely rich, as it integrates three equally complex subjects (inner-biblical allusions, biblical poetry, and Hebrew wisdom). I cannot discuss all of them equally within this limited framework, and so I shall focus on allusions at the expense of the other subjects. Indeed, this research started as an analysis of presumed allusions to Hebrew Wisdom in Isaiah 11—more specifically, the notion of the ‘knowledge and fear of YHWH’ (Isa. 11.2), which is generally considered a central category of the biblical wisdom tradition. However, I soon realized that this analysis can elucidate two important interpretive issues: (1) some of the basic problems inherent in the conventional scholarly approach to biblical genres (esp., the biblical wisdom tradition); (2) several features of literary allusion that are key to an integrative reading of biblical literature. As I have discussed the former issue elsewhere, I will address it only indirectly in the present study. I will focus on the latter issue and extend the scope of the discussion far beyond the biblical wisdom tradition.

Our interpretation of allusion reflects our command of the culture in which it is employed.1 In cultural discourse, we do not communicate * I thank Shmuel Sandberg, Eli Rusyn, and Ed Greenstein for valuable editorial suggestions. I dedicate this essay to Dr. Avraham Holtz, Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary, who introduced me, among many other things, to the explicit and the illusive in poetic language. 1.  I use the term allusion to mean a tacit reference to any frame of reference, or any part of the same, which the intended audience is expected to know. Consider Earl Miner, who defines literary allusion as follows, ‘A poet’s deliberate incorporation of identifiable elements from other sources, preceding or contemporaneous, textual or

134

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

entirely new information but rather refer to the information already known by our audience. Therefore, if I try to understand an utterance alone, I will probably not understand it—I may understand the meaning of each and every word spoken while still failing to ‘get it’, for I am missing the common store of information on which the discourse is based. This referential feature of communication is heightened in literary allusion, as it requires of readers an intensive involvement in the process of interpretation: we as readers are expected to identify its presence (that there is an allusion),2 its referent (what it alludes to), its semantics (how it means),3 and its pragmatics (why it is used—namely, its function).4 If we get any of those questions wrong, our interpretation fails. And yet, of course, the text nowhere explains how to identify allusions because its intended audience is expected to know how to identify them beforehand, and for the text to do so is to diminish the value of allusion. Literary allusion thus challenges our cultural competence.

extratextual’; Earl Miner, ‘Allusion’, in Alex Preminger, Terry V.F. Brogan, and Frank J. Warnke (eds.), The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1993), pp. 38-40 (38-39). For the difference between allusion, intertextuality, influence, echo, and exegesis, see Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 6-31, and works cited there. As I see it, allusion is a subcategory of reference, to which inner-textual reference—including inner-biblical exegesis—also belongs. The distinction between a (mere) referential statement and an allusive one is not always rigid: a (mere) referential utterance may be construed as an allusive statement if the listener/reader encodes a meta-message behind, or between, what is outwardly stated. 2.  Note also that the presence of an allusion in a text can never be established before fully interpreting the passage. In other words, we do not begin our interpretation with a proof that there is an allusion in the text. Rather, we begin with an assumption of the allusion, which is retrospectively justified by the richness of the interpretation. See my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (HSM, 64; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), p. 178. 3.  Here, ‘how’ (and not ‘what’) is intentional—the issue at stake is how allusion constitutes its meaning. Cf. John Ciardi, How Does a Poem Mean? (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edn, 1975), and Edward Greenstein, ‘How Does Parallelism Mean?’, in S.A. Geller (ed.), A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature (JQRSup; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 41-70. 4.  The function of literary allusion is diverse. It may be used, for example, simply to display the erudition of the author; to enrich the work by incorporating secondary



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 135

What of allusions in biblical literature? The issue is far more problematic when we seek to develop, or recover, a mode of biblical literacy that enables us to appreciate the text to its fullest.5 Our understanding of the shared traditions and conventions of biblical authors—without which we miss the presence of allusions or misunderstand their referents, let alone their semantics and pragmatics—is still, and perhaps forever will be, limited. Furthermore, there is an inherent circularity inevitable in this analytical process: on the one hand, we try to grasp the underlying traditions and conventions through understanding biblical literature; on the other hand, the understanding of this literature depends on how we comprehend its traditions and conventions. True, this interdependence is crucial and, indeed, necessary for any act of interpretation because we need to start somewhere, with some hypothetical understanding.6 The

meanings; to evoke certain experiences shared with the audience; to bolster the authority of the alluding and/or the alluded texts; to object or argue implicitly with a predecessor or other text; to communicate esoteric or radical messages only to a very limited audience; or merely to avoid an otherwise wordy articulation. For more on this in relation to biblical literature, see Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 18-19. Below, I elucidate, inter alia, the cognitive function of allusion in biblical texts that has not received the analysis it deserves. 5.  For recent treatments of this subject in biblical studies, see, e.g., Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture; Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (JSOTSup, 370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); Risto Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner Biblical Allusions in Second and Third Isaiah (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006); Michael Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS, 507; London: T&T Clark International, 2009); Yair Zakovitch, Inner-Biblical and Extra-Biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them (ed. Avraham Shapira; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009 [in Hebrew]). For inner-biblical allusions in Isaiah, consider also Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 240-329. Previously, attention was paid more to the phenomenon of innerbiblical exegesis, a classic work of which, of course, is Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); cf. also James Kugel’s review article, ‘The Bible’s Earliest Interpreters’, Prooftexts 7 (1987), pp. 66-79. 6.  As Gadamer puts it, ‘A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting. He projects a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again, the initial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working

136

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

problem, rather, is not its circularity but its potential constraints: scholars, especially form critics, have sought to recover such underlying categories in order to enhance our literary understanding of biblical texts, but those categories and methods—if misconstructed—can work against us, and constrain us from achieving a richer and more integrative interpretation. What, therefore, is meant to enhance our interpretation could actually diminish it. A question then arises: What do we need to take into account about allusion in order to avoid this pitfall? Or, put differently, what features of allusion should we keep in mind when interpreting biblical literature? I will elucidate four such features of allusion through examining images in Isaiah that allude to a mythological category of creation and primordial history. Of particular interest are two aspects of mythological thinking that are frequently manifested in ancient literature: its conception of time and being.7 The mythological conception of time is cyclical,

out this fore-projection, which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there’; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; London: Continuum, 2nd edn, 2004), pp. 268-305 (269). 7.  I briefly discussed this subject in my short article, ‘On Myth and History in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology’, VT 55 (2005), pp. 412-15. It is frequently assumed that prophetic eschatology is more historically oriented, while apocalyptic eschatology is mythically oriented. However, the relationship between myth and history in prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology is more complex than meets the eye. As I argued in that article, a more nuanced understanding is in order: that ‘in principle, prophetic eschatology is a history understood mythically, whereas apocalyptic eschatology is a myth understood historically. In other words, the former is an outlook in which historical events are described in mythical language, while the latter is a mindset whose mythical framework is believed to unfold in concrete historical incidents’ (p. 411). A rejoinder written by Lorenzo DiTommaso, ‘History and Apocalyptic Eschatology: A Reply to J. Y. Jindo’, VT 56 (2006), pp. 413-18, strikes wide of the mark, stating that ‘J. Y. Jindo proposes the thesis that “history is what characterizes prophetic eschatology and myth is what typifies apocalyptic eschatology” ’ (p. 413). DiTommaso, who criticizes me for assuming no concern for history in apocalyptic literature, fails to understand that I argue against that thesis in order to present a more nuanced approach. Attentive readers will notice that, strangely, DiTommaso ends the quotation from my article there and does not include the sentence that follows which, in fact, qualifies that thesis, ‘This is not to say, however, that myth plays no role in prophetic literature, or that history has no place in the apocalyptic tradition’ (p. 413).



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 137

as this mindset projects a longing for the eternal, the perpetual, and the harmonious to the remote past, to which it aspires to return. Put differently, the final stage of the world for myth is a recapitulation of its ideal beginning (Gunkel’s dictum of Endzeit gleicht Urzeit [‘the end resembles the beginning’]).8 Of equal importance is its binary mode of ontological conception, which classifies everything into one of two categories: order and chaos. In creation stories, for example, ‘light’, ‘solid earth’, ‘garden’, and ‘life’ represent order, whereas ‘darkness’, ‘(raging) waters’, ‘desert’, and ‘death’ symbolize chaos.9 Combining these two aspects, myth perceives the world as an arena where the cosmic struggle between order and chaos unfolds, with a hope that chaos will be defeated while order will prevail, or else formulate a scheme to ensure the same. I will discuss two examples of allusion. The first example is a messianic vision of the branch from Jesse in Isa. 11.1-10, which describes the ideal future as a return to the Edenic harmony of the primordial period, reflecting the cyclical conception of time. The second example is the recurring metaphor of nations as ‘raging waters’ in Isaiah, thus involving the binary perception of reality. Each example will illustrate two distinct features of allusion; hence, four features in total. First, I shall examine each example separately; I will then address the critical insights revealed through their discussions. A methodological consideration informs the discussions of the examples. To reach an integrative reading of allusions in biblical literature requires two complementary considerations: first, how seemingly heterogeneous elements in the same literary unit can be seen as alluding to the same frame of reference and, second, how the homogeneous elements in different literary units can be similarly viewed. The first discussion elaborates on the former and the second on the latter.

8.  Hermann Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney Jr; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2006); originally published in German as Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschictliche Untersuchung über Gen. 1 und Ap. Jon 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895). Cf. also Mircea Eliade’s seminal work, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History (trans. Willard R. Trask; New York: Bollingen, 1954), and Theodor H. Gaster, ‘Myth and Story’, Numen 1 (1954), pp. 184-212. 9.  For this classification, consider, e.g., Elena Cassin, La splendeur divine: Introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne (Paris: Mouton, 1968), p. 52.

138

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Two final remarks must be made before proceeding further. First, the examples of allusion which follow are drawn from a different biblical passage than the one under primary consideration. In discussing these allusions below, I do not claim that any passage which I reference existed as a fixed text when each allusion was made. Indeed, it may have been the case that an alluded text or image was still being circulated at the time, either orally or in written form, with different versions and variations.10 Second, the objective of this study is to examine an interpretive issue of allusion rather than to determine a single, correct meaning of a given text. The study of any work of literature—whether approached with the same exegetical principles or not—offers more than one possible interpretation; this holds particularly true for a text as ancient and complex as Isaiah. My purpose in this study is thus not to contend with alternative readings of Isaiah; rather, I explore how our understanding of particular facets of allusion can deepen an integrative interpretation of biblical literature.11

10.  The issue at hand involves a complex subject of textual fluidity in the history of biblical literature; on this, see, e.g., Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 3rd edn, 2012), pp. 155-90; James A. Sanders, ‘Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon’, in Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (OBO, 109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 203-17, and works cited there. 11.  I presume the point made here is, perhaps, too obvious to those versed in literary theory to merit mention. Nonetheless, I am compelled to state it, given that critics of my previous work, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered—in which I likewise presented a reading of Jeremiah as an interpretive experiment—misconceived it as presenting a normative (how one should understand the text) rather than hermeneutic claim (how one can understand it); see pp. 2-5, where I state the ‘paths not taken’. The objective of the present study, as well as of my previous work, is to understand how we understand what we understand, which is no less important than acquiring the knowledge of languages, archaeology, history, textual criticism, and other major disciplines in the field. On this issue, see Edward L. Greenstein, Essays on Biblical Method and Translation (BJS, 92; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), and his forthcoming Reader Responsibility: The Making of Meaning in Biblical Narrative (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark).



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 139

EXAMPLE 1: The Renewal of the Davidic Dynasty and Edenic Harmony (Isaiah 11.1-10) PART 1: ‘An Ideal Ruler from Jesse’s Stock’ (11.1-5) (1) But12 a shoot/scepter (‫)חטר‬13 shall emerge (‫)יצא‬14 from Jesse’s stump, And a branch (‫)נצר‬15 shall grow out of his stock. (2) The spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might,16 12.  It is disputed where this messianic vision begins (whether at 11.1 or 10.33?) and ends (whether at 11.5, 8, 9, or 10?). For a brief overview, see Lea Mazor, ‘Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot (Isaiah 10:33-11:9)’, in Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (eds.), Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), pp. 73-90 (73). I understand 11.1 to be the beginning of this vision, while this vision, as it stands, is integral to the preceding unit. I take the vision’s end at 11.10, which forms with v. 1 an inclusio of this vision, for both vv. 1 and 10 contain the motif of ‘Jesse’s stock’. Note, however, that in terms of content, v. 10 is more integral to its subsequent passage because both v. 10 and the following passage concern themselves with a radical transformation in the international sphere. Accordingly, I regard v. 10 as a pivot—it concludes this vision and begins a new section. For this kind of transitional patterning, see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 69-70. Cf. also Mazor, ‘Myth, History, and Utopia’, pp. 85-86. Isa. 11.3a may also function as a pivot; see note 18 below. In my survey of the treatments of this vision, I find Zakovitch’s discussion the most attentive and insightful as to the literary artistry of the vision; see Yair Zakovitch, ‘Who Proclaims Peace, Who Brings Good Tiding’: Seven Visions of Jerusalem’s Peace (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2004 [in Hebrew]), pp. 71-101. 13.  As has often been noted, the Hebrew word ‫ חטר‬means both ‘scepter, rod’ and ‘shoot, twig’; cf. the Akkadian ḫaṭṭu which also can mean ‘scepter’ as well as ‘branch, twig’; see CAD [Ḫ], pp. 153-55. 14.  As Zakovitch notes, the verb ‫ יצא‬may refer to both the metaphor (shoot) and its referent (ruler), for it can refer to both sprouting (e.g., ‘Let thistles grow [‫]יצא‬ instead of wheat’ [Job 31.40a]) and childbirth (e.g., ‘I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come [‫ ]יצא‬from your body’ [2 Sam. 7.12]); see Zakovitch, Who Proclaims Peace, p. 78. 15.  Here, this word may be used as an implicit pun on ‫נזר‬, ‘crown’ (2 Sam. 1.10). 16.  The ruler/king in antiquity had two basic responsibilities toward his dominion: (1) to maintain the internal social order and (2) to protect his people and territory from the external invasion and war. Consider Judg. 3.10: ‘The Spirit of YHWH came upon him [Otheniel], and he judged Israel and went out to war’—in this passage too, the spirit of YHWH is a condition for fulfilling those two leadership responsibilities. It appears that the first two attributes in Isa. 11.2, ‘wisdom’ (‫)חכמה‬ and ‘understanding’ (‫)בינה‬, are pertinent to the first kind of domestic responsibility;

140

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms The spirit of the knowledge and fear of YHWH.17 His smelling/breathing shall be in the fear of YHWH,18 He shall neither judge by what his eyes see, Nor decide by what his ears hear;19 (4) But with justice he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, And with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. (5) Justice shall be the girdle of his loins, And faithfulness the girdle of his waist. (3)

cf. Solomon’s request, ‘Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people’ (1 Kgs 3.9), to which God replies, ‘Behold, I give you a wise (‫)חכם‬ and understanding (‫ )נבון‬heart’ (1 Kgs 3.12; cf. also Gen. 41.33). On the other hand, the second two attributes, ‘counsel’ (‫ )עצה‬and ‘might’ (‫)גבורה‬, are relevant for the second kind of military and security responsibility; cf. ‘counsel (‫ )עצה‬and might (‫ )גבורה‬for war’ (2 Kgs 18.20 = Isa. 36.5). 17.  It is not clear whether ‘the knowledge and fear of YHWH’ means ‘the knowledge of YHWH and the fear of YHWH’ or ‘knowledge in general and the fear of YHWH in particular’, namely, whether the ‘YHWH’ in this phrase is also in the genitive relationship with the ‘knowledge’ or only with the ‘fear’; cf. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 473. I understand it in the former sense—the ‘knowledge’ to be the ‘knowledge of YHWH’ in particular as in v. 9. Thus, vv. 2 and 9 form another inclusio of this passage (see n. 12 above). 18.  Isaiah 11.3a (’‫ )והריחו ביראת ה‬is difficult. Many commentators assume this to be a dittograph of the preceding line (’‫ )רוח דעת ויראת ה‬and therefore delete it. I am inclined to maintain this phrase and regard it as a pivot—contextually, it belongs to the following description of the effect of the spirit in v. 3, and yet semantically, it shares a similar wording with the preceding description of the spirit in v. 2. It thus allows the discourse to shift from the description of the spirit in v. 2 to the description of its effect in v. 3. Note also that if the phrase is kept as is, vv. 3-4 have a description of all the basic constitutive elements (functions) of the face: nose (breathing), eyes (seeing), ears (hearing), and mouth (uttering). For more on Isa. 11.3a, see, e.g., Jeremiah Unterman, ‘The (Non)sense of Smell in Isaiah 11:3’, Hebrew Studies 33 (1992), pp. 17-23; Ian D. Ritchie, ‘The Nose Knows: Bodily Knowing in Isaiah 11.3’, JSOT 87 (2000), pp. 59-73; Arie Shifman, ‘ “A Scent” of the Spirit: Exegesis of an Enigmatic Verse (Isaiah 11:3)’, JBL 131 (2012), pp. 241-49. 19.  The second half of the verse is reminiscent of David’s anointment by Samuel; esp. ‘for YHWH does not see as humans see; they look on the outward appearance, but YHWH looks on the heart’ (1 Sam. 16.7). In biblical thinking, the ability to perceive and judge according to what is behind the world of appearances is an optimal attribute that humans should (re)gain (see below).



