Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel: Exilic Encounters with Emotions, Space, and Identity Politics 9780567706447, 9780567706454

Citation preview

A

“The prophet who swallowed the scroll becomes (to our eyes, at least) virtually indistinguishable from what he ate.”1 Ellen Davis

Much like Ezekiel I’ve found that I have enacted and embodied that which has been passed down. The events described in Ezekiel characterized my writing this book—a self-imposed exile from home following constraints I could not bear, a breaking down of all I knew in a dramatic and messy unfolding of events. As I sought to grasp the text and make sense of its contents, I was constantly struck, amused, and disturbed by ways the themes expressed in Ezekiel manifested in my own life. I cannot overstate the contribution my colleagues and loved ones have made to my development as a person and a scholar, both of which have resulted in this book and helped me flourish in exile. I am grateful to Tamar Kamionkowski, Tracy Lemos, and Ian Young for providing thoughtful feedback in their examination reports of my doctorate, on which the foundations of this book were built. A special thanks goes to Professor Tamar Kamionkowski for encouraging me to submit a book proposal to LHBOTS. I am also indebted to Fran oise Mirguet, Amy Cottrill, and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback. I thank Bronwen Neil for her support and encouragement as she mentored me through my postdoctoral fellowship at Macquarie University, and Gareth Wearne, Louise Pryke, and Aysha Josephson for reviewing early drafts of the manuscript. I also extend my gratitude to Lucy Davies, Dominic Mattos, and Duncan Burns for helping me prepare this manuscript for publication. A special thanks goes to Christopher Brennan for his excellent attention to detail.

1.  Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, JSOTSup 78, Bible and Literature Series 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 135.

x

Acknowledgments

This book was made possible by numerous funding opportunities. A postdoctoral fellowship at Macquarie University, Australia enabled me to dedicate myself full-time to the completion of this project. Macquarie University also provided additional funding so that I could travel abroad in 2019 and 2022 to present the findings of this book at the Society of Biblical Literature meetings. I am grateful for the generous financial support of the Wolf family and the Australian Friends of the Hebrew University, which allowed me the opportunity to travel to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel for research in 2017. My greatest gratitude goes out to Stephen Llewelyn. You have been an invaluable constant that has supported me through this whole journey. Your unwavering support and belief in my ability to succeed have carried me through when I did not think I had it in me to continue. I am endlessly grateful for your guidance, patience, generosity, kindness, and friendship.

A

AB ANET AOTC AYBC BBB BBRSup BDB BETL BibInt BZAW CBQ CBR CD CHANE ESV FAT HALOT

HBM HSM HTR HTS HUCA JAOS JBL JFSR JNES JR JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup KAT LCBI LHBOTS

Anchor Bible J. B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research (Cairo) Damascus Document Culture and History of the Ancient Near East English Standard Version Forschungen zum Alten Testament L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, J. J. Stamm et al. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden 1994–2000 Hebrew Bible Monographs Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hervormde Teologiese Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Journal of Near Eastern Studies The Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

xii LL LXX MT NICOT NIV NovT OBT OTE OTL OTM OTS RHR RRBS SBLAIIL SBLDS SBLRBS SBLSS SBLSymS SLEx SWBA TDOT UF VTSup WBC ZAW

Abbreviations Laws of Lipit-Ishtar Septuagint Masoretic Text New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version Novum Testamentum Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Old Testament Studies Revue de l’Histoire des Religions Recent Research in Biblical Studies SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Resources for Biblical Study SBL Semeia Studies SBL Symposium Series Sumerian Laws Exercise Tablet The Social World of Biblical Antiquity G. J. Botteweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by D. E. Green et al. Grand Rapids, 1974– Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1

E

, D

,

T

1.1. Introduction Space and emotion are fundamentally connected in Ezekiel. In 597 BCE, the Babylonian army laid siege to Jerusalem and forcibly displaced the elite Judahites to Babylonia, far from the Jerusalem temple, which was the center of their cultic and political life.1 The temple was eventually destroyed in 587/6 BCE and another wave of Judahites were deported to Babylonia. The trauma of displacement is palpable in the graphic scenes, disturbing imagery, and turbulent emotions that persist throughout Ezekiel—scenes of dead bodies piling up in the hillsides and cities (Ezek. 6:5), repeated images of Jerusalem overflowing with blood (16:6; 22:1-27; 24:6-9), a wife dismembered and publicly murdered (16:35-41), grief forcibly suppressed (24:15-18), and unrestrained expressions of divine rage (5:10-17), to name but a few. The recent trend in scholarship has been to interpret Ezekiel with a view to taking seriously the trauma that accompanied the Babylonian deportation and subsequent exile of the Judahites.2 Following this trend 1.  It should be noted that the cultic and political were inextricably linked during Ezekiel’s time. 2.  Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE),” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, JSJSup 56, ed. James M. Scott (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 7–36; Gale A. Yee, Poor Banished Children of Eve: Women as Evil in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 111–34; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 75–104; David G. Garber Jr., “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet,” in Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures, Volume 2, From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision, ed. J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins (Westport: Praeger, 2004), 215–35; Brad E. Kelle, “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel,” JBL 128 (2009): 469–90; Nancy

2

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

there has been increased interest in the complex role of emotions in Ezekiel, especially the emotions of shame, disgust, and anger.3 Despite the growing literature examining emotions in Ezekiel, the spatial dimensions of emotional experience and representation have largely been neglected. The lack of research that combines an examination of space and emotions is not only characteristic of studies of Ezekiel but of biblical studies more widely. This neglect is surprising given interdisciplinary research that emphasizes the inextricable link between space and emotions in human experience.4 Space is a vital component of emotional expression, formation, and representation because emotions are embodied, dynamic, and situated (in time and space). Similarly, emotions have an indispensable role in the experience, formation, and representation of space itself. R. Bowen, Ezekiel, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010); Tracy M. Lemos, “ ‘They Have Become Women’: Judean Diaspora and Postcolonial Theories of Gender and Migration,” in Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Saul M. Olyan, SBLRBS 71 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 81–109; Tracy M. Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile: Hypermasculinity and Feminization in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, ed. Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob Wright, SBLAIIL10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 377–93; Ruth Poser, Das Ezekchielbuch Als Trauma-Literatur, VTSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Ruth Poser, “No Words: The Book of Ezekiel as Trauma Literature and a Response to Exile,” in Bible Through the Lens of Trauma, ed. Elizabeth Boase and Christopher G. Frechette, SBLSS 86 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 27–48. For a summary of trauma studies in biblical research see David G. Garber, “Trauma Theory and Biblical Studies,” CBR 14 (2015): 24–44. 3.  For shame in Ezek. 16 see Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution, JSOTSup 346 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 129–64; Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 102–9; Margaret S. Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:5963,” JSOT 56 (1992): 103–5; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret Odell and John Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 160–8. For disgust in Ezek. 16 see Dale Launderville, “ ‘Misogyny’ in Service of Theocentricity: Legitimate or Not?” in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Ancient Near East, ed. Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho, SBLAIIL 15 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 193–214. For anger in Ezek. 16 see Tracy M. Lemos, “The Apotheosis of Rage: Divine Anger and the Psychology of Israelite Trauma,” BibInt 23 (2015): 101–21. 4.  For a discussion of this research and a definition of space as I understand it see Chapter 3.

1. Ezekiel, Displacement, and Trauma

3

The primary aim of this book is to convey the importance of space for the study of emotions and gender in the Hebrew Bible. I will do so using Ezek. 16 as the main case study through which to explore the spatial dimensions of emotional representation and identity politics. These dimensions include the ways that trauma and its related emotions including (but not limited to) anxiety, fear, disgust, and shame are represented spatially and bound up with gender and the body. In Ezek. 16, Ezekiel’s theological justification of the displacement of the Judahites is communicated through the metaphor of a marriage between a husband (Yhwh) and his adulterous wife (Jerusalem). The emotionally evocative metaphor of the city as wife is fundamentally spatial, mapped onto a metonymic chain where place is linked to people—that is, the personified city Jerusalem represents the Judahites. Gender, space, and emotion intrinsically combine to inform the portrayal of the main protagonist Jerusalem: a gendered, personified city who feels. 1.2. Trauma and its Spatial Dimensions In recent years, geographers have called for an urgent need to bring the spatial aspects of trauma front and center—a call that this book takes seriously.5 This need stems from the fundamental role of the body as a “site of trauma” and from the reality that trauma takes place in specific locations.6 These spaces play no small role in shaping trauma and its expression.7 Yet the relationship between trauma and space is more complex than it seems at first glance. Coddington and Micieli-Voutsinas highlight this complexity: “Belatedly located elsewhere, trauma is simultaneously and paradoxically in place and out of place, of place and placeless.”8 Flashbacks, for example, take the trauma victim back to the place in which a traumatic event initially occurred, even as the victim is

5.  Rachel Pain, “Geotrauma: Violence, Place and Repossession,” Progress in Human Geography 45 (2021): 972–89; Kate Coddington and Jaque Micieli-Voutsinas, “On Trauma, Geography, and Mobility: Towards Geographies of Trauma,” Emotion, Space and Society 24 (2017): 52–6; Gail Adams-Hutcheson, “Spatialising Skin: Pushing the Boundaries of Trauma Geographies,” Emotion, Space and Society 24 (2017): 105–12. 6.  Adams-Hutcheson, “Spatialising Skin,” 105. 7.  For further discussion of the relationship between space and emotions see Chapter 3. 8.  Coddington and Micieli-Voutsinas, “On Trauma, Geography, and Mobility,” 54.

4

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

situated in another time and place.9 In other words, trauma can cause a rupture between time and place which “unsettles the spatial connections between people and places.”10 This unsettling of spatial connections manifests on numerous levels in Ezekiel, which is both a product of trauma and an account of the literal rupture of people and place through the Babylonian deportation. Before going any further, it is necessary to define trauma and tease out some of its spatial dimensions. Garber notes that the Greek word τραύμα from which the English word arises “means a ‘wound’ or a ‘hurt’.”11 Initially, the word “trauma” was limited in English to mean physical injury and was predominantly used in medical contexts. Today, however, trauma has become a notoriously slippery term that is difficult to define— if definition of the term is even attempted at all. The contemporary usage of the term is not limited to physical injury, but rather incorporates a broad range of experiences, including physical and psychological injuries, individual and collective wounding, and, indeed, events that most would hardly consider warranting such a description, like “a young star losing her luggage.”12 The difficulty in defining trauma might be due to the fact that, as Poser has noted, “trauma is not an inherent element of an event or experience as such; not everyone exposed to a potentially traumatizing event develops traumatic symptoms.”13 Rather, Poser explains, trauma occurs when someone is exposed to a life-threatening experience they are not able to overcome. Poser continues, “Nevertheless, survivors of war, torture, and sexual violence are affected with particular frequency, as are those who have had to flee or have been uprooted from their homelands.”14 Ezekiel certainly belongs to at least two of these categories, war and deportation,

9.  Ibid., 52. 10.  Ibid. 11.  Garber, “Trauma Theory and Biblical Studies,” 28. 12.  Constance J. Dalenberg, Elizabeth Straus, and Eve B. Carlson, “Defining Trauma,” in APA Handbook of Trauma Psychology: Foundations in Knowledge, vol. 1, ed. Steven N. Gold (Washington: American Psychological Association, 2017), 15. For the history of the term’s usage in the various iterations of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders from 1980, when the term was first defined, until 2017 see ibid., 15–33. 13.  Ruth Poser, “Embodied Memories: Gender-Specific Aspects of Prophecy as Trauma Literature,” in Prophecy and Gender in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Juliana Claassens and Irmtraud Fischer, The Bible and Women 1/2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2021), 335. 14.  Ibid.

1. Ezekiel, Displacement, and Trauma

5

and evidence of Babylonian deportation practices suggests that sexual violence, including stripping the conquered, may have characterized the exiles’ experience.15 One of the functions of these embodied practices was to shame the defeated through emasculation. Kamionkowski draws attention to the ways in which military conquest in the ancient Near East was accompanied by violent retribution against the conquered that often involved emasculating “shaming practices.”16 These acts of violence “directly threatened symbols of masculinity” and included castration, beard shaving, and stripping.17 Through an analysis of Ezekiel’s re-enactment of the siege of Jerusalem, Kamionkowski persuasively argues that Ezekiel himself was familiar with the emasculating practices of warfare in the ancient Near East.18 While it cannot be confirmed with certainty that Ezekiel himself physically endured these practices, the text he left behind reflects the psychological states of shame and humiliation that accompanied the emasculation of the exiles. In particular, Kamionkowski reads Ezek. 16 and 23 as “responses to gender confusion” brought on by the trauma of the Babylonian conquest.19 A similar approach that also emphasizes the connection between the Babylonian conquest and emasculation is taken by Lemos.20 Lemos focuses on the dishonor that accompanied the exiles’ traumatic experience of the Babylonian conquest and traces how this dishonor is expressed through masculine hierarchies that align the conqueror with the masculine and the conquered with the feminine. Lemos outlines ideals of masculinity in the ancient Near East, ideals that were shared by the Judahites and Babylonians alike and that “trumpeted a warrior masculinity tied to honor and conquest, physical prowess and physical

15.  Smith-Christopher, “Ezekiel in Abu-Ghraib: Re-reading Ezekiel 16:37-39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 155. 16.  S. Tamar Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel, LHBOTS 368 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 63. 17.  Ibid., 62–3. 18.  Ibid., 65–6. See the similar claims made by Corrine L. Patton, “ ‘Should Our Sister Be Treated Like a Whore?’: A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, SBLSymS 9, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 221–38. 19.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 70. 20.  Lemos, “ ‘They Have Become Women’,” 81–109. See also Lemos, “The Emasculation of Exile,” 377–93.

6

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

attractiveness, control over one’s household and particularly the women in one’s household, and yes, fidelity to one’s gods.”21 Following the Babylonian conquest, which militarily and physically overpowered the Judahites and removed their control over households, women, and worship of God (insofar as the exiles were denied access to the temple through their removal from Jerusalem), the exiles were effectively stripped of their masculinity. Lemos argues that the emasculation of the exiles and the comparative hyper-virility of the Babylonians is expressed in Ezek. 16 and 23 through the metaphor of the people as Yhwh’s wife, who “whores after” these exemplars of masculinity instead of her own husband.22 Ezekiel’s portrayal of the Judahites as a woman pining after men who embody the ideals of masculinity is a direct result of the “loss of masculine privilege” experienced by the exiles.23 One of the pervasive features of both psychological and physical trauma is its relationship to boundaries. This is an obvious feature of physical and sexual trauma, through which the perpetrator violates and impacts the bodily boundaries, breaking through skin, forcibly entering the body of the victim. The connection between trauma and boundaries is also evident in some of the psychological symptoms of trauma described by Poser,24 including intrusive thoughts, nightmares, and flashbacks— memories of traumatic events that break through to haunt the victim. In his discussion of vocabulary of trauma in the Hebrew Bible, Garber writes that, “victims of trauma are subjected to an outside force that breaks in upon them in an overwhelming fashion.”25 Indeed, one of the primary meanings of the Hebrew root ‫חלל‬, which is translated as τραύμα in the LXX, is “to pierce” or “to slay.” The other meaning of ‫ חלל‬is “to profane,” which Garber convincingly argues is connected to Yhwh’s violent judgment and thus traumatic experience in Ezekiel.26 I will return to Ezekiel’s conceptualization of holy/profane in Chapter 5. For now it will suffice to say that one of the core features of this conceptualization is the importance of distinguishing between holy and profane, clean and unclean (Ezek. 22:26). In other words, Ezekiel’s conceptualization of holiness is concerned with establishing and maintaining appropriate boundaries. 21.  Lemos, “ ‘They Have Become Women’,” 100. 22.  Ibid., 100–102. 23.  Ibid., 102. 24.  Poser, “Embodied Memories,” 336. 25.  David G. Garber, “A Vocabulary of Trauma in the Exilic Writings,” in Kelle, Ames and Wright, eds, Interpreting Exile, 311. 26.  Ibid., 314.

1. Ezekiel, Displacement, and Trauma

7

Boundaries function to demarcate, to divide and define territory, to protect that which is contained, and to keep out that which is not welcome. Throughout this book, I argue that boundaries are vitally important heuristic tools through which to understand the complex intersections between identity politics, emotions, and space in Ezekiel. A preoccupation with both physical and social boundaries manifests in the persistent spatial imagery and dichotomies in Ezekiel. This preoccupation with boundaries is particularly prevalent in Ezek. 16, in which Yhwh communicates his concern regarding the physical boundaries of his wife Jerusalem’s body and the social boundaries transgressed by her behavior. Ezekiel 16 teems with the dichotomies of inside/outside, Judahite/ foreigner, clean/unclean, and male/female; however, rather than being upheld, Ezekiel bemoans that these dichotomies are deconstructed and transgressed by Yhwh’s wife Jerusalem. Through the marriage metaphor that explores Jerusalem’s transgression of bodily and social boundaries, Ezekiel accounts for the cataclysmic event that was the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem and deportation of the Judahites—an event that notably involved the breakdown of the city’s boundaries through siege and invasion, the breakdown of the boundaries of Judahite bodies through torture and deportation, and that eventually threatened to break down boundaries between Judahite and foreigner through intermarriage in exile. While Ezek. 16 is the main case study through which I explore the importance of boundaries and the dichotomies that accompany them in Ezekiel, I will show that these themes also dominate other chapters in Ezekiel. In particular, I will argue that boundaries are vital for understanding Ezekiel’s theodicy and vision of the new Jerusalem and new temple (Ezek. 40–48). 1.3. Examining Emotions and Space in Ezekiel Similar to Greenberg and others, my approach to Ezekiel is one that interprets the book as a unified whole on the basis of the book’s stylistic and structural continuity.27 As such, I rely predominantly on the final 27.  See Greenberg’s two commentaries on Ezekiel, Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, AYBC 22 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983); Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AYBC 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997). For a summary of the features that demonstrate the structural and stylistic continuity throughout Ezekiel see especially Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 25–7. For a discussion of methodological issues in determining textual “authenticity” see Moshe Greenberg, “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. Johan Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 123–35.

8

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

version of the MT, supplementing where necessary and considering issues of redaction on a case-by-case basis.28 Chapters 2 and 3 outline the theoretical framework with which I will approach emotions and space in this book. In Chapter 2, I offer a framework for understanding emotions that emphasizes that emotions are first and foremost embodied. I then turn to consider emotions in the Hebrew Bible, drawing on Mirguet’s research to argue that there are considerable differences between the English term emotion and the closest equivalent in the Hebrew Bible. These differences call for an examination of emotions in the Bible that goes beyond emotion lexemes to include bodily states, appearance, speech, and setting, as Mirguet points out, but also to include a consideration of the structures of language itself, particularly figurative language. Chapter 3 ties emotions to the book’s other core themes of space, gender, and power, positioning the body as the site through which to collectively consider these themes and their fundamental relationship. I offer a conceptualization of space that goes beyond the materialist view of space as a container to highlight the dynamic connection between space and society, with a particular focus on the role of space in the construction and resistance of gender norms. I emphasize the intrinsic interrelatedness of emotions and space and argue that this interrelatedness means it is imperative for interpreters to consider both emotions and space together. The chapter concludes by situating the emotional-spatial approach of this book in relation to previous approaches to the study of space, emotions, and gender in Ezek. 16. In Chapter 4, I move on to my analysis of Ezek. 16, arguing that space and emotion first come together in Jerusalem’s abandonment in an open field to portray her as powerless and unwanted. I begin by providing an overview of the semantic range of “field” (‫ )שדה‬in the Hebrew Bible and Ezekiel then analyze the specific emotions that feature alongside “field” in 16:4-7, namely, pity, compassion, and contempt. Drawing together this research, I argue that the setting of the field parallels and heightens the emotions in 16:4-7 through the association of the field with destruction, isolation, and fertility. In Chapter 5, I draw on recent research into disgust to argue that it is an emotion that functions to protect physical and social boundaries and explain that disgust has a crucial role in the formation of the 28.  All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. For an overview of the complex textual history of Ezekiel see Johan Lust, “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Yohanan Goldman, A. van der Kooij, Richard Weis, and Richard D. Weis, VTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. 153–7.

1. Ezekiel, Displacement, and Trauma

9

biblical purity laws. I offer an overview of Ezekiel’s unique conceptualization of purity, particularly the categories holy (‫)קדש‬/profane (‫)חול‬ and clean (‫)טהר‬/unclean (‫)טמא‬, which form an important component of Jerusalem’s representation as disgusting and threatening. I suggest that Douglas’s notion of the physical body as a bounded system whose integrity is under threat and Kristeva’s conceptualization of the female body as abject are useful tools through which to consider Jerusalem’s embodied representation. Chapter 6 examines the embodied aspects of Jerusalem’s representation as disgusting and threatening in Ezek. 16:2-14 in light of their relationship to Ezekiel’s conceptualization of purity and their symbolic significance. I focus on the blood covering Jerusalem and her connection to her mother through her uncut umbilical cord. I argue that both of these descriptions highlight the ritual impurity of Jerusalem and her compromised bodily boundaries, which turns her into a threatening object of disgust that signifies the undesirable state of the Judahites before Yhwh makes a covenant with them. I conclude by examining Jerusalem’s fertile body in 16:7-14 and argue that Yhwh’s marriage to Jerusalem attempts to contain the threat of the “foreign,” fertile, female body within the boundaries of marriage. This threat is unleashed when Jerusalem rejects Yhwh’s containment of her by pursuing sexual relationships with men other than Yhwh—a decision which notably returns Jerusalem to a state of compromised bodily boundaries. Chapter 7 applies the research introduced in Chapter 3 regarding the fundamental role of space in power relations to Ezek. 16:15-34. I argue that Jerusalem’s rebellion against Yhwh is best understood as a power struggle over the control of space, including the city space that forms the setting for the actions of the characters in the text and the space of Jerusalem’s body. First, I examine the three spaces Jerusalem builds, namely, the dome (‫)גב‬, high place (‫)רמה‬, and shrines (‫ )במות‬as they are represented in the Hebrew Bible. Then, I argue that these spaces are physical manifestations of Jerusalem’s subversive power, pride, and sexual desire in 16:15-34 through which the author magnifies Jerusalem’s representation as transgressive. This representation is achieved through the spatial metaphor HIGH AS PROUD, through the association of certain spaces with certain behaviors, and through Jerusalem’s rejection of ancient Israelite social norms concerning the use of space. I conclude the chapter by examining Jerusalem’s embodied representation as a woman whose bodily boundaries are compromised in 16:15-34. I argue that Jerusalem rejects Yhwh’s containment of her body by removing the signifiers of Yhwh’s control (the jewelry, food, and clothing he bestows upon her), by allowing foreign men to enter her body, and by coming into contact with ritually impure fluids.

10

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Chapter 8 examines Yhwh’s response to Jerusalem’s rebellion in Ezek. 16:35-43. I argue that just as the assertion of subversive feminine sexuality is spatially realized in 16:15-34, so too the destruction of subversive feminine sexuality is realized through the destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings and body. By tearing down Jerusalem’s buildings, which I argued in Chapter 7 were symbols of her power, desire, and pride, Yhwh takes away Jerusalem’s power and leaves her undesirable and ashamed. I show that the destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings is mirrored in the destruction of her body, which is also torn down and brought to the ground. The spatial metaphor of HIGH AS PROUD in 16:15-34 is reversed as the spatial metaphor LOW AS ASHAMED communicates Jerusalem’s shifting power and emotions. Yhwh’s power is also communicated through his reestablishment of control over the bodily boundaries of his wife. This control is regained through the acts of violence Yhwh commissions against his wife’s body, which threaten Jerusalem’s bodily boundaries through stripping, slicing, and stoning. The embodied representation of Yhwh’s wife as penetrated, broken apart, and surrounded evokes the compromised boundaries of the city Jerusalem as it was laid to siege and eventually invaded by the Babylonians. I conclude by arguing that the struggle between Jerusalem and Yhwh over the wife’s bodily boundaries is a key signifier through which Ezekiel communicates his theodicy. Chapter 9 compares the representation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 to Ezekiel’s vision of the new city and temple in Ezek. 40–48. Ezekiel’s vision replaces Jerusalem the adulterous wife with a non-gendered sacred space with tightly controlled boundaries and highly restricted access. Drawing on Galambush’s research, I consider the impact that this disappearance of the feminine has on the representation of the new city and temple. In particular, I consider the shifting emotions evoked in Ezek. 16 vis-à-vis Ezekiel’s vision by examining the spatial organization of the new city and temple and the representation of the bodies permitted access to sacred space. I argue that the fear and disgust evoked by the female body in Ezek. 16 is erased along with the eradication of feminine imagery. I show that this erasure of fear and disgust is achieved through the spatial organization of the new temple, with its solid boundaries, and through the controls placed on male priestly bodies, who also have highly policed bodily boundaries. Contrary to the representation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16, the new city and temple evoke security, purity, and hope. The conclusion outlines the contributions of the book and suggests some questions for future study.

Chapter 2

A

E

2.1. Emotions in History The historian’s aversion to emotion has a long and complex history in Western thought.1 Nineteenth-century sensibilities regarding the importance of objectivity and the suppression of the self in the pursuit of wissenschaftliche Studie have had no small role in shaping this history in the last few centuries. Objectivity, it was claimed, is hindered by emotion—the “primitive and irrational” aspect of humankind.2 The belief in the impediment of the self and, subsequently, of emotion to intellectual progress has not only shaped how historians study their subject; it has shaped the very aspects of the past historians deem valuable for study. Consequently, the study of the history of emotions in particular was marginalized and ignored until relatively recently. As Febvre cynically remarked in 1941, the study of the history of “sensibility” is not “real history”; “real history” occupies itself with questions of circumstance, with places worthy of study, with tangible evidence.3 Following Febvre’s seminal article,4 attitudes to the study of emotions changed dramatically.5 In recent decades the avoidance of emotion was 1.  Emotion is a notoriously difficult term to define. Despite the fact that the definition of emotion has occupied much scholarly attention over the last two decades, no consensus has been reached. 2.  Frank Biess (facilitator), “Forum: History of Emotions,” German History 28 (2010): 68. 3.  Lucien Febvre, “Sensibility and History: How to Reconstitute the Emotional Life of the Past,” in A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre, ed. Peter Burke (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 26. 4.  Lucien Febvre, “La Sensibilité et l’histoire. Comment Reconstituer la Vie Affective d’autrefois?” Annales d’histoire Sociale 3 (1941): 5–20. 5.  For the history of emotions in modern scholarship see Jan Plamper, The History of Emotions: An Introduction, trans. Keith Tribe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 40–74.

12

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

replaced by a marked increase in the study of emotions in fields as diverse as sociology,6 anthropology,7 philosophy,8 and linguistics;9 however, as Confino remarks, “the topic of emotions has been a latecomer in historical studies.”10 This is particularly the case with regard to the focus on the history of emotions in modern biblical scholarship. While the growing interest in emotions in the humanities may also be observed in biblical studies, inquiries into emotions in the biblical corpus did not garner much interest until the late 1990s. In the last decade, studies have emerged on particular emotions like anger, love, and distress,11 as well as others that suggest ways forward in terms of methodology and approach,12 and still others that focus on divine emotion.13 Despite a growing interest, the study of emotions in the Hebrew Bible is very much still in its infancy. This is even more so the case when it comes to the study of emotions in Ezek. 16. Studies of emotions in Ezek. 16 tend to focus on two areas: the audience’s possible emotional responses and the emotional representation of Yhwh and Jerusalem. Often studies combine both, drawing conclusions about the audience’s possible emotional responses by analyzing the emotional representation of the protagonists.

6.  Stephanie A. Shields, Speaking from the Heart: Gender and the Social Meaning of Emotion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 7.  Karl G. Heider, Landscapes of Emotion: Mapping Three Cultures of Emotion in Indonesia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). 8.  Aaron Ben-Ze’ev, The Subtlety of Emotions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000). 9.  Jean Harkins and Anna Wierzbicka, eds, Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001). 10.  Biess, “Forum: History of Emotions,” 70. 11.  Matthew R. Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 7 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011); Susan Ackerman, “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437–58; Philip King, “Metaphor and Methodology for Cross-Cultural Investigation of Hebrew Emotions,” Journal of Translation 8 (2012): 9–24. 12.  Zacharias Kotzé, “Metaphors and Metonymies for Anger in the Old Testament: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach,” Scriptura 88 (2005): 118–25; Françoise Mirguet, “What is an Emotion in the Hebrew Bible?” BibInt 24 (2016): 442–65. 13.  Matthew R. Schlimm, “Different Perspectives on Divine Pathos: An Examination of Hermeneutics in Biblical Theology,” CBQ 69 (2007): 673–94. For divine anger specifically, see Lemos, “Apotheosis of Rage,” 101–21.