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 141 PART 2: ‘The Radical Transformation of the Natural World’ (11.6-10) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the kid, The calf and the young lion and the fatling20 together; And a little child shall lead them. (7) The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young shall lie down together; And the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. (8) A babe (‫)יונק‬21 shall play over a viper’s hole, And the weaned child shall put his hand in the adder’s den. (9) There shall be no evil (‫ )ירעו‬or corruption (‫ )ישׁחיתו‬in all my holy mountain; For the earth (‫ )הארץ‬shall be full (‫ )מלאה‬of the knowledge of YHWH, As the waters cover the sea. (10) And on that day there shall be a stock of Jesse, standing as a signal for peoples; For gentiles shall seek his counsel, And his abode shall be glorious.22 (6)

In order to address issues arising from the use of allusion, I shall focus on the relationship between the first and second halves of Isa. 11.1-10, which has perplexed both ancient and modern commentators. The first half describes the renewal of the Davidic dynasty and the emergence of the divinely inspired just ruler (vv. 1-5), whereas the second half portrays a radical transformation of the natural world, the end of rapacity and hostility among all creatures (vv. 6-10). A question then arises: What does the emergence of the just king have to do with the animals

20.  Or ‘shall feed’ (‫ ירעו‬or ‫ )ימראו‬instead of ‘and the fatling’ (‫ ;)ומריא‬see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 (AB, 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 263. 21.  The word ‫ יונק‬can also mean ‘shoot’ as in Isa. 53.2: ‘For he has grown before him like a shoot (‫)כיונק‬, and like a root out of dry ground’; cf. also ‫‘( יניקה‬shoot’; Ezek. 17.4) and ‫‘( יונקת‬shoot’; e.g., Ezek. 17.22; Hos. 14.7; Ps. 80.12 [11]; Job 8.16). The vision thus implicitly connects the image of the babe in the second part to that of the shoot growing from Jesse’s stock in the first part. For the relation between Isa. 11.1-10 and Isa. 52–53, see Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 94-96. For the cosmic nuances of this infancy image, consider it in light of Ps. 8.3 [2]; see Stephen A. Geller, ‘Wisdom, Nature and Piety in Some Biblical Psalms’, in Tzvi Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 101-21 (108-109). 22.  As noted in n. 12 above, I see this verse as a pivot—concluding this vision and starting a new unit.

142

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

changing their very nature? In other words, how can we account for the abrupt shift in depictions within this vision from the seemingly nonmythological to the mythological? Five solutions have been proposed:23 (a) Allegorical Solution: The predator animals are symbols for the evil in society or mighty nations that prey upon weak nations; hence, the second part describes international peace the ideal ruler will establish in the future.24 (b) Non-mythological Solution: The second half reflects a pastoral concern for the safety of domestic animals and children, depicting, in somewhat hyperbolic but non-mythological terms, the pastoral tranquility which it is hoped the new regime will achieve in the future kingdom.25 (c) Generic Solution: This vision is a conflation of two originally independent units, or the second part is a later addition to the first, to express a general aspiration for life without fear and violence; accordingly, it is no wonder that very few internal links can be found between the two parts.26 (d) Literary-Ideological Solution: The mythological imagery of the second part is a typical form attested throughout the ancient Near East to announce the inauguration of a new king; therefore, the abruptness and heterogeneous impression exists nowhere but in the mind of readers who do not read the text in light of its own literary tradition.27

23.  These solutions are not necessarily exclusive to each other; a certain degree of conflation can be seen in scholarly opinions. 24.  See, e.g., Abraham Ibn Ezra on Isa. 11.6; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws Concerning Kings and Wars, 12.1, Guide of the Perplexed, 3.11, and Treatise on Resurrection, 10.6; Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39 (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 106-107. 25.  E.g., Gene M. Tucker, ‘The Book of Isaiah 1–39’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), VI, pp. 27-305 (142-43); John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC, 24; Nashville: Nelson Reference, rev. edn, 2005), p. 212. 26.  E.g., R.E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 122; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1983), pp. 253, 260; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 100-104. 27.  E.g., Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, pp. 459-85, esp. pp. 462-65; Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem:



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 143

(e) Cosmological Solution: There is a general biblical notion that assumes a link between moral and natural orders—the fulfilling of the divine will by humans as a precondition for establishing natural harmony (e.g., Lev. 26.6; Isa. 35.9; Ezek. 34.25; Hos. 2.20; Job 5.23). The messianic restoration of justice and equity in the human sphere will result in universal peace in the natural world, with the second part a natural consequence of the first.28 These solutions all assume the imagery of nature transformed—e.g., the wolf dwelling with the lamb, a babe playing over a snake’s hole, and the divine knowledge filling the earth as waters covering the sea—as alluding to a very general, if not entirely vague, idea. Such readings, however, strikingly overlook what is essential to poetry in general and to Isaiah, the paramount poet-prophet, in particular. A thorough analysis of poetry—the most nuanced and elevated form of verbal artistry—requires a more meticulous study than has been provided. I therefore propose the following hermeneutical principle: the literary text may use and arrange images in a very precise, deliberate manner such that the images—which might first appear vague or incoherent—may in fact be intended to express a rhetorical or poetic concept substantively fitted to its context; and, accordingly, the reader should consider the potential specificity of allusions and the precision of their arrangements. Indeed, a closer look at this vision reveals that the use of images and their arrangement can be interpreted as precisely framing a unified concept: they are all arranged in an order identical to the sequence of primordial history in Genesis. That is, vv. 6-7 of Isaiah 11 allude to the creation narrative in Genesis 1: the image of the wolf dwelling with the lamb, the cow and the bear together, and the lion, like the ox, eating straw is reminiscent of the primordial state of all animals as herbivorous (Gen. 1.29-30).29 Furthermore, the image Magnes Press, 1995), pp. 57-74; Weinfeld, ‘The Protest against Imperialism in Ancient Israelite Prophecy’, in S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), pp. 169-82; Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 (FOTL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 203; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 262-65. 28.  See, e.g., Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 101-102; Mazor, ‘Myth, History, and Utopia’. On the relationship between nature and piety in the so-called wisdom psalms, see Geller, ‘Wisdom, Nature and Piety’; Zakovitch, Who Proclaims Peace, p. 90. 29.  For the biblical notion of all animals as originally herbivorous, see the commentaries. Consider also depictions of primordial history in Mesopotamian

144

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

of a little child shepherding animals evokes God creating humans in the image of God: namely, delegating to them divine authority and blessing them to be sovereign over nature (Gen. 1.26-28)—animals will obey even a little child qua human. The use of this child/suckling image, instead of an adult or heroic figure, not only coheres with the image of a royal child which appears elsewhere in Isaiah (cf. chs. 7–9) but it also resonates with a traditional theme of biblical literature in general: that God executes his miraculous plans by the use of seemingly weak agents (e.g., Judg. 6.15; Ps. 8.3 [2]).30 Next, v. 8 alludes to the Eden narrative in Genesis 3: the image of a babe playing over a viper’s hole and an infant unharmed by the snake resonates with a primordial state prior to the divine curse of enmity set between the children of humans and the offspring of the serpent (Gen. 3.15). Verse 9, in turn, alludes to the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9: the image of neither evil nor corruption found in God’s sacred mountain is a metonymic reversal of the state right before the flood, where the whole earth was imbued with evil and corruption (Gen. 6.5, 11-12), whereas the earth filled with the ‘knowledge of YHWH’ like the waters covering the sea corresponds, again inversely, with the earth filled with ‘wrongdoing’ (‫ ;חמס‬Gen. 6.11)31 and then covered with the waters of the flood (Gen. 7.19, 20). Here we also have a cluster of words and roots that appear in the flood narrative: ‫‘( רע"ע‬to do evil’; cf. Gen. 6.5), ‫‘( שׁח"ת‬to corrupt’; cf. Gen. 6.11-12), ‫‘( מל"א‬to fill’; cf. Gen. 6.11), ‫‘( הארץ‬the earth’; Gen. 6.11-12), ‫‘( המים‬the waters’; cf. Gen. 7.19-20), ‫‘( כס"ה‬to cover’; cf. Gen. 7.19-20). The correspondences between Isaiah 11 and Genesis 1–9 can be put as follows: literature, such as that of Dilmun, the Sumerian Garden of Eden: ‘In Dilmun…the lion slew not, the wolf was not carrying off lambs’ (‘Enki and Ninsikila/Ninhursaga’, translated by Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987], p. 189). 30.  Geller, ‘Wisdom, Nature and Piety’, pp. 108-109. Mazor understands the image of a little child as alluding to the ‘growth of the First Man in the Garden of Eden prior to his transgression and expulsion’. Her reading assumes that the images are arranged chronologically in the reversed order; for the image of a babe playing over a viper’s hole in v. 8 alluding to a stage of growth earlier than that of a little child leading animals in v. 7; Mazor, ‘Myth, History, and Utopia’, p. 78. 31.  ‘The earth (‫ )הארץ‬became corrupt (‫ )ותשׁחת‬before God, and the earth (‫)הארץ‬ was filled (‫ )ותמלא‬with wrongdoing (‫( ’)חמס‬Gen. 6.11). I follow Ed Greenstein’s suggestion (in an oral communication) that the Hebrew word ‫חמס‬, usually translated as ‘violence’ or ‘lawlessness’, is better rendered as ‘wrongdoing’ or ‘treachery’; cf. Gen. 16.5; Ezek. 28.16; Amos 3.10; Ps. 27.12 [11]; for its usage in combination with ‫‘( שׁקר‬deception, disappointment, falsity’), cf. Deut. 19.16, 18.



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 145

Isaiah 11 Genesis 1–9 = The Creation Narrative (ch. 1) Animals and Humans (vv. 6-7) Carnivorous animals become Animals are all herbivorous (1.29-30). herbivorous. Humans are the sovereign of nature A little child leads animals. (1.26-28).   = The Eden Narrative (ch. 3) Snakes and Humans (v. 8) ‘…a babe shall play over a viper’s hole Enmity set between the children and an infant pass his hand’. of humans and the offspring of the serpent (3.15).   = The Flood Narrative (chs. 6–9) No Corruption and the Water Motif (v. 9) Human evilness (‫ )רע"ע‬was great (6.5). Neither evil (‫ )רע"ע‬nor corruption (‫ )שׁח"ת‬will be performed in the sacred The earth (‫ )הארץ‬became corrupt mountain. (‫ )שׁח"ת‬and it was filled (‫ )מל"א‬with The earth (‫ )הארץ‬will be filled (‫)מל"א‬ wrongdoing; all flesh had corrupted with the knowledge of YHWH as (‫ )שׁח"ת‬its way (6.11-12). waters (‫ )כמים‬cover (‫ )כס"ה‬the sea The waters of the Flood (‫)המים‬ (v. 9). covered (‫ )כס"ה‬the earth (7.19, 20).

As the chart shows, we can read the images in Isa. 11.6-10 as all being used in a precise and deliberate fashion, alluding not only to the original state of cosmic harmony but also to the sequence of primeval history. Thus, images which first seem only vaguely significant are in fact carefully designed to communicate a particular concept precisely fitted to the context within which they appear. A question then arises: How far does the significance of this artistic precision extend? To understand the scope of this integrative reading, we can consider how it satisfies three points: (1) why the emergence of the future ideal king and the restoration of cosmic order are juxtaposed (this excludes solution c); (2) why the second part of this vision alludes to the primordial cosmic harmony (this excludes solutions a and b); and (3) why the images in the second part are all arranged according to the sequence of primordial history (this makes solutions d and e insufficient).32

32.  The sequence matters in the first part as well. As Zakovitch points out, the description of the ideal king gradually shifts downward from the top: from the spirit that rests upon the king (v. 2), to the king’s eyes and ears (v. 3), to his mouth and his lips (v. 4), and, then, to his loins and waist. This order of the depiction reflects the gradual shift of the prophet’s gaze; cf. the depiction of the lovers in Song 4.1-6;

146

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

I suggest that the most plausible integrative reading of this prophecy identifies cosmological significance in the inspired bearing of the messianic king; namely, the ‘knowledge and fear of YHWH’. This attribute is often regarded as a category central to the biblical wisdom tradition, and some critics even assume the presence of this attribute in our messianic vision as indicative of wisdom influence.33 As I see it, however, such a mechanical analysis of formal features obliterates the conceptual unity of the vision; for, as I have shown elsewhere, the attribute is rather fundamental to biblical religion in general and by no means a concept unique to the wisdom tradition.34 A relevant text is 2 Kgs 17.24-41, which presents a story about new immigrants from Syria and Mesopotamia who were settled in Samaria right after its destruction. When these settlers first arrived, they neither revered the ‘God of the land’, namely, YHWH, nor knew or practiced his ordinances. Accordingly, YHWH sent lions to kill these immigrants—put differently, the natural world of the land, as it were, abhorred them.35 5.10-15. See Zakovitch, Who Proclaims Peace, p. 88. Accordingly, the motifs and images in the first part of this messianic vision are also arranged in a very deliberate manner. 33.  E.g., J. William Whedbee, Isaiah & Wisdom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 141: ‘Isaiah utilizes a whole spate of wisdom terms to describe the character of coming Ruler’. Cf., also, Wildberger’s comment on the use of the term ‫‘( דעת‬knowledge’) in Isa. 11.2, ‘Isaiah has borrowed from the terminology used by wisdom, which deals plainly and simply with the knowledge in general’; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, p. 473; cf. pp. 15, 202, and also, Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), pp. 596-615. On this attribute in wisdom literature, see, e.g., von Rad’s seminal treatment of these concepts; Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. James D. Martin; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 53-73, and also Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB, 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 69-71, 111-13, and works cited there. For wisdom in Isaiah, see Lindsay Wilson, ‘Wisdom in Isaiah’, in David G. Firth and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), pp. 145-67, and works cited there. 34.  See my ‘On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” as a Condition for Human Existence’, Biblical Interpretation 19 (2012), pp. 433-53. I primarily discuss the fear of God, in conjunction with the knowledge of God. In the Bible, ‘God’ in the ‘knowledge of God’ or the ‘fear of God’ can refer either to YHWH in particular or the divine in general. See n. 48 below. 35.  Cf., the idea of a land spewing out the inhabitants who defile the land by violating the ordinances of its deity in Lev. 18.25, 28; 20.22. It is not always clear whether the process is automatic (once the intensity of the defilement reaches a critical mass, the nature/land automatically responds to the violators, e.g., ‘the land



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 147

Strikingly, the issue was resolved once the immigrants learned ‫איך ייראו‬ '‫‘( את ה‬how to fear YHWH’ [v. 28]).36 The underlying premise is straightforward: the residents of a land, be they citizens or strangers, must fear and revere its patron deity, namely, recognize its authority and observe its ordinances.37 And we can assume the same to hold true on the cosmic level: the residents of the created world, be they animals or humans, must recognize the authority of its creator and conform to his ordinances.38 As has often been noted, biblical authors conceive of the ‘knowledge and fear of God’ as a property common to all human beings: as a fundamental attribute that constitutes the normative mode of human existence.39 This attribute entails a recognition of one’s status within the universe spewed out its inhabitants’ [Lev. 18.25]) or rather interventional (once that intensity becomes intolerable, YHWH himself takes action against the violators, e.g., ‘the nations which I cast out before you’ [Lev. 18.24]). I am not certain if and how much biblical authors themselves made a clear distinction between the two. 36.  Many English translations render the verb ‫ ירא‬in this passage as ‘to worship’, which is a secondary meaning; see n. 37 below. For the phrase ‘how to fear YHWH’, see Shalom Paul, ‘Sargon’s Administrative Diction in II Kings 17:27’, JBL 88 (1969), pp. 73-74; Shawn Zelig Aster, ‘ “They Feared God”/“They Did Not Fear God”: On the Use of YHWH and yĕrē’ YHWH and yărē ’et YHWH in 2 Kings 17:2441’, in Chaim Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), I, pp. 135-41. 37.  In biblical literature, ‘to fear God’ and ‘to observe his ordinances’ are inherently related; cf. the exiled priest who came to Samaria to teach the new settlers '‫‘( איך ייראו את ה‬how to fear YHWH’ [v. 28]) was sent by the Assyrian king to teach them ‫‘( משׁפט אלהי הארץ‬the ordinances of the God of the land’ [v. 27])—the two phrases appear to be functionally equivalent to each other. The same holds true for the Akkadian word palāḫu ‘to fear, honor, venerate’, which can mean ‘to serve, care for, perform obligations, perform service’: see CAD 12 [P], pp. 45-47. Cf. Aramaic ‫פלח‬, ‘to serve/worship’ (Dan. 3.12, 14, 17), as well as the Rabbinic Hebrew ‫פלחן‬, ‘worship’. 38.  This also applies to the law of adoption attested in a Nuzi document: in order for the adopted child to live in the house of the adoptive parent and to maintain its inheritance rights, the child must ‘listen to’ and ‘revere’ the adoptive parent. See E.A. Speiser, ‘A Significant New Will from Nuzi’, JCS 17 (1963), pp. 65-71. As I discussed elsewhere, this is a key to understanding the prophetic use of the verbs ‘to listen’ and ‘to revere’, especially when the prophet uses either verb in conjunction with the metaphor of YHWH and Israel as parent and child; see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 115-17. 39.  See, e.g., Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 397; Moshe Greenberg, ‘Mankind, Israel, and the Nations in the Hebraic

148

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

that is divinely governed—a recognition that, in turn, directs one’s mode of thought and behavior.40 In this respect, to know/fear God means to acknowledge God as the supreme authority of the universe and follow his ordinances.41 In biblical thinking, accordingly, the lack of this attribute is potentially detrimental for without it one may defy or distort the world order, thereby de facto challenging the absolute authority of the cosmic sovereign who has designed and established that very order and thus—to borrow from Genesis—corrupting ‘one’s way on the earth’ (Gen. 6.12).42 The ‘knowledge and fear of God’ thus allows for an integrative reading of the book of Genesis.43 In its first half, Genesis 1–11 addresses universal questions and describes how the world, though a product of God’s benign will, came to have evils. For the monotheistic mind, which perceives the working of the world as a manifestation of the absolute will of a moral and just deity, evils would not happen without cause. Indeed, Genesis attributes all the basic evils—natural (e.g., death, pain, and toil),44 moral (e.g., murder and violence),45 and religious (e.g., impiety and idolatry)46—to Heritage’, in J. Robert Nelson (ed.), No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 15-40 (20); Michael L. Barré, ‘Fear of God and the World View of Wisdom’, BTB 11 (1981), pp. 41-43. 40.  See Jindo, ‘On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” ’. 41.  Pharaoh certainly lacks this knowledge; hence, his defiant refusal to release Israel: ‘Who is YHWH that I should listen to his voice and let Israel go? I do not know YHWH, nor will I let Israel go’ (Exod. 5.2). Pharaoh’s statement, ‘I do not know YHWH’, is not an innocent confession of the lack of factual knowledge about YHWH—that Pharaoh literally does not know about this deity—but rather a statement of unwillingness to acknowledge YHWH as the superior authority. In other words, ‘I do not know YHWH’ means ‘I do not fear (or acknowledge the authority of) YHWH’ (cf. Exod. 9.20-21, 30). The ‘fear of YHWH’, in this respect, is an inner attitude which results from acquiring the ‘knowledge of YHWH’. What Pharaoh is missing is a perspectival knowledge through which he himself can perceive and understand his own status in the universe as well as his own limitations vis-à-vis YHWH’s authority. Indeed, the promulgation of this knowledge is what the Exodus from Egypt is about; cf. YHWH’s recurring statement: ‘the Egyptians shall know that I am YHWH’ (Exod. 7.5; 14.4, 18; cf. 7.17; 8.6, 18; 9.14, 29; 10.2; 11.7; 14.4, 18). For more on this, see Jindo, ‘On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” ’. 42.  The word ‫‘( דרך‬way’) is used here in the sense of ‘manner of acting’ or ‘nature’; cf. Prov. 30.19, and, overall, Geller, ‘Wisdom, Nature and Piety’, p. 101. 43.  See Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, pp. 291-95. 44.  See the story of Adam and Eve in Gen. 3. 45.  See the story of Cain and Abel in Gen. 4 and the flood narrative in Gen. 6. 46.  See the story of Adam and Eve in Gen. 3, the story of Cain in Gen. 4, and the story of the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11.



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 149

human responsibility; that is, to humans’ inclination to aspire for autonomy and their refusal to recognize both their own limitations and the celestial authority above them.47 This human tendency can be understood to gradually distort the cosmic order, with this disruption reaching intolerable heights by Genesis 11. In this reading, therefore, YHWH seeks an alternative means to reestablish the cosmic order in the second half of the book, Genesis 12–50. YHWH begins this process by electing Abraham in order to create a model for all other nations by which humans as a whole will recognize the celestial authority (cf. 1 Kgs 8.41-43; Isa. 60; Ps. 102.16 [15]), and this, in turn, will bring back the structure of the universe to its original, harmonious, ideal state. No wonder, then, that the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22—the very climax of the foundational narrative of biblical Israel—culminates in the notion of the ‘fear of God’: Abraham was called to demonstrate at the ultimate test of election that he indeed embodies this attribute (‘[the angel of YHWH] said: “…now I know that you fear God (‫[ ’ ”…)ירא אלהים אתה‬Gen. 22.12]).48 Taken together, the underlying cosmological assumption is the following: the restoration of the fear and knowledge of God in the human world is a prerequisite for the restoration of cosmic order. The messianic vision of Isa. 11.1-10 is consistent with this conception of primordial history. We can read it as assuming the same notion: that the lack of the knowledge and fear of God is the ultimate cause of universal corruption and its subsequent deluge, and that the restoration of that attribute is the key to returning to primordial cosmic harmony.49 Accord47.  Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, pp. 292-93. 48.  In biblical literature, the gentiles are required to at least live by the knowledge and fear of God, if not specifically by the knowledge and fear of YHWH, but in the eschatological time they are also expected to recognize the exclusive authority of YHWH (Isa. 2.2-5; 19.18-25; 56.7; 66.20-21; Jer. 3.17; 10.7; 12.6; Ezek. 17.24; Mic. 7.16-17; Hab. 2.14; Zeph. 2.11; Zech. 2.15; 8.20-23; 14.16-21; Ps. 87). It is not clear to me whether biblical authors assumed that primeval humans had the fear and knowledge of God in general or of YHWH in particular. Be that as it may, they seem to have presumed three states in the mode of human existence: (1) of having the fear and knowledge of YHWH (thus recognizing YHWH as the ultimate authority of the universe); (2) of having the fear and knowledge of God (i.e., of the divine) in general, but not of YHWH (as personal deity) in particular (recognizing one’s existential and normative limitations vis-à-vis celestial authority but not necessarily of the sole authority of YHWH); (3) of not (even) having the fear and knowledge of God (thus not recognizing one’s existential and normative limitations at all). I intend to address this issue on a different occasion. 49.  As it stands, the primeval narrative in Genesis does not specify the cause of the deluge but mentions only in general terms the ‘wrongdoing’ (‫ )חמס‬that filled

150

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

ingly, the specific arrangement of images and motifs in this messianic vision manifests the prophet’s historiosophy—not only of what and how cosmic harmony will be restored in the eschatological future but also of how and why it was distorted in the primeval period. Furthermore, this interpretation can account for the three points mentioned above: the vision assumes the restoration of that attribute in the human world as a precondition for the restoration of natural order (hence, point 1: the juxtaposition of the first and the second parts); the vision also assumes the future redemption as a return to the primordial cosmic harmony (hence, point 2: the reference to that harmony); and the vision describes not only what is going to happen but also how—its images are arranged in such a way as to represent not only the state but also the process of the cosmic restoration as a restoration of creation (hence, point 3: the deliberate sequential arrangement of the primordial images). This integrative reading, of course, cannot be achieved if we consider only what is written in the text. Such a reading presupposes its style to be considerably economical and allusive, and elements in the text as highly the earth and hence brought on the deluge (6.12). To understand the content of this ‘wrongdoing’, I suggest we consider the divine enactments for the regulation of the postdiluvian world (Gen. 9.1-7). Namely, after the deluge, God accepts an evil impulse as inherent in human beings and issues new provisions, which seem to be required as minimum conditions for sustaining the new world order and for averting it from the recurrence of catastrophic destruction. The rationale behind them are selfevident: animals must fear humans (Gen. 9.1) because humans are divinely ordained as custodians of nature and the animal world (Gen. 1.26-28); animal flesh must not be ingested with its life-blood (Gen. 9.2-4) because life, which blood represents (Lev. 17.11-14; Deut. 12.23), is God’s prerogative; and no one, neither animal nor human, can murder a human (9.5-6) because the image of God, in which humans are created (1.26; 9.6), represents delegated divine authority. Apparently, there is a common denominator: the recognition of God’s authority and the reverence for the world order God institutes. It follows that the loss of this recognition and reverence—the knowledge and fear of God—is, according to Genesis, the ultimate cause of the deluge. For cosmological analyses of the flood narrative, consider, e.g., Tikvah Frymer-Kensky, ‘Covenant: A Jewish Biblical Perspective’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), pp. 133-56, (135-37); Tikvah Frymer-Kensky, ‘Ecology in a Biblical Perspective’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism, pp. 351-62 (356-57), repr. from Arthur Waskow (ed.), Torah of the Earth: Exploring 4,000 Years of Ecology in Jewish Thought (2 vols.; Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2000), I, pp. 55-69; Jeffrey H. Tigay, ‘The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments’, in Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen (eds.), Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman (New York: Ktav, 1984), pp. 169-82.



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 151

charged with complex meaning. Furthermore, much of what is indispensable for understanding the text in general, and its allusions in particular, are left unsaid—the reader is expected to infer them. This issue of style needs to be considered not only on an individual level, as a personal disposition of a given author, but also on a collective level, as a general communicative tendency of the culture in which that author lives or lived; namely, whether its general mode of cultural discourse tends to be ‘highcontext’ (i.e., referential and implicit) or ‘low-context’ (i.e., explicit and detailed).50 Biblical literature is said to be a product of a high-context society for a high-context readership.51 Hence, the presence and meaning of allusions may pass unnoticed if, for example, a reader of a low-context culture reads a biblical text without a critical awareness of this stylistic difference.52 The discussion thus far illustrates two features of literary allusion: (1) the interrelation of alluding elements may not always be apparent on the textual surface level, for much of the underlying conceptual knowledge—which is the key to identifying the relations of those elements—is left unsaid in the text; (2) occasionally, both the presence and the arrangement of alluding elements matter. The recognition of these two features can substantially enhance our integrative reading of the text in general and of its allusions in particular. EXAMPLE 2: Nations as Raging Waters in Isaiah I shall now turn to my second example: the metaphor of nations as (raging) waters in Isaiah. Explicit references to mythological categories in the book of Isaiah first appear in the messianic vision contained in Isa. 11.1-10. A number of critics have assumed that passage, taken in part or as a whole, to be a later insertion, because its mythological overtones and cosmic perspective appear to them somewhat too imaginative and incongruent to harmonize with the overall tones and perspective of the composition, which they deem to be historical and particular. 50.  The terms ‘high context’ and ‘low context’ were coined by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his seminal work, Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976). 51.  Cf. Ronald A. Simkins’s discussion of biblical literature as a product of a ‘high context society for high context readers’, in his Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 41-42. 52.  On this, consider Erich Auerbach, ‘Odysseus’ Scar’, in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), pp. 3-23.

152

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

A closer look at the book of Isaiah shows, however, that allusions to creation motifs and mythological categories do appear, and indeed recur, in the text outside 11.1-10. Some glaring examples of this include: the motif of the ‘mountain of the house (of YHWH)’ (2.2),53 the image of theophany in thunderstorm (2.12-17),54 the image of the ‘branch’ with royal-messianic implications (4.2),55 YHWH’s ‘vineyard’ (3.14; 5.1-7; 27.2),56 the ‘outstretched arm (of YHWH)’ (5.25; 9.11, 16, 20; 10.4; 14.26-27; 31.3),57 the ‘Seraphim’ (6.2-8; cf. 14.29),58 the heavenly council (6.8; ‘Who will go for us?’),59 ‘goat-demons’ (13.21; cf. ‘dragons’, v. 22?), the ‘Day Star, Son of Dawn’ (14.12),60 the ‘Mount of Assembly’ (14.13),61 the great

53.  Cf. Ekur (e [‘house’] + kur [‘mountain’]), the temple of Enlil, who is regarded as sustaining all life and the harmony of the universe; see ‘Hymn to Enlil’, in Jacobsen (ed.), The Harps That Once, pp. 101-11. 54.  Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 147-94; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002), pp. 65-107. 55.  See my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 151-247. 56.  See my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 151-247. 57.  Cf. H.L. Ginsberg, ‘The Arm of YHWH in Is. 51–63’, JBL 77 (1958), pp. 152-56; Michael Fishbane, ‘Arm of the Lord: Biblical Myth, Rabbinic Midrash, and the Mystery of History’, in Samuel Balentine and John Barton (eds.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 271-92. 58.  Karen Randolph Joines, ‘Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision’, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 410-15; Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 70-124. 59.  See, e.g., W. Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (CHANE, 15; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 74-75; and, overall, E. Theodore Mullen Jr, The Divine Council in Canaanite & Early Hebrew Literature (HSM, 24; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980); also my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 75-100. 60.  Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1960), pp. 67-71; John W. Mckay, ‘Helel and the Dawn-Goddess: A Re-examination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 21–15’, VT 20 (1970), pp. 451-64; William R. Gallagher, ‘On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Šahar of Is 14:12-15’, UF 26 (1994), pp. 131-46. 61.  J.J.M. Roberts, ‘The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition’, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 329-44 (334-35); Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS, 26; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994), pp. 57-58, 142-44; Smith, The Early History of God, pp. 37, 89.



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 153

banquet (25.6-8),62 the image of ‘Death’ being swallowed (25.8),63 ‘Leviathan’ and ‘sea dragon’ (27.1),64 ‘covenant with Death’ (28.15),65 ‘Rahab’ (30.7),66 and the metaphor in question, namely, of ‘(raging) waters’. True, critics have identified these and other mythological allusions and also noted parallel images in ancient Near Eastern literature.67 While these scholars tend to think of such motifs as literary ornaments or conventional 62.  See John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 148-51, and works cited there. This literary unit, namely, Isa. 24–27, is part of the so-called Isaian Apocalypse, generally regarded as one of the latest layers of the composition. I have no trouble accepting this opinion insofar as it is grounded in cogent philological and literary analysis rather than in speculative assumptions and forced arguments, as I deem is usually the case. That said, I am inclined to think of this section along with those scholars who consider it to be an integral part of the book of Isaiah, albeit a later expansion to the composition. Cf. Willem A.M. Beuken, Jesaja (HThKAT; 3 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 2003–2010), II, pp. 310-14; Dan G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (JSOTSup, 61; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); Brian Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function, and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27 (BETL, 151; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), pp. 11-24. 63.  It is usually the figure of Death that swallows its adversaries and victims. Cf. Smith, The Early History of God, p. 87; Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 27-31; and, overall, Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM, 39; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). 64.  See, e.g., Cyrus H. Gordon, ‘Leviathan: Symbol of Evil’, in Alexander Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 1-9; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea; and, overall, K. William Whitney Jr, Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in the Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism (HSM, 63; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). In Canaanite mythology, Leviathan is often conceived as seven-headed, an allusion to which may be found in Isa. 11.15, ‘YHWH will dry up the tongue of the Sea of Egypt—he will raise his hand against the river with the heat of his breath. He will divide it into seven streams for them to cross dry-shod.’ 65.  Lewis, Cults of the Dead, pp. 134-35. In Ugaritic literature, the sea deity Yam and the deity of death Mot appear as co-adversaries of the storm deity Baal. I wonder if that is implied here, i.e., those who seek to make covenant with Death set themselves as adversaries of YHWH. 66.  Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, pp. 88-95; Smith, The Early History of God, pp. 85-87. 67.  See, e.g., Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973–75); Childs, Myth and Reality; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of

154

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

expressions, I suggest that we can approach them as reflections of a particular underlying mode of conceptualization.68 Contemporary scholars have long noted that biblical authors use mythological images and stories that describe the rebellion of oceans or a sea monster against the deity of heaven or storms, the struggle of which concludes with the utter subjugation of that rebellion to that deity.69 Scholars assume that when those images are integrated into biblical monotheism, they are radically demythologized and reduced into (mere) poetic dictions so as to accord with the monotheistic worldview until they resurface in the second temple period as a means to address metaphysical truths.70 Seen this way, the images of mythological battle in prophetic literature appear expendable and unrelated to the core content of the composition—however engaging they may be, aesthetically or otherwise. It then comes as no surprise when modern commentaries merely point out the presence of such images as vestiges of a ‘polytheistic’ heritage and discuss briefly, if at all, similar images and motifs from other biblical and extra-biblical sources.71 However, we can instead consider these images Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 68.  There are, as always, significant exceptions; see, e.g., Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil; Robert Alter, ‘Prophecy and Poetry’, in The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), pp. 137-62; Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), and works cited there; also Adele Berlin, ‘The Message of Psalm 114’, in Chaim Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), I, pp. 347-63, esp. her remarks, ‘Mythic references are building blocks to shape new ideas, new ways of seeing the world’ (p. 361). 69.  The literature on this subject is vast: e.g., Gunkel, Creation and Chaos; Umberto Cassuto, ‘The Israelite Epic’, in Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), II, pp. 69-109; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 112-44; Patrick D. Miller Jr, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 113-17; Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea; Smith, The Early History of God, pp. 65-107. 70.  Michel E. Stone, ‘Eschatology, Remythologization, and Cosmic Apria’, in S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986), pp. 241-51, 521-25; and, overall, John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1998). 71.  E.g., Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 221, 306-307. When it comes to supposedly exilic or post-exilic passages in Isaiah, these images are viewed as a means to