2. Approaching Emotions

13

2.2. Audience Emotional Responses to Ezekiel 16 Renz dedicates a small section of his study to a consideration of the rhetorical potential of the emotions evoked in Ezek. 16 and 23.14 He argues that emotions serve three purposes in these chapters: first, they engage (hearers)/readers; second, they “make the discourse more memorable”; and third, they work to affect the attitude of the (hearers)/ readers towards “Jerusalem, Yahweh, and the prophet” so that it conforms with the author’s own attitudes.15 It is this last aspect that Renz teases out in his analysis. He highlights that emotions involve judgments.16 Jealousy, for example, involves the judgment that another person is in possession of something that one desires,17 whereas anger involves the judgment of another’s “moral quality.”18 The intrinsic judgments in the emotional responses of Yhwh can tell us much about the portrayal of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 and 23. Ultimately, Renz argues that “the emotion which is meant to be created is not sexual excitement, nor satisfaction about the deserved punishment, but outrage at Jerusalem’s behaviour.”19 Outrage is undoubtedly among one of the possible emotional responses that may be evoked in these chapters; Renz’s position, however, could be more nuanced. Throughout this book, I suggest that potential emotional reactions are more complicated than one emotion, like outrage, can encompass. The passages in question might also arouse disgust, shame, and fear, to name but a few emotions, and these shift and change as the text progresses. Renz notes that “well-known and often cherished traditions” are adopted in Ezekiel to achieve emotional engagement, but he does not go into detail regarding how such traditions are utilized.20 The obvious contender for Ezek. 16 is the marriage metaphor, whose emotionally evocative potential

14.  Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 144–8. 15.  Ibid., 145. 16.  Ibid., 144–5. 17.  See also Brittany Kim, “YHWH As Jealous Husband: Abusive Authoritarian or Passionate Protector? A Reexamination of a Prophetic Image,” in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, ed. Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher, SBLAIIL 13 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 127–47. 18.  Rom Harré and Grant Gillet, The Discursive Mind (London: Sage Publications, 1994), 146. 19.  Renz, Rhetorical Function, 147. 20.  Ibid.

14

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Weems examines in her monograph exploring the marriage metaphor in the prophets and its contemporary theological implications.21 Weems considers how Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel communicate their concerns by appealing to the emotions of their audiences.22 She argues that Ezekiel in particular uses “imagery of sexual violence” to “exploit the potential sex has to generate a range of emotions in his audience: fear and worry, shame and guilt, and contempt and prejudice.”23 The ultimate goal of this exploitation is to convince the Judahites of their culpability in transgressing the covenant and their need to repent. Weems is among the first to seriously consider the importance of emotions in Ezek. 16 and to underscore their rhetorical potential to incite a desire for behavioral change in the audience. Weems’s analysis is valuable in elucidating the manner in which the vehicles of the female body and female sexuality are used in the marriage metaphor to communicate and evoke the shame of Israel and the “passion” of God.24 There is, however, little sensitivity shown to the complexity of emotions and the role of culture in their construction. Weems assumes that the emotional lexicon of ancient Hebrew maps perfectly onto that of contemporary English; so much so that she does not even indicate the Hebrew equivalents in her discussion of emotions.25 As a result, Weems subscribes to problematic dualistic categories such as the separation between rationality and emotionality, which she then applies to the prophetic texts. She writes, “the prophets were not trying to use rational, logical, coherent, reasonable, detached arguments to get through to their 21.  Renita Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 35–67. 22.  Ibid. 23.  Ibid., 96. Similarly, Galambush notes that the metaphor of sexual infidelity more generally arouses “a range of strong and conflicting emotions” (Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 102). 24.  Weems, Battered Love, 30. 25.  To be fair, Weems’s monograph was published in 1995 and the history of emotions did not properly take off until the twenty-first century in biblical studies. Nevertheless, a number of scholars in related disciplines such as cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy did draw attention to the essential role of society and culture in the construction of emotions as early as 1980. See, for example, James R. Averill, “A Constructivist View of Emotion,” in Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience, ed. Robert Plutchik and Henry Hellerman (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 305–99. See also Peter N. Stearns and Carol Z. Stearns, “Emotionology: Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards,” American Historical Review 90 (1985): 813–36.

2. Approaching Emotions

15

audiences…if emotions are not logical, then love is even less so, say these ancient theorists.”26 Weems bases this comment on what she perceives to be Jerusalem’s and Yhwh’s “erratic,” “undependable,” and “unexpected” emotional reactions.27 Weems’s description of the characters’ emotional reactions in Ezek. 16 seems less reflective of the text than the commonly held belief that emotional people are erratic, undependable, and behave in unexpected ways. Regardless of whether the emotional reactions of Yhwh and Jerusalem are characterized in such a way in the text itself, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to apply the categories of rationality and logic to Ezekiel. Would the “ancient theorists” really have conceptualized this so-called love as “illogical”?28 Is such a conception of love present in the biblical texts? The answer in both cases is that this seems highly unlikely, as Van Wolde’s research has shown.29 2.3. Shame in Ezekiel 16 The emotion that has received the most sustained consideration in studies of Ezek. 16 is shame. Much of this research contributes to a broader discussion regarding the connection between shame and female sexuality (expressed outside the confines of marriage) that informs the marriage metaphor in the prophets.30 Galambush considers Jerusalem’s portrayal as a “whore” (‫ )זונה‬in Ezek. 16,31 arguing that such a depiction draws “out the full implication of a symbolic system according to which woman’s 26.  Weems, Battered Love, 66. 27.  Ibid., 65–6. 28.  See Schlimm’s discussion of irrationality and anger in Schlimm, Fratricide to Forgiveness, 35–47. 29.  Van Wolde compares the English conception of love to the Hebrew ‫אהב‬, finding that the cognitive domains that inform both conceptions are radically different (Ellen van Wolde, “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible,” BibInt 16 [2008]: 1–24, esp. 21). 30.  Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, LCBI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 122; Athalya Brenner, “On Prophetic Propaganda and the Politics of ‘Love’: The Case of Jeremiah,” in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets, ed. Athalya Brenner, Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 259–64; Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, OTM (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 110–16. 31.  The term “whore” is obviously derogatory and, while certainly not perfect, I use it as a translation of ‫ זונה‬where necessary in an attempt to capture the derogatory usage of the term in the prophetic literature. In using “whore,” I do not intend to

16

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

impurity is a source of male defilement, and her infidelity a source of male shame.”32 She shows that the portrayal of Jerusalem’s body as defiled and defiling through blood pollution and adultery evokes disgust, while Jerusalem’s exposure throughout Ezek. 16 “metonymically signifies her shame.”33 Both emotions are exploited in order to communicate the severity of Ezekiel’s “horror” at the impurity of the temple, which is metaphorically signified by Jerusalem’s body.34 While the female body is the vehicle through which shame and disgust is expressed, Galambush rightly argues that it expresses the shame of Jerusalem’s “cuckolded” husband Yhwh who failed to “keep his subjects ‘at home’.”35 By shaming his wife, Yhwh is able to vindicate his honor.36 In her work on shame in the prophets, Stiebert agrees that “women’s sexuality is metaphorically linked with shame and impurity”;37 however, she takes issue with feminist interpreters who have claimed that rhetoric in the prophets is a reflection and perpetuation of “a misogynist reality” that indicts actual women.38 Stiebert argues that Ezekiel’s imagery is better understood from the perspective of antilanguage, which is “characterized by metaphor, extremity and impenetrability.”39 Understood thus, shame in Ezek. 16 functions to “subvert and resist the values of a ruined culture and to construct an alternative counter-reality.”40 Odell, on the other hand, attempts to explain the “theological problem” in Ezek. 16:62-63 that Yhwh’s re-establishment of the covenant with Jerusalem results in her shame by interpreting the passage as a “complaint

invalidate or demonize contemporary sex workers in any way. Elsewhere, where I discuss the ancient Israelite and ancient Near Eastern conceptions of women whose occupation involves providing sexual services, I use the term sex worker. 32.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 150. Galambush notes that it is not simply the depiction of Jerusalem as “whore” that evokes shame and disgust (as sex work was not necessarily stigmatized in the Hebrew Bible), but rather the presentation of Jerusalem as a “whore” wife (ibid., 31 n. 19). 33.  Ibid., 105. See extended discussion in ibid., 102–9. Cf. Mary E. Shields, “Multiple Exposures: Body Rhetoric and Gender Characterization in Ezekiel 16,” JFSR 14 (1998): 5–18, at 13. 34.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 103–6. 35.  Ibid., 34. 36.  Ibid., 34–5 n. 30. 37.  Stiebert, Construction of Shame, 143. 38.  Ibid., 160. For Stiebert’s extended critique of feminist interpreters see ibid., 146–60. 39.  Ibid., 162. 40.  Ibid.

2. Approaching Emotions

17

ritual.”41 She suggests that Yhwh’s declaration that Jerusalem will never open her mouth again because of her shame (16:63) should be understood as a cessation of the exiles’ complaints against Yhwh following their restoration.42 Shame is thus transformed from being “the basis for blame” to becoming “the basis for self-examination.”43 While Odell is correct that the exiles voice complaints against Yhwh elsewhere in Ezekiel (e.g. 18:25; 33:17),44 it is unclear what cause Jerusalem has for complaint in Ezek. 16.45 Odell understands the allegory as a series of “counter-charges” that answer the exiles’ complaints of divine abandonment; however, nowhere are these complaints made explicit in the passage.46 Odell cites compelling evidence that in the Hebrew Bible shame need not be conceptualized as resulting from one’s own actions, but can also be triggered by perceived abandonment which may lead to blame;47 however, considering that the focus in Ezek. 16 is on Jerusalem’s misdeeds and that no explicit blame is directed towards Yhwh, a more likely understanding of shame in 16:62-63 is that it is triggered by Jerusalem’s actions, not a sense of blame.48 Contrary to Odell, Lapsley argues that the shame following Yhwh’s restoration functions to align the people with Yhwh’s view of them by instilling in them the acknowledgment that their actions were shameful (though Lapsley notes that the mechanism for this cause and effect sequence of restoration to shame is unclear).49 Numerous passages in

41.  Odell, “Inversion of Shame,” 103–5. Wu, following Avrahami (Yael Avrahami, “‫ בושׁ‬in the Psalms—Shame or Disappointment?” JSOT 34 [2010]: 295–313), argues that ‫ בוש‬is better understood as “disappointment” in Ezek. 16:52-63 (Daniel Y. Wu, Honor, Shame and Guilt: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, BBRSup 14 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016], 113). It is not clear, however, why this supports his argument that “disappointment” is a more appropriate understanding of ‫ בוש‬than “shame.” As Wu himself acknowledges, eliciting a “corrective response” is also a potential conceptual possibility of shame (ibid., 113 n. 49). 42.  Odell, “Inversion of Shame,” 103–5. 43.  Ibid., 112. 44.  Ibid., 107. 45.  Stiebert, Construction of Shame, 159. 46.  Odell, “Inversion of Shame,” 108. 47.  Ibid., 104. 48.  Indeed, Yhwh explicitly mentions Jerusalem’s deeds multiple times in 16:5363, even alongside her “disgrace.” For example, 16:54 reads “bear your disgrace (‫ )כלמתך‬and be ashamed (‫ )ונכלמת‬because of what you have done.” 49.  For Lapsley’s discussion of shame in Ezek. 16 see Lapsley, “Shame and SelfKnowledge,” 160–8.

18

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Ezekiel make it clear that restoration leads to shame (e.g. Ezek. 16:53-54; 36:28-32; 39:2).50 Lapsley goes on to argue that this post-restoration shame leads to “self-knowledge,” which creates “the possibility for a restored divine–human relationship.”51 By contrast, Schwartz argues that the restoration of the divine–human relationship is not effected by the people at all but by Yhwh’s restorative action alone.52 With regard to the connection between shame and gender, Lapsley notes that what is considered shameful differs between men and women. Biblical notions of “positive shame” for women are closely related to sexuality and “include deference and submission to male authority, a certain passivity in behavior, covering nakedness, sexual exclusiveness, a lack of sexual desire, and modesty in attire and deportment.”53 In other words, qualities that Jerusalem fails to exhibit in the majority of Ezek. 16. Lapsley suggests that Jerusalem’s forced public exposure in 16:37-39 fails to incite shame in Jerusalem due to “ ‘her insatiable lust’—why would she now find their gaze shame-inducing if it never has been in the past?”54 The answer to this question may not be related to the gender of the onlooker or to Jerusalem’s “insatiable lust”; it is better explained by Jerusalem’s position as either agent or object and the difference between consensual sex vs. rape. It should be noted that, while no explicit indication of Jerusalem’s shame or lack thereof is given in vv. 37-39, the context of violence, forced exposure, and the implication of accompanying rape strongly suggests that shame would, in fact, have been a likely response from Jerusalem. 2.4. Disgust in Ezekiel 16 While many scholars appeal to the evocation of disgust in Ezek. 16, few have offered detailed examinations of the function of disgust in the chapter.55 Galambush’s study, discussed above, and Launderville’s study, 50.  Though see Ezek. 34:29, in which God’s provision of food and security in the promised land is said to alleviate the people’s shame on account of the nations (‫ולא‬ ‫)ישאו עוד כלימת הגוים‬. 51.  Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge,” 164. 52.  Baruch Schwartz, “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel,” in 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, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 313. 53.  Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge,” 150. 54.  Ibid., 162. 55.  For example, Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 183; Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 15; Weems,

2. Approaching Emotions

19

which I turn to now, are notable exceptions. Launderville examines Ezekiel’s appeal to menstrual uncleanness (‫ )נדה‬in Ezek. 7:19-20, 16:9, and 36:16 within the context of the purity laws in Lev. 15.56 He argues that the equation of Israel’s idolatry with menstrual impurity functions to provoke a response of disgust and shame from Ezekiel’s audience, which “will constructively lead to greater self-awareness.”57 While Launderville acknowledges that the feminine imagery used in Ezek. 16, 23 and 36 is the vehicle through which shame and disgust are conveyed, he nevertheless insists that “Ezekiel was not aiming to denigrate women.”58 Launderville’s article highlights the value of going beyond emotion lexemes to survey emotion-inducing content; however, at times Launderville interprets the texts from a contemporary framework of emotionality vs. rationality. He characterizes shame and disgust as “inner feelings” which “are not merely primordial states” but “have a rational component.”59 The contemporary conception of emotions as felt “inside” by individuals may not be shared by ancient Israelites, nor might the distinction between “rationality” and “emotionality.”60 While Launderville’s study is a good starting point for a consideration of the rhetorical function of disgust in Ezek. 16, it is not exhaustive. The relationship between the female body and disgust in particular warrants further consideration, as I will show in Chapters 5 and 6. Studies on discrete emotions like shame and disgust have revealed much about the rhetorical function of emotions in Ezek. 16, Jerusalem’s emotional representation, and its gendered dimensions; however, due to the single pointed focus of these studies, many of which only consider one or two emotions, the full range of Jerusalem’s changing emotional representation has been neglected. This spectrum of representation extends far Battered Love, 30; Lemos, “Apotheosis of Rage,” 112–13. Disgust has been the focus of studies addressing other chapters in Ezekiel. For disgust in Ezek. 23 see Stuart Macwilliam, Queer Theory and the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, BibleWorld (Sheffield: Equinox, 2011), 193–204. For disgust in Ezek. 6 see Bowen, Ezekiel, 35–6. 56.  Launderville, “ ‘Misogyny’ in Service of Theocentricity,” 193–214. For an in-depth discussion of the nature of the blood in contact with Jerusalem’s body in Ezek. 16:9 see Chapter 6. 57.  Ibid., 212. 58.  Ibid., 194. 59.  Ibid., 212, emphasis added. See also ibid., 196. 60.  Di Vito has argued that in the ancient Israelite conception emotions are viewed as external forces that act on bodies, not as originating in the body itself. See Robert A. Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” CBQ 61 (1999): 217–38.

20

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

beyond shameful and disgusting—though this may be overlooked if only emotion terms are considered. Appreciating the complexity of Jerusalem’s emotional representation is essential for gaining a more balanced understanding of her character. It is also vital for interpreting the shifting relational, gender, and power dynamics in the text. Such an appreciation will form one of the major contributions of this book, which will consider the full spectrum of Jerusalem’s changing emotional representation throughout Ezek. 16. 2.5. Methodological Questions Concerning Emotions Scholars that study emotions in the Bible must navigate numerous complex methodological concerns. Amongst these are the following questions: 1. Are emotions intrinsically physiological, are they shaped by one’s social context, or do both factors contribute to one’s experience of emotion? 2. How does one show due sensitivity to the variance of emotions across cultures and time? 3. How does one avoid imposing the English term “emotion” with its unique associations upon the sources, especially when such higherlevel conceptual terms are absent in the target language? This chapter will lay the methodological groundwork for the rest of this book by addressing the above questions. I will use the answers to inform an approach to emotions in the Hebrew Bible that duly acknowledges the complexity of emotions and their variegated expressions. In particular, I will argue that the embodied nature of emotions and thus their situatedness in space is essential in any consideration of emotions in the Hebrew Bible. 2.6. Emotions: Nature, Nurture, or Both? The debate regarding whether emotions are universal or socially specific spans over thirty years and encompasses work across numerous diverse disciplines. As such, it is not possible to address the debate in its entirety here;61 instead a brief summary will suffice. It is possible to plot the answers to the question of whether emotions are physiologically or 61.  Those interested can find a comprehensive summary of key players on both sides the debate in Plamper, History of Emotions, 75–250.

2. Approaching Emotions

21

socially determined along a spectrum. On one extreme of this spectrum is the universalist position, where emotions are viewed as purely physiological processes and therefore unchanging across time and place. On the other is the social constructivist position, where emotions are viewed as constructions of the society in which they are produced. Staunch universalists view emotions as unchanging physiological phenomena shared by all humans regardless of their culture.62 Perhaps the most wellknown supporter of this position is Ekman, who argued with his colleague Friesen that six basic emotions are recognized and shared by all cultures.63 For universalists like Ekman, the history of emotions will not reveal very much, as “today’s emotions were the emotions of the past and will remain those of the future.”64 In contrast to the universalist position, social constructivists point to the variety in the different conceptions of emotions and their different expression across cultures.65 I will discuss this research in more detail below.66 For now, it is sufficient to say that this position is summed up in anthropologist Lutz’s statement that “emotional experience is not precultural but preeminently cultural.”67 Thus, social constructivists deem the exploration of emotions, historically as well as cross-culturally, as a valuable endeavor. While both approaches have their merits, such polarizing positions do little justice to the complexity of the situation. Recently, numerous theorists in the humanities and the sciences have proposed approaches that acknowledge both the role of physiology and the importance of social and

62.  For a summary of the universalist position and its history see Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen, “Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (1971): 124–9. 63.  These emotions are happiness, anger, sadness, disgust, surprise, and fear (ibid., 125–6). 64.  Barbara H. Rosenwein, “Problems and Methods in the History of Emotions,” Passions in Context: International Journal for the History and Theory of Emotions 1 (2010): 1–24, at 4. 65.  For example, Michelle Z. Rosaldo, Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); Lila Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society (Oakland: University of California Press, 1986). For a summary of trends within social constructivist approaches to emotions see Plamper, History of Emotions, 75–146. 66.  See pp. 24–7. 67.  Catherine A. Lutz, Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesia Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 5 (emphasis original).

22

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

cultural influences on the construction and expression of emotion.68 The present study will adopt the approach of one of these theorists, Scheer, whose work avoids many of the dichotomies that persist in much emotions research. As Scheer shows, the dichotomies that plague the study of emotion—nature vs. nurture, mind vs. body, structure vs. agency—are deeply problematic for reasons that will be outlined below.69 Scheer’s approach is one that emphasizes “the mutual embeddedness of minds, bodies, and social relations in order to historicize the body and its contributions to the learned experience of emotion.”70 The manner in which Scheer establishes that these components are in fact mutually embedded warrants further elaboration. Scheer suggests that emotion is a “practice”—a term she borrows from Bourdieu.71 She understands practice as “action,” which could be either intentional action or “habituated behaviour executed without much cognitive attention paid.”72 Emotional practice, then, is an act which involves the body but also includes learned responses and “habitual distribution of attention to ‘inner’ processes of thought, feeling, and perception.”73 Following Bourdieu, Scheer argues that the body is not “a static, timeless, universal foundation that produces ahistorical emotional arousal, but is itself socially situated, adaptive, trained, plastic, and thus historical.”74 At a basic everyday level, this means that every individual’s body is different because all humans use their bodies differently. In other words, a person’s physiology changes depending on what activities they undertake. This includes obvious examples such as the elite athlete’s development of endurance and muscle strength suited to their particular sport, but it also includes more subtle cases such as observable changes in brain matter induced by extensive piano practice.75 68.  In the humanities these include Rosenwein, “Problems and Methods,” esp. 10–12; Monique Scheer, “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice (and Is That What Makes Them Have a History?) A Bourdieuan Approach to Understanding Emotion,” History and Theory 51 (2012): 193–220; William M. Reddy, The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 69.  Scheer, “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice,” 194–204. 70.  Ibid., 199. 71.  Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990). 72.  Scheer, “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice,” 200. 73.  Ibid. 74.  Ibid., 193. 75.  Ibid., 202 n. 45.

2. Approaching Emotions

23

Just as the body is situated in history, Scheer argues that cognition, and thus emotion which is “linked to cognition,”76 is embodied. As such, “cognition”/the mind is not viewed as in opposition to or separate from the body but intimately connected to it.77 In asserting the relationship between cognition and the body, Scheer follows in the footsteps of wellknown theorists of embodied cognition, such as Lakoff and Johnson,78 and Extended Mind Theory, such as Clark and Chalmers.79 These theorists draw attention to the essential role of the body in shaping our perception, experience, and understanding of the world, but also, in the case of Clark and Chalmers, of the world in shaping cognition. An example of the former, and one that directly relates to the physiological experience of emotion, is the verticality schema in which DOWN denotes helpless emotional states such as depression and distress. The English expression “he was feeling down” is one example of this.80 King has shown that a similar conceptual metaphor governs many ancient Hebrew expressions of distress. For example, in Ps. 142:6 the psalmist begs God, “Give heed to my cry, for I am brought very low” (‫)כי־דלותי מאד‬.81 The connection of these orientational metaphors with our embodied experience is clear. When one is sad or depressed not only is one’s posture bent down but one’s face is down turned as well.82

76.  Ibid., 197. 77.  Scheer observes that “cognition is itself always ‘embodied,’ ‘grounded,’ and ‘distributed’ ” (ibid.). 78.  George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 79.  Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers, “The Extended Mind,” Analysis 58 (1998): 7–19. 80.  Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 15. 81.  Philip King, Surrounded by Bitterness: Image Schemas and Metaphors for Conceptualizing Distress in Classical Hebrew (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 121. 82.  Prinz notes that the emotion-somatic relationship is also expressed in reverse: “bodily changes can induce emotion” (Jesse Prinz, “Emotions Embodied,” in Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions, ed. Robert C. Solomon [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 45). Kraft and Pressman investigated whether the manipulation of facial expressions could influence participants’ responses to stress (Tara L. Kraft and Sarah D. Pressman, “Grin and Bear It: The Influence of Manipulated Positive Facial Expression on the Stress Response,” Psychological Science 23 [2012]: 1272–8). They found that participants who were asked to smile exhibited lower heart rates than the neutral group and reported feeling more relaxed during the stressful task they were asked to complete. These findings

24

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

By situating the body in time and space and by asserting the embodied nature of cognition and thus emotions, Scheer’s theoretical framework has numerous important implications. First, it corrects the neglect of the role of the body in the experience of emotions by scholars such as Lutz, who view emotions as “preeminently cultural” and “more or less determined by language.”83 Instead, language becomes but one component “on which emotion-as-practice is dependent and intertwined,” which extends also to “gesturing, remembering, manipulating objects, and perceiving sounds, smells, and spaces.”84 In addition, by viewing emotion as a practice, Scheer’s theoretical framework avoids viewing emotions as static and thus acknowledges their dynamism. Citing the work of Solomon, an influential philosopher of emotions,85 Scheer notes that emotions are “something we do, not just have.”86 In viewing emotions as “something we do,” both Scheer and Solomon leave room for the potential of the act of practicing emotions to induce emotional responses and change them throughout each practice as different emotions come up through their expression. Emotions thus become a process, rather than a static entity in and of themselves. Viewing emotions as a process opens the researcher up to explore emotional episodes (i.e. clusters of emotions, the relationship between emotions) as well as emotion words, and also allows them to analyze the development (i.e. intensification, reduction, transformation) of emotional responses in these episodes. This kind of comprehensive analysis will inevitably result in a more nuanced view of the function of emotions in context. Such an approach is missing from existing research on Jerusalem’s emotions in Ezek. 16. 2.7. The Category of Emotion as Culture Bound Anthropologist Wierzbicka has brought attention to the problems of imposing the English term “emotion” upon cultures in which the closest equivalent may differ substantially or upon cultures in which there is no

support Scheer’s claim that practicing emotions, whether in the context of ritual performances like mourning or in spontaneous day-to-day interactions, can itself shape emotional responses (see below). 83.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 196. 84.  Scheer, “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice,” 209. 85.  Robert C. Solomon, True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 86.  Scheer, “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice,” 194.

2. Approaching Emotions

25

equivalent at all.87 Amongst these is the risk that, “we may be committing ourselves, at the outset, to a perspective which is shaped by…the language currently predominant in some academic disciplines rather than taking a maximally ‘neutral’ and culture-independent point of view.”88 Wierzbicka’s work has significant implications for the present study, particularly with regard to its focus. In this section, I will give a brief outline of the dominant ideas surrounding the conception of the English term emotion. Then, drawing heavily on Mirguet’s article “What is an Emotion in the Hebrew Bible?,” I move to assess whether a concept akin to the English term “emotion” might be found in the Hebrew Bible.89 Following Mirguet, I argue that there are substantial differences between the English term “emotion” and the closest equivalent to what we might call emotion in the biblical texts. These findings have an immediate bearing on the approach of the present study and call into question the predominantly lexical approach that many previous scholars of biblical studies have taken to their research on emotions in the Hebrew Bible. In order to be considered an emotion in the English conceptualization, Wierzbicka argues that an experience must include all three components— feeling, thinking, and a bodily aspect.90 Wierzbicka offers the example that one can “feel hungry” but that “hunger” would not be classified as an emotion.91 This is because hunger is not a “thought-related” feeling. A word like “anger,” on the other hand, combines all three components—one can feel angry, it is related to thought, and it is felt physically in the body through an increased heartrate and adrenaline release92—thus it would be classified as an emotion. Wierzbicka explains that this conceptual framework of emotion is not transferable across cultures. For example, the German word Gefühl, which is often translated as “emotion” in English, does not distinguish between “mental and physical feelings.”93 As a result, it can be used to describe bodily feelings such as hunger (Hungergefühl), as well as thought-related feelings such as shame (Schamgefühl).

87.  Anna Wierzbicka, Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 2. 88.  Ibid., emphasis added. 89.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 442–65. 90.  Wierzbicka, Emotions Across Languages and Cultures, 2. 91.  Ibid. 92.  Sarah N. Garfinkel et al., “Anger in Brain and Body: The Neural and Physiological Perturbation of Decision-Making by Emotion,” Social Cognitive and Affect Neuroscience 11 (2016): 150–8. 93.  Wierzbicka, Emotions Across Languages and Cultures, 3, 55.

26

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

It is not only what counts as an emotion that varies cross-culturally; there is also variation in the associative networks surrounding emotion itself. Lutz outlines what she labels as the “Western” or “Euramerican” cultural construction of emotion in order to expose the dichotomies inherent in this tradition and the ideologies that underpin it.94 Lutz acknowledges that when referring to a “Western” concept of emotion she is speaking about a range of different and diverse cultural constructions of emotions; however, she nevertheless posits that there is a shared conceptualization of emotions that underlies these different cultural constructions.95 Lutz explains that, in so-called Western cultures, emotions are associated with irrationality, nature, femininity, danger, chaos, physicality, and subjectivity.96 In addition, emotions are thought to originate inside an individual, and to “come out” through expression.97 Lutz then compares this conceptualization of emotion to what may be termed the closest equivalent in the Ifaluk people in order to show that emotion is not a natural category, but a cultural one.98 Significant differences abound between the two cultures. For example, there is no term comparable to “emotion” in the Ifaluk vocabulary. There are words that would categorize as “emotions” but there is no umbrella term that describes all these words.99 The evidence that Wierzbicka and Lutz use to argue that emotion is a cultural category has important implications for the study of emotions in the Hebrew Bible. Significantly, it cautions the scholar against assuming that their understanding of emotion is shared by the biblical writers. Schlimm has drawn attention to the problematic application of what he terms the “Western construct” of emotion, in particular the belief that emotions are irrational, to biblical texts in scholarship on anger in the Hebrew Bible.100 He persuasively argues that such anachronistic applications result in unhelpful and erroneous interpretations of the biblical text that risk glossing over important ethical and interpretative questions.101 Schlimm makes an important point regarding the dangers of imposing 94.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 80. 95.  Ibid., 55. 96.  Catherine A. Lutz, “Emotion, Thought, and Estrangement: Emotion as a Cultural Category,” Cultural Anthropology 1 (1986): 56–76. 97.  Lutz, Unnatural Emotions, 56. 98.  Ibid., 81ff. Obviously, there is the problem that we cannot escape our language and its categories. Even calling emotion a cultural category does not adequately address the issue because emotion is a specific category of the English language. 99.  Ibid., 91. 100.  Schlimm, Fratricide to Forgiveness, 35–47, esp. 41–2. 101.  Ibid., 45.