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 155

not merely as stylistic devices, but rather as images whose mythological overtones—and, more specifically, the binary mode of ontological perception represented therein—are highly operative as part of a vital mode through which prophetic insight was communicated.72 The reading I am proposing is simple: the mythological images that appeared dispersed in Isaiah can be seen as part of a cognitive paradigm through which the reader is invited to perceive the cosmic significance of the terrestrial events narrated in the text. In this reading, the metaphor of raging waters functions in one of two ways: to make an ontological claim regarding the subject described as either (1) God’s sweeping weapon to bring utter destruction (cf. the flood in Gen.),73 or as (2) the rebellious force that challenges God’s authority (cf. the primordial waters God subdued).74 Here are examples for each case:

represent the persistent power of evil in the world; cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 372-73, where he follows the thesis of Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil. 72.  Raging waters are uncontrollable, indiscriminate, and all-encompassing. These waters are uncontrollable in that they can hardly be subdued; indiscriminate in that they sweep away whatever is in their path; and all-encompassing in that they cover a broad sweep very quickly, thereby proving inescapable. The image of raging waters can thus raise a range of issues regarding the experience of massive destruction while the precise nature of the experience which the image is intended to convey may vary from case to case. The same applies to the biblical image of scorching wind; see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 130-31, 190-91. It should be added that the flood image can also evoke the notion of purification; see, e.g., Tikvah Frymer-Kensky, ‘Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), pp. 329-50, repr. from Carol L. Meyers and Michael O’Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 399-414. The indiscriminate feature of the destructive force, frequently depicted by the image of raging waters or storms, is well attested in Mesopotamian literature. Those images have led some scholars to assume that the Mesopotamians conceived of their deities as capricious, destroying a city or a whole world with no offence committed by the victims (humans). This, in my view, is a misinterpretation of the use of such destructive images. On this, see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 131-33. 73.  Cf. ‘Then the Lord [Marduk] raised the Deluge, his great weapon’ (Enuma Elish, tablet iv, lines 49, 75, translated by Benjamin Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 3rd edn, 2005], p. 458). 74.  Cf. the image of Tiamat in Mesopotamian literature or Yam in Ugaritic literature; see, overall, Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea.

156

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

(a) Assyria as a Flood, as God’s Sweeping Weapon (Isa. 5.30): ‘On that day, they [Assyrians] will roar (‫ )וינהם‬against it [Judah] like the roaring of the sea (‫)נהמת ים‬. And if one look to the land—behold, darkness and sorrow; the light will also grow dark with clouds.’

(b) Nations as the Rebellious Waters that Challenge God’s Authority (Isa. 17.12-13): ‘Ah, the roar of many peoples, which roar like the roaring of the seas (‫המות‬ ‫)ימים‬, and the rushing of nations that rush like the rushing of mighty waters (‫ !)שׁאון מים כבירים‬The nations will rush like the rushing of many waters (‫ ;)שׁאון מים רבים‬but [God] will rebuke them and they will flee far away…’

The metaphor of raging waters in the first example reveals the cosmic significance of the Assyrian invasion as part of God’s plan to bring destruction to and renew the structure of the universe, whereas the metaphor in the second example elucidates the cosmic meaning of the nations in question as part of the chaotic force that seeks to rebel against the authority of YHWH and is thus destined to be defeated. Understood thusly, the role of this metaphor appears not merely stylistic but rather cognitive and orientational, reorganizing all that the audience knows about Assyria (example a), or foreign nations (example b), according to the binary paradigm of cosmic struggle, thus disclosing the deeper truth of appearances. In this reading, the metaphor is indispensable, for the very content of the prophetic discourse lies within it.75 Other examples of this metaphor include the following: (c) Nations Streaming to the Temple Mountain (Isa. 2.2): ‘In days to come, the mountain of YHWH’s house shall be established at the top of the mountains, exalted above the hills; and all nations shall stream (‫)ונהרו‬76 to it.’

75.  For a fuller treatment of this notion of metaphor in biblical prophecy, see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered. 76.  Here, we seem to have a wordplay—the verb ‫ נהר‬is used as a double entendre, for it can also mean ‘to see’, hence, ‘all nations shall see it’; the verb is juxtaposed with ‫ ראה‬in Isa. 60.5 and with ‫ הביט‬in Ps. 34.6 [5]. Baruch Schwartz prefers to understand this verb ‫ נהר‬to solely mean ‘to see’ and dismisses—in my view, unnecessarily—the other reading, i.e., ‘to stream’. See Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isa. 2.1-4)’, in A. Houtman, M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 157

(d) The King of Assyria as the Mighty, Massive Waters of the River (Isa. 8.7-8): ‘Now therefore, behold, the Lord brings up over them the mighty, massive waters of the river (‫—)מי הנהר העצומים‬the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all their channels and go over all their banks. It will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow (‫ )שׁטף‬and pass over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.’77

(e) The World-Power(s) as Sea Monster(s) (Isa. 27.1-2):78 ‘On that day YHWH with his severe and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan (‫ )לויתן‬the fleeing serpent (‫)נחשׁ ברח‬, Leviathan (‫ )לויתן‬the twisted serpent (‫ ;)נחשׁ עקלתון‬and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea (‫התנין‬ ‫)אשׁר בים‬.’

(f) Assyria as a Mighty Tempest, a Flood of Mighty Waters (Isa. 28.2): ‘Behold, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong, like a tempest of hail (‫ )זרם ברד‬and a destroying storm (‫)שׁער קטב‬, like a flood of mighty, overflowing waters (‫)זרם מים כבירם שׁטפים‬, who will bring them down to the earth with hand.’

(g) Jerusalem Will Be Flooded (Isa. 28.14-18): ‘Therefore, hear the word of YHWH, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem: Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have made a treaty. When the overflowing scourge (‫שׁוט‬ ‫ )שׁוטף‬passes through, it shall not reach us…” ’ Also I will make justice the measuring line, and righteousness the plummet; the hail (‫ )ברד‬will sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters (‫ )מים‬will overflow (‫ )ישׁטפו‬the hiding place. Your covenant with death will be annulled, and your treaty with Sheol will not stand; when the overflowing scourge (‫ )שׁוט שׁוטף‬passes through, you will be trampled down by it.’ (eds.), Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 11-26 (14-15). 77.  On the water image in this passage, see Peter Machinist, ‘Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah’, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 719-37 (726-28). 78.  As Skinner notes, ‘It is disputed whether the reference is to the world-power in general, or to a single empire, or to three separate empires; John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1915), I, p. 212.

158

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

(h) Assyria Flooded (Isa. 30.28-33): ‘His [YHWH’s] wind is like an overflowing stream (‫)נחל שׁוטף‬, which reaches up to the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of futility; and there shall be an erring bridle in the jaws of the people.79 …YHWH will cause his majestic voice/thunder (‫ )קולו‬to be heard, and show his arm sweeping down, with raging wrath and a devouring flame of fire (‫)להב אשׁ אוכלה‬, with a blast (‫)נפץ‬, rainstorm (‫)זרם‬, and hailstones (‫)אבן ברד‬. At the voice/thunder of YHWH, Assyria will be terror-stricken—the one which beats with the rod. Every stroke of the stick—that YHWH lays on it—will be to the sound of tambourines and harps; and in battles of brandishing he will fight with it. For his burning place has long been prepared; truly it is made ready for the king—its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance. The breath of YHWH inside it, like a stream of sulfur (‫)נחל גפרית‬, keeps it burning.’

Of particular interest is example (c)—the image of all the nations ‘flowing’ to the temple mountain in Jerusalem. Here, the text invites the reader to understand the eschatological time when nations—incarnations of the chaotic forces of the universe—will ultimately come to acknowledge YHWH as the supreme authority of the universe. According to Isaiah, furthermore, the Assyrians themselves also lack this crucial knowledge; hence, they do not recognize the truth and source of their mighty force and imperial dominance—that it is a result of divine sanction (cf., e.g., Isa. 10.5-15)—and therefore develop a sense of grandeur that brings about their own demise. Thus, the Assyrians, originally ordained as a flood of mighty waters to sweep away the nations that do not acknowledge the authority of YHWH, will in turn be flooded for the selfsame reason (example [h]).80 79.  On this image, consider also Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB, 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), p. 351. 80.  It should be noted that not every occurrence of the water image in Isaiah alludes to the mythological category of chaos—there are some cases where the water image rather alludes to the category of order; cf. Isa. 33.21-23 (and also 12.3); see J.J.M. Roberts, ‘Zion in the Theology of the Davidic–Solomonic Empire’, in Tomoo Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), pp. 93-108 (100-102). For the image of living water in the Bible, consider Michael Fishbane, ‘The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and its Ancient Transformations’, in Michael Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields (eds.), ‘Sha‘arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 3-16.



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 159

This second discussion elucidates two additional features of allusion: (3) the unit of meaning in allusion is identical not with the syntactic or literary unit in which given allusions appear (e.g., a sentence or literary passage) but rather with the conceptual unit or category to which they belong (e.g., the mythological category of reality); (4) the information which biblical allusions are meant to convey is not necessarily propositional (e.g., predictions and condemnations) but can be cognitive (e.g., perceptions and insights). And, as shown above, the consideration of these features of allusion also enhances our integrative interpretation of biblical literature. Creation Typology as a Cognitive Paradigm Before turning to methodological reflections, I would like to comment on something that should not pass unremarked: the above two examples are integral to each other as part of an archetypal paradigm that gives structure to the historical perception and experience of biblical authors. Take, for example, Isa. 27.1-6, where the drama of cosmic battle concludes with the planting of YHWH’s vineyard: On that day YHWH with his severe and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisted serpent; and he will slay the dragon that is the sea. On that day sing to her, ‘A vineyard of red wine (‫!)כרם חמר‬81 I, YHWH, am its keeper; every moment I water it; lest any hurt it, I keep it night and day.’ …[In days] to come, Jacob will take root (‫ ;)ישׁרשׁ‬Israel shall sprout and bud (‫)יציץ‬, filling the whole world with fruit (‫)תנובה‬.

I propose we understand the vineyard referred to here not merely as an ordinary but rather as a mythopoetic vineyard, an equivalent of the Edenic garden, the planting of which signifies the ultimate restoration of cosmic order.82 The two motifs discussed thus far—the subjugation of chaotic

81.  Or: ‘vineyard of pleasure’; see Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, p. 581; cf. Amos 5.11. 82.  For the tree/vineyard image in this passage, see Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered’, in Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (SPHS, 10; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 51-66; Kirsten Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup, 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 116-23.

160

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

forces and the planting of a garden or vineyard—recurs in each of the foundational narratives found in biblical literature: namely, the narratives of creation, flood, exodus, and future redemption: Subjugation of Chaos

Planting of Garden

The Creation Narrative

Creation Out of Chaos (Gen. 1)



Planting of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2): ‘YHWH God planted (‫ )ויטע‬a garden in Eden’ (Gen. 2.8)

The Flood Narrative

De-creation and Re-creation by the Flood (Gen. 6–8)



Planting of a Vineyard by Noah (Gen. 9): ‘Noah…planted (‫)ויטע‬ a vineyard’ (Gen. 9.20)

The Exodus Narrative

Defeat of the Egyptians in the Sea (Exod. 15.1-10)



Planting of Israel in the Land of Promise: ‘You [YHWH] will bring them [the people of Israel] and planted them (‫ )ותטעמו‬in the mountain of your heritage’ (Exod. 15.17; cf. Isa. 5; Pss. 44.3 [2]; 80.9 [8])

The Future Redemption

Eschatological Defeat of Chaotic Forces



Planting of Israel/Eden in the Land of Promise: ‘Your people shall all be righteous…they are the shoot of my plantings (‫)מטעי‬, the work of my hands’ (Isa. 60.21; cf. Isa. 11.1-10; 51.3; 61.3, 11; 65.25; Ezek. 36.35-36)

Stated differently, at the beginning of Genesis, after God establishes cosmic order out of chaos and primordial waters and thus completes the work of creation, there is a ‘planting’ of the garden in Eden (Gen. 2.8); after God cleanses the world through the flood and begins anew the work of creation, Noah ‘plants’ a vineyard (Gen. 9.20); after God defeats the Egyptians in the sea, God ‘plants’ the people of Israel onto the land of promise (Exod. 15.17; cf. Ps. 80.9 [8]); after the eschatological defeat of chaotic forces and the restoration of cosmic order, God will ‘re-plant’ Israel, a metaphorical garden of Eden, in the land of promise (60.21; cf. Isa. 11.1-10; 51.3; 58.11; 61.3, 11; 65.25; Ezek. 36.33-36).83 Except 83.  The observation of this organic relation between the two discussed motifs suggests that the two creation narratives in Genesis—i.e., Gen. 1.1–2.4a (the so-called



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 161

for the last instance, each time the plantation project concludes without any satisfactory degree of success: the planting of the garden of Eden concludes with curse and exile (Gen. 3.14-19); the flood story, with the sin of Ham and its curse (Gen. 9.25-27); the conquest and the settlement in the land of promise, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (cf. Isa. 5.1-7; Jer. 2.21; 12.10).84 In this respect, the future return from national exile and the consequent restoration of Jerusalem—which might otherwise seem to be of exclusively local importance in a small Levant state—is of universal significance: a cosmic renewal in the deepest sense. In short, the two motifs discussed above are integral parts of a cognitive paradigm through which biblical authors perceive and communicate the cosmic significance of historical events.85 The following point should also not be overlooked: the attempt to understand the cosmic significance of events unfolding toward or around a temple city such as Jerusalem was not unique at all in the ancient Near East. Indeed, the notion of the temple city as the axial point of the cosmos that sustains the structure of the universe was widely shared in the ancient

P source), which begins with God subduing the primordial water, and Gen. 2.4b-25 (the so-called J source), which involves the planting of the garden in Eden—are much more integral to each other than generally assumed, notwithstanding their glaring discrepancies in style and in viewpoint. 84.  For the metaphor of Jerusalem as God’s royal garden, see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 151-240. See also Zakovitch, Who Proclaims Peace, pp. 47-127, 167-78. 85.  The issue at stake is a schematized narrative sequence—or what cognitive scholars call ‘idealized cognitive model’ (ICM) in general, and ‘script’ in particular. On this see, my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 50-52, 255-60; and, overall, Zoltán Kövecses, Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), esp. pp. 63-96. It also involves a typological mode of historical perception; for typology in biblical religion, see, e.g., Bernard W. Anderson, ‘Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah’, in Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter J. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (New York: Harper, 1962), pp. 177-95; Michael A. Fishbane, ‘The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible’, in Michael A. Fishbane and Paul R. Flohr (eds.), Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday by His Students (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 6-27; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 350-79; the narrative Dinah’s rape in Stephen A. Geller, Sacred Enigmas (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 142-56, esp. pp. 144-45; and, overall, Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982).

162

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Near East.86 Here are but two examples.87 In the hymn to Enlil (late third millennium bce), the Nippur temple is depicted:88 Justice was granted the city as a gift, observance of truthfulness and righteousness as ornament… Its soil is the life’s breath of the country, the life’s breath of all lands… Enlil, your holy secret premises imbued with allure… —all lords, and all dwellers on throne daises, send in to it straight the holy contributions, are deferring to him in salutations and prayers.

Similarly, we read in a composition known as Tintir = Babylon (probably of late second millennium origin):89 86.  See, e.g., John A. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 113-34, and literature cited there; Moshe Weinfeld, ‘Jerusalem—A Political City and Spiritual Capital’, in Joan Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions: Proceedings of the Symposium Held on May 27–29, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel (BLMJP, 2; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 15-40; Jon D. Levenson, ‘The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience’, in Arthur Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 32-61. For the religious significance of cities in Mesopotamia, consider, e.g., Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup, 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 335-37; Joan Goodnick Westenholz, ‘The Theological Foundation of the City, the Capital City and Babylon’, in Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Capital Cities, pp. 43-54. 87.  For other examples, consider, e.g., Enheduanna’s collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns; Åke W. Sjöberg, E. Bergmann, and Gene B. Gragg, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1969); and Betty De Shong Meador, Princess, Priestess, Poet: The Sumerian Temple Hymns of Enheduanna (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009). 88.  Jacobsen, The Harps That Once, pp. 101-11, esp. 102-106. 89.  A.R. George, ‘ “Bond of the Lands” ’: Babylon, the Cosmic Capital’, in Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch (Saarbrücken: SDV, 1997), pp. 125-45 (126-27).