2. Approaching Emotions

27

modern constructs of emotions upon the Hebrew Bible; however, the notion that there is a monolithic “Western” construct of emotions is questionable. As I have already noted in the discussion about Lutz’s research above, there may be similarities between the conceptualization of so-called Western cultures and even a shared history of emotions, but there is no monolithic “Western” construct of emotions. 2.8. Emotion and the Hebrew Bible Reminiscent of the Ifaluk people we encountered above, Wagner explains that the category “emotion” is absent from ancient Hebrew despite the presence of numerous emotion terms in the biblical text.102 Mirguet adds that the verb “to feel” is likewise lacking.103 Of course, the absence of a term for a higher-order category like emotion does not necessarily mean that such a category is lacking entirely; but it does warrant approaching with caution.104 Attempts to understand the ancient Israelite conception of emotion is further complicated by the absence of philosophical or medical 102.  Andreas Wagner, Emotionen, Gefühle und Sprache im Alten Testament. Vier Studien (Waltrop: H. Spenner, 2006), 14. 103.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 445–6. Numerous scholars have suggested that Hebrew terms such as ‫רוח‬, ‫מעים‬, ‫נפש‬, ‫ לב‬all express various dimensions of emotional experience; however, these terms are by no means an exact equivalent to the English term emotion. For a brief discussion of some of this scholarship see Zacharias Kotzé, “A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Emotion of Anger in the Old Testament,” HTS 60 (2004): 848–56; Paul A. Kruger, “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Observations on Prospects and Challenges,” OTS 28 (2015): 400–403. See also the classic article by Mark S. Smith, “The Heart and the Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology,” JBL 117 (1998): 427–36. 104.  One of the functions of conceptual metaphor (and metonymy) is to make meaning of an event or experience for which there may yet be no established linguistic item. Conceptual metaphor and metonymy present a way of understanding a more abstract item in terms of a familiar one. Regarding the expression of emotions through metonymy in particular, Kövecses includes the following examples as representative of the metonymy EFFECT OF EMOTION FOR THE EMOTIONS: BODY HEAT FOR ANGER (being a hothead); DROP IN BODY TEMPERATURE FOR FEAR (getting cold feet) (Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 158). On metaphor and other ways of meaning-making see Zoltán Kövecses, Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 16–30. For a discussion of contextual factors that affect different conceptualizations of happiness see Kövecses, Metaphor and Emotion, 155–75.

28

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

treatises on emotion written by the ancient Israelites themselves, which might have provided valuable information about their understanding of how emotions functioned and their value. These difficulties might complicate the task at hand, but they do not render it futile, as the fruitful results of Mirguet’s research show. In an attempt to articulate the experience of the English term emotion in the biblical text, Mirguet studied love (‫)אהב‬, hate (‫)שנא‬, fear (‫)ירא‬, grief (‫)עצב‬, and joy (various terms) in their narrative contexts. She argues that these terms refer to a broader range of expression that surpasses what might be considered an emotion in English and rather incorporates “actions, movements, ritual gestures, and physical sensations, without strict dissociation among these different dimensions.”105 Her analysis of 2 Sam. 19:1-3 demonstrates this clearly. When David discovers his son Absalom has died, the narrator communicates his emotional pain through his bodily state (shivering), physical isolation, words, weeping, and narrative techniques such as “repetition, the staccato rhythm, and syntactical discontinuity.”106 It is not until the conclusion of the passage that it is explicitly stated that “the king is pained (‫ )נעצב‬over his son” (2 Sam. 19:3). The root for fear (‫ )ירא‬is also expressed through a broad range of actions, bodily changes, and mental states. Following Arnold,107 Mirguet argues ‫ ירא‬connotes terror in some passages (e.g. Gen. 3:10) and in other passages it conveys an attitude (“reverential obedience”).108 Elsewhere fear is purely communicated by descriptions of the physical state of the character (e.g. Hab. 3:16; Job 18:11) without explicit reference to the root ‫ירא‬. Based on these findings, Mirguet concludes that “what is done,” that is, movements, ritual actions, speeches and external appearance, “takes precedence over what is felt.”109 Mirguet’s analysis reveals that going beyond emotion lexemes to include a consideration of the broader narrative description including actions, physical states, appearance, speech, and setting provides essential information about the expression of emotion in ancient Hebrew.110 In the 105.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 443. Mirguet follows Wierzbicka’s definition of emotion in English as “a reference to ‘feeling,’ a reference to ‘thinking,’ and a reference to a person’s body’ ” (Wierzbicka, Emotions Across Languages and Cultures, 2). 106.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 453. 107.  Bill T. Arnold, “The Love–Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5–11,” VT 61 (2011): 551–69, at 564. 108.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 451. 109.  Ibid., 455, emphasis added. 110.  See also the chapters in the edited volume, Sara Kipfer, ed., Visualizing Emotions in the Ancient Near East (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck

2. Approaching Emotions

29

passages that she considers it certainly seems to be the case that “what is done takes precedence over what is felt” (if by “what is felt” Mirguet means the naming of specific emotion terms like sadness or anger in the biblical text). It might be asked, however, whether this conclusion can be applied to the ancient Israelite experience.111 Other factors may account for the predominance of action over naming in the biblical text, such as conventions of writing. In many English narratives, emotions are not necessarily named although they can be easily inferred from narrative techniques such as those the biblical authors use above. Indeed, the explicit naming of a character’s emotional state in an English narrative might be considered obtuse and poor narrative technique. Nevertheless, if Mirguet’s conclusion that “what is done takes precedence over what is felt” is true of the majority of descriptions of emotional experience in the biblical text, there are some passages in Ezek. 16 that provide interesting exceptions. This is not to say that “what is done” is of little consequence in these passages. To the contrary, action features heavily; alongside these actions, however, one will find many emotion terms as well as bodily states and speech, which are also indicative of emotional experience as Mirguet and others have noted. When these emotion terms feature they are often expressed in clusters, in quick succession, and in a way that combines both action and feeling (e.g. Ezek. 16:5, 37-38, 42-43). In fact, in many verses where there is an emotion & Ruprecht, 2017), which collectively underscore the importance of considering visual media that depict the physical manifestations of emotion where available. On a related note, cognitive linguists Taylor and Mbense emphasize that an emotion does not need to be named in order to be expressed or recognized, “one can verbalise one’s anger, or verbally describe another’s anger, without using the words anger or angry” (John R. Taylor and Thandi G. Mbense, “Red Dogs and Rotten Mealies: How Zulus Talk about Anger,” in Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualization and Expression, ed. Angeliki Athanasiadou and Elżbieta Tabakowska [Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998], 193). Cf. Saif M. Mohammad, “Sentiment Analysis: Detecting Valence, Emotions, and Other Affectual States from Text,” in Emotion Measurement, ed. Herbert L. Meiselman (Duxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing, 2016), 205. This is because humans use a range of emotional “cues” to convey their emotions in real-time interactions. Planalp categorizes these into facial cues (such as smiling, frowning, crying), vocal cues (such as pitch, speed of speech, and volume), physiological cues (such as the reddening of the face in anger, trembling in fear, and sweating out of anxiety), action cues (actions one may perform in an emotional state such as hiding, kicking, bringing gifts), and verbal cues (Sally Planalp, Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 43–51. 111.  This is what Mirguet sets out to answer at the outset of her article (Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 443).

30

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

term it is inextricably linked to an action or deed.112 It is not the case that “what is done takes precedence over what is felt” in these passages; rather, what is done is a direct result of what is felt or is done to remedy what is felt. Finally, Mirguet argues that there is one further significant difference between the experience of emotion as it is framed in French, German, and English compared to the biblical texts: whereas these “modern languages” emphasize the impact of emotions on the individual through a focus on “private and internal feelings,”113 the biblical texts focus more on the social dimension of emotional “experience”—that is, the ways in which emotions “impact the self in its relationships” as opposed to “in its individual existence.”114 Mirguet draws on examples that underscore this social dimension such as indignation at another’s suffering, sensitivity to others’ suffering, and ritual mourning. Participation in the former two emotional scenarios occurs within power dynamics, while participation in the latter involves making “public the self’s solidarities.”115 In all these cases, what is emphasized is the manner in which feeling “affects the self…in its social relationships.”116 While Mirguet is correct in underscoring that the biblical texts are not so concerned with “private and internal feelings,”117 it might be questioned whether the self “in its individual existence” can be separated from the self “in its social interactions.”118 In underscoring the essentially social nature of emotions, van Kleef explains, “Pride protects the social status of accomplished individuals… Anger motivates punishment of individuals who violate norms of reciprocity and cooperation…, and its expression helps to identify and rectify social problems… Guilt motivates reparation after wrongdoing…and signals interpersonal concern…”119 Indeed, one 112.  See discussion of Ezek. 16:5 in Chapter 4. 113.  Mirguet, “What is an Emotion?” 465. 114.  Ibid., 465. For Mirguet’s discussion of the social aspects of emotions see esp. ibid., 456–63. 115.  Ibid., 464. 116.  Ibid. 117.  Ibid., 465. 118.  Ibid., 464. For the interrelatedness between emotions and social interactions see Paul E. Griffiths and Andrea Scarantino, “Emotions in the Wild: The Situated Perspective on Emotion,” in Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, ed. Philip Robbins and Murat Aydede (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 438–40. 119.  Gerben van Kleef, The Interpersonal Dynamics of Emotion: Toward an Integrative Theory of Emotions as Social Information (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 3.

2. Approaching Emotions

31

would be hard-pressed to name an emotion that is not embedded in a social context. The difference between the biblical and modern representations of emotions, therefore, may not be as pronounced as Mirguet claims when it comes to the social significance of emotions. The social embeddedness of emotions is, however, an important aspect of emotional representation in biblical texts. Preoccupation with the social aspects of emotion takes center stage in Ezek. 16. It might be argued that this has a great deal to do with the subject of the overarching metaphor in this chapter—a marriage between an unfaithful wife and her jaded husband; however, the emphasis on the social aspects of emotion is more readily accounted for by the fundamentally social nature of emotions themselves. In any case, through the metaphor of the city as Yhwh’s wife the narrator frames Jerusalem’s emotions, actions, and the consequences for these actions in terms of their social implications, including: Jerusalem’s desire for socially inappropriate sexual partners (i.e. not her husband) (Ezek. 16:25-29); her contempt for her own husband (16:44-45); her pride exhibited through her public displays of this affection (16:23-24, 31), eminently inappropriate for a woman of her lineage (Canaanite) and status (orphaned); and finally, Yhwh’s public punishment of her, which he states more than once is intended to make Jerusalem remember and feel shame (16:54, 61, 62). One final observation that Mirguet does not raise but that is important for the present study is that metaphor itself is another means by which emotions are expressed and communicated. Scholars are beginning to recognize the importance of figurative language in the expression and communication of emotions and are urging that figurative language provides a promising avenue for investigation when it comes to the analysis of emotions. Ahmed, for example, argues that “figures of speech are crucial to the emotionality of texts.”120 Ahmed’s research focuses on the ways in which metaphor and metonymy contribute an added dimension of complexity to the appeal to emotions in political texts. Others have also drawn attention to the ways in which metaphor and metonymy enhance the communication of emotion. Gibbs et al. have shown that metaphor has the potential to communicate greater emotional intensity than literal language.121 They conducted a study to compare 120.  Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion (New York: Routledge, 2004), 12–13. 121.  Raymond W. Gibbs, John S. Leggitt, and Elizabeth A. Turner, “What’s Special About Figurative Language in Emotional Communication?” in The Verbal Communication of Emotions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Susan R. Fussell (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 124–49.

32

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

the perceived intensity of metaphorical expressions of emotion to literal expressions of emotion. In the study, participants were asked to rate the emotional intensity of the same emotional scenario expressed in three different ways: one through a literal statement (“I was really angry”), another through a conventional metaphor (“I hit the ceiling”), and the final one through a novel metaphor (“I was a live grenade”). Participants rated the metaphorical statements as more intensely emotive than the literal statements.122 The effectiveness of figurative language in intensifying emotional expression is in part due to the multiplicity of meaning that metaphors can suggest which allows for one metaphor to reflect an array of emotions simultaneously. This is demonstrated in the example of a husband who describes his wife’s infertility as “a black hole for both of us.”123 The single metaphor simultaneously expresses the outrage, frustration, and despair experienced by the husband while adding an element of intensity to his all-encompassing emotional experience that may not have been communicated so vividly if he had simply stated, “I am angry, outraged, and in despair.”124 Similarly, the evocative figurative language through which the narrator of Ezek. 16 describes the Judahites’ actions—with its vivid descriptions of sexual desire and murder—produces a greater intensity and urgency than if the situation were described literally.125 Whether written or spoken, emotionality is expressed through the very structures of language itself.

122.  Ibid., 138–9. These two examples both rely on the metaphor of anger as a compressed substance whereby the different intensities of anger are expressed by degrees of explosion of the compressed substance. 123.  Ibid., 126. 124.  Ibid. 125.  The emotionally evocative nature of the marriage metaphor is well recognized by scholars. Thelle suggests, “The marriage metaphor allows for a portrayal of violence that is ‘up close and personal,’ expressing emotions such as jealousy and honor which are not captured as fully by the more generic language of an angry god who punishes his people by sword, famine, and pestilence” (Rannfrid I. Thelle, “Self as ‘Other’: Israel’s Self-Designation as Adulterous Wife, a Self-Reflective Perspective on a Prophetic Metaphor,” in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad, ed. Rannfrid I. Thelle, Terje Stordalen, and Mervyn E. J. Richardson [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 106). Cf. Weems, Battered Love, 96; Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 102; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 147.

2. Approaching Emotions

33

2.9. Conclusion The approach to the history of emotions I have laid out above seeks to achieve three main objectives. First, my approach emphasizes that emotion is a practice and thus emotions are: a) foundationally situated in social contexts, and b) have the potential to develop and change over time. The dynamic nature of emotions demands that scholars studying emotions in the Hebrew Bible should go beyond investigating isolated emotion terms and consider how emotions evolve, alter, and relate to one another in a passage as well as how emotions are expressed by means other than emotion terms alone (e.g. through figurative language, setting, a character’s actions). Second, my approach underscores that it is important not to impose the conceptual framework of the modern English term “emotion” upon sources that are temporally and linguistically distant. This is because, as Lutz and Wierzbicka convincingly argue, there is rich cross-cultural variation in what might be considered to be an emotion, as well as variation in the matrix of associations related to the expression and experience of emotion from culture to culture. Scholars of the history of emotions in the Hebrew Bible have even more reason to be cautious because the higherorder concepts of emotion and feeling cannot be found in the biblical texts. While I avoid imposing the conceptual framework of the modern English term emotion upon the biblical texts, I nevertheless will continue to use the term emotion refer to the object of study, as this is unavoidable. Finally, and most importantly, my approach does not neglect the role of the body in the expression and experience of emotions. Cognition (and thus emotion) is embodied. Following Scheer, I wish to historicize the body—that is, acknowledge that the body is situated in time and space and acknowledge its plasticity. Taken together with Mirguet’s findings that the biblical texts seem to emphasize “what is done” over “what is felt,” the above two points affirm the importance of investigating the bodily expression of emotions and of locating this bodily expression in its specific spatial, temporal, and cultural context. Thus far I have only gestured towards the importance of space for the approach to emotions adopted in this book. In the next chapter, I unpack both the utility of space as an interpretative framework and the fundamental connection between spatiality and emotionality.

Chapter 3

T

L S

B

E ,

,

G

3.1. The Study of Space Just as the study of emotions has a complex history that has been informed by shifting cultural values, epistemologies, and scientific advancements, so too does the study of space.1 Defining space is difficult due to the complex histories of space and place. Furthermore, both terms are used to mean different things by different scholars (even those in the same field). Keeping this complexity in mind let us consider LawrenceZuniga’s definition of each term: “Space is often defined by an abstract scientific, mathematical, or measurable conception while place refers to the elaborated cultural meanings people invest in or attach to a specific site or locale.”2 First, it should be noted that these neat definitions of space and place are certainly not universally agreed upon.3 Nevertheless, Lawrence-Zuniga’s definition provides a reference point from which to proceed. As will become clear in my discussion of Lefebvre’s

1.  For a brief summary of the development of understandings of space in Western thought see Patrick Schreiner, “Space, Place and Biblical Studies: A Survey of Recent Research in Light of Developing Trends,” CBR 14 (2016): 341–3. See also Derek Gregory, “Space,” in The Dictionary of Human Geography, ed. Derek Gregory et al. (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 707–8. 2.  Denise Lawrence-Zuniga, “Space and Place,” Oxford Bibliographies Online, 30 March 2017, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/ obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0170.xml. 3.  Agnew details the complex and controversial debates over the meaning of the term “place” in geography in John Agnew, “Space and Place,” in The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowledge, ed. John Agnew and David Livingstone (London: SAGE Publications, 2011), 316–30.

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

35

conceptualization of space below, the degree to which space and place (as they are defined above by Lawrence-Zuniga) are inseparable calls into question the attempt to distinguish between the two. As such, throughout this book I simply use the term space. I understand space as a higherorder concept that includes particular sites or locations, including the space of the body, and that which lies between them; however, lest I give the impression that my understanding of space is purely materialistic, it is important to provide some background into the history of spatial studies and to detail some theorizations of space that have informed my own understanding of the concept, particularly as concerns the relationship between space and society. Harvey outlines three main conceptions of space that predominated in Western thought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: absolute space—associated most commonly with Newton, who argued that space was a fixed, “neutral container for matter”;4 relational space—associated with the work of Leibniz, who saw space as “a relationship between objects”;5 and finally, relative space—exemplified by Einstein’s theory of relativity, which stressed the inextricable relationship between objects and events (space and time).6 These predominantly materialist views of space produced geographies that were mainly concerned with describing the influence of spaces on people (environmental determinism). This shifted with the advent of humanistic geography in the 1970s, which sought to correct the neglect of spatial studies in the humanities and social sciences. The humanist geographers made way for a more nuanced understanding of space that took into consideration the role of people in the construction, proliferation, utilization, and experience of space.7 Contemporary geographers and scholars from other disciplines who study space (me included) no longer simply view space as a container; instead, it is widely agreed that space is in a dynamic and complex relationship with society.

4.  Luke Whaley, “Geographies of the Self: Space, Place, and Scale Revisited,” Human Arenas 1 (2018): 21–36, at 23. 5.  David Harvey, Social Justice and the City (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 13. 6.  Ibid.; Gregory, “Space,” 708. 7.  I use “space” here and in the rest of the book in the sense of space inhabited by humans (i.e. social space). To claim that all space is socially constructed would be anthropocentric and arrogance of the highest order; though, to be sure, there are very few spaces that remain untouched by human influence on Earth.

36

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

The recognition that space and society are fundamentally interrelated was championed by Lefebvre, whose understanding of space was underpinned by his assertion that “(Social) space is a (social) product.”8 Lefebvre draws attention to the importance of the body in understanding space, noting that “social practice presupposes the use of the body.”9 The body is both its own space and exists dynamically in and through space, “it produces itself in space and it also produces that space.”10 As such, space cannot be understood without a consideration of the perception of the body in space, representations of the body, and bodily lived experience in which perception, representation, and culturally defined symbolisms combine.11 Lefebvre’s emphasis on the social production of space draws attention to the ways that knowledge and power are exerted in and through space.12 The connection between space and power has been brought into sharp focus by feminist geographers who have exposed the fundamental role of space in the construction, maintenance, and resistance of gender norms. Massey articulates the complex relationship between space, power, and gender when she writes, “from the symbolic meaning of spaces/places and the clearly gendered messages which they transmit, to straightforward exclusion by violence, spaces and places are not only themselves gendered but, in their being so, both reflect and affect the ways in which gender is constructed and understood.”13 By drawing attention to the confinement of women to certain spaces, in particular private spaces, Massey highlights the ways in which women have been historically subordinated. For example, being confined to the home excluded women from participation in the public sphere and denied them the powers and freedoms that “white, bourgeois able-bodied,” heterosexual cis males have historically enjoyed in Western societies as a result of their unrestricted 8.  Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 26. 9.  Ibid., 40. Lefebvre discusses the relationship between the body and space in ibid., 170–4. 10.  Ibid., 170. 11.  Ibid., 40. 12.  Ibid., 26. Indeed, teasing out the ways in which space “represents the political (in the case of the West, the ‘neocapitalist’) use of knowledge” was the predominant focus of Lefebvre’s work (ibid., 8). For another influential theorist who explores the relationship between space and power see Michel Foucault, “Space, Knowledge, and Power,” in The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon, 1982), 239–56. 13.  Doreen Massey, Space, Place, and Gender (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), 179.

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

37

movement.14 One concrete consequence of this spatial confinement was denial of economic independence,15 though spatial confinement also had other implications for women’s identity and freedom. The potential of space to be used as a means of control and subordination also allows for the possibility that spaces can transform into sites of resistance. In the case of women, spaces can transform into sites of resistance which facilitate “breaking out of gender constraints, and of achieving power.”16 In other words, through the contestation of space the possibility arises for spaces to be imbued with new and subversive potential and significance.17 This is powerfully demonstrated through the refusal of Rosa Parks to conform to the discriminatory spatial exclusions in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. Flanagan notes that “without Mrs. Parks’s action, her power, knowledge, and space would remain in a singular interlocked hegemony that excluded her…it was space and contesting space with a spatial practice that changed life in America’s southlands.”18 3.2. The Interrelatedness of Emotions and Space The interrelatedness of emotions and space has generated much discussion in the last decade.19 This relationship is accounted for by the fundamental role of the body in the experience and expression of 14.  Nancy Duncan, “Introduction: (Re)Placings,” in BodySpace: Destablizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality, ed. Nancy Duncan (London: Routledge, 1996), 2. Gender is, of course, only one factor that regulates movement in and access to space—class, race, and sexuality also play a crucial role. 15.  Massey, Space, Place, and Gender, 179. See also ibid., 191–211. 16.  Theda Wrede, “Introduction to Special Issue ‘Theorizing Space and Gender in the 21st Century,’ ” Rocky Mountain Review 69 (2015): 10–17, at 10. 17.  The intersection between space and power and the subversive potential of space is addressed by Foucault through his concept of “heterotopias,” which he introduced in a lecture in 1967. For the English translation see Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces,” Diacritics 16 (1986): 22–7. See also Soja’s concept of “thirdspace” in Edward Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996). 18.  James W. Flanagan, “Ancient Perceptions of Space/Perceptions of Ancient Space,” Semeia 87 (1999): 15–43, at 27. 19.  On the interrelatedness of space and emotion see Joyce Davidson and Christine Milligan, “Embodying Emotion Sensing Space: Introducing Emotional Geographies,” Social and Cultural Geography 5 (2004): 523–32; Griffiths and Scarantino, “Emotions in the Wild,” 438–40; Andreas Reckwitz, “Affective Spaces: A Praxeological Outlook,” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice

38

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

emotions and the situatedness of the body in the spatial realm. Davidson and Milligan explain, “our first and foremost, most immediate and intimately felt geography is the body, the site of emotional experience and expression par excellence. Emotions, to be sure, take place within and around this closest of spatial scales.”20 The embodied nature of emotional experience and expression underpins, at every juncture, the intersection between emotion and space—even “as we move ‘out’ from the body” into physical spaces through which the body moves.21 The body thus provides an entry point through which to explore the relationship between space and emotion. Reckwitz rightly argues that “the presence and arrangement of human bodies within particular settings” conveys important information regarding the emotional states experienced by individuals in relation to one another.22 Closeness, for example, might convey loving intimacy, whereas distance might convey hostility or fear. Of course, it is never as simple as a one-toone equation of certain states of proximity with certain emotions; other factors must also be taken into consideration when interpreting how the arrangement of individuals in space might communicate emotional states, such as motivation and body language. For example, when Yhwh surrounds Jerusalem with her lovers and haters, who will expose her nakedness in public (Ezek. 16:37), it is clear that loving intimacy is not intended by such proximity. There are numerous other ways that emotions are informed by and shape the spatial realm. Before I detail these points of contact between the emotional and the spatial, I want to emphatically stress that the relationship between the two—emotions and space—is one characterized by dynamism and interrelatedness. If this fundamental relationship between emotions and space is taken seriously, it becomes apparent that any study of emotions is not complete without a consideration of space and vice versa.

16 (2012): 241–53; Benno Gammerl, “Emotional Style—Concepts and Challenges,” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 16 (2012): 161–75; Benno Gammerl, “Curtains Up! Shifting Emotional Styles in Gay Men’s Venues Since the 1950s,” Suomen Queer-Tutkimuksen Seuran Lehti 10 (2016): 57–64; Benno Gammerl, Jan Hutta, and Monique Scheer, “Feeling Differently: Approaches and Their Politics,” Emotion, Space, and Society 25 (2017): 87–94. 20.  Davidson and Milligan, “Embodying Emotion Sensing Space,” 523. 21.  Ibid., 524. 22.  Reckwitz, “Affective Spaces,” 254.

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

39

Griffiths and Scarantino underscore that emotions are shaped by “the environment, both synchronically, in the unfolding of a particular emotional performance, and diachronically, in the acquisition of an emotional repertoire.”23 Their first point stresses that expressions of emotions or emotional episodes are enacted in space and between subjects and objects. In a similar vein, Reckwitz points out that “affective relations…are never isolated from such larger spatial arrangements, but are always embedded in them.”24 Consequently, the spaces in which emotions are situated will impact on the unfolding of an emotional episode. In the case of the street fight, the constitution of the street space—for example, whether it is narrow or broad, occupied by a crowd or empty—will shape the expression of anger, hatred, revenge or whatever other emotions may be bound up with a physical confrontation. With regard to Griffith’s and Scarantino’s second point, confessionals in churches are an example of the diachronic role that space has in shaping emotions. Through the physical layout of specific spaces and the objects and bodies contained therein, certain emotional performances are encouraged, enabled, or prohibited. In the case of confessionals located in churches, emotional performances relating to the expression of guilt and its accompanying penitence are encouraged and supported.25 Emotions are also shaped by spaces through what Gammerl describes as “spatially defined emotional styles”—that is, the reality that different spaces are accompanied by different “emotional repertoires.”26 Gammerl uses the example that an individual is likely to express joy at bumping into a friend differently if the event occurs in a church rather than in a bar due to the unique “emotional repertoires” assigned to each space.27 These “emotional repertoires” are culturally constructed and consequently vary significantly. Sometimes “emotional repertoires” marginalize minority groups by allowing particular members of society to express certain emotions in specific spaces, while discouraging others. This is often the case when it comes to same-sex couples’ expressions of love, desire, and intimacy in public places like the street. These “emotional repertoires” may impact 23.  Griffiths and Scarantino, “Emotions in the Wild,” 438. 24.  Reckwitz, “Affective Spaces,” 245–55. Similarly, Davidson and Milligan argue that “emotions are understandable—‘sensible’—only in the context of particular places” (Davidson and Milligan, “Embodying Emotion Sensing Space,” 524). 25.  Griffiths and Scarantino, “Emotions in the Wild,” 443. 26.  Gammerl, “Emotional Styles,” 164. 27.  Ibid.

40

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

on the expression of certain emotions in public by same-sex couples (e.g. love, desire, and the physical intimacy that typically accompanies these emotions); crucially, emotional repertoires may also be informed by emotions such as fear, disgust, and hatred. Kawale explains that, due to their fear of homophobic attacks, the lesbians and bisexual women she interviewed “rarely overtly express their sexuality physically or emotionally in everyday public places.”28 It is not simply the case that emotions form, shift, and are expressed in response to the spatial, but that emotions themselves have an important role in shaping the spatial realm.29 This is demonstrated through the direct role that emotions can play in the construction and organization of places, for example, the role that fear plays in the establishment of physical boundaries such as walls, blockades, and/or bars that are designed to keep out the object of fear. Another way that emotions shape the spatial realm is through the concerted effort to foster certain emotions by building places in particular ways and filling them with particular objects. The obvious example of this is Disneyland, which is marketed as “The Happiest Place on Earth.”30 3.3. Space, Gender, and Power in Ezekiel 16 While the intersection between space and emotion has been neglected in biblical studies, the significance of space has not gone unnoticed. Particularly salient and diverse insights have been afforded into the usefulness of space as an object of study in Constructions of Space, volumes 1–5.31 These collected essays explore themes as varied as 28.  Rani Kawale, “Inequalities of the Heart: The Performance of Emotion Work by Lesbian and Bisexual Women in London, England,” Social and Cultural Geography 5 (2004): 565–81, at 571. 29.  Cf. Griffiths and Scarantino, who stress that emotions are “dynamically coupled to an environment which both influences and is influenced by the unfolding of the emotion” (Griffiths and Scarantino, “Emotions in the Wild,” 438). 30.  Chytry examines the ways in which Disney consciously crafted Disneyland in order to make theme park guests feel happy, reassured, and to regain a sense of childlike optimism. See Josef Chytry, “Walt Disney and the Creation of Emotional Environments: Interpreting Walt Disney’s Oeuvre from the Disney Studios to Disneyland, CalArts, and the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT),” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 16 (2012): 259–78. 31.  Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp, eds, Constructions of Space I: Theory, Geography, and Narrative, LHBOTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008); Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp, eds, Constructions of Space II: The Biblical

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

41

the symbolic significance of biblical geography, narrative space, the relationship between sacred and profane space, and the intersection between space and identity. As a review of research trends concerning space in biblical studies has been recently undertaken by Schreiner,32 it is not necessary to repeat it here. With respect to Ezek. 16, Maier’s is the only research to date that considers Jerusalem’s representation through the lens of spatial analysis in general and gendered space in particular.33 Maier analyzes the spatial and gendered aspects of the metaphor of the city as Yhwh’s wife using Lefebvre’s framework of perceived space, conceived space, and lived space, seeking to understand the metaphor within its historical context while also accounting for its rejection by some modern-day readers.34 Maier’s application of Lefebvre’s framework of space is useful in delineating the different aspects of space that underly the metaphor of the personified city and its shifting representation. For example, Maier argues that Yhwh’s judgment of Jerusalem (Ezek. 16:35-41) conveys the lived experience of city space as one in which the people experienced “public humiliation, distress, pain, destruction, and death on the streets” during the attacks on the city in 598/7 BCE and 587/6 BCE.35 The perceived space of the city “in ruins, filled with blood” is expressed through the metaphorical body of Jerusalem as described in 16:35-41, while Ezekiel provides a “polemical counterimage of conceived space” through the description of Jerusalem’s whoring, which justifies the city’s destruction following its defilement and abandonment by Yhwh.36

City and Other Imagined Spaces, LHBOTS 490 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008); Jorunn Økland, J. Cornelis De Vos, and Karen J. Wenwell, eds, Constructions of Space III: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred, LHBOTS 540 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016); Mark K. George, ed., Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space, LHBOTS 569 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); Gert T. M. Prinsloo and Christl M. Maier, eds, Constructions of Space V: Place, Space, and Identity in the Mediterranean World, LHBOTS 576 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). 32.  Schreiner, “Space, Place and Biblical Studies,” 340–71. 33.  Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 110–40. 34.  Meredith critiques Maier’s use of Lefebvre in Christopher Meredith, “Taking Issue with Thirdspace: Reading Soja, Lefebvre and the Bible,” in Økland, De Vos, and Wenwell, eds, Constructions of Space III, 87–8. 35.  Maier, Daughter Zion, 123. 36.  Ibid.

42

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

There are points at which Maier draws attention to the emotional aspects of the spatial, particularly as concerns the connection between the female body, shame, and the exiles’ lived experience of humiliation following the capture of Jerusalem;37 however, this is not Maier’s main focus. While I am interested in the character Jerusalem’s use of city space and its implications for her power,38 Maier underscores the perceived space of the city as a site of competing sanctuaries and foreign relations and its subsequent threat to the conceived space of the city as sacred with Yhwh’s temple as its focus.39 When it comes to understanding the gendered representation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16, feminist interpreters have predominantly focused on the exploitation of Jerusalem and the implications of gendered violence for contemporary reception of the text, some even suggesting that Ezek. 16 and 23 are “pornographic” and condone violence against women.40 These scholars were reacting against earlier scholars’ representations of 37.  Ibid., 123, 139. 38.  See Chapter 7 for further discussion. 39.  Christl M. Maier, “Daughter Zion as Gendered Space in the Book of Isaiah,” in Berquist and Camp, eds, Constructions of Space II, 120. 40.  See Linda Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence in Ezekiel 16,” BibInt 8 (2000): 205–30, at 205; Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 125; J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women, JSOTSup 215; Gender, Culture, Theory 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 121 and Exum’s more recent treatment of the “pornographic” content of Ezek. 16 and 23, J. Cheryl Exum, “Prophetic Pornography Revisited,” in Thelle, Stordalen, and Richardson, eds, New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History, 122–35. Brenner makes similar claims regarding the imagery used in Jeremiah in Brenner, “On Prophetic Propaganda,” 263–4. Drawing attention to the gendered representation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 Dempsey argues, “the (re)readers of the text are presented with a metaphor that not only shaped a story in the past but one that also continues to shape theological imaginations today in a way that is offensive and unacceptable” (Carol J. Dempsey, “The ‘Whore’ of Ezekiel 16: The Impact and Ramifications of Gender-Specific Metaphors in Light of Biblical Law,” in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, JSOTSup 262 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 70. Similarly, Shields argues that if readers do not question the justification of the violence done to Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 they “run the risk of identifying all women as being, through their very bodies, unclean or potentially unclean” (Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 16). Though see Carroll, who does not read Ezek. 16 and 23 as reflecting the treatment of “real women in the community” (Robert Carroll, “Desire Under the Terebinths: On Pornographic Representation in the Prophets—A Response,” in Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets, 283).

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

43

Jerusalem as ungrateful,41 “shameless,”42 and overtly sexual (and thus deserving of her judgment),43 compared to Yhwh who was considered kind and “gracious.”44 Rather than focus on what Zimmerli describes as Jerusalem’s “abuse of [Yhwh’s] gifts,”45 feminist interpreters highlighted Jerusalem’s abuse sanctioned by Yhwh: her victimhood, her powerlessness,46 her status as sexual object, and the violence to which she is subjected by the males in the text.47 The above studies have been particularly valuable in problematizing the tendency of older commentators to “side” with Yhwh and blame Jerusalem for her violent punishment; however, in focusing on Jerusalem as powerless, passive victim these studies have somewhat obscured the power struggle inherent in the text. In particular, they have obscured Jerusalem’s power in her rebellion against her husband.48 Indeed, it is this rebellion, which Yhwh painstakingly details in Ezek. 16:15-36, that provokes such a violent retribution; and yet, Jerusalem nevertheless

41.  Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 196. 42.  Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 486. 43.  Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 76; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Waco: Word, 1994), 240. 44.  For example, Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 485; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 293. The tendency of commentators to identify with the dominant voice of Yhwh has been addressed by Mignon R. Jacobs, “Ezekiel 16—Shared Memory of YHWH’s Relationship with Jerusalem: A Story of Fraught Expectations,” in Boda, Dempsey, and Flesher, eds, Daughter Zion, 216. See also Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence,” 224–9. 45.  Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 341. 46.  Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 16. Shields argues that when it comes to Ezek. 16 “power resides in one person: Yahweh” (ibid., 14). She goes on to say that “it is his power that the woman challenges by her actions, causing shame” (ibid.). Shields does not consider that Jerusalem’s challenge to Yhwh’s power is, in fact, a display of power itself. Darr similarly argues that Ezekiel “describes female sexuality as the object of male possession and control” (Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel’s Justifications of God: Teaching Troubling Texts,” JSOT 17 [1992]: 97–117, at 115). 47.  Yhwh, on the other hand, is portrayed not as kind and gracious but as an abusive husband. For example, Dempsey describes Yhwh as “a raving husband, justly angry at his wife, but is verbally abusive in his accusations and has been physically abusive in his punishment” (Dempsey, “The ‘Whore’ of Ezekiel 16,” 69). 48.  Compare the similar critique of Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 129–31.

44

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

enjoys virtually twenty verses of “debauchery” before she is forced back in “her place,” both literally and metaphorically. Recent studies have begun to discuss Jerusalem’s representation with greater sensitivity to her changing power and status in relation to Yhwh and the other males in the text as ch. 16 progresses. Different aspects of these power shifts have been explored by Kamionkowski, Jacobs, and Moughtin-Mumby.49 Kamionkowski discusses the power shifts in Ezek. 16 through a focus on Jerusalem’s gendered representation, which shifts from “passive girl” to “assertive woman.”50 She convincingly argues that during Jerusalem’s rebellion in vv. 15-34 there is a “breakdown of the ideal state” in which the male (i.e. Yhwh, Jerusalem’s lovers) is in control and the female (i.e. Jerusalem) is subordinate and dependent upon the male.51 The “ideal” is reversed in vv. 15-34, in which the “female becomes male and male becomes female” due to Jerusalem’s adoption of typically male gender roles and behaviors,52 only to be recovered when Jerusalem is violently punished in 16:36ff. As Kamionkowski’s main focus is gender reversal, she does not consider Jerusalem’s punishment in detail.53 Jacobs highlights the “competing perspectives” inherent in the metaphor of Ezek. 16 due to its multivalence,54 one of which is Jerusalem’s power and independence in vv. 15-34. Similar to Kamionkowski, she notes that Jerusalem’s “actions were outside the realm of expected and acceptable behavior” for a woman in ancient Israel.55 Jacobs interprets Yhwh’s attempts to shame and humiliate Jerusalem as motivated by a desire to coerce Jerusalem into the compliance and dependence of her youth.56 As such, she brings into sharp view the way that shame and humiliation might be used to control and “police” gender norms. Finally, Moughtin-Mumby reads Ezek. 16 as comprising four structural “panels” that depict the relationship between Yhwh and Jerusalem as “a battle for control.”57 She suggests that panel one is Jerusalem’s 49.  See also Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 90. Allen describes Jerusalem’s behavior in 16:15-19 as “a new independence, a wrongful self-confidence” (Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 239). 50.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 92–133. 51.  Ibid., 92. See also ibid., 110–33. 52.  Ibid., 92. 53.  Kamionkowski does mention that this punishment is a re-establishment of order. See ibid., 152. 54.  Jacobs, “Ezekiel 16,” 202. 55.  Ibid., 209. 56.  Ibid., 210. 57.  Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 171–84.

3. The Link Between Emotions, Space, and Gender

45

abandonment as a baby, which is a time of “chaos” during which no one has control (16:3-5). This is remedied in panel two (16:9-14) when Yhwh gains control over Jerusalem through marriage, only to be overturned in panel three (16:15-29) when Jerusalem rebels in a “bid for independence.”58 Jerusalem loses her independence in panel four, when Yhwh regains control over her (16:35-43). My interpretation of the power shifts in Ezek. 16 bears numerous similarities with Moughtin-Mumby’s. I also divide the text into four sections according to who possesses control. Unlike Moughtin-Mumby, however, I assert that spatiality communicates crucial information about these power shifts and their emotional import. 3.4. Approach and Focus of the Present Study While progress has been made in the realm of Jerusalem’s gendered representation, there has been relatively little focus on the relationship between gender and emotion in Ezek. 16 (apart from discussions about the relationship between shame, disgust, and femininity) and a limited focus on the importance of space in Jerusalem’s shifting portrayal. There are numerous reasons that space, emotion, and their intersection with gender provide promising avenues for enriching our understanding of Ezek. 16 and other biblical texts more generally. I have argued above that space and emotion are essential components in social interactions. As such, they provide important information about relationships, social status, power, and ideology, among many other things. This book dovetails with research on Ezek. 16 that focuses on gender, power, and Jerusalem’s representation by contributing fresh insights into the power dynamics at play between Yhwh and Jerusalem through a consideration of the intersection of space and emotions—both of which are crucial in the formation, maintenance, and subversion of gender. This book also contributes a much-needed consideration of the importance of space to research about Jerusalem’s emotions in addition to considering Jerusalem’s shifting emotional representation, both of which have been neglected in scholarship.

58.  Ibid., 173.

Chapter 4

A

O

F

(E

16:1- 7)

4.1. Introduction Ezekiel 16:5 places Jerusalem the newborn as abandoned in an open field. This is the first instance in Ezek. 16 in which Jerusalem is placed in space as well as the first instance in which specific emotion terms are mentioned. In fact, space and emotion are explicitly linked in this verse. The act of throwing Jerusalem into space—onto the open field—is described as a result of the emotional stance of those who discarded her. Specifically, this displacement of Jerusalem is said to arise from a lack of pity (‫)חוס‬, an absence of compassion (‫)חומלה‬, and contempt (‫( )געל‬Ezek. 16:5). I will address two primary questions in this chapter: What does the mention of Jerusalem’s abandonment in an open field add to the emotional landscape of this passage? How do emotions and space come together to inform Jerusalem’s representation? I will begin by providing a brief overview of the semantic range of the term field (‫ )שדה‬in the Hebrew Bible. I will then examine Ezekiel’s mental space for the term field and explore the significance of the three emotion terms mentioned in the passage, namely, compassion, contempt, and pity. I will conclude by drawing the spatial and the emotional together, arguing that the setting mirrors and intensifies the emotions named in the passage by recalling associations of the field as a place of destruction and isolation, but also a place with the promise of fertility. 4.2. The Semantic Range of “Field” (‫ )שדה‬in the Hebrew Bible The Hebrew Bible describes fields as places spatially distinct from the cities (‫ )ערים‬and towns (‫ )קריות‬and located on the edges of places humans inhabit (Gen. 33:18; 1 Sam. 20:11; Jer. 14:18; Mic. 4:10). Though they

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

47

were located outside the city proper, G. Wallis argues that fields were conceptually considered to be a part of the city and in close proximity to cities.1 There are two reasons that Wallis argues this is the case. First, he cites two narratives that involve characters moving between city and field as evidence of their proximity (Gen. 33:18ff. and 1 Sam. 20:11ff.); however, while Gen. 34:1 does state that Dinah goes out “to see the women of the land” (‫ )לראות בבנות הארץ‬where she is seized by Shechem, it is not clear where exactly she went nor that the reason why she was seized is the proximity of the field to the city. On the contrary, the text gives no indication where the seizing of Dinah took place, as Wallis himself concedes. Further, the text specifies that Jacob waits until his sons come to him from the field in order to take action against Shechem who seized his daughter, suggesting that they are not in close proximity to him. The second text Wallis provides as evidence, 1 Sam. 20:11ff., gives some indication that the field and the city were within walking distance, as Jonathan orders the boy accompanying him to carry the arrows he shoots in the field back to the city in haste; however, the field is also the location in which David hides from Saul, suggesting some separation between the city and field that offers David a measure of safety. Finally, Wallis argues that the inclusion of the field as part of God’s blessings in Gen. 39:5 and Deut. 28:3 is indicative that “the field is in fact part of the city or settlement.”2 It is unclear why the inclusion of the field in the blessing would be an indication that the field was part of the city. It is obvious from this passage as well as elsewhere that a field could be counted as part of one’s property;3 but it is uncertain why this indicates it should be counted as part of the city. One passage that Wallis does not reference that may support his case that the field is part of the city is 2 Chron. 31:19, in which the fields are explicitly linked to the cities of the sons of Aaron and are referred to as “the fields of pasture of their cities,” suggesting that these particular fields belonged to the cities in some sense. Similarly, Gen. 36:35 refers to the field of Moab (‫)שדה מואב‬, connecting both field and city in the construct phrase. Jeremiah 14:17-18 also pairs the city and field in an

1.  G. Wallis, “‫שדה‬,” TDOT 14:39. 2.  Ibid. 3.  Numerous texts indicate that a field could be counted as part of one’s property (e.g. Gen. 23:11, 13, 17, 20; 25:10; 33:19; 49:30, 32; 50:13; Josh. 24:32; Judg. 1:14; Jer. 32:9, 25, 43; Ruth 4:5). In particular, H in Leviticus has a strong association of field with cultivated and possessed property (e.g. Lev. 19:9, 19; 23:22; 25:3-4, 13-14; 27:16-24, 28).

48

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

effort to convey the far-ranging destruction of the “virgin daughter” (Jer. 14:17), Jerusalem. Jeremiah mourns that if he goes out into the field, he is confronted by people injured in war and if he enters the city, he is confronted by diseases caused by famine (Jer. 14:18). The verbs paired with each place suggest that the author’s spatial perspective is from within the city, as he “comes towards the city” (‫ )באתי העיר‬yet “goes out into the field” (‫)יצאתי השדה‬. While the field and the city are conceptualized as distinct places in this passage, the prophet conveys that both these spaces make up the personified place, Jerusalem, in her totality. Leviticus 14:53 also indicates that the field and the city were distinct places, though they were closely related. The passage, which describes the cleansing of a house infected with disease, states that a priest should sacrifice one bird and send the other bird “out of the city into the field” (‫אל־מחוץ לעיר אל־פני‬ ‫)השדה‬. Finally, Lev. 25:29-34 is particularly interesting as it assumes some sort of classification that distinguishes between cities, villages, and fields. The passage outlines rules concerning the buying and selling of houses in “walled cities” (Lev. 25:29) and those in unwalled villages (Lev. 25:30). Leviticus 25:31 states that “the houses of the villages that have no wall surrounding them shall be considered as fields of the land.” In this passage, houses in villages are classified as fields and consequently rules for redemption follow those concerning fields. City houses, on the other hand, follow different rules. Fields were fertile places that could be used for agriculture in ancient Israel. In addition to passages which refer to the various plants, flowers, grasses, and herbs that grow in the fields,4 ample evidence in the biblical text attests that ancient Israelites used fields for both plant cultivation and livestock herding.5 For example, 2 Kgs 7:12 suggests that the Samaritans had to leave the city and go into the field in order to find food, Leviticus includes laws concerning the appropriate manner to work the field (e.g. Lev. 19:19; 25:3, 4), other texts note that there were provisions for harvesting for the vulnerable in society (Deut. 24:19; Job 24:6), and there are references to good (Exod. 23:11; Deut. 26:11) and bad (Joel 1:4) harvests as well as the presence of livestock in fields (Exod. 9:3, 19; 22:5; Deut. 11:5).

4.  Gen. 2:5; 3:18; Exod. 9:22, 25; 10:5, 15; Num. 22:4; Deut. 20:19; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6; 55:12; Jer. 4; 7:20; Joel 1:12, 19. 5.  Gen. 25:29; 30:16; 31:4; 34:7; 37:7; 47:24; Exod. 22:6; 23:11, 16; Deut. 14:22; 28:38; Judg. 9:27; 19:16; 1 Sam. 11:5; 2 Kgs 8:6; Ruth 2:2; 1 Chron. 27:26.

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

49

It is not the case that the biblical texts simply considered the field to be a place of nourishment and cultivation. The field is also presented as a place of the dead—of burial and battle. Wallis notes that the location of fields outside of the city and their topography meant that fields and the caves that were located on the edge of them “were suitable for grave sites and cemeteries (Gen. 23:11, 17, 19; 49:29, 30; 50:13).”6 It should be noted, however, that the references Wallis cites as evidence for the field as a burial site are all referring to the same land—the field which Ephron the Hittite sold to Abraham. Further, it was the cave itself in this instance, not the ground of the field, that was used as a burial site. Nevertheless, the cave in which Sarah was buried was closely associated with the field in which it was located (Gen. 23:11, 17). One function of the field related to burial of the dead was the use of the field for military clashes (e.g. Gen. 36:35; 2 Sam. 11:23; 18:6; Judg. 9:32; Josh. 8:24; Ezek. 7:15). References to soldiers who died in the field are numerous (e.g. Judg. 20:31; 1 Sam. 4:2), some including morbid descriptions of wild beasts feasting on their flesh (e.g. 1 Kgs 14:11), which suggests that the bodies were sometimes left to decay. Indeed, the construct phrase “animals of the field” (‫ )חית השדה‬is used in the Hebrew Bible to designate wild beasts who make their home in the fields. These animals of the field are distinct from the domesticated animals that graze the fields due to their ferociousness. We might add infant exposure to the conception of the field as a place for the dead, though tentatively, as the only evidence from the Hebrew Bible that fields were used for infant exposure is Ezek. 16:4-5.7 Finally, numerous biblical texts conceptualize the field as a site in which Yhwh’s intervention takes place and through which he demonstrates his power over the natural world and all it encompasses. Yhwh 6.  Wallis, “‫שדה‬,” TDOT 14:43. See also Gen. 25:9-10, which specifies that Abraham was also buried in this cave. 7.  There is no law in the Hebrew Bible that specifically bans the killing of infants. There are references to infant murder in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 1:17, 21; Ezek. 16:5; potentially Exod. 21:22-25), but these are unclear at best. As such, scholars are in disagreement as to whether the practice was condemned outright or not. For a discussion of the evidence in the Hebrew Bible and the various scholarly interpretations see Erkki Koskenniemi, The Exposure of Infants Among Jews and Christians in Antiquity, SWBA, 2nd Series, 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 15–24. See also Beth Alpert Nakhai, “Female Infanticide in Iron II Israel and Judah,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Shawna Dolansky (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 257–72.

50

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

is in control of the wild beasts of the field and uses them to mete out his judgment (1 Kgs 14:11), he causes a great plague to fall upon pharaoh’s livestock in the field (Exod. 9:3, 25), he makes the fields of the Israelites flourish (Deut. 11:5; Zech. 10:1), and he performs miracles in the fields (Ps. 78:43). This brief survey reveals that, on the one hand, the Hebrew Bible presents the field as a liminal place, not only because it was located on the edge of the city, but because it housed those who have been excluded from the realm of the living and served as a home to the beasts who feast on the dead. On the other hand, the field also provided food and nourishment to the ancient Israelites who worked the land, raised livestock, and tended to crops in the field. As such, the field also represented life and sustenance. Finally, the field served as a location through which Yhwh could display his power over creation, whether it be by sending rain to water the crops, causing pestilence to come over the livestock, making the wild beasts do his bidding, or granting the Israelites victory in a battle. The biblical conceptualization of the space ‫ שדה‬was complex and included both macabre and frightening associations as well as associations with agriculture, food provision, and Yhwh’s sovereignty over all creation. I will now turn to an analysis of the conceptualization of field in the book of Ezekiel. Though all the above aspects of the field are present in Ezekiel to varying degrees, the emphasis is on the field as testament to Yhwh’s power and authority. 4.3. The Field in Ezekiel The term field (‫ )שדה‬occurs 21 times in Ezekiel,8 more than any other biblical text excluding Genesis, in which it appears 24 times.9 The frequency of Ezekiel’s use of the term suggests it is a significant location for the prophet. In order to understand the choice of the setting of the open field in Ezek. 16:5 it is necessary to undertake a brief study of the term in the broader book of Ezekiel, given the ambiguous function and symbolic significance of the field in the Hebrew Bible. This will involve uncovering Ezekiel’s mental space for field by examining the terms with which it correlates positively and negatively.

8.  Ezekiel 7:15; 16:5, 7; 17:5, 8, 24; 21:2; 26:6, 8; 29:5; 31:4-6, 13, 15; 32:4; 33:27; 34:5, 8, 27; 36:30; 38:20; 39:4-5, 10, 17. 9.  P in Genesis uses field to describe the location of the ancestral burial plot purchased by Abraham. See Gen. 23:11-13, 17-20; 25:9-10; 49:29-32; 50:13.

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

51

Ezekiel emphasizes two main aspects of the field: the field as fertile, cultivated land and the field as perilous wilderness. At first glance, these aspects may seem contradictory; however, when understood within the context of Yhwh’s sovereignty over nature it becomes clear that for Ezekiel the field is a site in which Yhwh’s power and judgment is enacted. While Yhwh as powerful nurturer is aligned with the concept of the field as fertile, Yhwh as punitive judge is aligned with the field as habitat for wild animals and a place of destruction and death. Both aspects of the field can be found in Ezekiel, but as the latter is more prominent, I will discuss that first. The term field appears once in Ezek. 16 in v. 5 and in this instance it is in construct with ‫פנים‬. The construct clause “open field” (‫פני השדה‬, literally “face of the field”) also occurs at Ezek. 29:5; 32:4; 33:27; 39:4. Notably, in all instances in which ‫ פני השדה‬appears, the context is one of disposal and destruction. For example, in 29:5 open field is in parallelism with wilderness (‫)מדבר‬, which emphasizes the dangerous and wild nature of the field. It is into the wilderness of the field that Egypt is thrown, to be food for the wild animals and birds. Similarly, in 32:4 the act of throwing Egypt onto the open field (‫ )על פני השדה אטילך‬is one of destruction in which she is left to be prey to the beasts. Comparable language of disposal (‫טול‬, ‫נטן‬, ‫ )נפל‬and destruction (including verbs for devour e.g. ‫ )אכל‬is used in 33:27 and 39:4, where inhabitants of the waste places (‫ )החרבות‬and Gog are given over to the beasts of the field and left for dead as carrion. The actor performing the discarding in all of these instances except Ezek. 16:5 is Yhwh, emphasizing his power over nature as well as the human realm. Where the animals of the field (‫ )חית השדה‬are mentioned in Ezekiel, it is always within the context of Yhwh’s judgment.10 Specifically, this judgment takes the form of Yhwh allowing either Israel (33:24-27; 34:5-8) or foreign nations (32:4; 39:4-17) to become food for the beasts of the field. The field, then, becomes a habitat and a feeding ground for wild beasts, which Galambush notes are placed in opposition to livestock (‫ )בהמה‬in Ezekiel and signify “a presence inimical to settled human habitation, that is, to the socially ordered world.”11 Ezekiel emphasizes that while the field may be a dangerous place, it is nevertheless a place in Yhwh’s control. It is interesting that there is still an aspect of nourishment 10.  For ‫ חית השדה‬see Ezek. 31:6, 13; 34:5, 8; 38:20; 39:4, 17. 11.  Julie Galambush, “This Land Is My Land: On Nature as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 73.

52

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

in Ezekiel’s conceptualization of the field as home to the animals—as the animals themselves will be nourished—but this aspect takes on a morose tone, with the animals feasting on the flesh and blood of those whose trust is not placed in God. There are instances in Ezekiel in which trees and plants of the field seem to reflect Yhwh’s power to effect abundance, fertility, and growth.12 As Galambush has observed, trees and plants appear exclusively as “metaphorical objects of Yhwh’s satisfaction or frustration with the human community” in Ezekiel.13 The metaphor in Ezek. 16:7 of Yhwh causing Jerusalem to “flourish like a plant of the field” (‫)רבבה כצמח השדה‬ is one example of the former usage as it conveys Yhwh’s satisfaction with Jerusalem, evidenced by his extension of life to her. Similar imagery is used in 31:1-13 where Assyria is described as a tall and flourishing cedar in Lebanon, “towering high above all the trees of the field” and even offering shelter to the wild beasts. Where flora grows in a manner that God has not approved, God exercises his ability to withhold nourishment as a form of punishment. In 31:10-15, God sends foreigners to cut the cedar down and stops the water nourishing the trees of the field, causing them to “faint” (‫)עלפה‬. The cedar is punished because it is proud of its height, which has surpassed all the other trees of the field. Similarly, when Israel becomes a high and “unruly vine” God cuts her down as punishment (19:10-14). The emphasis throughout these passages is that Yhwh controls the land, and even the most splendid trees and tall vines owe their nourishment and continuation to God.14 As I will argue in Chapter 8, Jerusalem may “flourish like a plant of the field” in her youth (16:7), yet she too will eventually be cut down by foreigners due to her pride and unruly behavior (16:36-41). 4.4. Compassion, Contempt, Pity, and Social Status Before exploring the manner in which space and emotion inform one another in Ezek. 16:4-7 it is necessary to pause to consider the emotions that are explicitly named in the passage: “pity” (‫)חסה עליך עין‬, “compassion” (‫)חמלה‬, and “contempt” (‫)געל‬. The three emotion terms appear in close succession in 16:5, “No eye pitied you to do even one of these things for you out of compassion for you! Instead, you were thrown out 12.  For example, Ezek. 16:7; 31:4, 5; 34:27; 36:30. For ‫ עץ השדה‬see Ezek. 17:24; 31:4, 5, 15; 34:27. 13.  Galambush, “This Land Is My Land,” 80. 14.  Cf. Wallis, “‫שדה‬,” TDOT 14:44, who notes with regard to Ezekiel that the prophet views the field as “the locus of Yahweh’s intervention and judgment.”

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

53

onto the open field with contempt for your very being on the day of your birth.” The tight concentration of multiple emotions in the one verse is rare in the Hebrew Bible and heightens the emotional intensity of this passage, as does the space of the field itself, which I will return to discuss below. Pity, compassion, and contempt work together to fulfil the function of portraying Jerusalem as unwanted and establishing a power dynamic between Yhwh and the infant that situates Yhwh in the place of authority and power. This power dynamic is subverted later in the passage when Jerusalem rebels against her husband. The first named expression of emotion in Ezek. 16 occurs at 16:5 when God reminds Jerusalem that “no eye pitied you” (‫)לא חסה עליך עין‬.15 The “eye” is metonymic for “person,” and though no specific subject is mentioned, the context, which refers to Jerusalem’s family (16:3) and birthing rites (16:4), suggests that it is her caretakers—her family and midwives—who are the ones who rejected her.16 This interpretation is supported by Yhwh’s accusation against Jerusalem’s mother later on in the chapter that she abhors her husband and children (Ezek. 16:45). Elsewhere in Ezekiel the root ‫ חוס‬occurs at 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:5, 10; 20:17; 24:14, in which the object varies, including the city Jerusalem (5:11; 24:14), the land of Israel (7:4, 9), the house of Judah (8:18), the house of Israel and Judah (9:5, 10), and finally, the elders of Israel (20:17). In other words, the object of pity (or lack thereof as is more often the case in Ezekiel) is consistently the corporate entities designated by the terms city (‫)עיר‬, land (‫)ארץ‬, and nation (‫—)עם‬namely, the people of Israel/Judah or their representatives. Yhwh is the subject in all cases in which ‫ חוס‬occurs in Ezekiel except the passage in question (16:5) and 9:5 where Yhwh orders the executioners to show no mercy in executing his judgment upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Given the usage of the root in the rest of Ezekiel, where it conveys Yhwh’s merciless judgment or, in one case, his past pity (20:17), it is striking that the subject in 16:5 is not Yhwh himself. Nevertheless, it is significant that Yhwh remains in control of the situation by saving Jerusalem in 16:6-8 from the lack of pity that caused her to suffer. While the emotion term ‫ חוס‬is not used, Yhwh “sees” Jerusalem and orders her to live, which is itself an act of pity that shares the conceptual realm of 15.  The English negates the subject and not the verb while the Hebrew negates the verb. 16.  Contra Odell, who assumes Jerusalem “was left to die by the same nations for whom she now squanders her identity and lifeblood” (Margaret S. Odell, “Fragments of Traumatic Memory: Ṣalmê Zākār and Child Sacrifice in Ezekiel 16:15-22,” in Boase and Frechette, eds, Bible Through the Lens of Trauma, 108).