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 163 A famous city, of special status, giving sanctuary and protection Babylon, on which fame and jubilation are bestowed… Babylon, the city which loves truth; Babylon, the city of truth and justice… An ancient foundation, created by the gods and their home Babylon, called into being by the heavens; Babylon, the city whose brickwork is primeval… The cosmic capital Babylon, the bond of the heavens; Babylon, which grasps the bridle of heaven and underworld; Babylon, the abode of Anu, Enlil and Ea; Babylon, the bond of heaven and underworld…

The congruity—both conceptual and literary—of these texts and Isaiah is glaring.90 Overall, the presence of the supreme deity in his temple city was believed to preserve the functioning of society and the order of nature on the cosmic level.91 It should thus come as no surprise that the allusions to creation in Isaiah 11 in particular, and mythological motifs that appear in Isaiah in general, function as a means to reveal the deeper cosmic truth of events unfolding in and around the temple city of Jerusalem. Methodological Reflections The two discussions detailed above offer two sides of the same coin. As noted at the outset, the first discussion illustrates how the seemingly heterogeneous elements in the same literary unit can be seen as alluding to the same frame of reference, whereas the second discussion demonstrates how the homogeneous elements in different literary units can be similarly viewed. There are thus two complementary considerations involved in an integrative reading of allusions in biblical literature. What critical insights can we attain from the above discussions, especially with respect to the interpretation of allusion in biblical literature? These analyses illuminate four features of allusion that we should keep in mind if we seek a richer and more integrative reading: 90.  On this congruity, consider, e.g., Weinfeld’s article mentioned in n. 86 above. See also Hurowitz’s work cited there. Note that I am not claiming historical influences or direct dependences between these literatures—my concern is limited to their typological resemblances on the conceptual level, which are manifested on the textual level. See my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 71-75. 91.  Cf. my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 193-96, where I discuss Jer. 4.23-26 and the Poem of Erra.

164

Inner Biblical Allusion in the Poetry of Wisdom and Psalms

Conceptual Interrelations of Alluding Elements: Images that at first may seem textually unrelated on the surface may be essentially related on a deeper conceptual level, stemming from the same referent. Therefore, the reader should extrapolate the entirety of the frame of reference to which the given images belong, including the dimensions and elements of the frame which are not explicitly described in the alluding or alluded text (cf. the discussion of the images in the first and the second parts of Isa. 11.1-10 as alluding to the same referent; also, the discussion of the organic relation between the first and the second examples discussed above). Extraordinary Specificity of Allusions and Their Arrangement: The author may use and arrange images in a very precise, deliberate manner such that the images—which at first might seem overly vague—may in fact be designed to communicate a rhetorical or poetic concept exactly fitted to the context within which they appear. Thus, the reader should consider the potential specificity of allusions and the deliberate precision of their arrangements (cf. the discussion of the very specific arrangement of the images in Isa. 11.1-10). Semantic Unit of Allusion: The unit of meaning in allusion is not identical to the syntactic or literary unit in which given allusions appear (e.g., a sentence or a literary passage). Rather, it relates to the frame of reference within which it belongs; hence, the reader should be mindful that allusions that appear in different sections of a given literary composition may be part of the same conceptual framework (cf. the discussion of the interrelation of the images of raging-waters that discontinuously appear in Isaiah).92 Cognitive Function of Allusion: The information the prophet seeks to convey is not necessarily propositional (e.g., predictions and condemnations) but can be cognitive (e.g., perceptions and insights); consequently, the reader should be aware that the allusions at hand may be used as a means to communicate prophetic insight (cf. the discussion of the cognitive function of the raging-water images in Isaiah).93 92.  The reader, therefore, must actively sort through and integrate dispersed elements within the text—elements whose connections are not always immediately apparent—in order to reconstruct that poetic reality and, ultimately, the drama of the work itself. The same applies to other literary phenomena, such as poetic metaphor; see my Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, pp. 25-53, and works cited there. 93.  Needless to say, I am not suggesting that the function of allusion is to communicate either propositional or cognitive information—and nothing else. Scholars have



Jindo  Some Reflections on Interpreting Allusion 165

It is true that much of our interpretation of a text in general, and of allusion in particular, is dictated by our own assumptions regarding the content, crafting, and communication style of the text: namely, of what the text is designed to convey; how, and how carefully, it is crafted; and how referential and elliptic its mode of communication is—that is, how much of what is left unsaid must be inferred in order to arrive at a fuller understanding of the text and of its allusions. In light of these assumptions, we develop a mode of biblical literacy to enhance our reading and assess the plausibility of our own interpretation. The present research also illustrates some of the pitfalls inherent in the mechanical application of form criticism. A case in point is the notion of the knowledge and fear of YHWH, which is commonly understood as central to the biblical wisdom tradition. As discussed above, this attribute is rather fundamental to biblical religion in general and not unique to the wisdom tradition. Therefore, every occurrence of it neither necessarily alludes to the category of wisdom nor axiomatically signifies that the literary passage in which it occurs belongs to, or is influenced by, that tradition.94 From this we learn two things: (1) the mechanical analysis of formal features may well lead us to misidentify the referent and interpret the passage in light of an unintended frame of reference; and (2) the isolation of literary units according to the presence—and even the density—of formal features alone may well lead us to overlook the conceptual integrity of a given composition and thus to treat the composition as a heterogeneous work. Either way, we risk misconstruing the object of analysis and, worse yet, remain unaware of our misconstrual and its very cause.

already addressed various functions of allusion in biblical writings; see n. 4 above. As I see it, however, this cognitive function has not received the attention it deserves; hence, I list it here. 94.  The same holds true for the terms which are commonly identified as representing the basic concepts of the wisdom tradition, such as ‫‘( חכמה‬wisdom’), ‫עצה‬ (‘counsel’), and ‫‘( בינה‬understanding’). On these terms, see Fox, Proverbs 1–9, pp. 28-43.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Albertz, Rainer, Israel in Exile (trans. David Green; Studies in Biblical Literature, 3; Atlanta: SBL, 2003). Albright, William, ‘A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII)’, HUCA 23 (1950–51), pp. 1-39. Allen, Leslie C., Psalms 101–150 (WBC, 21; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, rev. edn, 2002). Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985). Anderson, A.A., ‘Historical Psalms’, in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 56-66. Anderson, Bernard W., ‘Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah’, in Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter J. Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (New York: Harper, 1962), pp. 177-95. Aster, Shawn Zelig, ‘ “They Feared God”/“They Did Not Fear God”: On the Use of YHWH and yĕrē’ YHWH and yărē ’et YHWH in 2 Kings 17:24-41’, in Chaim Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), I, pp. 135-41. Auerbach, Erich, ‘Odysseus’ Scar’, in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), pp. 3-23. Baden, Joel, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012). ———. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Barbour, J., ‘ “Like an Error which Proceeds from the Ruler”: The Shadow of Saul in Qoheleth 4:17–5:6’, in M. Augustin and H.M. Niemann (eds.), Thinking Towards New Horizons: Collected Communications to the XIXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Ljubljana 2007 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008), pp. 121-28. ———. The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Barré, Michael L., ‘Fear of God and the World View of Wisdom’, BTB 11 (1981), pp. 41-43. Bartholomew, C.G., Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009). Bartholomew, C.G., and R.P. O’Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove: IVP, 2011).



Bibliography 167

Beal, T.K., ‘Glossary’, in Danna Nolan Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 21-24. Bellinger, W.H., ‘Reading from the Beginning (Again): The Shape of Book I of the Psalter’, in Joel S. Burnett, W.H. Bellinger, and W. Dennis Tucker (eds.), Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading Psalms in Real Time: Proceedings of the Baylor Symposium on the Book of Psalms (LHBOTS, 488; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 114-126. Ben-Porat, Ziva, ‘The Poetics of Literary Allusion’, Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976), pp. 105-28. Bentzen, Aage, Messias, Moses Redivivus, Menschensohn (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1948). Berkhof, Louis, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: Sacred Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962). Berlin, Adele, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992). ———. ‘Literary Exegesis of Biblical Narrative: Between Poetics and Hermeneutics’, in J. Rosenblatt and J. Sitterson (eds.), ‘Not in Heaven’: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 120-28. ———. ‘The Message of Psalm 114’, in Chaim Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (2 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), I, pp. 347-63. Beuken, Willem A.M., Jesaja (3 vols.; HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2003–10). Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green, ‘Nergal (Erra)’, in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992). Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Isaiah 1–39 (AB, 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Blum, Erhard, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990). Boda, Mark J., Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW, 277; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999). ———. ‘Quotation, Allusion’, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 298-300. Boda, Mark J., and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (JSOTSup, 370; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). Brettler, Marc A., ‘The Poet as Historian: The Plague Tradition in Psalm 105’, in Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon (eds.), Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 19-28. Brewer, D.I., Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C.E. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1992). Brown, Francis, Charles Briggs, and Samuel Driver, The New Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979). Brown, Raymond, The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994). Brown, W.P., Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Brueggemann, Walter, Isaiah 1–39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).

168 Bibliography Campbell, Antony F., The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (SBLDS, 16; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975). Cassin, Elena, La splendeur divine: Introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne (Paris: Mouton, 1968). Cassuto, Umberto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973–75). ———. ‘The Israelite Epic’, in Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975). Caquot, A., ‘Sur quelques démons de l’Ancien Testament (Resheph, Qeteb, Deber)’, Sem 6 (1956), pp. 53-68. Ceresko, Anthony, ‘A Poetic Analysis of Ps 105, with Attention to Its Use of Irony’, in Psalmists and Sages (Indian Theological Studies Supplements, 2; Bangalore: St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute, 1994), pp. 75-102. Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974). ———. Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001). ———. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1960). Christianson, Eric, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup, 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Ciardi, John, How Does a Poem Mean? (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edn, 1975). Clemens, D.M., ‘The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3’, Themelios 19 (1994), pp. 5-8. Clements, R.E., Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Clifford, Richard J., Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS, 26; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994). ———. ‘In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78’, in Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (eds.), in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 121-42. ———. Proverbs (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1999). ———. ‘Style and Purpose in Psalm 105’, Bib 60 (1979), pp. 420-27. Clines, David J.A., Job 1–20 (WBC, 17; Dallas: Word Books, 1989). Cohen, Abraham, The Psalms (London: Soncino Press, 1945). Collins, John J., ‘Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in the Book of Daniel’, JSOT 21 (1981), pp. 83-100. ———. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1998). Cook, John A., Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb (LSAWS, 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). Craigie, Peter, and Marvin Tate, Psalms 1–50 (WBC, 19; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004). Crenshaw, James L., ‘Clanging Symbols’, in Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris (eds.), Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 51-64. ———. Ecclesiastes (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987). ———. Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). Cross, Frank M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).



Bibliography 169

Dahood, Mitchell, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB, 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968). ———. Psalms III: 101–150 (AB, 17a; New York: Doubleday, 1970). Davies, G. Henton, ‘The Ark in the Psalms’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), Promise and Fulfillment: Essays Presented to Professor S.H. Hooke in Celebration of His Ninetieth Birthday, 21st January 1964 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964), pp. 51-60. Day, John, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). ———. ‘Yahweh and the Underworld Deities (Mot, Resheph, Molech and the Rephaim)’, in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup, 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 185-225. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., ‘The Dromedary Saga: The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament’, RevExp 95 (1998), pp. 493-511. ———. Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997). deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). Delitzsch, Franz, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (trans. M.G. Easton; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). ———. Psalms (ed. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch; trans. Francis Bolton; Commentary on the Old Testament; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996). Dell, K., ‘Exploring Intertextual Links Between Genesis 1–11 and Ecclesiastes’, in K. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually (LHBOTS, 587; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), pp. 3-14. Dillard, Raymond, and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006). DiTommaso, Lorenzo, ‘History and Apocalyptic Eschatology: A Reply to J. Y. Jindo’, VT 56 (2006), pp. 413-18. Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., ‘The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1)’, ZAW 113 (2001), pp. 219-39. ———. On Biblical Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Doyle, Brian, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function, and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27 (BETL, 151; Leuven: University Press, 2000). Draisma, S. (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Kampen: Kok, 1989). Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC; 2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921). Eliade, Mircea, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History (trans. Willard R. Trask; New York: Bollingen, 1954). Emanuel, David, From Bards to Biblical Exegetes: A Close Reading and Intertextual Analysis of Selected Exodus Psalms (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012). Fewell, Danna Nolan, Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). Fidler, R., ‘Qoheleth in “The House of God”: Text and Intertext in Qoh 4:17–5:6 (Eng. 5:1-7)’, Hebrew Studies 47 (2006), pp. 7-21. Firth, David G., and Philip Johnston, Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005).

170 Bibliography Fishbane, Michael, ‘Arm of the Lord: Biblical Myth, Rabbinic Midrash, and the Mystery of History’, in Samuel Balentine and John Barton (eds.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 271-92. ———. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). ———. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). ———. ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300); Part I: Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 33-48. ———. ‘The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible’, in Michael A. Fishbane and Paul R. Flohr (eds.), Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday by His Students (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 6-27. ———. ‘The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and its Ancient Transformations’, in Michael Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields (eds.), ‘Sha‘arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 3-16. Fontaine, Carole R., ‘Proverb Performance in the Hebrew Bible’, in Wolfgang Mieder (ed.), Wise Words: Essays on the Proverb (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), pp. 393-413. Forman, C.C., ‘Koheleth’s Use of Genesis’, JSS 5 (1960), pp. 256-63. Foster, Benjamin, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 3rd edn, 2005). Fox, Michael V., Ecclesiastes (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004). ———. Proverbs 1–9 (AB, 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000). ———. Proverbs 10–31 (Anchor Yale Bible, 18B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009). Franklyn, Paul, ‘The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Skepticism?’, ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 238-52. Fretheim, Terence, ‘The Book of Genesis’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), I, pp. 321-674. Friedman, Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987). Frye, Northrop, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982). Frymer-Kensky, Tikvah, ‘Covenant: A Jewish Biblical Perspective’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), pp. 133-56. ———. ‘Ecology in a Biblical Perspective’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), pp. 351-62. Reprinted from Arthur Waskow (ed.), Torah of the Earth: Exploring 4,000 Years of Ecology in Jewish Thought (2 vols.; Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2000), I, pp. 55-69. ———. ‘Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel’, in Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), pp. 329-50. Reprinted from Carol L. Meyers and Michael O’Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 399-414. Füglister, Notker, ‘Psalm LXXXVIII [sic]: Der Rätsel Lösung?’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 264-97.



Bibliography 171

Fulco, William J., The Canaanite God Rešep (AOS, 8; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976). Fullerton, Kemper, ‘Double Entendre in the First Speech of Eliphaz’, JBL 49 (1930), pp. 320-74. Futato, Mark, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007). Frevel, Christian, ‘Dann wär’ ich nicht mehr da. Der Todeswunsch Ijobs als Element der Klagerhetorik’, in Angelika Berlejung and Bernd Janowski (eds.), Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 25-41. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method (trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; London: Continuum, 2nd edn, 2004). Gallagher, William R., ‘On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Šahar of Is 14:12-15’, UF 26 (1994), pp. 131-46. Garr, W. Randall, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (CHANE, 15; Leiden: Brill, 2003). Garrett, D.A., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC, 14; Nashville: Broadman, 1993). Gärtner, Judith, Die Geschichtspsalmen: Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106, 135 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter (FAT, 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Gaster, Theodor H., ‘Myth and Story’, Numen 1 (1954), pp. 184-212. Geller, Stephen A., Sacred Enigmas (London: Routledge, 1996). ———. ‘Wisdom, Nature and Piety in Some Biblical Psalms’, in Tzvi Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 101-21. Genette, Gérard, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980). ———. Palimpsestes: La Littérature au Second Degré (Paris: Seuil, 1982). George, A.R., ‘ “Bond of the Lands” ’: Babylon, the Cosmic Capital’, in Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch (Saarbrücken: SDV, 1997), pp. 125-45. Gerstenberger, Erhard S., Psalms Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL, 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). ———. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations (FOTL, 15; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Gillingham, Susan, ‘The Exodus Tradition and Israelite Psalmody’, SJT 52 (1992), pp. 19-46. Ginsberg, H.L., ‘The Arm of YHWH in Is. 51–63’, JBL 77 (1958), pp. 152-56. Goldingay, John, Psalms 42–89 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). ———. Psalms 90–150 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Gordon, Cyrus, H., ‘Leviathan: Symbol of Evil’, in Alexander Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 1-9. Goulder, Michael, ‘Asaph’s History of Israel [Elohist Press, Bethel, 725 bce]’, JSOT 65 (1995), pp. 71-81. ———. The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III (JSOTSup, 233; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

172 Bibliography Grant, Jamie A., ‘The Psalms and the King’, in David Firth and Philip S. Johnston (eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2005), pp. 101-18. Greenberg, Moshe, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB, 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983). ———. ‘Mankind, Israel, and the Nations in the Hebraic Heritage’, in J. Robert Nelson (ed.), No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 15-40. ———. ‘The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus’, in Hans Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William F. Albright (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), pp. 243-52. Greene, Nathaniel E., ‘Creation, Destruction, and a Psalmist’s Plea: Rethinking the Poetic Structure of Psalm 74’, JBL 136 (2017), pp. 85-101. Greenstein, Edward L., Essays on Biblical Method and Translation (BJS, 92; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). ———. ‘How Does Parallelism Mean?’, in S.A. Geller (ed.), A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature (JQRSup; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 41-70. ———. ‘Mixing Memory and Design: Reading Psalm 78’, Prooftexts 10 (1990), pp. 197-218. ———. Reader Responsibility: The Making of Meaning in Biblical Narrative (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming). Groenewald, Alphonso, ‘A God Abounding in Steadfast Love: Psalms and Hebrews’, in Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (LHBOTS, 527; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp. 52-65. Grogan, Geoffrey W., Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Gunkel, Hermann, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A ReligioHistorical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney Jr; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2006); originally published in German as Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschictliche Untersuchung über Gen. 1 und Ap. Jon 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895). Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (trans. J. Nogalski; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998). Gutridge, C.A., ‘The Sacrifice of Fools and the Wisdom of Silence: Qoheleth, Job and the Presence of God’, in A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOTSup, 333; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 83-99. Habel, Norman C., The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985). Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976). Heim, Knut, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry (BBRS, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013). Hertzberg, H. W., and H. Bardtke, Der Prediger, Das Buch Esther (KAT, 17.4-5; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963). Hobbes, Thomas, The Leviathan (Penguin Classics; London: Penguin Books, 1986).