54

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

“sight” with the phase used in 16:5. I will return to this momentarily. The usage of ‫ חוס‬in Ezekiel emphasizes that only Yhwh’s judgment of his people is final, whether that judgment is a choice to spare or destroy. Further, Ezek. 16 emphatically conveys that foreigners do not have the final say regarding judgment or pity when it comes to Yhwh’s people, whether these be Jerusalem’s Hittite/Amorite birth family or her foreign lovers. Yhwh may commission foreigners to mete out judgment, as is indeed the case in Ezek. 16:35-43; however, Yhwh is the final arbiter of pity and/or judgment. The root ‫ חוס‬appears most often to be negated throughout Ezekiel and the Hebrew Bible more generally. Essentially, the negated phrase conveys neglect or a lack of pity with the intention to cause destruction to the object. In its positive form it means to spare someone in order to prevent harm from coming to them (i.e. to have compassion, pity on someone).17 The sense of the phrase is further elucidated by the words with which it appears in parallelism, in particular its coupling with the root for compassion (‫)חמל‬,18 as we see at Ezek. 16:5, or its association with roots conveying destruction when used in its negative sense (e.g. “strike down” [‫ ]נכה‬in Jer. 21:7; “kill” [‫ ]הרג‬1 Sam. 24:10). In 16:5 the action associated with “no eye sparing/taking pity” on Jerusalem is the failure of anyone to perform even one of the four actions customarily associated with taking care of a newborn (cutting the umbilical cord, washing in water and oil, rubbing with salt, swaddling). In this instance, the agents’ intention behind a failure to perform such actions is read as a property to be ascribed to them. In other words, these actions would have been performed if someone had “compassion” (‫ )חמלה‬on Jerusalem—an emotion which Yhwh explicitly states was lacking.19 The third emotion term mentioned in Ezek. 16:5 is ‫געל‬, a root that is not particularly common in the Hebrew Bible.20 It is translated in the ESV as

17.  The root ‫ חוס‬only occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible in reference to one’s possessions (Gen. 45:20) and a plant (Jonah 4:10). 18.  See also Ezek. 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:5. Cf. Deut. 13:9 and Jer. 13:14; 21:7. 19.  Exodus 2:6 provides an interesting comparison with Ezek. 16:5 due to the similarity of subject matter (infant murder) and the shared vocabulary of seeing, sending, and having compassion upon an infant. The daughter of Pharaoh sees the infant Moses (‫)ותארהו‬, sends her slave (‫ )ותשלח את אמתה‬to collect him from the river, looks upon him, and has compassion for him (‫)ותחמל עליו‬, sending him to be nursed and taken care of. By contrast, Jerusalem is sent out onto the open field, remains unseen (‫לא חסה עליך‬ ‫ )עין‬until Yhwh sees her and saves her, and is denied nursing and care. 20.  Notably, Ezek. 16:5 is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible (apart from Judg. 9:26-41) where ‫ געל‬is used as a noun. Elsewhere it appears as a verb (e.g. Lev. 26:11,

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

55

the verb “abhorred” but used in 16:5 as a noun (“contempt”).21 Elsewhere in Ezekiel ‫ געל‬appears twice in 16:45, where it describes the females in Jerusalem’s family—Jerusalem, her mother, and her sisters—as abhorrers of their husbands and children. In spatial terms, ‫ געל‬is an emotion that puts distance between two parties. This is nowhere more obvious than the action associated with ‫ געל‬in Ezek. 16:5, namely, the throwing of the infant out into the open field, far away from the protection and comforts of the city and its inhabitants. This spatial quality of ‫ געל‬is also clear when Ezek. 16:45 is read in light of the accusations mounted against Jerusalem in the rest of ch. 16. As one who “abhors” her husband, Jerusalem is intimate with “foreigners” (‫ )זרים‬instead of her husband (16:32). Yhwh is not in Jerusalem’s zone of intimacy; rather, her lovers come to her “from every side” (16:33). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the root ‫ געל‬occurs in 2 Sam. 1:21, where it describes the shield of Saul as being “abhorred” and therefore not anointed with oil. This is an interesting comparison with Ezek. 16:5, in which Jerusalem too is not anointed with oil and this is offered as evidence that she is abhorred. In Jer. 14:19, Jeremiah questions whether God abhors Zion considering he has left the city for dead.22 Aside from these one-off instances, the root ‫ געל‬is most frequently used in Lev. 26, where it appears five times and conveys “turning away” from an object (e.g. laws) or an individual (God or a person).23 One cannot help but notice the parallels between Lev. 26, a passage that warns the Israelites that the land will be destroyed if they abhor Yhwh’s laws, and Ezek. 16, a passage in which the city is destroyed due to the people’s disregard for Yhwh’s commandments.24

15, 30, 43; Jer. 14:19; 2 Sam. 1:21). ‫ געל‬is not used as an emotion in Judg. 9:26-41, but as a proper noun. These uses are not relevant to the present discussion and are thus discounted. 21.  I will use the English terms contempt and abhor to refer to ‫געל‬. 22.  The other instance of the verb ‫ געל‬is in Job 21:10, which the ESV translates, “Their bull breeds without fail (‫ ;)שורו עבר ולא יגעל‬the cow calves and does not miscarry.” 23.  At Lev. 26:44 ‫ געל‬refers to laws. Elsewhere (Lev. 26:11, 15, 30, 43) the subject of ‫ געל‬is either God or the people and the object is similarly either God or the people. 24.  Galambush notes an important distinction between the two passages. In Leviticus, the land is punished for the people’s sins, whereas in Ezekiel the land itself—the city Jerusalem—is the sinner and the one who is punished (Galambush, “This Is My Land,” 84).

56

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

The root ‫ געל‬is placed in a position of emphasis in Ezek. 16:5, conveying the climax of Jerusalem’s mistreatment described in 16:4 and declaring her status as rejected. The negative particle ‫ לא‬appears five times in vv. 4-5 and has the effect of compiling the neglect Jerusalem suffered. The negative particles culminate in v. 5 where Yhwh specifies that not even one of the above actions were done out of compassion for her. In the second part of v. 5 the pattern of negative particles is suddenly broken by a climactic contrastive wayyiqtol, “but you were thrown out onto the open field in contempt for your very being (‫)בגעל נפשך‬.”25 Throwing Jerusalem out onto the open field is the last action of those who abhor her. Through this act they have moved on from neglecting her to actively seeking her destruction through exposure. The next subject of the passage is Yhwh, who reverses Jerusalem’s mistreatment. Given their close succession in Ezek. 16:5, it is perhaps unsurprising that the emotions of pity, compassion, and contempt all share some common features. In particular, they are all triggered by a “perceived deficiency” in the target/individual.26 Miceli explains that contempt, for example, “involves comparing oneself with another individual, and evaluating the latter as much below one’s own standard.”27 Due to the judgment component of each of these emotions, the expression of pity, compassion, and contempt is thought to be closely tied to one’s social status.28 This is certainly reflected in our passage: pity, compassion, and contempt are all emotions displayed by those who are more powerful than the vulnerable newborn. Jerusalem is judged by those around her to be undesirable—so undesirable that she is excluded from the family (and as such, from society) by being thrown out into the open field. This 25.  A comparable use of the verb ‫ שלך‬in the hophal as reflecting an emotional reaction can be found in Ezek. 19:12, where the vine of Israel is “plucked up in fury, cast down to the ground” (‫)ותתש בחמה לארץ השלכה‬. 26.  Maria Miceli and Cristiano Castelfranchi, “Contempt and Disgust: The Emotions of Disrespect,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 48 (2018): 205–29, at 208. 27.  Ibid., 207. 28.  For research into the relationship between compassion and social status see Paul K. Piff et al., “Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (2010): 771–84; Jennifer E. Stellar et al., “Class and Compassion: Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering,” Emotion 12 (2012): 449–59. For contempt and social status see Jonathan Haidt, “The Moral Emotions,” in Handbook of Affective Sciences, ed. Richard J. Davidson, Klaus R. Scherer, and H. Hill Goldsmith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 852–70.

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

57

would have been life threatening for a female living in ancient Israel (or indeed for any infant dependent on their family), a point I will return to below. It is interesting to note that as Ezek. 16 progresses and Jerusalem moves up the social ladder with her name becoming renowned among the nations, she abhors others (16:37) and expresses a wider range of emotions, including lust (‫נחשת‬, 16:36), love (‫אהבה‬, 16:37), hate (‫שנאה‬, 16:37), pride (‫גאון‬, 16:56), and shame (‫בוש‬, 16:52). In 16:3-7, however, all named emotions are enacted upon Jerusalem; she is not assigned any feeling whatsoever as a passive agent. For now, the focus is on how others feel or do not feel about Jerusalem. It is these emotions (or rather, the focalization of Jerusalem through these emotions), not Jerusalem’s own emotions, that inform her portrayal as powerless. 4.5. Drawing Together Space and Emotion in Ezekiel 16:5 In Ezek. 16:5, the open space of the field, which implies emptiness, and the absence of familial compassion are mirroring each other. The spatial is indicative of the emotional. The most obvious manifestation of this is that the disposal of Jerusalem “on the open field”—an action that is performed in space—is framed as an act of contempt (‫ )געל‬and the opposite of compassion (‫ )חמלה‬and pity (‫)חוס‬. In other words, emotions are the justifications for the actions which result in Jerusalem’s (dis)placement; however, space and emotion are more subtly linked in the passage than the mere (dis)placement of the infant in the open field as an act of contempt. There are two other ways space and emotion are connected in the passage. First, there is a reinforcement of emotion through space by the connection between the embodied nature of the emotion of PITY AS SEEING, the absence of pity in the passage, and the exposure of Jerusalem in a field—a location that is outside the city and associated at times with acts that are unseen in the Hebrew Bible, as I will show momentarily. Second, just as pity, compassion, and contempt indicate Jerusalem’s low social status, her placement in an open field conveys her exclusion from the city and family and thus her disposal in a dangerous place, situated beyond the walls of the city’s protection. Sight, pity, and space are connected in Ezek. 16:5 through the embodied metaphor “no eye took pity on you” (‫ )לא חסה עליך עין‬and the disposal of Jerusalem on the open field. Through use of these three markers—sight, lack of pity, and space—the author evokes the conception of the field as a space of doubtful human presence. This feature of the field has numerous implications relating to the safety of the field and its

58

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

usage. As the field was a space not always occupied as densely as the city it is also represented in the Hebrew Bible as a ripe setting for violent and socially unacceptable behavior. Murder (Gen. 4:8; Deut. 21:1-2; 2 Sam. 14:6), rape (Deut. 22:25-27; Ruth 2:22), infant exposure (Ezek. 16:4-5), and betrayal (1 Kgs 11:29) could take place in the field, which the biblical text emphasizes is a place with no witnesses.29 Avrahami notes that throughout the Hebrew Bible the eye represents sight as well as “any act for which seeing serves as an idiom, such as providence and authority” as well as being “the source of emotions and judgement.”30 Sight has an important conceptual significance in Ezek. 16 and is used to represent desire (e.g. 16:8), judgment (e.g. 16:37, 41), and pity (16:5). Although there are instances in which ‫ חוס‬appears as a conjugated verb with an intrinsic subject (e.g. 24:14, ‫)לא אחוס‬, it is most common to see the verb with the subject “eye” (‫ )עין‬followed by the preposition “upon” (‫ )על‬as it is here at 16:5, and it is with reference to eye that scholars have attempted to understand the difficult root ‫חוס‬.31 Ezekiel’s choice to use a phrase featuring “eye” is suggestive and indeed, an embodied expression of emotion. In Ezek. 16:5, the eye represents recognition and attention and is used negatively to demonstrate the lack of recognition and attention extended to Jerusalem in her youth. It is noteworthy that there are no other bodies on the field except Jerusalem (and implicitly Yhwh’s body as he “passes” by her). As a result, no one is present to witness her exposure. In contrast to her family who refuse to look upon Jerusalem with pity, Yhwh sees her as he passes by her in space. Yhwh’s sighting of Jerusalem in 16:6 and 16:8 conveys his sovereignty and compassion. Yhwh’s salvation of Jerusalem—provoked by his seeing of her—is set against the foil of the open field as uninhabited and dangerous. Yhwh’s power is magnified in that he both surpasses the spatial constraint of the field as uninhabited and sees Jerusalem, who has been rejected and unseen by her birth family.32 29.  Wallis, “‫שדה‬,” TDOT 14:44. 30.  Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 454 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 116. See also Nicole Tilford, “The Affective Eye: Re-Examining a Biblical Idiom,” BibInt 23 (2015): 207–32, at 213. 31.  See Gen. 45:20; Deut. 7:16; 13:9; 19:13, 21; 25:12; Isa. 13:18; Ezek. 5:11; 7:4; 20:17. See S. Wagner, “‫חוס‬,” TDOT 4:271–7; Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture, 152 n. 179. 32.  God’s ability to expose sins even where humans attempt to hide them is also paralleled in Gen. 3:8-13, when God frustrates Adam’s and Eve’s attempts to hide from him in the Garden of Eden, and Gen. 4:8-10, where Cain murders his brother in a field and God nonetheless discovers his crime.

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

59

It is not only through the emotions of pity, compassion, and contempt that Ezekiel portrays Jerusalem as rejected by her family; the placement of Jerusalem in the open field—an uninhabited place—situates her in a space that is quite literally socially isolated to some degree.33 Galambush highlights the symbolic significance of the field as a place of exclusion, observing that by being exposed in the open field Jerusalem is “entirely outside the boundaries of the ordered world and on the brink of the ultimate ‘exclusion,’ death.”34 The “ordered world” Jerusalem has been excluded from includes not only the city proper, but the father’s household (‫)בית אב‬, and, Kamionkowski adds, the structures of ritual purity.35 Being excluded from the family home would have been life threatening for a female living in ancient Israel, whose wellbeing largely depended on her husband or father. While I agree with the main thrust of Galambush’s argument, it is important not to overstate the extent to which the field was “outside the boundaries of the ordered world” given what we know about the nature of Judean engagement with the field. To be sure, the field was physically located outside the city (see Gen. 33:18; 36:35; 1 Sam. 20:11; Mic. 4:10) and Ezekiel himself conceptualizes the field as “outside” and the city as “inside” when he contrasts the two places in Ezek. 7:15. Nevertheless, Fritz envisages a close connection between the field and the city, explaining that “the inhabitants of the cities were mostly farmers… In order to carry out their agricultural activities, the men left the city in the morning, and returned in the evening within the protection of the walls.”36 The cultivation of the field by farmers also implies a degree of “ordering” that questions the notion that fields were “entirely outside the boundaries of the ordered world”—as any act of agriculture is an attempt to “tame” the land to some degree. Nevertheless, while pity, compassion, and contempt work together to convey Jerusalem’s social status as unwanted, rejected, and excluded, her placement in the field accentuates her isolation. While this isolation may not be absolute, Jerusalem is nonetheless denied protection within the walls of the city. In addition, Jerusalem is far from the bodies (the midwives and the female relatives) who should have been present in space welcoming her into the father’s household and rendering her ritually pure—severing her umbilical cord and washing her—as was customary 33.  Cf. Nakhai, “Female Infanticide,” 262. 34.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 92, emphasis added. 35.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos, 98 n. 28. 36.  Volkmar Fritz, The City in Ancient Israel, Biblical Seminar 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 176–89.

60

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

in ancient Israelite births.37 This sense of abandonment and isolation is intensified by the physical contrast between the amount of space that the open field would have occupied vis-à-vis the small amount of space the tiny body of baby Jerusalem would have occupied on this field. Not surprisingly, Ezek. 16:5 is in step with the usage of the open field (‫ )פני השדה‬in the rest of Ezekiel insofar as the open field is a wild and dangerous location in which one disposes of unwanted people. This is evident by the use of the disposal term “cast out” (‫ )שלך‬as well as the repeated references to blood at 16:6. The combination of the terms blood and field is reminiscent of the blood on Cain’s hands when he killed Abel in the open field (Gen. 4:8-10) as well as the flesh and blood of the fallen nations that God declares will become food and drink for the beasts of the field (Ezek. 39:17). By being thrown onto the open field helpless, the implication is that the baby may become food for the animals of the field, becoming further isolated from her community by being denied a proper burial.38 Jerusalem is thus forsaken to be excluded from the community in her birth as well as in her death. The contempt of Jerusalem’s family evidenced by their disposal of her body in a field is a stark contrast to the actions of Rizpah, who tirelessly protected the bodies of the men the king had hanged on the mountain from being consumed by the birds and beasts of the field so that they might have a proper burial (2 Sam. 21:10). No such protection was offered to Jerusalem by her family; instead she was discarded onto the open field to meet her death. The field as the place where the wild animals are found, which features prominently throughout Ezekiel, is also implicitly evoked in the specification that Jerusalem is naked (Ezek. 16:8) and her body has not yet been wrapped in swaddling clothes (16:4). Insofar as clothing is associated with one’s humanity, the nudity of Jerusalem the infant combined with her location in the field and the specification that she is covered with blood implicitly conveys her animality. It is striking that Ezek. 16:5 is the only instance in Ezekiel in which a person is thrown out onto the open field by an agent that is not Yhwh and that this disposal does not result in destruction. This inversion of

37.  I discuss the intersection between Jerusalem’s infant body, ritual purity, and emotions at length in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. 38.  Archaeological evidence indicates that children were either buried in cemeteries, under houses, or placed in jars upon cremation. The exposure of Jerusalem on the open field was thus atypical of the standard burial procedures of infants. See Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead, JSOTSup 123 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 65–71.

4. Abandoned in an Open Field

61

the typical context of the phrase “open field” in Ezekiel emphasizes that only Yhwh has the power to destroy and takes agency away from Jerusalem’s birth family, whose intention was presumably to leave her for dead. While the use of the open field as a site of destruction is in step with the rest of Ezekiel in Ezek. 16:5, the field is transformed into a site of salvation in which Yhwh causes Jerusalem to flourish from 16:6ff. The field thus represents Yhwh’s sovereignty over both nature and humankind. Neither the harsh and desolate place of the open field nor the plans of Jerusalem’s family to discard her can prevent Yhwh from his salvation of Jerusalem. It is important to recognize that it is not only the mistreatment of her family from which Yhwh saves Jerusalem; he also saves her from a place of wilderness.39 As in the rest of Ezekiel, in Ezek. 16 Yhwh is in control of nature.40 It is interesting that Jerusalem is described as being made to flourish like a “plant of the field” (‫ )צמח השדה‬on account of God’s salvific function. This terminology evokes the agricultural associations of the field and foreshadows the portrayal of Israel’s mother as a vine planted in the wilderness 19:13. It also brings to mind Ezek. 31, in which Yhwh causes the trees of the field to flourish and is also responsible for their destruction, as he is responsible for Jerusalem’s destruction in Ezek. 16:37ff. The agricultural metaphor is extended in Ezek. 16 to emphasize Jerusalem’s fertility and potential to bear offspring when the root ‫ צמח‬is used again at 16:7 to describe the development of Jerusalem’s womanly body—“breasts became firm and your hair sprouted (‫)צמח‬.” It is only after Yhwh sees this transformation that he cleanses her and offers his protection to her by spreading the edge of his garment (‫ )כנף‬over her, changing her status from a ritually unclean abandoned orphan on the outskirts of society to a ritually clean wife brought into the home. 4.6. Conclusion I have shown that the specification that Jerusalem was abandoned in an open field in Ezek. 16:5 has important implications for Jerusalem’s portrayal, Yhwh’s portrayal, and the emotional landscape of the text. Jerusalem is discarded in a dangerous location removed from the city,

39.  Compare Ezek. 29:5, in which ‫ שדה‬and ‫ מדבר‬are placed in parallelism. 40.  Kelle similarly stresses the manner in which nature is used as an expression of Yhwh’s sovereignty, though he is mainly concerned with the devastation and rejuvenation of nature (particularly the land). See Kelle, “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat,” 469–90.

62

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

both features that increased the likelihood that her exposure would result in death and that heighten the emotional impact of the text. The decision to discard Jerusalem on the open field simultaneously mirrors and intensifies the lack of pity, compassion, and contempt of Jerusalem’s birth family. While the status-lowering emotions of pity, compassion, and contempt convey that Jerusalem is unwanted, her placement in the field further emphasizes her neglect as she is physically excluded from the protection of the city and cast out into a dangerous place typically associated with wild beasts and death in Ezekiel. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the field is not only depicted as a place of destruction in Ezek. 16. This mental space of the field is initially set up as a foil against which Yhwh’s sovereignty over life and death is heightened through his extension of life to the vulnerable newborn. Following Yhwh’s command for Jerusalem to “Live!” in 16:6, the field shifts from a dangerous place to a place of nourishment. The introduction of the metaphor of Jerusalem as a “plant of the field” that Yhwh nourishes in 16:7 calls to mind the association of the field as a fertile place. The introduction of this agricultural metaphor of Jerusalem as budding plant transforms the open field from a place of destruction to a place of growth. Indeed, 16:5-7 is the only example in Ezekiel where someone is thrown onto the open field and they do not die; it is also the only instance in Ezekiel where a lack of pity is exhibited by someone who is not Yhwh. The fact that Yhwh “sees” Jerusalem and saves her, reversing the potentially devastating impact of her family’s lack of pity, is a significant theological assertion of Yhwh’s sovereignty. Only Yhwh has the power to decide who lives and who dies. The focus of this chapter has been on the qualities of the space Jerusalem inhabits in Ezek. 16:5-7 and the implications of this space for Jerusalem’s representation; however, an analysis of the importance of space and emotion for the representation of Jerusalem would be incomplete without a consideration of Jerusalem’s embodied representation. Many of the features of the field I have underscored—its danger, liminality, and borderless constitution—are paralleled in the body of Jerusalem as she develops from infant to reproductive female in 16:4-14. The next two chapters extend my examination of the important role space and emotion play in the portrayal of Jerusalem through an analysis of Jerusalem’s body.

Chapter 5

D

, P

,

B

5.1. Introduction This chapter contextualizes the examination of Jerusalem’s embodied representation as disgusting, unclean, and threatening that follows in the forthcoming chapters by introducing the major concepts and research on which this examination is based. I draw together recent research into disgust and the purity laws, Kristeva’s conceptualization of abjection, and Douglas’s notion of the physical body as representative of the social body, arguing that these are useful frameworks within which to understand Jerusalem’s representation in Ezek. 16. First, I foreground disgust as an emotion that is primarily concerned with protecting boundaries—both physical and social—from perceived threats. In relation to ancient Israel, I follow Kazen and Feder who situate disgust as a crucial emotion in the formation and practice of biblical purity laws. I then examine Ezekiel’s understanding of the categories holy/profane (‫חל‬/‫ )קדש‬and clean/unclean (‫טמא‬/‫)טהר‬. I argue these categories are crucial to Ezekiel’s justification of the destruction of the city and the temple. In particular, I highlight the spatial components of these categories, namely, their relationship to divine withdrawal and the defilement of sacred space, and contextualize Jerusalem’s representation in Ezek. 16 in light of other descriptions of the city and temple in Ezekiel. I conclude the chapter with a brief overview of Ezekiel’s relationship to the priestly traditions. 5.2. Disgust and its Relationship to Boundaries, Bodies, and the Purity Laws Disgust has been described as “the emotion that is the guardian of the borders of both the bodily self and the social self.”1 It is typified by 1.  Paul Rozin, “Disgust,” in Handbook of Emotions, ed. Paul Rozin, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark McCauley, 3rd ed. (New York: Guilford, 2008), 758.

64

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

revulsion towards something, someone, or some behavior that is characterized by withdrawal from and avoidance of that object, person, or action.2 This avoidance is motivated by fear of contamination. When associated with a particular person, disgust has important implications for one’s social standing. Research into the social impacts of disgust has shown that disgust creates distance between two parties which lowers the social status of the object of disgust.3 Disgust has the potential to render a person undesirable and to promote avoidance tendencies. As a result, it is often used as a tool of social exclusion that works to stigmatize those perceived to be disgusting. Nussbaum has explored the ways in which disgust has historically been used to exclude Jews in particular by associating them with “disgust properties—sliminess, bad smell, stickiness, decay, foulness.”4 What is fascinating about her analysis, and immediately relevant to my consideration of disgust in Ezek. 16, is her observation that “the locus classicus of group-directed projective disgust is the female body.”5 Thus, she explains, the feminization of Jews (as well as other minority groups like homosexual men) throughout history is a key component in portraying this minority group as disgusting.6 I contend that the same is true of Ezek. 16—the female body of Jerusalem is being used to portray the Judahites as disgusting. The connection between the female body and disgust in Ezekiel is an important one that provides insight into the way in which emotions, and particularly the social dimensions of emotions, are bound up with gender and the body in the Hebrew Bible. As will become clear in the following chapter, one of the primary inducers of disgust in Ezek. 16 is the metaphor of the city who bleeds and is covered with female blood. The gendered aspects of this metaphor, which associates female blood with not only ritual impurity but also sin, are crucial in the portrayal of Jerusalem as disgusting. 2.  Conor M. Steckler and Jessica L. Tracy, “The Emotional Underpinnings of Social Status,” in The Psychology of Social Status, ed. Joey T. Cheng, Cameron Anderson, and Jessica L. Tracy (New York: Springer, 2014), 215–16. 3.  Simon Koschut, “The Power of (Emotion) Words: On the Importance of Emotions for Social Constructivist Discourse Analysis in IR,” Journal of International Relations and Development 21 (2018): 505. 4.  Martha C. Nussbaum, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 107ff. 5.  Ibid., 111. 6.  On the feminization of the Jew in Late Antiquity see Daniel Boyarin, “Homotopia: The Feminized Jewish Man and the Lives of Women in Late Antiquity,” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1995): 41–81.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

65

The motivating force behind disgust is a concern to protect the boundaries of the bodily self or social self from substances, behaviors, or people that have the potential to threaten the integrity of the body/society through contagion—whether that be physical ailments thought to be contagious like skin diseases or morally questionable “contagions” like undesirable social practices.7 The concept of contagion has recently been proposed as a useful category through which to view the purity laws in Leviticus. Feder takes issue with other interpretations that try to understand the purity laws by means of “abstract logic,”8 advocating instead for an approach that interprets uncleanness (‫ )טמאה‬as “situated and embodied” and thus intrinsically tied to emotions.9 In particular, Feder proposes that various types of uncleanness can be organized into three models that are conceptually informed by contagion and infection models. These models and their associated impurities and emotions are listed in order of least severe ramifications to most severe: 1) uncleanness (disgust)—normal genital discharges requiring ritual cleansing and passage of time before approaching the sacred; 2) infection (fear)—abnormal genital discharges, corpse impurity, leprosy requiring banishment, and/or ritual cleansing and sacrifice; 3) stain of transgression (outrage)—blood-guilt and sexual immorality that may or may not have an associated expiatory act or that may result in punishment.10 Feder argues that the first two models are grounded in embodied experience while the third might be viewed as a “secondary development” following these two.11 Feder’s research brings a much-needed focus on the embodied and emotional aspects of the purity laws. His suggestion that these laws are informed by contagion and infection models, which he shows to be present in the ancient Near East, is persuasive;12 however, Feder’s theorization is not without its difficulties. The notion that discrete emotions like 7.  Susan Beth Miller, Disgust: The Gatekeeper Emotion (Hillsdale: The Analytic Press, 2004), 160. 8.  Feder criticizes Douglas’s notion that the body is a microcosm for society (and those that base their theories on this notion) on the basis that it assumes “a disembodied mode of rationality…a questionable mind–body dualism in which the body serves as a vehicle of expression which can effectively be disregarded once the encoded message is comprehended” (Yitzhaq Feder, “Contagion and Cognition: Bodily Experience and the Conceptualization of Pollution [tum’ah] in the Hebrew Bible,” JNES 72 [2013]: 151–67 at 151, 154). 9.  Ibid., 155. 10.  Ibid., 164–6. 11.  Ibid., 166. 12.  Ibid., 156–9.

66

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

disgust, fear, and outrage underpin each category is questionable. Can disgust be separated from fear? After all, disgust is motivated by fear of contamination. Further, why is disgust not also assigned to the infection model? Would one not recoil in disgust if approached by a person with abnormal genital discharges or leprosy? In addition, Feder himself acknowledges that the stain of transgression model is also informed by a fear of imminent danger (punishment) and yet the emotion assigned to this model is outrage. Finally, Feder notes that not all sources of pollution fit into the categories he proposes. In particular, sex with a menstruant belongs to the most severe category despite menstrual blood being a normal discharge.13 He suggests that this is the case due to the “extreme repulsion felt towards this behavior.”14 Feder is not the only researcher to suggest that embodiment and disgust are useful tools through which to understand the purity laws. Kazen also seeks to understand the purity laws in an embodied context. Like Feder, Kazen suggests that disgust is the “common denominator” that informs ancient Israelite understandings of impurity.15 Kazen argues that this is the case due to the frequent usage of terms expressing disgust, aversion, or loathing in the context of impurity. These terms include abomination (‫—)תועבה‬a favorite term of Ezekiel’s which is used 43 times overall and eight times in Ezek. 16 specifically—and detestable (‫)שקץ‬.16 Kazen uses conceptual metaphor and blending theory to propose that notions of impurity that are grounded in disgust towards physical threats (e.g. bodily secretions, corpses) are mapped onto other domains to inform the biblical perceptions of certain behaviors as morally disgusting but which do not necessarily involve the threat of physical contamination.17 Ezekiel 13.  Ibid., 166. 14.  Ibid. 15.  Thomas Kazen, “The Role of Disgust in Priestly Purity Law,” Journal of Law, Religion and State 3 (2014): 62–92, at 62. See also Thomas Kazen, Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach, HBM 36 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011), esp. 71–94; Thomas Kazen, “Disgust in Body, Mind, and Language: The Case of Impurity in the Hebrew Bible,” in Mixed Feelings and Vexed Passions: Exploring Emotions in Biblical Literature, ed. Scott Spencer (Atlanta: SBL, 2017), 97–115. 16.  ‫ תועבה‬appears in Ezek. 5:9, 11; 6:9, 11; 7:3-4, 8-9, 20; 8:6, 9, 13, 15, 17; 9:4; 11:18, 21; 12:16; 14:6; 16:2, 22, 36, 43, 47, 50-51 (×2), 58; 18:12-13, 24; 20:4; 22:2, 11; 23:36; 33:26, 29; 36:31; 43:8; 44:6-7, 13. 17.  Kazen, “The Role of Disgust,” 75–91. This is very similar to Feder’s proposal that the “stain of transgression” model is a secondary development that formed from a blending of concepts found in the embodied “uncleanness” and “infection” models (Feder, “Contagion and Cognition,” 166).