Bibliography 173

Hoffman, Yair, The Exodus Tradition in the Faith of Israel (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies University, 1983). ———. ‘‫’פרק קה‬, in G. Galil (ed.), Psalms II (World of the Bible; Tel Aviv: Divrei HaYamim, 1999), pp. 129-32. Holm-Nielsen, Svend, ‘The Exodus Tradition in Psalm 105’, ASTI 11 (1978), pp. 22-30. Holmstedt, Robert D., The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS, 10; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016). Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). ———. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011). House, Paul R., ‘Examining Narratives of Old Testament Narrative’, WTJ 67 (2005), pp. 229-45. Howard, David M., The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997). Hurley, Michael D., and Michael O’Neil, Poetic Form: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Hurowitz, Victor A., I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup, 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Hurvitz, Avi, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982). Jacobson, Rolf A., Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011). Jacobsen, Thorkild, The Harps That Once…: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987). Janzen, J. Gerald, Job (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985). Jindo, J.Y., Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (HSM, 64; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010). ———. ‘On Myth and History in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology’, VT 55 (2005), pp. 412-15. ———. ‘On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” as a Condition for Human Existence’, Biblical Interpretation 19 (2012), pp. 433-53. John, Eileen, ‘Poetry and Cognition’, in John Gibson, Wolgang Huemer, and Luca Pocci (eds.), A Sense of the World: Essays on Fiction, Narrative, and Knowledge (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 219-32. Johnson, Aubrey R., The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979). Johnson, Dan G., From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (JSOTSup, 61; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). Johnson, James, ‘Identifying Chaucer Allusions, 1991–2000: An Annotated Bibliography’, The Chaucer Review 39 (2005), pp. 436-55. Joines, Karen R., ‘Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision’, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 410-15. Joüon, P., and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27; Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 3rd reprint of 2nd edn, 2005).

174 Bibliography Juel, Donald, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Kaiser, Otto, Isaiah 1–12 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1983). Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. Moshe Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). Keel, Othmar, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestäts­schilder­ ungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977). Keil, Karl, and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Klein, Anja, Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments (FAT, 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). Knight, Douglas A., Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature [distributed by Scholars Press], rev. edn, 1975). Koehler, Ludwig, ‘Hebräische Etymologien’, JBL 59 (1940), pp. 35-40. Kövecses, Zoltán, Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalms 1–59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). ———. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. H. Oswald; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Kristeva, Julia, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980). ———. ‘The System and the Speaking Subject’, in K.M. Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2nd edn, 1997), pp. 124-28. Krüger, T., Qoheleth (trans. O.C. Dean Jr; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004). Kugel, J., ‘The Bible’s Earliest Interpreters’, Prooftexts 7 (1987), pp. 66-79. Lakostik, Nicholas, ‘A Crown of Conflicting Glory: Biblical Allusions in Alison’s Bastard Out of Carolina’, Explicator 66 (2007), pp. 59-61. Lauha, Aarre, Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen (Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae; Helsinki: Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1945). ———. Kohelet (BKAT, 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 2003), pp. 98-99. Lee, Archie, ‘Genesis 1 and the Plagues Tradition’, VT 40 (1990), pp. 257-63. Leonard, Jeffery M., ‘Historical Traditions in Psalm 78’ (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2006). ———. ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case’, JBL 127 (2008), pp. 241-65. Levenson, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil (repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). ———. ‘The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience’, in Arthur Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 32-61. Lewis, Theodore J., Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM, 39; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). Linville, James, ‘Psalm 22:17B: A New Guess’, JBL 124 (2005), pp. 733-44.



Bibliography 175

Loewenstamm, Samuel, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (trans. Baruch J. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992). ———. ‘The Number of Plagues in Psalm 105’, Bib 52 (1971), pp. 34-38. Longman, Tremper, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). Lunn, Nicholas P., Word–Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Exeter: Paternoster Press; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006). Lyons, Michael, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS, 507; London: T&T Clark International, 2009). Machinist, Peter, ‘Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah’, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 719-37. Margulis, Baruch, ‘The Plagues Tradition in Psalm 105’, Bib 50 (1969), pp. 491-96. Mays, James L., Psalms (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994). Mazor, Lea, ‘Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot (Isaiah 10:33-11:9)’, in Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (eds.), Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), pp. 73-90. McCann, J. Clinton, ‘The Book of Psalms’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), IV, pp. 639-1280. ———. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). ———. ‘The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness’, in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 340-48. McCann, J. Clinton, and Nancy Rowland McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993). McConville, J.G., Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove: IVP, 2002). McKane, William, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970). McKay, John W., ‘Helel and the Dawn-Goddess: A Re-examination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 21–15’, VT 20 (1970), pp. 451-64. McMillion, Phillip, ‘Psalm 105: History with a Purpose’, ResQ 52 (2010), pp. 169-79. Meador, Betty De Shong, Princess, Priestess, Poet: The Sumerian Temple Hymns of Enheduanna (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009). Meier, Samuel, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup, 46; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992). Meinhold, Arndt, Die Sprüche (2 vols.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991). Menn, Esther, ‘No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22’, HTR 93 (2000), pp. 301-41. Michel, D., Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet (BZAW, 183; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989). Miller, Patrick D., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). Miner, E., ‘Allusion’, in Alex Preminger, Terry V.F. Brogan, and Frank J. Warnke (eds.), The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1993), pp. 38-40. Moore, Rick, ‘A Home for the Alien: Worldly Wisdom and Covenantal Confession in Proverbs 30.1-9’, ZAW 106 (1994), pp. 96-107.

176 Bibliography Mowinckel, Sigmund, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962). Moyise, Steve, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New’, in Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 14-41. Mullen, E. Theodore, The Divine Council in Canaanite & Early Hebrew Literature (HSM, 24; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980). Murphy, Ronald E., Ecclesiastes (WBC, 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992). ———. Proverbs (WBC, 22; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988). Nasuti, Harry Peter, ‘The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms’, in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Newsom, Carol A., ‘The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), IV, pp. 317-638. ———. ‘Spying Out the Land: A Report from Genology [sic]’, in Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (eds.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 437-50. Nicholson, Ernest W., ‘The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job’, in John Day, R.P. Gordon, and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). ———. Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 71-82. Nickelsburg, George, ‘The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative’, HTR 73 (1980), pp. 153-84. Nielsen, Kirsten, ‘Intertextuality and Biblical Scholarship’, SJOT 2 (1990), pp. 89-95. ———. ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible’, in Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 17-31. ———. There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup, 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Norin, Stig, Er Spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des Alten Israel (ConBOT, 9; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1977). Nurmela, Risto, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner Biblical Allusions in Second and Third Isaiah (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006). Obelkevich, James, ‘Proverbs and Social History’, in Wolfgang Mieder (ed.), Wise Words: Essays on the Proverb (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), pp. 211-51. O’Dowd, Ryan, ‘Creation Imagery’, in Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (eds.), The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), pp. 60-63. Paul, Shalom, ‘Sargon’s Administrative Diction in II Kings 17:27’, JBL 88 (1969), pp. 73-74. Perdue, L.G., Proverbs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000). ———. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS, 30; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).



Bibliography 177

Petersen, David L., ‘Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections’, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion and Zechariah 9–14 (JSOTSup, 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 210-24. Pope, Marvin H., Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman; AB, 15; Garden City: Doubleday, 3rd edn, 1973). Porter, Stanley E., ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 79-96. Propp, William, Exodus 19–40 (AB, 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006). Provan, I., Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001). Raabe, Paul, ‘Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 213-27. Rad, Gerhard von, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J.D. Martin; Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1972). Ramantswana, Hulisani, ‘Conflicts at Creation’, Old Testament Essays 27 (2014), pp. 553-78. Ramond, Sophie, Les leçons et les énigmes du passe: Une exégèse intra-biblique des psaumes (BZAW, 495; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014). Rast, Walter E., Tradition History and the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). Ricks, Christopher, ‘Keat’s Sources, Keat’s Allusions’, in S. Wolfson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Keats (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 152-69. Ritchie, Ian D., ‘The Nose Knows: Bodily Knowing in Isaiah 11.3’, JSOT 87 (2000), pp. 59-73. Roberts, J.J.M., ‘The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition’, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 329-44. ———. ‘Zion in the Theology of the Davidic–Solomonic Empire’, in Tomoo Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), pp. 93-108. Rost, Leonhard, The Succession to the Throne of David (ed. J.W. Rogerson; trans. Michael D. Rutter and David M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). Salyer, G.D., Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup, 327; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Sanders, James A., ‘Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon’, in Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (OBO, 109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 203-17. Scheetz, Jordan, The Concept of Canonical Intertextuality and the Book of Daniel (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011). Schipper, Bernd, Hermeneutik Der Torah: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1–9 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012). ———. ‘When Wisdom Is Not Enough! The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs’, in Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 55-79. Schmidt, Thomas, ‘Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994), pp. 145-53.

178 Bibliography Schoors, A., ‘(Mis)Use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis’, in A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø (eds.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup, 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 45-59. Schultz, Richard L., ‘ “Fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13): An Examination of Some Intertextual Relationships between Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes’, in J.S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K.J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), pp. 327-43. ———. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). ———. ‘A Sense of Timing: A Neglected Aspect of Qoheleth’s Wisdom’, in R.L. Troxel, K.G. Friebel, and D.R. Magary (eds.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 257-67. ———. ‘Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Canonical and Covenantal Perspective’, TynBul 48.2 (1997), pp. 289-305. Schwartz, Baruch J., ‘Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isa. 2.1-4)’, in A. Houtman, M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz (eds.), Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 11-26. Scobie, C.H., ‘The Place of Wisdom in Biblical Theology’, BTB 14 (1984), pp. 43-48. Segal, David, ‘In Letter, Warren Buffet Concedes a Tough Year’, New York Times (February 28, 2009). Seitz, Christopher R., Isaiah 1–39 (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993). Seow, C.L., Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997). Sheppard, Gerald T., ‘ “Enemies” and the Politics of Prayer in the Book of Psalms’, in David Jobling, Peggy L. Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifty Birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991), pp. 61-83. ———. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980). Shields, M., The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Shifman, Arie, ‘ “A Scent” of the Spirit: Exegesis of an Enigmatic Verse (Isaiah 11:3)’, JBL 131 (2012), pp. 241-49. Simkins, Ronald A., Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). Sjöberg, Åke W., E. Bergmann, and Gene B. Gragg, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1969). Skehan, Patrick, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQMS, 1; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971). Skinner, John, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1915). Smith, Mark S., The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2002). Snyman, Gerrie, ‘Who Is Speaking? Intertextuality and Textual Influence’, Neotestamentica 30 (1996), pp. 427-49.



Bibliography 179

Sommer, Benjamin, Review of The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), by Ernest Nicholson, in RBL 2 (2000), pp. 184-189. ———. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (The Contraversions Series; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). Speiser, E.A., ‘A Significant New Will from Nuzi’, JCS 17 (1963), pp. 65-71. Stead, Michael R., The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS, 506; New York: T&T Clark International, 2009). ———. ‘Sustained Allusion in Zechariah 1–2’, in Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (LHBOTS, 475; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), pp. 144-70. Stone, Michel E., ‘Eschatology, Remythologization, and Cosmic Apria’, in S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986), pp. 241-51, 521-25. Suderman, W. Derek, ‘Are Individual Complaint Psalms Really Prayers? Recognizing Social Address as Characteristic of Individual Complaints’, in Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin (eds.), The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions (LHBOTS, 469; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp. 153-70. Sweeney, Marvin A., Isaiah 1–39 (FOTL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). ———. ‘New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered’, in Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (SPHS, 10; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 51-66. Sylva, Dennis, ‘Precreation Discourse in Psalms 74 and 77: Struggling with Chaoskämpfe’, Religion and Theology 18 (2011), pp. 244-267. Tannen, Deborah, You Just Don’t Understand (New York: Ballantine Books, 1990). Tanner, Beth LaNeel, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality (Studies in Biblical Literature, 26; New York: Peter Lang, 2001). Tate, Marvin E., Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20; Dallas: Word, 1990). Taylor, Archer, The Proverb (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1931). Tigay, Jeffrey H., ‘The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments’, in Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen (eds.), Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman (New York: Ktav, 1984), pp. 169-82. Tita, H., ‘Ist die thematische Einheit Koh 4,17–5,6 eine Anspielung auf die SalomoErzählung?’, BN 84 (1996), pp. 87-102. Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 3rd edn, 2012). Toy, Crawford H., Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899). Tucker, Gene M., ‘The Book of Isaiah 1–39’, in Leander E. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), VI, pp. 27-305. Tucker, Dennis W., ‘Revisiting the Plagues in Ps. CV’, VT 55 (2005), pp. 401-11. Unterman, Jeremiah, ‘The (Non)sense of Smell in Isaiah 11:3’, Hebrew Studies 33 (1992), pp. 17-23. Vall, Gregory, ‘Psalm 22:17B: “The Old Guess” ’, JBL 116.1 (1997), pp. 45-56. VanGemeren, Willem A. ‘Psalms’, in Tremper Longman III and David Garland (eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (13 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rev. edn, 2008), V, pp. 21-1024.

180 Bibliography Van der Merwe, Christo H.J., Jacobus Naudé, and Jan Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2006). Van Grol, Harm, ‘David and His Chasidim: Place and Function of Psalms 138–145’, in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms (BETL, 138; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010), pp. 309-37. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C., ‘The Background to Proverbs 3.4aα’, in Michael S. Barre, S.S. (ed.), Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (CBQMS, 29; Washington: CBA, 1997), pp. 102-21. ———. Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25–27 (SBLDS, 96; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). ———. ‘Psalm 8.5 and Job 7.17-18: A Mistaken Scholarly Commonplace?’, in P.M. Michele Daviau et al. (eds.), World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (JSOTSup, 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 205-15. Wallace, Robert E., The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter (Studies in Biblical Literature, 112; New York: Peter Lang, 2007). Waltke, Bruce K., Proverbs 1–15 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). ———. Proverbs 15–31 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). Walton, John A., Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006). Watts, John D.W., Isaiah 1–33 (WBC, 24; Nashville: Nelson Reference, rev. edn, 2005). Webb, B.G., Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther (New Studies in Biblical Theology; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). Weinfeld, Moshe, ‘Jerusalem—A Political City and Spiritual Capital’, in Joan Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions: Proceedings of the Symposium Held on May 27–29, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel (BLMJP, 2; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 15-40. ———. ‘The Protest against Imperialism in Ancient Israelite Prophecy’, in S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), pp. 169-82. ———. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995). Weiser, Artur, The Psalms: A Commentary (ed. Peter Ackroyd et al.; trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962). Wenham, Gordon J., Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically (Studies in Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012). Westenholz, Joan Goodnick, ‘The Theological Foundation of the City, the Capital City and Babylon’, in Joan Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions: Proceedings of the Symposium Held on May 27–29, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel (BLMJP, 2; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 43-54. Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12–36 (trans. J. Scullion; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985). Weyde, Karl, ‘Inner-biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible’, SEÅ 70 (2005), pp. 287-300. Whedbee, William, Isaiah & Wisdom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971).



Bibliography 181

Whitney, K. William, Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in the Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism (HSM, 63; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Whybray, R.N., The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup, 128; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). ———. Reading the Psalms as a Book (JSOTSup, 222; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Wildberger, Hans, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). ———. Isaiah 28–39 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002). Wiley, Patricia, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBLDS, 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Wilson, Gerald Henry, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 76; Chico: Scholars, 1985). ———. ‘King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter’, in Peter W. Flint et al. (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTSup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 391-406. ———. Psalms: Volume 1 (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002). ———. ‘Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms’, in J. Clinton McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOTSup, 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 72-82. ———. ‘The Use of Royal Psalms at the “Seams” of the Hebrew Psalter’, JSOT 35 (1986), pp. 85-94. Wilson, Lindsay, ‘Wisdom in Isaiah’, in David G. Firth and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), pp. 145-67. Xella, Paola, ‘Resheph’, in Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 700-703. Yarchin, William (ed.), History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004). Yu, Charles, ‘To Comfort Job: The Speeches in the Book of Job as Rhetorical Discourse’ (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2011). Zakovitch, Yair, Inner-Biblical and Extra-Biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them (ed. Avraham Shapira; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009 [in Hebrew]). ———. Introduction to Inner-biblical Interpretation (Even-Yehudah: Reches, 1992). ———. ‘One Thing God has Spoken Two Things I Have Heard: Expressions of Dual Meaning in Biblical Literature’, in Memorial Gathering in Memory of Professor Meir Weiss (Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 1999), pp. 21-68. ———. ‘Who Proclaims Peace, Who Brings Good Tiding’: Seven Visions of Jerusalem’s Peace (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2004 [in Hebrew]). Zenger, Erich, ‘The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145’, JSOT 80 (1988), pp. 77-102. ———. ‘New Approach to the Study of the Psalms’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 17 (1994), pp. 37-54. Zhang, Sarah, I, You, and the Word ‘God’: Finding Meaning in the Song of Songs (Siphrut, 20; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016).

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1–11 148 1–9 144, 145 1–3 120 1 43, 51, 56, 78, 82, 143, 145, 160 1.1–2.4 160 1.3 57 1.14 5, 66, 76, 78-82 1.26-28 144, 145, 150 1.26 150 1.29-30 143, 145 2 160 2.4-25 161 2.8 160 3 144, 145, 148 3.13 70 3.14-19 161 3.15 144, 145 4 148 6–9 144, 145 6–8 160 6 148 6.5 144, 145 6.11-12 144, 145 6.11 144 6.12 148, 150 7.19-20 144 7.19 144, 145 7.20 144, 145 9 160

9.1-7 150 9.1 150 9.2-4 150 9.5-6 150 9.6 150 9.20 160 9.25-27 161 11 148, 149 11.1-5 110 12–50 149 14.22-24 117, 118 16.5 144 20.6 61 20.7 55 22 149 22.12 149 25.28-34 116 27–32 114 27.2-4 109 27.4 116 27.7 116 27.14 116 27.18-29 117 27.18-25 116 27.18-19 114 27.36 114 28–32 107 28 116 28.10-22 111 28.12 111 28.18-22 117 28.20-22 117, 118 31.24 61 31.43-54 117 31.53 117 32–50 114 32 116 32.22-32 111

32.28 114 36.1 114 36.8 114 36.19 114 37.5-11 61 41.14 60 41.25 57 41.33 140 45.28 109 50.20 61 Exodus 1.1 114 1.7 59 3.13 118 3.15 114 4.22 114 5.2 118, 148 7–12 11, 16 7 12 7.5 148 7.8-10 58 7.10 61 7.14-25 12 7.15 12 7.17 12, 148 7.18 12 7.19 12, 61 7.20 12 7.21 12 7.24 12 7.25 12 7.28 12 8.1 12 8.5 12, 58 8.6 148 8.7 12 8.12 61

8.16-28 12 8.17 12 8.18 148 8.20 16 8.24 et 16 9.1-7 13 9.1 58 9.13-35 13 9.13 58 9.14 12, 148 9.19 15 9.20-21 15, 148 9.25 14, 15 9.29 148 9.30 148 9.31-32 14 10.1-20 13 10.2 61, 148 10.5 14 10.15 14 11.7 148 12.12 13 12.29 13 14 67 14.4 148 14.18 148 15 3, 4, 10, 21, 52, 76 15.1-21 116 15.1-10 160 15.3-8 113 15.3 118 15.6 77 15.12 77 15.13 22, 76, 77 15.16 22, 76, 77 15.17 22, 76, 160 16 18, 62 17 62 19–24 37 19.20 111 20.2 119 20.7 118 20.12 118 20.15 118

Index of References

183

20.16 118 23.22 70 32–34 43 34.6 4, 36-48

6.13 118 8.6 7, 131 9.4 124 9.7 6, 124, 129 9.8 129 9.9 6 9.19 6, 129 9.22 6, 129 10.20 118 12.6-7 125 12.7 132 12.12 132 12.18 132 12.23 150 12.32 et 115 13 128 13.1-5 et 6, 128 13.1 115 13.2-6 6, 128 13.4 et 7, 131 13.5 7, 131 14.1 114 14.26 132 14.29 129 15.9 125 16.10 125 16.11 132 16.14 132 16.15 6, 129 17.19 7, 131 18.19 124 19.16 144 19.18 144 21.8 124 23 122, 124, 126-28, 132 23.9 et 123 23.10 123 23.10 et 123 23.11 123 23.21-23 et 6, 121, 130 23.22-24 6, 121, 130

Leviticus 4–5 128 17.11-14 150 18.24 147 18.25 146, 147 18.28 146 19.11-12 119 20.22 146 26.6 143 Numbers 10.35 70 11 17 11.1-3 4, 16, 18 11.1 16, 17 11.3 17 11.4-35 18 11.4-34 18 15 128 20.14-20 114 21.4-9 18 21.33-35 63 23.7 114 24.3-4 107 24.17-18 114 32.22 90 Deuteronomy 1.1 106 1.34 6, 129 2.7 129 3.24 6, 129 4.2 111, 115 4.39 6, 129 5.6 119 5.11 111, 118 5.16 111, 118 5.19 111, 118 5.20 118 6–26 124 6.2 7, 131

184 Deuteronomy (cont.) 23.24 et 123 23.25 123 23.25 et 123 23.26 123 24.5 132 24.15 125 24.19 6, 129 26.5 107 26.15 129 27.7 132 28.12 129 29.27 6, 129 29.28 et 129 30.9 129 30.11-14 111 32 3, 10, 124 32.5-6 114 32.6 124 32.15 124 32.18-19 114 32.21 124 32.24 11 33.18 132 33.26 129 34.4-5 115 34.5 115 34.7 115 Joshua 8 63 10 63 Judges 6.15 144 11 132 14.5 27 1 Samuel 2.8 68 4–6 3, 10, 20 4.11 20 4.17 20 4.20 20 14 6 14.24-30 128

Index of References 15 6 15.22 127 15.27 127 16.7 140 19 6 19.6 128 22.6 66 26 6 26.21 128

Nehemiah 1.1 106 9 118 11.7 108

1 Chronicles 16 56 16.11 20 16.27 20

Job 1 102 1.8 88, 102 2 102 2.3 88 3 27, 87, 93, 94 3.3-9 93 3.3 94 3.11 94 3.16 94 3.21-23 99 3.22 94 3.24 4, 27 4–5 85, 86 4.2-6 87, 94 4.2-5 87, 94 4.2 94 4.3-5 88, 89 4.3-4 88, 96 4.5 88, 89, 96 4.6 90 4.7-11 87, 96 4.7 89 4.8-11 89 4.8-9 99 4.11 99 4.12-21 85, 87, 90 4.12-16 87, 90, 96, 99 4.17-21 87, 96, 100 4.17 90 4.18 90, 102 4.19-21 91, 98 4.19-20 70, 99 4.19 90, 91

2 Chronicles 6.28 13 32.15 70

5.1-16 94 5.1-7 87, 92, 93, 96

2 Samuel 1.10 139 6 3, 10, 20 7.12 139 7.14 113 22–23 111 22.18 70 22.31 107, 115 23.1 107, 109, 114 1 Kings 3.5 61, 129 3.9 140 3.12 140 3.15 129 4.20 132 8.37 13 8.41-43 149 2 Kings 17.24-41 146 17.27 147 17.28 147 18.20 140 18.29 70 19.10 70

5.1 92-94 5.2 93, 94, 98, 99 5.3-5 94 5.4 98 5.6-7 95 5.7 93, 96 5.8-16 87, 92, 93, 96 5.8 92, 93 5.9-16 95 5.11-16 93 5.11 95 5.12 95 5.13 95 5.15 95 5.17-27 93 5.17-26 87, 96 5.17-18 95 5.17 93 5.19-26 95 5.20-22 95 5.22-23 95 5.23 143 5.24-25 95 5.26 95 5.27 87, 96 6–7 85, 94 6 85 6.1-13 86 6.2-30 85 6.2-13 85 6.8-9 94 6.11-13 86 6.14-30 85 6.28-30 97 6.30 97 7 85, 86, 96-98 7.1-21 85 7.1-10 98 7.1-5 99 7.1-2 98 7.3-6 98 7.3-5 98 7.6-10 99

Index of References 7.7-21 85, 86 7.7 86 7.9-10 99 7.11-21 98, 99 7.11 99 7.12-21 85 7.12-14 99 7.15 86 7.16 94 7.17-21 100 7.17-18 5, 84 8.16 141 10.1 99 13.3 99 17–21 87 28 110 28.1-11 110 28.12-22 110 28.23 110 28.28 110 29.11-17 88 31.3 88 31.16-20 88 31.40 139 34.13 68 38–42 111 38–41 113 38–39 110 41 91 Psalms 2.7 113 4.6 et 78 4.7 78 8 100-102 8.2 et 70, 141, 144 8.3 70, 141, 144 8.4 et 5, 84, 85, 101 8.4-6 et 100 8.5-7 100 8.5 5, 84, 85, 101 12.6 et 115

185 12.7 115 14.7 114 18.6-14 et 68 18.7 et 67 18.7-15 68 18.8 67 18.17 et 70 18.18 70 18.29-30 et 115 18.30 et 107 18.30-31 115 18.31 107 19 111 19.1-10 111 19.9 et 111 21.8 et 70 21.9 70 22 4, 24-35 22.1 et 4, 27-29, 31, 34 22.2 4, 27-29, 31, 34 22.3-5 et 25 22.4-6 25 22.6-7 et 28 22.7-8 28 22.10 26 22.12-18 et 25 22.12-13 et 28 22.13-19 25 22.13-14 28 22.16 et 33, 35 22.16-17 et 28 22.17-18 28 22.17 33, 35 22.18 et 28, 31 22.19 28, 31 22.21 et 25 22.22-31 et 25, 26 22.22 25 22.23-32 25, 26 23.3 113 24.1-2 71 24.1 68 27.1 78 27.11 et 144

186 Psalms (cont.) 27.12 144 32 26 33.1 71 33.6-7 67 33.6 57 34.5 et 156 34.6 156 36.9 et 78 36.10 78 37.6 78 38 27 38.8 et 4, 27 38.9 4, 27 38.10 et 78 38.11 78 39.8 et 4, 31 39.9 4, 31 39.12 et 107 39.13 107 42.10 et 31 42.11 31 43.3 78 44.2 et 160 44.3 160 44.3 et 78 44.4 78 49.19 et 78 49.20 78 55.3 et 31 55.4 31 55.12 et 70 55.13 70 56.13 et 78 56.14 78 63.2 et 20 63.3 20 65.3 et 58 65.4 58 69 26, 29 69.9 et 31 69.10 31 72 116 73 115 73.16 108 73.26 109

Index of References 74

5, 66, 7476, 78, 82 74.1-11 81 74.1-3 76 74.2 76, 77 74.3 75 74.4-9 81 74.4-8 76 74.4-7 75 74.4 78-80 74.8 78 74.9-11 76 74.9 78, 80 74.10 31, 70 74.11-17 65 74.11-13 77 74.11 77 74.12-17 76, 81 74.12-15 76 74.12-13 77 74.12 79 74.13-15 79 74.13 76, 77 74.16-17 76, 78-80 74.16 76, 78-80 74.17 76, 79-81 74.18-23 76, 81 74.18-21 75 74.18 81 74.22-23 81 77 5, 66, 81 77.6-8 et 66 77.7-9 66 77.8 et 66 77.9 66 77.16 et 67 77.16-20 et 65 77.16-19 et 68 77.16-17 et 67 77.17 67 77.17 et 67 77.17-21 65 77.17-20 68 77.17-19 et 67 77.17-18 et 67, 68 77.17-18 67 77.18 67

77.18 et 68 77.18-19 67, 68 77.19-20 et 66, 68 77.19 68 77.20-21 66, 68 78 3, 4, 9-14, 1619, 23, 49, 52, 53, 55, 60 78.1-11 19 78.9 21 78.12 11 78.14 78 78.17-18 19 78.19-20 17 78.21 17 78.32-43 19 78.42-51 11 78.44 11, 12 78.45 11, 16 78.46-47 14, 15 78.46 11, 13, 15 78.47 11, 13, 15 78.48-50 11, 15 78.48-49 15 78.48 11, 12, 15 78.50 11, 15 78.51 11, 13, 15 78.54 21, 22 78.55-72 19 78.59-72 22 78.59-69 20 78.61 20 78.64 20 78.66 20 78.67-69 21 78.67-68 22 80.8 et 160 80.9 160 80.11 et 141 80.12 141 81 53 86 4, 5, 3641, 44, 46-48 86.2 40

86.4 40 86.5 39, 40 86.8 39 86.13 39, 40 86.15-16 41 86.15 38, 39, 41, 44 86.16 40, 41 87 149 89 5, 66, 69, 82, 116 89.1-37 et 69 89.1-19 et 69 89.2-38 69 89.2-20 69 89.9 et 69, 70 89.9-13 et 69 89.10 69, 70 89.10 et 69, 70 89.10-14 69 89.11 69, 70 89.11 et 68, 70 89.12 68, 70 89.12 et 69 89.13 69 89.13 et 69, 70 89.14 69, 70 89.15 et 78 89.16 78 89.20-27 et 69 89.21 et 69 89.21-28 69 89.22 69 89.22 et 69, 70 89.23 69, 70 89.23 et 70 89.24 70 89.24 et 69 89.25 69 89.25 et 69, 70 89.26-27 et 113 89.26 69, 70 89.27-28 113 89.38-45 et 71 89.38-39 et 69 89.39-46 71 89.39-40 69

Index of References 89.51 et 31 89.52 31 90.2 68 92.4-6 et 81 92.5-7 81 93–97 116 95 49 96.6 20 97.11 78 99.1 67 102.15 et 149 102.16 149 103 4, 5, 3638, 42, 44, 46-48 103.1-5 42 103.1-2 42 103.3-19 42 103.3-9 43 103.3-5 42, 43 103.4 42 103.6-9 42, 43 103.7 42 103.8 42-44 103.10-14 42, 43 103.11 42, 43 103.13 43 103.15-18 42, 44 103.17 42, 44 103.19-22 42 103.20-22 42 104.2 78 104.19 79 105 5, 9, 12, 49-56, 60, 62, 63 105.1-7 49 105.1-2 64 105.1 51 105.3 51 105.4 20, 51 105.7 51 105.8-11 49, 50 105.8 58 105.9 63 105.10 55 105.11 57, 58

187 105.12-15 50 105.15 55, 57 105.16-22 50 105.16 57 105.17 60 105.19 58 105.20 59 105.23-42 51 105.23-36 50 105.24 59, 63 105.25 63 105.26 60, 61, 63 105.27-36 11 105.27 58, 61 105.28-36 51 105.28 58, 60 105.29 62 105.30 62 105.31 51, 57, 58 105.32-35 14 105.32 62 105.34 57, 58 105.37-45 50 105.37 63 105.40 63 105.41 63 105.42 58 105.44 63 106 5, 9, 49, 52, 53, 66, 71, 82 106.1 71, 74 106.2 71 106.3 71 106.6 72 106.7 72, 73 106.8 74, 113 106.10 73, 74 106.12 71, 72 106.13 72 106.14-39 72 106.19-22 72 106.20-22 72 106.20 72 106.21-22 72 106.22 72 106.23 72

188 Psalms (cont.) 106.24 72 106.28-30 72 106.30-31 72 106.40-42 73 106.41-42 73 106.41 73 106.42 73 106.43-46 73 106.46 73 106.47-48 74 106.47 71 106.48 74 108-110 45, 47 112.4 78 114 52, 53 119.105 78 119.114 115 132.7-9 20 135 9, 52, 53 136 9, 52, 53 136.7 78 136.10-15 66 138-145 45, 47 139.6-16 108 139.11 78 143.12 70 144.2 115 145 4, 5, 3638, 44-48 145.1-7 45 145.1 45 145.5 58 145.8-21 45 145.8 44, 45 145.9-11 45 145.9 45, 46 145.10-11 46 145.10 45 145.11 46 145.13 45 145.14 45 145.15 45 145.16 45 145.17 45 145.18 45 145.20 45