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

67

is unique in blending both notions of impurity to convey his message with a particularly effective rhetoric of disgust. Kazen draws attention to Ezek. 36, in which “patriarchal aversions to female blood” are blended with idolatry and violent bloodshed.18 In the following chapter, I argue the same rhetoric of disgust is at play in Ezek. 16. 5.3. Mary Douglas, the Purity Laws, and the Body as a Bounded System Anthropologist Mary Douglas was one of the first scholars to construct a theory of the purity laws that drew on notions of embodiment and disgust. While Douglas’s theory has been criticized,19 it is an important theory to discuss for two reasons. Firstly, it is necessary to be clear about which aspects of Douglas’s theorizations of embodiment and the purity laws will be adopted in the present work and which are not accepted. Secondly, Douglas’s significant impact on both studies of disgust as an emotion and studies of the purity laws of Leviticus cannot be understated. Indeed, as Smith and Davidson observe, “Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1993 [1996]) has been described as ‘the first epistemological theory of disgust’ (Royzman and Sabini, 2001: 40),” even though Douglas makes no explicit reference to disgust itself, preferring instead the categories dirt and pollution, which she uses interchangeably.20 Douglas is concerned with interpreting purity rituals that involve the body and its fluids in light of power dynamics inherent in social structures. In Douglas’s own words, “bodily control is an expression of social control” because, she argues, “the body is a symbol of society.”21 That is to say, anxieties concerning the preservation and continuation of a stable, “ordered” society are symbolized through rituals that police the boundaries of the human body. Ritual, however, goes beyond symbolization according to Douglas, and functions to control “the danger of the disorder” by imposing boundaries and rules upon the subjects of a society.22

18.  Kazen, “Disgust in Body, Mind, and Language,” 113. 19.  See esp. Tracy M. Lemos, “Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions,” JSOT 37 (2013): 267–70. 20.  Mick Smith and Joyce Davidson, “ ‘It Makes My Skin Crawl…’: The Embodiment of Disgust in Phobias of ‘Nature,’ ” Body & Society 12 (2006): 43–67, at 58. 21.  Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1970), 70; Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966), 116. 22.  Ibid., 95.

68

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Douglas famously defines dirt as “matter out of place…the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements.”23 This definition of dirt as “matter out of place” necessitates a consideration of dirt in relation to the order of objects and/or ideas in a system. That is to say, an object is not inherently dirty according to Douglas’s definition; rather, it becomes dirty if it is situated outside the accepted order of a system. Douglas offers the example that shoes are not dirty; however, the act of placing them on the dining-table (which is outside the appropriate place for shoes in the ordered system) is dirty.24 Shoes on a dining table may be considered dirty, but Meigs rightly argues that it is not the case that anything situated outside the accepted order of a system is considered dirty.25 She notes that if a new dress is left on the dining-table it is not considered dirty, but rather messy.26 What makes shoes and other items dirty, according to Meigs, is the potential for them to be “carriers of substances like faeces, urine, saliva”—that is, other people’s emissions.27 In other words, according to Meigs what underpins the conceptual category of pollution is a fear of contamination. With regard to the biblical text, Douglas attempts to understand the dietary laws in Lev. 11 through her hypothesis that dirt/pollution is that which defies order. Douglas argues that the Levitical abominations are not arbitrary; they are “the obscure unclassifiable elements which do not fit the pattern of the cosmos. They are incompatible with holiness and blessing.”28 According to Douglas, then, the dietary laws prohibit the consumption of animals that confuse order or might be considered hybrids—animals must “conform fully to their class” to be considered clean.29 Any wild beast, for example, that does not conform to the characteristics of “cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing ungulates” is deemed unclean and unsuitable for consumption.30 How does Douglas’s theorization of dirt and pollution relate to the body and notions of disgust? The answer lies in Douglas’s conceptualization of the body as a “bounded system” and her assertion that “the focus 23.  Ibid., 36. 24.  Ibid., 37. 25.  Anna S. Meigs, “A Papuan Perspective on Pollution,” Man 13 (1978): 304–18, at 310. 26.  Ibid., 310. 27.  Ibid. 28.  Douglas, Purity and Danger, 96. 29.  Ibid., 56. 30.  Ibid.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

69

of all pollution symbolism is the body.”31 If we apply Douglas’s claim that “pollution behavior is the reaction which condemns any object or idea likely to confuse or contradict cherished classifications” to the body,32 then the ordered system at stake when it comes to the body is the body as a contained unit. According to Douglas, disgusting bodies are bodies that exceed the body envelope that functions to prevent that which is contained within the body from coming out.33 Disgusting bodies are leaky bodies, bodies with uncontrollable orifices, bodies that do not contain fluids in their appropriate enclosure of flesh. In other words, disgusting bodies are bodies that transgress the boundary between the inner and outer worlds. Through this transgression of boundaries, Douglas argues that leaky bodily orifices in particular symbolize the vulnerability of “any structure of ideas…at its margins.”34 Douglas argues that “we cannot possibly interpret rituals concerning excreta, breast milk, saliva and the rest unless we are prepared to see in the body a symbol of society, and to see the powers and dangers credited to social structure reproduced in small on the human body.”35 According to Douglas, bodily fluids belong within the closed system of the body. Therefore, when these fluids exit the body, they exit the system to which they have been assigned and thus become dirty, “matter out of place,” disgusting. As I will discuss momentarily, scholars have rightly drawn attention to inconsistencies in this conceptualization of fluids outside the body as “matter out of place” and defiling; however, before turning to these critiques, it is important to note that Douglas argued that it is not just the case that certain fluids which leak out of the body have the potential to be dirty/polluting; rather, anything that might invade and thus compromise the integrity of the bounded body from the outside also has the potential to be dirty/polluting. Examples of this could include food, foreign objects, or other people (i.e. through sexual intercourse). We can add to

31.  Ibid., 174. Douglas makes this statement in relation to the Lele specifically, though elsewhere she affirms that “the body…provides a basic scheme for all symbolism” (ibid., 165). 32.  Ibid., 35. 33.  In his discussion of grotesque bodies Bakhtin emphasizes a similar point, namely, that “stress is laid on those parts of the body that are open to the outside world, that is, the parts through which the world enters the body or emerges from it, or through which the body itself goes out to meet the world” (Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984], 26). 34.  Douglas, Purity and Danger, 121. 35.  Ibid., 116.

70

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

this list of potentially polluting elements disease and death, which both pose a direct threat to the continued preservation of a healthy body.36 Does Douglas’s conception of fluids as “matter out of place”—that is, out of the closed system of the body—hold up when applied to the purity laws of the Hebrew Bible? It appears the biblical conception of impurity as it relates to fluids is much more complicated than Douglas posits. Some fluids are deemed to render one ritually impure. These include abnormal genital discharge (Lev. 15:1-15), male ejaculate (Lev. 15:16-18), blood that flows from the vagina (Lev. 12:1-8; 15:19-30) (but not blood in general as Douglas herself acknowledges),37 oozing wounds (Lev. 13), and spit from a man with genital discharge (Lev. 15:8) (note that spit from other types of people is not mentioned). Other fluids, however, such as breast milk, tears, snot, urine, and vomit, are not mentioned in the context of the purity laws and thus one would assume they did not render a person ritually unclean. As such, it is clear that while some fluids were considered polluting, it is not the case that all fluids that leaked from the body were considered polluting. The vast majority of the defiling fluids listed above, with the exception of oozing wounds, are what Erbele-Küster terms “sexual fluids”—that is, fluids associated with sex.38 This observation is particularly relevant when considering the fluids mentioned and implied in Ezek. 16, especially the lochial blood that covers Jerusalem and the implied seminal emissions of her lovers (compare 23:20), both of which defile Jerusalem. The notion that every society has a shared symbolic order and strives to maintain that order underlies Douglas’s theorization of pollution and its relationship to the categories of sacred and profane in Purity and 36.  Milgrom famously proposed that the various causes of ritual impurity are all related to death (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 766–8). While Milgrom’s death theory might work for causes of ritual impurity like skin diseases and corpse impurity, it does not hold up when it comes to other causes of impurity. Numerous scholars rightly observe that impurity caused by sexual intercourse, which is a life-giving act, goes against Milgrom’s proposition, as does childbirth (S. Tamar Kamionkowski, Leviticus, Wisdom Commentary 3 [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2018], 102; Feder, “Contagion and Cognition,” 154; Kazen, “The Role of Disgust in Priestly Purity Law,” 64). 37.  Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 178. Erbele-Küster observes that “nowhere is blood itself characterized as impure—it has a stronger association with the concept of purity” (Dorothea ErbeleKüster, Body, Gender, and Purity in Leviticus 12 and 15, LHBOTS 539 [New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 145). 38.  Erbele-Küster, Body, Gender, and Purity, 125.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

71

Danger (1966);39 however, Douglas later tempered her claims regarding the universal applicability of her theory of pollution.40 In the preface to Leviticus as Literature (1998), she states that she has realized that “while the general pollution theory still stands” it “does not apply to… the Pentateuch.”41 She explains that her theory did not account for the selection of the forbidden animals in Lev. 11, nor did these animals correspond to “some important classifying for the internal organization of society” as she expected.42 It is confusing, then, that when it comes to Douglas’s more recent theorization of defilement in Leviticus, she appears to suggest that a symbolic order—and the infringements of this order—are the foundations on which notions of purity and impurity are established.43 This is evident through Douglas’s references—implicit while they may be—to symbolic order as “the design of God’s universe” and to her argument that the social pressure to conform to the symbolic order is an exercise that “depends on monitoring cognitive boundaries as well as physical ones.”44 The notion that there is some overarching “system” that covers biblical conceptions of purity, which has dominated discussions of biblical purity for decades and has been proposed by numerous scholars other than 39.  Cf. Johanna Stiebert, “Within and Without Purity, Danger, Honour and Shame: Anthropological Approaches in Feminist Hebrew Bible Studies,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect, vol. 3: Methods, ed. Susanne Scholz, RRBS 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016), 116. By referring to symbolic order(s) I seek to clarify that I do not believe there is one overarching, universal “symbolic order” to which all societies subscribe; rather, every society has its own conceptualization and implementation of order. 40.  Douglas responds directly to Parker’s critique that “not all pollutions can be seen as products of category violations” (Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983], 62) in Mary Douglas, Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). She concedes that “a lot of ambiguity has to be tolerated” and that “every anomaly cannot be treated as a threat” (ibid., 160). For a general summary of scholars who problematize Douglas’s theory of ritual, see Robbie Duschinsky, “The Politics of Purity: When, Actually, Is Dirt Matter out of Place?” Thesis Eleven 119 (2013): 63–77, at 65–7. 41.  Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, viii. 42.  Ibid., vii–viii. 43.  Cf. Tracy Lemos, “The Universal and the Particular: Mary Douglas and the Politics of Impurity,” JR 89 (2009): 236–51, esp. 240–1. 44.  Douglas, Jacob’s Tears, 161. Duschinsky similarly criticizes Douglas for maintaining “the functionalist conclusions of the anomaly theory, shorn of its explanatory framework” (Duschinsky, “The Politics of Purity,” 66–7).

72

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Douglas herself, has been criticized by Lemos.45 Lemos argues that efforts to posit a homogenous system that can account for biblical understandings of purity is fraught by the diverse purity constructions found in priestly and non-priestly texts.46 Indeed, even discrete texts, for example Ezra– Nehemiah, can bear witness to divergent opinions on purity. Lemos lists numerous instances where Ezekiel’s purity constructions differ from those in Leviticus, including Ezekiel’s belief that feces defiles (Ezek. 4:12-15), which is not found in Leviticus, as well as the severity with which Ezekiel appraises menstrual impurity.47 I will return to this latter point in Chapter 6. My incorporation of Douglas’s notion of the body as a bounded system that represents society and society’s concern to maintain order is not jeopardized by the potentially questionable universal applicability of her theory of pollution. Nor is my use of Douglas impacted by her own evolving attitudes as to whether her theory can be applied to the Hebrew Bible at all. This is because the body as a symbol for society is the basis for the metaphor of the Judahites as Yhwh’s wife in Ezek. 16. At the core of this metaphor, the gradual degradation and endangerment of the city, Jerusalem, and its eventual invasion by the Babylonians is communicated through the penetration and destruction of the physical body of Yhwh’s wife. In this regard, the following comment Douglas makes regarding the Israelites is particularly salient when it comes to Ezek. 16: “the threatened boundaries of their body politic would be well mirrored in their care for the integrity, unity and purity of the physical body.”48 Indeed, as I explain in Chapter 6, anxieties concerning the disintegration of the body politic underpin much of the prophet Ezekiel’s message to the Judahites and these anxieties are communicated through the prophet’s preoccupation with bodily impurity, designated through the root unclean (‫)טמא‬. In particular, Ezekiel’s anxieties are communicated through the impurity of the female body of Jerusalem, Yhwh’s wife.49 These notions of bodily impurity blend with the representation of Jerusalem as disgusting to convey the severity of the Judahites’ sinfulness. 45.  Lemos, “Where There Is Dirt,” 267–83. 46.  Ibid., 283–4. 47.  Ibid., 285–6. 48.  Douglas, Purity and Danger, 125. 49.  Erbele-Küster also acknowledges the utility of Douglas’s notion of the body as a bounded system that is representative of societal anxieties for understanding biblical notions of purity and impurity (Erbele-Küster, Body, Gender, and Purity, 124–37). She does this within the context of her analysis of the female body—and menstruation in particular—in Lev. 12 and 15. Though Erbele-Küster does not offer a detailed exploration of the female body in Ezekiel in particular, she briefly outlines its function in Ezra and Ezekiel as an attempt of the texts’ authors to “control borders and

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

73

5.4. Kristeva, the Purity Laws, and the Female Body While Douglas lays the foundations for the conceptualization of the body of the individual as a reflection of societal anxieties concerning dirt and pollution, it is Kristeva who extends Douglas’s theory to examine the role of the female body in particular. Kristeva is indebted to Douglas for much of her own theorization of “filth” and what Kristeva deems to be its ritualized manifestation, “defilement.” In particular, Kristeva agrees with Douglas that dirt/pollution—termed filth/the abject by Kristeva—is “not a quality in itself,”50 but that which defies boundaries. In Kristeva’s words, what causes abjection is that which “disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules.”51 It is this extension that I believe is a particularly useful tool through which to examine the representation of the female body as disgusting and threatening in Ezek. 16. To be sure, aspects of Kristeva’s theorization of the female body as abject in Leviticus are questionable, particularly her overgeneralization that “the rituals of defilement and their derivatives” are “based on the feeling of abjection and all converg[e] on the maternal” and the threat the maternal body poses to the (male) subject.52 Kristeva’s use of dietary prohibitions outside of Leviticus—specifically Exod. 23:19; 34:26 and Deut. 14:21—to make sense of those within Leviticus that make no mention of the mother is unwarranted. Kristeva provides no justification for using these specific food prohibitions in the interpretation of the Levitical food prohibitions outside of her insistence that dietary prohibition is fundamentally related to the mother. This becomes a circular exercise where the body of the mother is said to reside behind every purity law—without sufficient justification. Further, by reading the Levitical purity laws through the lens of Deuteronomy and Exodus, Kristeva assumes continuity and does not take into account the multiplicity of perspectives on purity in the books of the Hebrew Bible.53 enforce purity laws. Their interpretations of the purity regulations deploy the female body to create a situation that is unattainable by the social body. The female body is used as a symbol of the community and of socio-religious representations, which are in turn formed by rituals and purity laws” (ibid., 124). 50.  Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Léon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 69. 51.  Ibid., 4 (emphasis added). 52.  Ibid., 64. 53.  Boer raises a similar criticism against Kristeva when he writes that her tendency to “sweep across vast slabs of text, running all the way from Genesis to Malachi” is problematic (Roland Boer, “The Forgetfulness of Kristeva,” JSOT 33 [2009]: 259–76, at 261).

74

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Nevertheless, elements of Kristeva’s conceptualization of purity and the female body are useful lenses through which to consider the relationship between space, gender, and emotion in Ezek. 16. As I will show in the coming chapters, the character of Jerusalem thoroughly embodies Kristeva’s definition of the abject—that which “disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules.”54 It is clear that Ezekiel himself presents the female body as abject through the personification of the city as a woman who bleeds, blurring the boundaries between ritual impurity and sin. As the adulterous wife, Jerusalem certainly disrespects the social boundaries of marriage by allowing the physical boundaries of her body to be penetrated by “spreading [her] legs wide for every passer by” (16:25). In addition, Jerusalem is presented as the abject mother par excellence through her sacrifice of her children (16:20-21). Similarly, Jerusalem’s own foreign mother plays no small role in contributing to the characterization of Jerusalem as abject in Ezek. 16. I will return to these representations of Jerusalem as abject in Chapter 6. 5.5. Ezekiel’s Theodicy and its Relationship to Purity Ezekiel’s representation of Jerusalem as ritually impure was not woven out of whole cloth. It belongs within a broader cultural tradition that had very specific understandings of purity and the ways that purity intersects with gender. The categories holy/profane (‫חל‬/‫ )קדש‬and clean/unclean (‫טמא‬/‫ )טהר‬play no small role in conceptualizing purity in Ezekiel and his milieu. They are central to Ezekiel’s theodicy, his description of the city Jerusalem and its temple, and the representation of personified Jerusalem as unclean in Ezek. 16. The categories holy/profane and clean/unclean feature in both Ezekiel and the priestly traditions (especially those in Leviticus), but it is not the case that Ezekiel’s usage of them is identical to that in the priestly traditions. My main concern is the manner in which Ezekiel understands and expresses these concepts and as a result I do not address the priestly traditions in detail here.55 I return to some major differences between Ezekiel and the priestly material in Leviticus in Chapter 6. 54.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 4 (emphasis added). 55.  For further discussion of the relationship between Ezekiel and the priestly tradition see pp. 82–5. The relationship between these concepts as they are expressed in Leviticus is hotly debated. See Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 121–5 for a summary of the different positions. See Chapter 6 for a comparison of Ezekiel’s understanding of female impurity with Leviticus.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

75

The pairing of the concepts holy/profane (‫חל‬/‫ )קדש‬and clean/unclean (‫טמא‬/‫ )טהר‬is first found in Ezek. 22:26 when Yhwh bemoans that the Judahite priests have not distinguished (‫ )לא הבדילו‬between holy (‫)קדש‬ and profane (‫ )חל‬and have not taught the people the difference between clean (‫ )טהר‬and unclean (‫)טמא‬.56 This misstep will be remedied by the priests who will be installed to oversee the new temple and the remnant of Israel (44:23). According to 22:26, anything that blurred the line between holy/profane and clean/unclean was not acceptable. As such, profaning Yhwh (13:19), who is the epitome of holiness (39:7), and profaning his sabbath (23:38; cf. 13:19), holy name (e.g. 20:39; 39:25: 43:7-8), and holy objects (22:26) provokes the wrath of Yhwh. Crucially, so too does profaning the temple and its surrounding land (7:21-22),57 which is also deemed holy, at least in its ideal manifestation according to Ezekiel (e.g. 44:27; 45:1-4, 6, 7).58 What is at issue in the passages cited above where holy things have been profaned is that the crucial separation or distinction between the opposites holy and profane has not been maintained. Apart from Ezek. 22:26 and 44:23, in which holy/profane (‫חל‬/‫)קדש‬ and clean/unclean (‫טמא‬/‫ )טהר‬are paired, these four terms are also found together in 36:22-29 in the final version of the MT.59 This passage offers further information that helps to clarify the relationship between these concepts in Ezekiel. In particular, the passage clarifies the incompatibility of Yhwh’s holiness with uncleanness—a connection that is essential to grasp in order to understand Ezekiel’s justification for the withdrawal of Yhwh’s presence from the temple. The root “clean” (‫)טהר‬ 56.  Compare Lev. 10:10. 57.  Ganzel notes that “Ezekiel is unique in ascribing to the Temple both defilement (‫ )טומאה‬and desecration (‫( ”)חילול‬Tova Ganzel, “The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple in Ezekiel,” Biblica 89 [2008]: 369–79, at 369). Elsewhere, only ‫ חילול‬is used of the temple. 58.  It is important to bear in mind that the temple is holy because it is the location in which Yhwh’s presence dwells, not because of some innate quality in and of itself. (Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48, SBLDS 154 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996], 39). George makes a similar observation regarding the tabernacle: “holiness is a quality of the tabernacle space because the deity dwells in the tabernacle (Exod 25:8; 29:42-46). The deity is, by self-definition, holy (see Lev 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:26; 21:8)” (Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, SBLAIIL 2 [Atlanta: SBL, 2009], 110). Ezekiel uses the root ‫ טמא‬to describe the state of the temple and the land more frequently than he uses the root ‫קדש‬, as I will discuss below. 59.  Notably, Ezek. 36:23b-38 is missing from the Old Greek (p967).

76

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

features three times in 36:25, each instance describing the future condition of Israel.60 Yhwh states that he will cleanse Israel of their uncleanness (‫ )טמאותיכם‬and from their idols, rendering them clean (‫טהר‬, 36:25). According to this passage, cleanness (‫ )טהרה‬is the absence of uncleanness (‫)טמאה‬, which is not surprising given Ezekiel’s insistence that the two states should remain separate (e.g. 22:26); however, when this verse is read in context, it is clear that uncleanness is not merely the absence of cleanness and vice versa, but that uncleanness is incompatible with the holiness of Yhwh’s name, and by extension, Yhwh himself. It is worth quoting 36:23-25 in full: And I will make manifest the holiness of my great name (‫וקדשתי את־שמי‬ ‫)הגדול‬, which has been profaned (‫ )המחלל‬among the nations, which you have profaned (‫ )חללתם‬among them. Then the nations will know that I am Yhwh, declares the Lord Yhwh, when I show myself to be holy through you before their eyes (‫)בהקדשי בכם לעיניהם‬. For I will take you out of the nations and I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back onto your own ground (‫)אדמתכם‬. I will sprinkle upon you clean waters (‫)מים טהורים‬, and you will be clean (‫)וטהרתם‬, I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness (‫ )טמאותיכם‬and idols.

In the above passage, the holiness of Yhwh’s name, which has been profaned among the nations, will be made manifest to the nations through Israel. Specifically, Yhwh’s holiness will be proven to the nations when his people are returned to the land of Israel and Yhwh removes their uncleanness. In other words, there is an important relationship between the holiness of Yhwh—or at least the nations’ perception and acknowledgment of his holiness—and the house of Israel’s purity and physical location (that is, in exile or in Israel). As long as the people are in a state of defilement and live in exile, the holiness of Yhwh’s name is no longer manifest. Just as holiness is incompatible with the profane insofar as the two states cannot coexist simultaneously, holiness, just as purity, is incompatible with defilement. The pairs holy/profane and clean/unclean are central to Ezekiel’s justification of the destruction of Jerusalem. Ezekiel frames the destruction of Jerusalem as a result of the detrimental impact that the abominations (‫)תועבות‬, detestable deeds (‫)שקוצים‬, and murderous acts that the house of Israel had on the dwelling of Yhwh’s presence in the temple, city, and 60.  ‫ טהר‬does not appear in Ezekiel outside of 22:26; 36:25; and 44:26, probably due to the focus in Ezekiel on judgment.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

77

land of Israel.61 The abominations of the house of Israel were instrumental in triggering the destruction of Jerusalem because they defiled (‫ )טמא‬the temple (e.g. Ezek. 5:11; 23:38-39), city (e.g. 23:7), and land (e.g. 36:1719),62 which ultimately caused the holy presence of Yhwh (‫)כבוד יהוה‬ to depart from these spaces, for reasons I will elucidate below.63 Bowen contextualizes the implications for the departure of Yhwh’s presence from the city in light of the belief prevalent in the ancient Near East that a city’s patron deity provided protection from hostile external forces.64 Bowen notes that once the glory of Yhwh departed from the temple (10:18-19) and the city (11:23) so too did Yhwh’s protection of these places, leaving Jerusalem vulnerable to the attack from the Babylonians.65 In order to preserve the sovereignty of Yhwh, Ezekiel framed Yhwh’s withdrawal as a voluntary act of judgment—rather than an unjustified abandonment (8:12)—that occurred before the destruction of the city. This put to rest any possibility that Yhwh was either an unfair deity or a weak deity who was defeated by the enemy. The reasons for the withdrawal of the presence of Yhwh from the temple must be understood in light of the incompatibility of the concepts holiness and uncleanness. According to Ezekiel, Yhwh’s presence was not able to

61.  Ganzel similarly notes that the three sources of defilement of the temple are “loathsome (‫ )שׁיקוצים‬and abominable things (‫)תועבות‬, murderous acts in the Temple courtyards, and the sacrifice of children to idolatry” (Ganzel, “The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple,” 374). 62.  Klawans categorizes this type of defilement as “moral impurity” and distinguishes it from what he terms “ritual impurity” due to its association with sin (Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], 24–6). Klawans similarly points out that the “abominations” of the people defile the Israelites, the land, and the temple (ibid., 26). 63.  Yhwh’s presence is often described using the phrase ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in Ezekiel (e.g. Ezek. 1:28; 3:23; 8:4; 10:3-4), which Sweeney argues is “a technical term to describe the presence of YHWH among the people at the time of the wilderness wandering (Exod. 16:7, 10-12), in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-38), and in the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; cf. 1 Sam. 4:21-22)” (Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 131). For a discussion of the withdrawal of Yhwh’s presence from the temple due to the people’s idolatry see John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, Biblical and Judaic Studies 6 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 25–47. Cf. Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 84. 64.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 57. 65.  Cf. ibid.

78

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

reside in a temple that had been defiled by the people. In Ezek. 43:6-9, Yhwh’s eternal dwelling amongst the people is only made possible once the people stop defiling his holy name through their abominations. Ganzel draws attention to the similar language used in Ezek. 43:6-9, Num. 5:3, 35:34, and Lev. 15:31.66 Ganzel notes that in all these passages “the divine presence requires that the surrounding environment—the land, the tabernacle, and the camp, respectively—be one of purity.”67 On a related note, Ezekiel’s justification for the withdrawal of Yhwh’s presence from the temple directly appeals to the defilement of the temple (Ezek. 5:11; 23:38-39). Specifically, Ezekiel appeals to the detrimental impact of the peoples’ abominable behavior on the purity of the temple, which was a prerequisite for Yhwh’s presence to dwell therein. This is underscored in numerous passages in Ezekiel. The concept is first introduced in Ezek. 5:11 when Yhwh announces his impending withdrawal from Jerusalem: “because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations (‫)יען את־מקדשי טמאת בכל־שקוציך ובכל־תועבתיך‬, therefore I will withdraw (‫)וגם־אני אגרע‬.” The joint fate and interconnectedness of the city and her people is communicated through Yhwh’s frequent switching of the addressee between the city (“you” feminine singular) and the inhabitants of the city (“you” masculine plural), which at times occurs even in the same sentence (e.g. 5:17).68 As Yhwh alternates between addressees, he warns Jerusalem that she will become “a reproach and a taunt, a warning and a horror, to the nations all around” (5:15) and warns the people of their imminent suffering (5:16). The nations, which Yhwh mentions three times (5:8, 14, 15), are framed as witnesses to Jerusalem’s downfall, while Yhwh is the subject of the verbs that describe the retribution Jerusalem and her inhabitants suffer (5:11-17). By framing the downfall of Jerusalem as an act of divine judgment upon Jerusalem and not as evidence of the victory of the Babylonians over the powerless Yhwh, Ezekiel preserves the sovereignty of Yhwh while blaming Jerusalem and the people of the city for their impending fate.

66.  Tova Ganzel, “The Reworking of Ezekiel’s Temple Vision in the Temple Scroll,” in Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Leuven 2016, ed. Jutta Jokiranta and Molly Zahn (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 236–7. 67.  Ibid. 68.  The English translations obscure the shifting addressee.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

79

There is an important connection between the defilement of space and divine withdrawal in Ezekiel.69 Ganzel argues that “Ezekiel distances the people from the temple in order to preserve its purity as the locus of the ‘holy name’ (Ezek. 5:11; 23:38).”70 To be sure, Yhwh’s concern to protect his holy name is certainly present in other passages in Ezekiel; however, neither the distancing of the people in order to preserve the temple’s purity nor the holy name of Yhwh is in view in either of the passages Ganzel cites as evidence. Instead, the focus is on Yhwh, who withdraws his favor due to the temple’s defilement in 5:11. There is no mention that Yhwh was motivated to protect the temple’s purity. Rather, the incompatibility of Yhwh’s holy presence with the defiled temple is at issue. Yhwh’s withdrawal of favor is a direct result of the temple’s defilement and results in Yhwh’s vengeful judgment upon Jerusalem and the Judahites (5:1117). The purity of the temple has already been compromised and rather than remedy the defilement of the temple, Yhwh seems intent on further defiling it in later chapters of Ezekiel. This is evident in his command that the executioners “defile the house and fill the courts with the slain” (9:7) and also his retribution against the personified city in 16:35ff., which I will discuss momentarily. In fact, following Yhwh’s withdrawal of favor from the temple in 5:11, neither the holy name of Yhwh nor his divine presence reside in the temple destined for destruction again. They only re-appear and dwell in the new temple, which is free from defilement (43:7-9) and is holy (44:27; 45:1-4). Ezekiel 8 repeats a similar sentiment concerning divine withdrawal to that of Ezek. 5. Namely, that the defiling abominations Israel commits in the temple cause Yhwh to distance himself from the temple (8:6) and ultimately cause Yhwh to judge the house of Judah (8:18). In Ezek. 8, Ezekiel is transported from Babylonia in a vision to Jerusalem and given a tour of the abominations committed by the house of Israel in the temple. Ezekiel’s tour begins in the outer precincts of the temple, at the north gate, where Yhwh asks Ezekiel, “Do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary?” (8:6). Just as at 5:11, the abominations of the house of Israel cause Yhwh to withdraw—though at 8:6 the presence of Yhwh is sharply in view, rather than his favor as at 5:11.

69.  I understand divine withdrawal to include both the withdrawal of favor and protection (as at Ezek. 5:11) and the physical distancing of the divine presence from the people and temple. 70.  Ganzel, “The Reworking of Ezekiel’s Temple Vision,” 237.

80

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

As Ezekiel progresses to its inner precincts, he witnesses the climax of the people’s abominations, namely, their idolatrous worship of the sun god in the inner court of the temple (Ezek. 8:16). The location in which the abominations are committed, namely, the inner court, is significant. The inner court is the location in which the priests are meant to minister to Yhwh, certainly not worship other gods. This is called “a holy place” in 44:27. The importance of the location of the abominations is evident through the rhetorical question Yhwh poses to Ezekiel, in which he mentions two places—the inner court and the land: “Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations that they commit here, that they should fill the land with violence and provoke me still further to anger?” (8:17). Ezekiel 8 repeats the same pattern of judgment as Ezek. 5. Namely, Yhwh’s announcement that the people commit abominations in the temple and the land is followed by an announcement of judgment that foreshadows a brutal attack on the city and its inhabitants (8:18–9:10).71 Significantly, Yhwh’s judgment is spatially organized. Just as the abominations began in the temple and extended out into the city (8:17), Yhwh orders his executioners to begin by first meting out judgment in the temple then striking in the city (9:6-7). Ezekiel’s theological justification of the destruction of the city Jerusalem and the temple described above is ever present in Ezek. 16, where it is transformed and transcribed onto the boundaries of personified Jerusalem’s female body. Bowen’s conceptualization of the distinction between clean/unclean in terms of boundaries nicely articulates the spatial components that underpin these concepts. Bowen explains, “Persons or objects were ‘clean’ when they existed within the proper boundaries established by God, and whose own external boundaries were whole and intact. Something ‘unclean’ was somehow out of bounds.”72 Here, the term “boundary” describes both the spatial boundary of the physical (i.e. the external boundaries of the body, the layout of the temple, and permitted access to certain areas/bodies) and the metaphorical boundary that contained the people’s conduct within a set of behaviors deemed socially appropriate (i.e. God’s laws as boundaries).73 Kamionkowski suggests 71.  Cf. Ganzel, “The Defilement and Desecration,” 373. 72.  Bowen, Ezekiel, xx. 73.  Numerous scholars have proposed that the layout of the temple and the tabernacle was organized according to gradations of holiness, with various zones of access to proximity in relation to Yhwh, the epitome of holiness whose presence resided in the Holy of Holies. See Seth D. Kunin, “Neo-Structuralism and the Contestation of Place in Biblical Israel,” Temenos 41 (2005): 203–24; Frank H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel:

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

81

that in Ezek. 16, “the boundary issue around which Ezekiel focuses is not holy/profane or pure/impure, but rather male/female.”74 Kamionkowski’s observation that the boundary issue of male/female is a focus in Ezek. 16 is an important one; however, when Ezek. 16 is read alongside other passages that describe the city Jerusalem in Ezekiel, it becomes clear that the categories of holy/profane and clean/unclean are central to Jerusalem’s portrayal.75 This is because these categories blend with the boundary issue of male/female and thus cannot be divorced from them. In the coming chapters, I show that Jerusalem’s portrayal in Ezek. 16 is heavily informed by the negative members of the pairs holy/profane ‫חל‬/‫ קדש‬and clean/unclean ‫טהר‬/‫טמא‬. Jerusalem’s embodied representation plays no small role in her characterization as profane and unclean. In Ezek. 16, the body of Yhwh’s wife signifies the body politic (i.e. the Judahites) while also signifying the city Jerusalem and the temple. In her early life, Jerusalem is rendered unclean by her mother’s uterine blood, which covers her body (16:4-6).76 After Yhwh cleanses Jerusalem of this uncleanness (16:9), Jerusalem’s abominable behavior (‫)תועבות‬, which is predominantly adultery, directly compromises the purity of her bodily vessel.77 As such, there is a degree of reflexivity in the portrayal of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 as the city brings her destruction upon herself by defiling her “inner sanctum” (i.e. vagina) through extra-marital sex, thereby prohibiting access to her holy husband, Yhwh.78 This reflexivity mirrors Ezekiel’s insistence in 5:11 and 8:6 that the Judahites have An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985); Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). The usefulness of holiness as an organizing principle for the tabernacle and temple has been challenged by George, Israel’s Tabernacle, 103–35. George suggests that, rather than holiness, “congregation, descent, and hereditary succession combine to constitute the taxonomic system providing the conceptual logic of tabernacle social space” (George, Israel’s Tabernacle, 125). While George makes an important contribution by elucidating the social organization of the tabernacle space, his theorization does not adequately take into account the role that the concepts holy/profane (‫חל‬/‫)קדש‬ and clean/unclean (‫טהר‬/‫ )טמא‬have in this organization of space. 74.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 7. 75.  See the discussion on pp. 89–91. 76.  For the significance of female blood and its relationship to purity refer to pp. 92–5. 77.  Compare Ezek. 23, in which Oholah and Oholibah’s self-defilement through idolatry and adultery is underscored at 23:7, 13, 30. 78.  For the connection between the inner sanctum of the temple and Jerusalem’s vagina see Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 87, 128.

82

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

brought their destruction upon themselves through their abominations, which have defiled the sacred space of the temple and caused the presence of Yhwh to depart from the temple and the city. There are further similarities between Ezekiel’s portrayal of the spaces of the city and temple as defiled and the personification of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16. Yhwh also withdraws his protection from his wife following her defilement (16:39-43), just as he withdraws his presence from the temple in 9:3. Similar to 5:8 and 8:18, Yhwh is the one who judges Jerusalem in 16:38ff.; however, there is a crucial difference. The judgment of the city and its inhabitants described in 5:8 was merely witnessed by the foreign nations (‫ )גוים‬and carried out by Yhwh. By contrast, in Ezek. 16 the metaphor blends those who witness with those who judge. Yhwh’s judgment is meted out by the foreign nations, who are Jerusalem’s lovers (16:37-43; cf. 16:26-29). In Ezek. 16:35ff. as in 9:6, the judgment that follows the defilement of the once holy space in which Yhwh exclusively resided begins at this same place. In the case of 16:35ff. this place is Jerusalem’s genitals, which were supposed to be preserved for her husband’s exclusive use but are now exposed for all to see following her adulterous behavior (16:37). In 9:6, this holy place is the temple, in which Yhwh was supposed to be exclusively worshipped but was defiled following the idolatry of the elders and becomes the first location upon which Yhwh’s wrath is unleashed. If the reference to Jerusalem’s lovers uncovering her nakedness in 16:37 is interpreted as a reference to forced intercourse, then Yhwh adds to Jerusalem’s defilement by adding to the incidences of extra-marital sex in which Jerusalem engages. In other words, just as in 9:7, Yhwh orders a third party to add to the defilement of space as part of his retribution. 5.5. Ezekiel and the Priestly Traditions Thus far, I have largely avoided comparing Ezekiel’s conceptualizations of purity to those in the priestly traditions in order to avoid complicating the discussion. Moving forward, however, it will be difficult to discuss issues of purity in Ezekiel without also considering material from the priestly traditions, especially Leviticus. This section provides a brief overview of Ezekiel’s status as priest and the ongoing debate concerning the relationship between Ezekiel and the priestly traditions in order to clarify the position of this book. Ezekiel’s sign-acts, the major themes of the book, and the ideologies expressed therein are best understood when interpreted through Ezekiel’s

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

83

portrayal as a priest.79 The superscription in Ezek. 1:3 attributes the book of Ezekiel to “Ezekiel the son of Buzi the priest” (‫)יחזקאל בן־בוזי הכהן‬. It is unclear whether “the priest” qualifies Ezekiel or Buzi. In any case, the possible readings affirm either the priestly status of Ezekiel himself or his priestly lineage.80 As issues concerning Ezekiel’s priestly status have been thoroughly addressed elsewhere,81 a brief overview will suffice. Betts draws attention to numerous features that are paralleled in the priestly tradition and thus support Ezekiel’s priestly status. The most convincing of these are: Ezekiel’s call to service (Ezek. 1–5), which bears numerous parallels with the ordination rituals for priests outlined in Lev. 8–9;82 Ezekiel’s call to represent the people of Israel by bearing the iniquity of their sins (Ezek. 4:4), a responsibility that was distinctly priestly;83 Ezekiel’s desire to remain ritually pure, which was a requirement of priests in order to fulfil their duties of serving Yhwh;84 Ezekiel’s judicial activity, which was another important function priests fulfilled for their community;85 and, finally, Ezekiel’s concern for the divine name, which is also prevalent in priestly portions of the Torah.86 In addition to Ezekiel’s “self-portrayal” as 79.  Corrine L. Patton, “Priest, Prophet, and Exile: Ezekiel as Literary Construct,” in Cook and Patton, eds, Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 73; and in the same volume, Baruch J. Schwartz, “A Priest Out of Place: Reconsidering Ezekiel’s Role in the History of the Israelite Priesthood,” 62. 80.  Though Schwartz notes that “it is possible that, due either to his young age or to the unstable situation in the Jerusalem temple up to and following 597 B.C.E. (or both), Ezekiel never had the opportunity to perform any priestly duties himself” (Schwartz, “A Priest Out of Place,” 63). 81.  See Terry J. Betts, Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Tôrâ, Studies in Biblical Literature 41 (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 47–88. See also Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, FAT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 125–43; Patton, “Priest, Prophet and Exile,” 84–7. 82.  See Margaret S. Odell, “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll,” JBL 117 (1998): 229–48. 83.  Betts, Ezekiel the Priest, 61. 84.  Ibid., 61–2. 85.  Ibid., 63–4. 86.  Ibid., 64–6. I have not included Betts’s claim that Ezekiel’s age at the time of his first vision supports his priestly status as I find it to be highly speculative. See ibid., 49–53 for details concerning this argument. I have also omitted Betts’s argument that Ezekiel’s laments provide evidence for his priestly status, as laments may have been associated with the cult in a few biblical texts, but they were not exclusively performed by priests, as Betts himself acknowledges. See ibid., 65–6.

84

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

a priest, Yhwh acknowledges Ezekiel’s priestly status by granting Ezekiel access to the temple (in his visions) and allowing him to closely work with the altar,87 both of which were privileges reserved for members of the priesthood.88 In line with the character Ezekiel’s presentation as a priest, the book’s major themes and imagery reflect an intimate knowledge of the priesthood and the priestly traditions preserved in the so-called Priestly Source (P) and Holiness Code (H).89 Numerous studies have shown that Ezekiel and the priestly traditions exhibit a startling number of thematic, terminological, and conceptual similarities.90 This is particularly the case concerning Ezekiel and H (Lev. 17–26).91 It should be noted that there are also significant differences between Ezekiel and the priestly material, some of which I will discuss below.92 The precise relationship between Ezekiel and the priestly materials has been debated for decades and a summary of the main positions and their strengths and weaknesses has already been undertaken.93 As such, it is not necessary to repeat here. Nearly every conceivable argument has been presented regarding the direction of dependence between Ezekiel and H in particular. These arguments include that the author of Ezekiel

87.  Ibid., 78. 88.  Ibid. 89.  Patton, “Priest, Prophet, and Exile,” 84. For a discussion of the priestly imagery used in Ezekiel see Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 125–43. 90.  Bowen, Ezekiel, xix–xxi; Ganzel, “The Defilement and Desecration,” 369; Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 30–85. For a consideration of the concept of holiness in Ezekiel see Tova Ganzel, “The Concept of Holiness in the Book of Ezekiel” (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2005) (in Hebrew); Wong, The Idea of Retribution, 124–5. 91.  For a summary of the main positions concerning the relationship between Ezekiel and H see Michael A. Lyons, “How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments About the Relationship Between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1055–74. 92.  For a discussion of some differences between Ezekiel and the priestly traditions see Patton, “Priest, Prophet, and Exile,” 81; Wong, The Idea of Retribution, 134–6. 93.  An in-depth examination of the history of scholarship regarding the relationship between Ezekiel and the priestly traditions can be found in Kohn, A New Heart and A New Soul, 6–29.

5. Disgust, Purity, and the Body

85

is responsible for composing H,94 that Ezekiel is dependent on H,95 and that H is dependent on Ezekiel.96 An awareness of the shared affinities between Ezekiel and the priestly traditions is relevant to this book insofar as it allows for the contextualization and interpretation of Jerusalem’s portrayal in Ezek. 16 within the broader cultural milieu of the prophet. The particularities of these shared affinities and their importance for the portrayal of Jerusalem will be considered on a case-by-case basis as the book progresses. Rather than attempting to account for the similarities between Ezekiel and the priestly traditions by appealing to chronological precedence, I view these similarities as belonging to a shared cultural tradition. Shared cultural tradition does not imply identical conceptual systems, as will become clear when I compare some material in Ezekiel and the priestly traditions in the following chapter. 5.6. Conclusion This chapter has conceptualized disgust as an emotion that is concerned to protect the bodily boundaries from invasion and contamination from unwanted sources, including physical contamination and undesirable behaviors. Due to its role in avoiding contamination, disgust is crucial to conceptualizations of purity presented in the Hebrew Bible. I have suggested that Douglas’s notion of the body as a bounded system that threatens to be compromised is a useful tool through which to interpret Jerusalem’s embodied representation in Ezek. 16. This is because the body as a bounded system at risk underlies the personification of the city as Yhwh’s adulterous wife. I have argued that Jerusalem’s body represents the social body and that Ezek. 16 blends notions of disgust, purity, and gender to convey the dire state of the Judahites, but I have not yet explained how this blending is executed. In the following chapters, I examine Jerusalem’s embodied representation, paying particular attention to how this representation intersects with emotions, purity, and gender to convey Ezekiel’s message. 94.  For example, Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel, KAT (Leipzig: Deichert, 1924), xix. 95.  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: Gabalda, 1982). 96.  For example, Baruch Levine, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 9–34.

Chapter 6

J F

’ C R

I (E

B

: F

16:2 - 14)

6.1. Introduction This chapter examines how the embodied aspects of the metaphor of the city Jerusalem as Yhwh’s ward and then wife in Ezek. 16:2-14 allude to gendered notions of ritual impurity also found in the priestly traditions to evoke the emotions of disgust and anxiety. I apply the research on purity and disgust introduced in the previous chapter to Ezek. 16, examining Jerusalem’s embodied representation as disgusting, abject, and unclean. I argue that the portrayal of Jerusalem’s newborn body as a “bounded system” with compromised boundaries communicates the undesirable state of the body politic—the Judahites—before they entered into covenant with Yhwh.1 Jerusalem’s embodied representation is understood in light of Kristeva’s definition of abjection—that which is “neither subject nor object…disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules.”2 Particular attention is paid to the emotional-rhetorical implications of the birthing blood that envelops Jerusalem and her uncut umbilical cord in 16:4-6, both of which point to the liminal boundaries of Jerusalem’s body and her embodied connection to her foreign mother. The chapter concludes with a consideration of Jerusalem’s pubescent body in Ezek. 16:7-14, arguing that Yhwh’s marriage to Jerusalem is an attempt to contain the threat posed by the reproductive female body within the appropriate confines of marriage. This attempt at containment is later rejected by Jerusalem when she seeks out other lovers, reverting 1.  The term “bounded system” is borrowed from Douglas, Purity and Danger, 174. 2.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2, 4.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

87

her body back to the permeability that characterized it as a newborn, and thus (re)turning the “wayward wife” Jerusalem into an object of disgust that symbolizes the danger of a society that has turned away from the covenant. 6.2. The Bloody Newborn Ezekiel 16:3-5 describes in detail the neglect Jerusalem suffered on the day of her birth. This neglect is first and foremost a neglect of her body, which is denied the appropriate post-partum rituals of washing, cleansing, and the cutting of the umbilical cord. In the following sections, I will argue that these birthing rituals are effectively rituals that aim to erect a boundary between the newborn and its unclean mother. Through the denial of the traditional care extended to newborns, Jerusalem’s newborn body is one that is marked by multiple boundary transgressions. Jerusalem is suspended in a state of abjection and hybridity—a state in which she remains covered in the birthing fluids of her mother that render her disgusting and unclean, while she is (paradoxically) symbolically connected to her (absent) mother through her uncut umbilical cord. I will show that the abject and hybrid state of the newborn Jerusalem is a metaphor for the state of the body politic—the people of Israel—before they enter into covenant with Yhwh, a covenant which is based on a call to be separate. The purity laws in Leviticus conceptualize the body of the mother as ritually unclean and I do not believe it is unreasonable to posit that the body of the newborn would have also assumed an unclean state through contact with the lochial fluids of its mother (though this is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Hebrew Bible and the opposite is often claimed by scholars).3 The uncleanness of the mother following childbirth is specifically compared to the uncleanness brought on by menstruation twice in Lev. 12:1-8, suggesting the biblical authors saw some connection between the two types of bleeding. In addition, it is clear from the purity laws concerning blood discharges in women (Lev. 15:19-30) that any 3.  See, for example, Douglas’s comment that the baby boy “does not contract impurity by contact when returned to his mother for nursing” (Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 181). I agree with Thiessen that “the reader cannot take the silence surrounding the question of the purity of a newborn in Lev. 12:1-8 as evidence that the newborn existed outside the purity system” (Matthew Thiessen, “Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity,” NovT 54 [2012]: 16–29, at 24). For evidence that some Jews believed that newborns could contract impurity from their mothers see Thiessen, “Luke 2:22,” 24–7.

88

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

discharge of blood from a woman’s vagina renders anyone or anything that comes in contact with it unclean. It is important to take note that these purity laws are not limited to menstrual impurity (‫)נדה‬, but also specifically address discharges of blood that last many days that are not at the time of a woman’s menstruation (Lev. 15:25). There is no indication that the blood of childbirth was excluded from this particular purity law. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the newborn would have also been rendered ritually unclean following contact with the vaginal blood of its mother. Leviticus 12 outlines the post-birthing rituals a mother must undertake in order to purify herself from the defilement brought on through childbirth. It is clear that it is not only the act of childbirth itself that brings the mother into a state of uncleanness, but that the mother’s uncleanness is determined by the sex of the newborn.4 Both the length of time that the mother is deemed unclean (‫ )טמאה‬and the length of time it is appropriate for the mother to perform the purity ritual are influenced by the sex of the newborn. Whereas the birth of a baby boy results in the mother being unclean for seven days and requires the mother to undergo purification for 33 days (Lev. 12:2-4), the birth of a baby girl results in the mother being unclean for two weeks and requires her to undergo a period of purification lasting 66 days (Lev. 12:5). In other words, the female infant body induces a more sustained period of impurity for the mother than the male infant body, implying that the female infant body is in some way more unclean than the male.5 The reasons why the birth of a baby girl induces a more sustained period of uncleanness in the mother are debated.6 Milgrom suggests that “the cultic inferiority of the female sex is expressed in giving

4.  Cf. Erbele-Küster, Body, Gender and Purity, 141; Richard Whitekettle, “Leviticus 12 and the Israelite Woman: Ritual Process, Liminality and the Womb,” ZAW 107 (1995): 393–408, at 397–9. 5.  Elizabeth W. Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood That You Shed You Are Guilty’: Perspectives on Female Blood in Leviticus and Ezekiel,” in Jewish Blood: Reality and Metaphor in History, Religion and Culture, ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Routledge Jewish Studies (London: Routledge, 2009), 61; Rachel C. Newell, “The Thanksgiving of Women After Childbirth: A Blessing in Disguise?” in Exploring the Dirty Side of Women’s Health, ed. Mavis Kirkham (London: Routledge, 2007), 41. 6.  For a summary of the key arguments see Erbele-Küster, Body, Gender and Purity, 37–9. See also Kristin De Troyer, “Blood: A Threat to Holiness or toward (Another) Holiness,” in Wholly Woman, Holy Blood: A Feminist Critique of Purity and Impurity, ed. Kristin De Troyer, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 50–7.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

89

the female such a double uncleanness effect”;7 however, this suggestion suffers from circularity and does not adequately explain why the female is considered cultically inferior or more unclean in the first place. A more convincing explanation is offered by Levine, who argues that the extended length of time proscribed for a woman who had given birth to a daughter might be explained by “apprehension and anticipation regarding the infant daughter’s potential fertility, the expectation that she herself would someday become a mother.”8 Read within the context of the Levitical purity laws, Jerusalem’s infant body is thus defiling (in that it renders her mother ritually impure for a longer period of time) and defiled (by the birthing fluids of the mother herself). The above discussion centered on purity conceptions in Leviticus. If we are to take seriously Lemos’s warning that the biblical texts present divergent views of purity and impurity we must consider Ezekiel’s unique appraisal of impurity and female uterine blood. As will become apparent, Ezekiel adopts a much harsher view regarding the impurity of female uterine blood, one that combines ritual uncleanness and immoral behavior. 6.3. The Concept of Uncleanness (‫ )טמאה‬in Ezekiel: Blurring the Boundaries Between Ritual Uncleanness and Moral Impurity Through Female Blood Ezekiel’s presentation of uncleanness in general, and of female blood in particular, is a significant departure from that which is presented in Leviticus. Uncleanness (‫ )טמאה‬as it is conceptualized in Leviticus is strictly used to designate one’s status relative to the cult—that is, the proximity a person or object may assume to the sanctuary in any given state.9 When it comes to Ezekiel, however, uncleanness (‫—)טמאה‬particularly as it is applied to the female body and used alongside the concept 7.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 2. 8.  Baruch Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), 250. For similar claims, see also Nicole J. Ruane, Sacrifice and Gender in Biblical Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 187; Walter Kornfeld, Levitikus (Würzburg: Echter, 1983), 49; Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources (New York: Schocken Books, 1984), 152. 9.  Douglas writes that, in Leviticus, “unclean is not a term of psychological horror and disgust” (Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 151). Be that as it may, I would argue that the strict prohibitions against sex with a menstruant, which are mentioned in Lev. 18:19 and 20:18 alongside adultery, bestiality, incest and homosexuality, suggest

90

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

of menstrual impurity (‫—)נדה‬takes on more sinister connotations through its metaphorical usage as a designation for the sin of Israel.10 While there are numerous passages that feature the sinful bloody city, personified as a woman (Ezek. 22:2; 24:6, 9),11 blending blood, sin, and femininity, the key passages that explicitly feature menstrual blood are 7:19-20 and 36:17-21.12 While Ezek. 7 does not refer to personified Jerusalem, the passage begins addressing the (feminine) land of Israel (‫ )אדמת ישראל‬in the 2nd person (7:2). Yhwh warns he will judge and punish the land “according to your (f.) ways” (‫ )כדרכיך‬and “your (f.) abominations” (‫( )תועבותיך‬7:3). Sinfulness is associated with the feminine through the 2nd person feminine pronominal suffix appended to “ways” and “abominations.” This passage is an account of the sins of the Judahites in which the gold of the temple, which has been made into idols, is described as menstrual impurity (‫)נדה‬. Yhwh threatens that as punishment for the people’s sins he will turn his “beautiful ornament” (‫ )וצבי עדיו‬into menstrual impurity (‫ )נדה‬when he hands it over to foreigners to desecrate (‫( )וחללוהו‬7:20-21). The referent of “beautiful ornament” is unclear, but given the immediate context of the passage, it probably refers to the gold and silver of the temple.13 Both these uses of ‫ נדה‬link menstrual impurity to idol worship, extending the term to describe moral infractions as well as cultic impurity. A similar extension of menstrual impurity (‫ )נדה‬to describe sin is found in Ezek. 36:17-21: Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled her by their ways (‫ )דרכיכם‬and their deeds. Like the uncleanness of a menstruating woman (‫ )כטמאת הנדה‬were their ways before me. Therefore, I poured out my seething anger upon them due to the blood that they poured out upon the land and due to their idols with which they defiled her.

that menstrual uncleanness was more taboo than other forms of uncleanness (though compare Lev. 15:24, which is less severe, only suggesting that sex with a menstruant results in temporary uncleanness). 10.  See Launderville, “ ‘Misogyny’ in Service of Theocentricity,” 200–213. 11.  For a discussion of these passages that reads ‫ דמים‬as a combination of menstrual blood, blood shed from murder, and bloodguilt see Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood That You Shed’,” 60–1. For further discussion of the significance of menstrual blood in Ezekiel see Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 167–75. 12.  Ezek. 18:6 and 22:10 refer to the Levitical prohibition against sexual intercourse with a menstruant but do not include the image of the bloody city. 13.  Cf. Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 133.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

91

Kazen notes that, in this passage, conceptual blending occurs in which “disgust towards genital discharges, menstrual blood in particular, which is considered to be impure, is mapped onto bloodshed and idolatrous practices.”14 As a result, an intermingling of core disgust, evoked by genital discharge, and moral disgust, evoked by the “socially destabilizing” practices of bloodshed and idolatry, takes place.15 This intermingling transforms ‫ נדה‬into a symbol for that which is morally questionable—a symbol that is based on the female body in Ezekiel. The same term (‫ )דרכיכם‬that was used in Ezek. 36:17 to compare the people’s behavior to menstrual impurity (‫ )נדה‬is used again in 36:31-32; however, this time, it is explicitly linked to the emotions of shame, disgust, and humiliation. After Yhwh cleanses the people, he says, “You will remember your evil ways (‫ )דרכיכם הרעים‬and your deeds that were not good, and you will be disgusted in yourselves (‫ )ונקטתם בפניכם‬for your sins and your abominations… Be ashamed and humiliated for your ways (‫)בושו והכלמו‬, O house of Israel” (36:31-32). The people’s behavior (‫ )דרכיכם‬is described as evil, disgusting, shameful, and humiliating. The explicit comparison of the people’s “ways” to menstrual impurity (‫ )נדה‬in 36:17 assumes that menstrual impurity bears these same qualities in the eyes of God. Ezekiel 16 must be read in light of these other passages in Ezekiel that turn the Levitical concept of uncleanness into a term that blurs the boundaries between ritual uncleanness and moral impurity and, in doing so, imbues the female body with both physically disgusting and morally disgusting properties. Indeed, as Goldstein has shown, uncleanness (‫)טמאה‬ is used primarily to refer to moral infractions in Ezekiel, with only five of the 39 uses of the term referring to ritual impurities.16 What, then, is the significance of blood for the portrayal of the infant Jerusalem in Ezek. 16? The portrayal of Jerusalem’s infant body as disgusting and ritually impure is primarily communicated through its repeated description as bloody in 16:6-9. While blood itself does not necessarily defile, the type of blood in which Jerusalem is covered is the type that defiles and that assumes sinister connotations elsewhere

14.  Kazen, “The Role of Disgust,” 88. 15.  Ibid., 89. Eilberg-Schwartz argues that the revulsion under question is God’s revulsion, “Women’s bleeding is symbolic of violent bloodshed and God’s revulsion over such acts is equated with Israel’s purported reaction to menstrual blood” (Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990], 181). 16.  Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood’,” 64.