Index of References 145.21 45 148.3 78 149 26 Proverbs 1–9 113, 114 1.1 106 1.6 119 1.7 114 1.8 114 2 104, 109 2.1 114 2.4-5 109 3.1 114 3.18-19 111 3.19-20 111, 114 4.1-5 114 8.1-36 114 8.22-29 111 8.26 68 8.28 70 9 109 9.10 109 10–29 6, 104 10.1 106 12.16 93 14.30 93 24.5 70 24.22 107 25.1 106 26.9 66 30 104, 110, 112, 113, 119 30.1-14 104, 105, 107 30.1-11 118 30.1-9 6, 103106, 112, 115, 119 30.1-3 105 30.1 106, 108, 112 30.2 108, 115 30.3 109, 115 30.4-6 105 30.4-5 116

30.4

104, 11012, 11416 30.5-9 114, 119 30.5-6 115 30.5 107, 114, 115 30.6 111, 115 30.7-9 105, 116 30.7 109, 115 30.8-10 118 30.8-9 117, 118 30.8 117 30.9 111, 11719 30.11 114, 118 30.19 148 31.17 70 Ecclesiastes 1–2 109 1.1 106, 109 1.17 108 2–3 132 2.10 132 2.26 126, 129 3.12 132 3.16 125 3.22 132 4.1-16 131 4.1 125 4.6 125 4.13 125 4.17–5.6 5, 6, 120, 124, 12630, 131 4.17 121, 123, 127 5 124, 12729 5.1 6, 12426, 129 5.1 et 121, 123, 127 5.1-7 et 6, 120, 124, 12631

5.2 128 5.2 et 6, 12426, 132 5.3 124, 127 5.3 et 128 5.3-5 6, 120, 121, 126, 130 5.4 126 5.4 et 124, 127 5.4-6 et 6, 120, 121, 126 5.4-6 130 5.5 6, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130 5.5 et 126 5.5-7 et 130 5.5-6 130 5.6 128, 129 5.6 et 6, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132 5.6-7 et 130 5.7 124 5.7 et 128, 130 5.8 et 124 5.18-19 132 5.18 129 5.19 et 129 5.19-20 et 132 6.2 129 6.9 125 7.1 125 7.2 125 7.3 125 7.5 125 7.8 125 7.15 132 7.16-17 132 7.17 124 7.20 126 7.23 108, 109 7.26 126 8.3 126 8.5 130

Index of References 8.11 126 8.12-13 132 8.12 126 8.15 129 9.2 121, 126 9.4 125 9.7 132 9.16 125 9.18 125, 126 10.5 128 10.10-11 126 10.19 132 11.8-9 132 12.7 129 12.9-14 130 12.13-14 6, 130, 131 12.13 120, 130 Song of Songs 4.1-6 145 5.10-15 146 Isaiah 1.24 70 2.1-4 156 2.2-5 149 2.2 152, 156 2.12-17 152 3.14 152 4.2 152 5 160 5.1-7 152, 161 5.25 152 5.29 27 5.30 156 6.2-8 152 6.8 152 7–9 144 8.7-8 157 9.7 114 9.8 et 114 9.11 152 9.16 152 9.20 152 10.4 152 10.5-15 158

189 10.33 139 11 133, 14345 11.1-10 7, 137, 139, 141, 149, 151, 152, 160, 164 11.1-5 139, 141 11.1 139 11.2 133, 139, 140, 145, 146 11.3-4 140 11.3 139, 140, 145 11.4 57, 145 11.5 139 11.6-10 141, 145 11.6-7 143, 145 11.6 142 11.7 144 11.8 139, 144, 145 11.9 139, 140, 144, 145 11.10 139 11.15-16 65 11.15 153 12.3 158 13.21 152 13.22 152 14.12 152 14.13 152 14.26-27 152 14.29 152 17.12-13 156 19.18-25 149 24–27 153 24.4 68 25.6-8 153 25.8 153 27.1-6 159 27.1-2 157 27.1 153 27.2 152 28.2 157

190 Isaiah (cont.) 28.14-18 157 28.15 153 30.7 153 30.28-33 158 31.3 152 33.21-23 158 35.9 143 36.5 140 36.14 70 37.10 70 40.12-17 111 42.2 70 43.6 114 43.18 118 45.11 114 48 56 48.2 118 48.4-10 112 51.3 160 51.9-16 112 51.9-11 65 52–53 141 53.2 141 56.7 149 58.11 160 60 149 60.5 156 60.7 20 60.21 160 61.3 160 61.11 160 63.16 114 64.10 20 64.11 et 20 65.16-17 118 65.25 160 66.20-21 149 Jeremiah 1.1 106 2.21 161 3.4 114 3.17 149 3.19 114 4.10 70

Index of References 4.23-26 163 5.1-2 118 10.7 149 10.12-16 112 10.12 68 12.6 149 12.10 161 12.16 118 29.8 70 31.20 114 31.35-37 116 31.35 112 32 118 32.17-35 112 37.9 70 49.16 70 51.5 90 51.15-19 112 Lamentations 2.1 20 2.2 75 2.6 79 5.11 66 Ezekiel 17.4 141 17.22 141 17.24 149 28.16 144 34.25 143 36.33-36 160 36.35-36 160 Daniel 2.45 61 3.12 147 3.14 147 3.17 147 9.11 118 Hosea 2.20 143 11.1 114 11.12–12.4 et 114 12.1-5 114

12.4 et 112 12.5 112 14.7 141 Joel 1.4 13 2.10-11 67 2.25 13 Amos 1.1 106 1.11 114 2.14 70 3.10 144 4.11-13 111 5.8 111 8.7 111 9.6-9 111 9.6 111, 112 9.8-9 112 Obadiah 3 70 7 70 8–10 114 Micah 4.3 70 7.16-17 149 Nahum 1.2 70 Habakkuk 2.14 149 3.5 11, 12 Zephaniah 2.11 149 Zechariah 2.15 149 8.20-23 149 9.10 71 14.16-21 149

New Testament Matthew 26.67 28 27.27-31 28 27.35 28 27.39-40 28 27.41-43 28 27.46 28 27.50 29

Index of References

191

John 19.23-26 28

Guide of the Perplexed 3.11 142

Apocrypha Ecclesiasticus 29.7 108

Treatise on Resurrection 10.6 142

Mark 14.65 28 15.16-20 28 15.20 34 15.24 28 15.27 29 15.29 28 15.31-32 28 15.32 28 15.34 28 15.35 32

Baruch 3–4 112-14 3.9–4.2 112 3.29–4.2 111 3.29 111 3.36 111, 113 3.36 et 114 3.37 114 4.1-19 111 4.1 111 4.2 114 4.7-8 111 4.8 113 4.21-37 111

Luke 22.63 28 23.11 28 23.34 28 23.35 28 23.39 28

Jewish Authors Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Laws Concerning Kings and Wars 12.1 142

Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Tertullian Against Marcion 3.19.5 30 Ancient Near Eastern Sources Enuma Elish iv, line 49 155 iv, line 75 155

I n d ex of A ut hor s Albertz, R. 66, 75 Albright, W. 31 Allen, L.C. 44, 49, 50, 52, 58, 61 Alter, R. 154 Anderson, A.A. 9, 49 Anderson, B.W. 161 Aster, S.Z. 147 Auerbach, E. 151

Clines, D.J.A. 84-94, 97-99, 101 Cohen, A. 11 Collins, J.J. 32, 154 Cook, J.A. 68 Craigie, P. 57 Crenshaw, J.L. 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 118, 122, 126 Cross, F.M. 152, 154

Baden, J. 19 Barbour, J. 121, 128 Bardtke, H. 120 Barré, M.L. 148 Bartholomew, C.G. 122, 123 Beal, T.K. 2 Begrich, J. 49, 50 Bellinger, W.H. 37 Ben-Porat, Z. 28 Bentzen, A. 26 Bergmann, E. 162 Berkhof, L. 1 Berlin, A. 35, 66, 154 Beuken, W.A.M. 153 Black, J. 11 Blenkinsopp, J. 141, 143, 154, 155 Blum, E. 18 Boda, M.J. 1, 53, 135 Brettler, M.A. 10, 12 Brewer, D.I. 1 Brown, R. 30 Brown, W.P. 131 Brueggemann, W. 143

Dahood, M. 22, 56, 62 Davies, G.H. 20 Day, J. 11, 153-55 deClaissé-Walford, N.L. 28, 36, 47, 71 Delitzsch, F. 17, 20, 58, 122 Dell, K. 121 DiTommaso, L. 136 Dillard, R. 56 Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. 72, 79 Doyle, B. 153 Draisma, S. 3 Driver, S. 86, 89, 90, 92, 95, 101 Eliade, M. 137 Emanuel, D. 52, 72-74

Campbell, A.F. 20 Caquot, A. 15 Cassin, E. 137 Cassuto, U. 153, 154 Ceresko, A. 52 Childs, B.S. 37, 38, 142, 152, 153 Christianson, E. 109 Ciardi, J. 134 Clemens, D.M. 121 Clements, R.E. 142 Clifford, R.J. 21, 57, 105, 107, 111, 113, 117, 152

Fewell, D.N. 3 Fidler, R. 129 Firth, D.G. 36 Fishbane, M. 2, 24, 53, 64, 65, 135, 152, 154, 158, 161 Floyd, M.H. 135 Fontaine, C.R. 106 Forman, C.C. 120 Foster, B. 155 Fox, M.V. 103, 107, 109, 110, 113, 115, 117, 122, 129, 130, 146, 165 Franklyn, P. 107, 108 Fretheim, T. 55, 56 Frevel, C. 86 Friedman, R.E. 19 Frye, N. 161 Frymer-Kensky, T. 150, 155 Füglister, N. 9, 17, 20 Fulco, W.J. 11 Fullerton, K. 89 Futato, M. 50



Index of Authors193

Gadamer, H.-G. 107, 136 Gallagher, W.R. 152 Garr, W.R. 152 Garrett, D.A. 122 Gärtner, J. 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 49, 52 Gaster, T.H. 137 Geller, S.A. 141, 143, 144, 148, 161 Genette, G. 3, 106 George, A.R. 162 Gerstenberger, E.S. 25, 26, 41, 44 Gillingham, S. 65, 76 Ginsberg, H.L. 152 Goldingay, J. 38-40, 42, 44, 45, 67, 68, 73, 76, 78, 80 Gordon, C.H. 153 Goulder, M. 13, 21 Gragg, G.B. 162 Grant, J.A. 48 Gray, G.B. 86, 89, 90, 92, 95, 101 Green, A. 11 Greenberg, M. 12, 147, 148, 158 Greene, N.E. 81 Greenstein, E.L. 11, 16, 17, 20, 134, 138 Groenewald, A. 37 Grogan, G.W. 46 Gunkel, H. 49, 50, 137, 154 Gutridge, C.A. 128 Habel, N.C. 85-93, 97-99, 110 Hall, E.T. 151 Heim, K. 103, 106 Hertzberg, H.W. 120 Hobbes, T. 91 Hoffman, Y. 51, 56 Holm-Nielsen, S. 56 Holmstedt, R.D. 77 Hossfeld, F.-L. 41, 45, 56, 58, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75-80 House, P.R. 73 Howard, D.M. 36 Hurley, M.D. 66 Hurowitz, V.A. 162 Hurvitz, A. 55 Jacobsen, T. 144, 152, 162 Jacobson, R.A. 39, 71 Janzen, J.G. 86 Jindo, J.Y. 134, 136, 138, 139, 146-48, 152, 155, 156, 161, 163, 164 John, E. 103, 106, 119

Johnson, A.R. 21 Johnson, D.G. 153 Johnson, J. 24 Johnston, P. 36 Joines, K.R. 152 Joüon, P. 91 Juel, D. 26, 29, 30, 32 Kaiser, O. 142 Kaufmann, Y. 147-49 Keel, O. 152 Keil, K. 58 Klein, A. 12, 15-17, 21, 52 Knight, D.A. 1 Koehler, L. 13 Kövecses, Z. 161 Kraus, H.-J. 26, 50, 52, 55, 60, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 75, 79, 80 Kristeva, J. 2, 28 Kroeze, J. 70, 78, 79 Krüger, T. 122 Kugel, J. 135 Lakostik, N. 25 Lauha, A. 18, 20, 132 Lee, A. 51 Leonard, J.M. 27 Levenson, J.D. 69, 81, 153, 154, 162 Lewis, T.J. 153 Linville, J. 33 Loewenstamm, S. 13, 51, 54 Longman, T., III 56, 108, 111, 116 Lunn, N.P. 73 Lyons, M. 135 Machinist, P. 157 Margulis, B. 51 Mays, J.L. 43, 66, 67, 69, 75 Mazor, L. 139, 143, 144 McCann, J.C. 36, 52, 56, 60, 67, 69, 71, 75, 76 McCann, N.R. 36 McConville, J.G. 125 McKane, W. 107, 108 McKay, J.W. 152 McMillion, P. 49 Meador, B. De S. 162 Meier, S. 57 Meinhold, A. 104, 108, 118 Menn, E. 29, 30, 33

194

Index of Authors

Michel, D. 130 Miller, P.D. 154 Miner, E. 134 Moore, R. 104, 113 Mowinckel, S. 26 Moyise, S. 2 Mullen, E.T. 152 Muraoka, T. 91 Murphy, R. 111, 122, 126 Nasuti, H.P. 36 Naudé, J. 70, 78, 79 Newsom, C.A. 85-89, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101 Nicholson, E.W. 19, 95 Nickelsburg, G. 29 Nielsen, K. 2, 54, 159 Norin, S. 51 Nurmela, R. 135 Obelkevich, J. 106 O’Dowd, R.P. 65, 123 O’Neil, M. 66 Paul, S. 147 Perdue, L.G. 108, 121, 127 Petersen, D.L. 2, 3 Pope, M.H. 86, 88, 90, 92, 99, 101 Porter, S.E. 2 Propp, W. 19 Provan, I. 122 Raabe, P. 60 Rad, G. von 120, 146 Ramantswana, H. 77 Ramond, S. 50, 53, 54, 63 Rast, W.E. 1 Ricks, C. 35 Ritchie, I.D. 140 Roberts, J.J.M. 152, 158 Rost, L. 20 Salyer, G.D. 131 Sanders, J.A. 138 Scheetz, J. 53 Schipper, B. 104, 109, 111, 113, 115 Schmidt, T. 30 Schoors, A. 132 Schultz, R.L. 2, 120, 121, 123, 126, 135 Schunck, K.D. 117 Schwartz, B.J. 156, 157

Scobie, C.H. 120 Segal, D. 105 Seitz, C.R. 142 Seow, C.L. 125, 126 Sheppard, G.T. 85, 110 Shields, M. 123, 127 Shifman, A. 140 Simkins, R.A. 151 Sjöberg, A.W. 162 Skehan, P. 107, 111 Skinner, J. 157 Smith, M.S. 152-54 Snyman, G. 3 Sommer, B. 2, 19, 53, 59, 64, 134, 135, 141 Speiser, E.A. 147 Stead, M.R. 8, 64 Stone, M.E. 154 Suderman, W.D. 85, 86 Sweeney, M.A. 143, 159 Sylva, D. 80 Tannen, D. 88 Tanner, B.L. 54, 71 Tate, M. 21, 38, 57 Taylor, A. 106 Tigay, J.H. 150 Tita, H. 129 Tov, E. 138 Toy, C.H. 108 Tucker, G.M. 51, 142 Unterman, J. 140 Vall, G. 33 Van der Merwe, C.H.J. 70, 78, 79 Van Grol, H. 46 Van Leeuwen, R.C. 84, 104, 116 VanGemeren, W.A. 52, 60 Wallace, R.E. 37 Waltke, B.K. 103, 106-108, 113-15 Walton, J.A. 162 Watts, J.D.W. 142 Webb, B.G. 123 Weinfeld, M. 142, 143, 162 Weiser, A. 17, 40 Wenham, G.J. 40 Westenholz, J.G. 162 Westermann, C. 55

Weyde, K. 54 Whedbee, W. 146 Whitney, K.W. 153 Whybray, R.N. 36, 105 Wildberger, H. 140, 142, 146, 159 Wiley, P. 64 Wilson, G.H. 36, 37, 47, 74 Wilson, L. 146

Index of Authors195 Xella, P. 11 Yarchin, W. 1 Yu, C. 85, 87, 93 Zakovitch, Y. 53, 60, 135, 139, 146, 161 Zenger, E. 41, 45, 47, 56, 58, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75-80 Zhang, S. 82