92

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

in Ezekiel. The Hebrew word for blood(s) (‫ )דמים‬appears four times in 16:6-9 (including three times in close succession in 16:6 alone). Notably, in all four occasions where ‫ דמים‬occurs it is accompanied by the 2nd person feminine pronominal suffix ‫–ך‬, closely associating Jerusalem herself with the ritually impure blood and turning her into an object of disgust. The use of the plural form in these instances rather than the singular blood (‫ )דם‬is noteworthy; however, there is debate about the specific kind of blood evoked by the plural. Zimmerli observes that the plural form “‫ דמים‬is used in the language of sacral law for bloodguilt,”17 raising the possibility that it could have been used in Ezek. 16:6 in order to hint at the bloodguilt of Jerusalem mentioned later in 22:2 and 24:6, 9.18 It is also possible, and indeed more likely considering the immediate context of Ezek. 16:6-9, that the plural form ‫ דמים‬could be a reference to the purification period of a woman who has recently given birth, which is called ‫( דמי טהרה‬e.g. Lev. 12:4; 12:7).19 Shields argues that the use of the plural at 16:9 in particular evokes numerous kinds of blood,20 combining “the image of the infant kicking out in her birth blood, the blood of menstruation associated with her pubescent state, and the hymenal blood associated with her marriage to Yahweh.”21 Given the immediate context of 16:6—a newborn baby writhing in blood—it seems likely that the birthing blood would be the primary referent (at 16:6 at least), if indeed the author used the plural knowingly at all; however, I agree with Shields that a range of meanings related to female sanguine discharge would be evoked by the use of the plural at 16:9 given the context of puberty and the allusions to sexual intercourse. Regardless of the intended meaning of the plural form, the important point is that contact with blood that has come from a woman’s vagina 17.  Cf. Erbele-Küster who notes that “The plural ‫ דמים‬has as its primary meaning the violent shedding of blood” (Erbele-Küster, Body, Gender and Purity, 111). 18.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 323. Examples include the following passages listed in HALOT under “the shedding of blood, blood-guilt”: Exod. 22:1; Num. 35:27; 2 Sam. 21:1; Isa. 33:15; Ezek. 9:9; Lev. 29:9; Deut. 19:10; 22:8; Judg. 9:24; 1 Sam. 25:26, 33. 19.  Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 278. Curiously, when Jerusalem’s youth is recalled at 16:22 the singular ‫ דם‬is used. 20.  Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 9. For an endorsement of the view that the plural here refers to birthing blood, menstrual blood, and the bloodshed of the murder of Jerusalem’s children see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel as Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45, at 33. 21.  Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 9. Cf. Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood’,” 62.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

93

(i.e. birthing blood, hymenal blood, menstruation)22 would render one ritually impure and exclude one from coming into contact with anything holy or entering the temple until the appropriate purification rituals are performed (Lev. 12:1-8; 15:19-31).23 Shields highlights the social implications of this state of impurity, writing, “the fact that the infant in Ezekiel 16 lies in her blood places her outside societal norms.”24 The exclusion of Jerusalem from society is marked by both her location in the field—a place that is outside the city proper—and by her defiled body, which is covered with impure blood and thus excluded from the sacred space of the temple.25 The laws concerning the impurity of blood in Lev. 12:1-8 and 15:19-31 are thoroughly gendered in nature, rooted in the body of the female and its reproductive capacity. According to Kristeva, the fertile female body is an “abomination” because it defies the symbolic order through the leaking of uterine blood—a fluid that Kristeva argues is conceptualized in the biblical narrative as “the propitious place for abjection where death and femininity, murder and procreation, cessation of life and vitality all come together.”26 In other words, according to Kristeva, blood defies taxonomy and order through its invocation of dichotomies—all of which exist uneasily side-by-side in the conceptualization of blood in the biblical narrative. While the notion that some kind of ultimate system underlies the Levitical laws is questionable for reasons I discussed in the previous chapter, Kristeva’s conceptualization of blood as a fluid in which “death 22.  It is important to stress that blood itself is not ritually impure; indeed blood has the potential to purify as well as defile (for the purifying potential of blood see Lev. 4:1-7). In the substance of blood, the poles of purity and impurity coalesce (see also Lev. 12:4 and the notion of ‫)דמי־טהרה‬. 23.  Some commentators have interpreted this mandatory period of separation from the temple following childbirth and menstruation as a celebration of women and an opportunity for rest and recuperation. See, for example, Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 204; Newell, “The Thanksgiving of Women,” 43. I agree with O’Grady’s criticism that these interpreters do not adequately acknowledge the central role of uncleanness and contamination that underpin Lev. 15 (Kathleen O’Grady, “The Semantics of Taboo: Menstrual Prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible,” in De Troyer, ed., Wholly Woman, Holy Blood, 22). 24.  Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 7 n. 8. See also Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 92. 25.  Cf. Kristeva’s observation that, “topologically speaking such variants correspond to one’s being allowed to have access or not to a place—the holy place of the Temple” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 93). 26.  Ibid., 96.

94

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

and femininity, murder and procreation, cessation of life and vitality all come together” is nevertheless reflected in the biblical texts. Leviticus 17:14 describes blood as “the life of every creature.” Blood can both purify, for example, through a sacrificial offering (e.g. Lev. 8:15; 17:11) and cause one to become unclean, for example, through contact with menstrual blood (e.g. Lev. 15:19-24). The status of blood as defiling or purifying depends on the context in which it appears. The conceptualization of blood as a fluid that might represent both life and death, and purity and impurity is particularly evident in the anxieties concerning the maternal body outlined in Leviticus. While blood signifies procreation and vitality,27 the uncontrolled leakage of blood could result in death.28 Nowhere is this threat more present than in the birthing process. The female reproductive body, which has the potential to bring forth life, also threatens to become a dead body—the ultimate representation of abjection. I agree with Newell that it is not the leaking discharge (blood) itself that is threatening, but what it represents, namely, “the threat of maternal death, the threat of becoming the ‘vile body’.”29 The status of blood as a life-threatening substance is sharply in view in Ezek. 16:4-6. The juxtaposition of the image of Jerusalem covered in blood with Yhwh’s repeated command for her to “live in your blood!” (mentioned twice in 16:6) plays on the association of blood with death,

27.  For a discussion of blood as a substance that represents vitality see ErbeleKüster, Body, Gender and Purity, 113–15. 28.  Frymer-Kensky makes a related observation concerning the requirement in Lev. 12 that mothers who give birth must undergo a period of isolation: “the person who experienced birth has been at the boundaries of life/nonlife and therefore cannot directly reenter the community” (Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of D. N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983], 399–414, 400). EilbergSchwartz argues that the extent to which a fluid is considered defiling according to the purity laws in Leviticus can be accounted for by the extent to which it is uncontrollable (Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 187). According to this logic, menstrual fluid is more defiling than seminal emissions during intercourse because it is an “uncontrollable” fluid. Malul notes that nocturnal emission (Lev. 15:16), which is an uncontrollable discharge, brings on the same state of impurity as sexual intercourse (Meir Malul, Knowledge, Control, and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview [Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 2002], 387). In addition, Lemos points out that this theory does not explain why “blood flowing from a serious wound” is not considered impure (Lemos, “Where There Is Dirt,” 273). 29.  Newell, “The Thanksgiving,” 42.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

95

while the birthing context evokes associations of blood with life-giving;30 however, the context in Ezek. 16—of a birthing ritual gone wrong— suggests that the association of blood with death also permeates the metaphor. When viewed in this light, Yhwh’s washing away of the birthing blood from the baby’s body in 16:6 is an attempt to remove from the baby the threat of the blood that leaks from the compromised maternal body. By commanding Jerusalem to live in her blood and then by washing this blood off her body (16:9) Yhwh eradicates the threat of death and uncleanness that blood carries and thus removes one marker of the abject from Jerusalem. It should be noted that in Ezek. 16:4-6, the threat of maternal death is not explicitly in view; however, there is little doubt that the context of the passage does evoke childbirth in general and the blood loss that comes with childbirth in particular. Further, the passage certainly raises questions about the absent mother of Jerusalem—who is notably a “[m]other without a name”31—and suggests that the neglect Jerusalem suffered at the hands of her birth family was intentional. While Jerusalem has been abandoned by her birth family, her embodied representation reveals an enduring connection to her Hittite mother that has foreboding implications for her future behavior. This maternal–infant connection manifests in three ways in the text: 1) through the presentation of baby Jerusalem’s body as hybrid and partly connected to her mother via the uncut umbilical cord; 2) through the maternal blood that covers Jerusalem’s body; and 3) through the author’s mention of Jerusalem’s mother again at 16:44-45, where she is blamed for Jerusalem’s questionable morality. 6.4. Jerusalem’s Infant Body as Hybrid It is striking that, in Ezek. 16, the “preeminent separation” between the infant and its mother—the severing of the umbilical cord—is not properly executed, neither by Jerusalem’s birth family nor by Yhwh when he “rescues” Jerusalem.32 When Yhwh lists the negligence Jerusalem suffered at her birth, he specifies ‫( לא־כרת שרך‬16:4), which the ESV 30.  Cf. De Troyer, “Blood,” 55. Malul compares Ezek. 16:6 to Mesopotamian legal sources that describe the adoption of infants “in their amniotic fluid” and/or “in their blood,” arguing that the phrase ‫ בדמיך חיי‬is a legal adoption formula (Meir Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1-7,” JSOT 46 [1990]: 97–126, 106–12). 31.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 58. 32.  The phrase “preeminent separation” is borrowed from Kristeva, who also uses it to describe the cutting of the umbilical cord (ibid., 100).

96

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

renders “your cord was not cut.” The precise meaning of this phrase is debated. Kamionkowski argues that it is unlikely the umbilical cord was still attached to the placenta as this would imply the infant Jerusalem continued to receive nourishment.33 Presumably, she takes issue with this interpretation because the emphasis in the passage is on the neglect of the infant, not its ongoing nourishment, though she does not explicitly state this justification. Driver takes issue with the translation “your cord was not cut” because he argues that “bleeding does not take place unless the cord has been cut.”34 Apparently, he did not consider that sources other than the placenta could have left blood residue on the baby in childbirth (i.e. the tearing of the vagina). Consequently, Driver suggests that the translation should instead be “your navel cord was not tied” (similar to the LXX ἔδησας) arguing that the verb ‫ כרת‬is a qal passive of ‫כרר‬.35 Regardless of the precise translation offered, both interpretations share the common assumption that the standard practice was not executed when it came to the newborn. The failure of Yhwh to cut Jerusalem’s umbilical cord is particularly surprising given that every other act of negligence described in 16:4 (namely, washing the baby with water, cleansing her, and wrapping her) is rectified by Yhwh in 16:8-10 (Yhwh wraps Jerusalem in fine linen, washes her with water, and cleanses her with oil). Compounding the unexpected nature of this omission is the fact that the failure of Jerusalem’s family to cut her umbilical cord is in the place of emphasis as the first item in the list of negligence she suffered; and yet it has no equivalent response on Yhwh’s behalf. This raises an intriguing question that has not been considered: why does Yhwh not cut Jerusalem’s cord? Two possibilities present themselves: either the omission was unintentional, that is, the author forgot to include this action, or the omission was deliberate and serves a symbolic function.36 Given the fundamental importance of cutting the umbilical cord in birthing practices and the emphatic placement of this action in Ezek. 16:4, it seems unlikely that the author would forget to ensure this action was repeated by Yhwh when he takes in the infant. It is possible, however, that 33.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 98. 34.  Godfrey R. Driver, “Ancient Lore and Modern Knowledge,” in Hommages à Andre Dupont-Sommer, ed. Andre Caquot and Marc Philonenko (Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1971), 278. 35.  Ibid., 277–86. 36.  A third possibility, drawn from psychoanalysis, was raised by Dr. Bill Schaffer in conversation: it is that which is repressed that is absolutely crucial. Has Ezekiel repressed any mention of God’s failure to cut the umbilical cord because this represents a certain degree of culpability on behalf of God?

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

97

the author is being guided from 16:8 onwards by the source domain of the metaphor—the marriage ritual—rather than the metaphor of the birthing practices that dominated 16:3-6. That is, while every other act Jerusalem’s birth family failed to perform at 16:4 may have approximations in the ritual actions associated with the wedding—washing, clothing, cleansing—the one act that there is no approximation for is the cutting of the umbilical cord, thus this action was omitted. This is difficult to confirm, however, as we know very little about what exactly was involved in an ancient Israelite wedding ceremony. We can infer from the biblical evidence that the bride was extravagantly dressed (Ps. 45:14-15; Isa. 61:10), that she was covered with the groom’s garment (Ruth 3:9; Deut. 23:1; 27:20; Mal. 2:16), and that a great feast took place (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:10);37 but outside of Ezek. 16 there is no evidence that the groom bathed his bride and anointed her with oil.38 The other possibility is that the omission of the cutting of the umbilical cord was deliberate. In order to understand what this omission might represent we need to consider the function of the act. In other words, what is the purpose of cutting a baby’s umbilical cord? Cutting the umbilical cord separates the baby from its mother, to whom the cord physically connects the baby. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the verb ‫ כרת‬is used in the sense of physical cutting, as is its primary sense here in Ezek. 16:4.39 The verb ‫ כרת‬can also express an individual being metaphorically “cut off” from his or her people.40 As such, there is precedence for the interpersonal sense of the verb ‫ כרת‬as denoting separation from one’s people. To be clear, I am arguing that, while the physical meaning “to cut” is the primary sense of the term in 16:4, the interpersonal sense is also implied. Following this logic, the fact that Jerusalem’s umbilical cord is not cut (or not severed properly) functions symbolically to indicate that she has not been separated from her foreign mother. This interpretation is

37.  Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 33–4. 38.  Block suggests that this ritual might have an equivalent in the “day of bathing” referenced in Middle Assyrian Laws §42 (ANET, 61). For discussion and bibliography see Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 484 n. 123. 39.  For example, Exod. 8:9; Lev. 22:24; Num. 13:23; Deut. 19:5; 20:19, 20; 23:1; Josh. 3:13, 16; 11:21; Judg. 6:25, 26. 40.  For example, Gen. 17:14; Exod. 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev. 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 6, 17, 18; 23:29; Num. 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20. Compare Ezek. 14:8; 25:7.

98

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

coherent with the rest of the sentiment in Ezek. 16 regarding Jerusalem’s resemblance to her mother. According to Ezekiel, Jerusalem’s predispositions—which she inherited from her mother and of which I am arguing the umbilical cord is a physical, embodied symbol—have dire implications for Jerusalem’s behavior, which I will explain momentarily. From an embodied perspective, the result of the corporeal negligence Jerusalem suffers from her birth family is that she is still symbolically attached to her (absent) mother through the umbilical cord. She is also covered in her mother’s birthing fluids until Yhwh washes her clean. As such, Jerusalem is “in-between,” “ambiguous,” “composite;”41 she is hybrid—at once part of her mother and her own “self.” If Shields and Goldstein are correct that the blood that covers Jerusalem in Ezek. 16:4-6 evokes the birthing blood of Jerusalem’s mother, Jerusalem’s menstrual blood, and her hymenal blood,42 then Yhwh’s command for Jerusalem to “Live in your blood!” (‫ )בדמיך חיי‬at 16:6 also underscores the hybridity of the infant body by blurring the boundaries between the blood of the infant and the blood of its mother.43 In 16:3-6, the infant body is threatening because the boundaries between the self and the (m)other are not clearly demarcated. In other words, the newborn Jerusalem is abject—she is “neither subject nor object.”44 The hybridity of Jerusalem’s newborn body is all the more disturbing because it is connected to a foreign (m)other—a Hittite mother. While Yhwh partly remedies Jerusalem’s abject state by washing away the blood of Jerusalem’s mother that covers her naked body, her cord is never cut—meaning that she still bears the sign of her mother on her body; she is still hybrid—still connected to her mother—even after she enters into the covenant of marriage. It is as though Jerusalem’s future failures are being written on her body. Jerusalem’s continued likeness and connection to her mother, even in her adulthood, is underscored by the author at 16:44-45. Yhwh bemoans, “Like mother, like daughter. You are the daughter of your mother, who abhorred her husband and her children” (16:44-45). Yhwh 41.  These are the words Kristeva uses to describe abjection as that which “does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 4). 42.  Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 9. Cf. Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood,’ ” 62. 43.  Cf. Mein, who argues that in Ezekiel in general “the portrayal of menstrual blood as unclean and uncontrollable does reflect the fears of the exiles that they will lose the clear boundary between themselves and the outside world” (Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 174). 44.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2. For a different interpretation that suggests the severed umbilical cord may signify “social ostracism” and “lack of family ties” see Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 99.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

99

then goes on to repeat the dictum of 16:3, “Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite,” but he changes the emphasis, placing the mother first in 16:45 and extending the accusation of likeness to Jerusalem’s sisters through use of the 2nd person feminine, plural, pronominal suffix (‫אמכן‬ ‫)חתית‬. In other words, the abominable behavior of the daughters is blamed explicitly on their connection to their foreign mother.45 In Ezek. 16:1-7, the hybridity of the Israelite people prior to their entry into the covenant is written on the body of the infant who is bloody and still attached to the mother through the umbilical cord. This hybridity is embodied through the relationship between the infant and the mother, but it also owes to the foreign lineage of Jerusalem, who is descended from Amorite and Hittite parents. As such, by marrying Jerusalem, Yhwh simultaneously attempts to separate her from her mother and her foreign lineage—the consequences of which I will turn to now. 6.5. Yhwh’s Marriage of Jerusalem as Containment of the Feminine It is widely accepted that Yhwh’s salvific actions of washing, adorning, and marrying Jerusalem in Ezek. 16:6-13 signify the people’s entry into their covenant with Yhwh. As such, Yhwh’s actions are viewed in a positive light, as stemming from compassion and grace. While scholars are quick to note Yhwh’s compassion in 16:6-13, the embodied nature of God’s salvific actions and their gendered implications has been neglected in scholarship.46 It is this aspect that I would like to explore presently in an effort to show that the manner in which Yhwh engages with Jerusalem’s body is one that aims at containment; specifically, Yhwh’s engagement with Jerusalem’s body aims to contain the threat of the reproductive female who is at “the age for love” (‫עת־דודים‬, 16:8).47 The marriage cov45.  For a full discussion of this passage and the role of emotions in Jerusalem’s representation as a foreign woman see Natalie F. Mylonas, “Intersectional Emotions: Emotion Stereotypes and Emotional Repertoires in Ezek. 16,” forthcoming. 46.  Feminist scholarship has explored the gendered implications of Yhwh’s salvation of Jerusalem as placing the male in the position of power, though not the embodied nature of this salvation. The focus on Jerusalem’s body is, however, sustained in scholarship when it comes to her promiscuity and punishment. See Peggy Day, “The Bitch Had It Coming to Her: Rhetoric and Interpretation in Ezekiel 16,” BibInt 8 (2000): 231–54, at 235ff.; Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence,” 218; Johanna Stiebert, “The Woman Metaphor of Ezekiel 16 and 23: A Victim of Violence, or a Symbol of Subversion?” OTE 15 (2002): 200–208, at 202. 47.  Cf. De Troyer who argues that by marrying Jerusalem Yhwh “makes sure that the fertility of the grown-up ‘newborn’ belongs to him, and no one else” (De Troyer, “Blood,” 55).

100

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

enant, which contains the body of the female Other by restricting access to the husband, signifies the covenant Yhwh makes with the people, which contains the body of society through rules and regulations regarding behavior. I would like to suggest that by washing, adorning, marrying, and anointing Jerusalem, Yhwh achieves two objectives: first he erects a boundary between Jerusalem and her foreign mother—transforming Jerusalem from abject (“neither subject nor object”)48 to object—and in doing so constructs the female Other; second, Yhwh contains the threat of this female Other by marrying her and literally enveloping her body. The result of Yhwh’s envelopment of Jerusalem’s body is that “she is imagined as contained, imagined as having a spatiality of impermeable borders, imagined as having ‘the solidity of land’.”49 In other words, the threat posed by the permeability of the female body is temporarily dissolved through male control of the female body. Whereas the infant body of Jerusalem was one characterized by permeable boundaries and ritual impurity, Yhwh transforms the reproductive body of Jerusalem into one characterized by containment and control. Yhwh clothes Jerusalem’s naked body (16:10); he regulates what enters (and exits) her orifices—feeding her fine flour, honey, and oil (16:13) and ensuring exclusive access to her body by making her his (16:8); he cleanses Jerusalem of the unclean blood that covered her body, transforming her from an object of disgust that is rejected by those around her (16:5) to an object of desire (16:14). Let us take a closer look at the nature of Yhwh’s actions in 16:8-14. Many of the verbs of which Yhwh is the subject in this passage are verbs that describe the envelopment of Jerusalem’s body. Yhwh spreads the corner of his garment over Jerusalem (‫)ואפרש כנפי עליך‬,50 he anoints her skin with oil (‫ואסכך‬ ‫)בשמן‬, he clothes (‫)ואלבישך‬, covers (‫)ואכסך‬, and binds (‫ )אחבשך‬her naked body, he shods (‫ )ואנעלך‬her bare feet in leather, and he adorns (‫)ואעדך‬ her extremities with jewelry. Numerous scholars have noted that the materials with which Yhwh envelops Jerusalem (‫רקמה‬, ‫תחש‬, ‫ )שש‬and the food with which he feeds her (‫סלת‬, ‫ )שמן‬are specifically associated

48.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2. 49.  Gillian Rose, “As If the Mirrors Had Bled: Masculine Dwelling, Masculinist Theory and Feminist Masquerade,” in Duncan, ed., BodySpace, 70. 50.  There is debate about whether Yhwh’s spreading of his garment over Jerusalem has sexual undertones. For a brief summary of different opinions see Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 172 n. 72.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

101

with the tabernacle (e.g. Exod. 25:5; Lev. 2:7).51 These items highlight the transformation of Jerusalem’s body from impure to pure and hint at its status as a place in which Yhwh’s presence dwells. What is the gendered significance of this envelopment of Jerusalem’s body with adornments and garments? In her research on clothing in the Hebrew Bible, McKay argues that clothing reveals much about the intersection between gender and power in general and “the symbolic universe of the male controllers of society” in particular.52 McKay notes that in ancient Israelite society, women had to change their clothes when they married, adopting the gifts of adornment offered by their (future) husbands.53 McKay argues that the clothes and adornments conferred upon the wife Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 are symbols of Yhwh’s ownership and control.54 Linking clothing to emotions and status, Galambush similarly points out that Jerusalem’s “nakedness and clothing will be shown to symbolize her shame and honor, respectively, reflecting her status as either ‘owned’ (and therefore clothed) by Yahweh, or rejected (and therefore naked).”55 I agree with McKay and Galambush that the clothing Yhwh bestows upon Jerusalem amounts to a conferral of status. Specifically, it enhances Jerusalem’s status by turning her into a beautiful queen (16:13); however, equating Jerusalem as clothed to Jerusalem as “owned” and therefore under the control of her husband is problematic in light of 16:39 onwards, in which Yhwh’s control is displayed by his removal of these items. Perhaps these items are better conceptualized as indications of Yhwh’s favor, which is bound up with an ideology of control insofar as it is Yhwh’s favor that confers status upon his wife. If clothing is a symbol of control, I wish to push the notion further by questioning what threat these clothes are attempting to contain and control, as insecurity and fear essentially underlie regimes of control.

51.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 95; Darr, “Ezekiel’s Justifications of God,” 102. For a discussion of the association of ‫ שש‬with the tabernacle see Kohn, A New Heart and A New Soul, 57. 52.  Heather McKay, “Gendering the Body: Clothes Maketh the (Wo)Man,” in Theology and the Body, ed. Robert Hannaford and J’annine Jobling (Leominster: Gracewing, 1999), 99. 53.  Ibid., 94–5. For an in-depth study of the significance of dress and adornment for gender and power relations see Laura Quick, Dress, Adornment and the Body in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). 54.  McKay, “Gendering the Body,” 97. 55.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 90. Cf. Dempsey, “The ‘Whore’ of Ezekiel 16,” 65.

102

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Following Irigaray, Rose reads the “feminine envelopes” imposed upon women—objects including “clothes, jewels, cosmetics, the home,” many of which bear striking resemblance to those with which Yhwh envelops Jerusalem—as attempts by men to “contain the threat of the fluid body matter… They contain it to limit it.”56 By washing the blood off Jerusalem’s body, by anointing her with oil, and by enveloping her with garments and jewelry, Yhwh fortifies Jerusalem’s body envelope, quelling the threat of the bounded body that was compromised through its exposure to the impure fluid of lochial blood, through its exposure to its mother with her own permeable body, and through its exposure to the outside world through its nakedness. If Yhwh’s actions are read in this sense, as “a play to achieve mastery through an organized set of signifiers that surround, besiege, cleave, out-circle, and out-flank the dangerous, the embracing, the aggressive mother/body,”57 they become an insecure and paranoid attempt to deal with fear of the female (m)other—a character who represents foreignness and a threat to the ongoing preservation of Judahite society in Ezek. 16. 6.6. Conclusion Let me be clear, there is no explicit indication in Ezek. 16:4-14 that Yhwh’s actions were anything other than compassionate acts of pity and there is certainly no overt admission that Jerusalem posed a threat to Yhwh. To the contrary, Jerusalem is portrayed as vulnerable and powerless. The days of her youth are evoked twice later in the chapter (16:22, 43), where they are presented as times of danger from which Yhwh saved Jerusalem; however, I have tried to underscore that Yhwh’s actions are framed within the context of marriage and are described as being performed upon the body of a female. Both of these frames—the marriage metaphor and the emphasis on Jerusalem’s feminine nature—have interpretative implications when considered in light of attitudes towards female bodies in the Hebrew Bible, especially Ezekiel’s understanding of purity. I have argued that, in ancient Israel, the body of the woman had the potential to become a site of disgust and anxiety. In Ezekiel, this disgust is communicated in part by the metaphor of the city who bleeds and the use of the female body as what Goldstein aptly describes as “the symbol for everything that is wrong with Israel.”58 Anxiety, on the other 56.  Rose, “As If the Mirrors,” 71. 57.  Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 37. 58.  Goldstein, “ ‘By the Blood’,” 60.

6. Jerusalem’s Changing Body

103

hand, was provoked by the threatening status of the reproductive female body that was not contained within the appropriate socially constructed containers of marriage and by an adherence to purity rituals (particularly those concerning childbirth and menstruation). In Ezek. 16, the body of Jerusalem is the vehicle through which Ezekiel expresses his anxiety concerning the state of the Judahites. Ezekiel draws on these notions of the female body as disgusting and threatening to order to underscore, in a very visceral sense, the breakdown of the covenant and the dire state in which the Judahites find themselves due to their abhorrent behavior. A tension resides in the reality that, due to the threatening nature of the permeable female body, the feminine also enjoys a measure of power in Ezek. 16—even when it is vulnerable and helpless as a baby. This power signifies the power of the Judahites to be unfaithful to Yhwh and reject the covenant—a power that Ezekiel claims they exercised and that resulted in the exile. I have shown that Yhwh attempted to contain the threat of the reproductive female through his marriage to Jerusalem and envelopment of her threatening body (16:8-14). As Ezek. 16 progresses, Jerusalem rejects this containment and spills out of the “feminine envelope” Yhwh made for her when she decides to pursue lovers other than her husband (16:15ff.). In the next chapter, I explore how Jerusalem’s use of space and use of her body is a defiant expression of her power and downright rejection of masculine containment. I trace the ways that Jerusalem’s engagement with space characterizes her as proud, unashamed, and desirous.

Chapter 7

J

’ T (E

C

S

16:15- 34)

7.1. Introduction Foucault argues that “space is fundamental in any exercise of power.”1 As I have already discussed in Chapter 3, the occupation and manipulation of space can both reinforce and destabilize established gender norms, class distinctions, and ethnic identity. Given the fundamental role of space in power relations, it is particularly fitting that Jerusalem’s rebellion against Yhwh and pursuit of other lovers begins with the creation of a space. More specifically, it begins when she takes the garments Yhwh bestowed upon her and uses them to make colorful shrines (‫במות תלאות‬, Ezek. 16:16). These shrines become one of the locations of her infidelity—physical manifestations of her rebellion against her husband. Ezekiel 16:23-25 specifies that Jerusalem continues building spaces in the city to perform her acts of “whoring.” This time, she builds a dome (‫ )גב‬and makes herself “a high place (‫ )רמה‬in every square” (16:24) and “at the head of every street” (16:25). Despite the multiple mentions of these spaces Jerusalem builds in Ezek. 16, very little scholarship has been written about their interpretative significance. Scholars who do mention them tend to focus on their supposed association with cultic sex work.2 The spaces Jerusalem builds hold a greater interpretative significance than has previously been noticed. Jerusalem’s (mis)use of the city space and her transformation of it are subversive and signify her own subversive qualities. Jerusalem occupies and manipulates space in a way that breaks down the hegemonic containment of female sexuality and reconstructs her sexuality as unbounded and proud. The rich descriptions of space in Ezek. 16:15-34 function to reveal Jerusalem’s subversive power and pride, to 1.  Foucault, “Space, Knowledge, and Power,” 256. 2.  The problematic nature of the association of the structures Jerusalem builds in Ezek. 16 with cultic sex work is addressed below on pp. 105–8.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

105

magnify her disgusting and transgressive nature, and to underscore the idolatrous nature of her actions. This characterization occurs through the exploitation of the spatial metaphor HIGH AS PROUD, the evocation of intertextual associations with certain kinds of spaces, and through Jerusalem’s disregard for the author’s appraisal of how space is supposed to be used and by whom it is supposed to be used, which is firmly couched in priestly notions of sacred space. In order to understand the symbolic significance of the spaces Jerusalem builds it is necessary to appreciate both the physical qualities of the spaces—for example, height, materials, make up, location—but also to appreciate Jerusalem’s use of the spaces themselves and the description of her body in space. All aspects will inform my analysis of the significance of space in 16:15-34. Musing on the significance of Jerusalem’s construction of high places at the head of every street, Bowen writes, “Perhaps the issue is not what is built, but where. ‘Square’ and ‘street’ (vv. 24, 25, 31) were places of public commerce and politics like Wall Street… In the public arena where political alliances were made, Jerusalem consorted with Egypt (v. 26), Assyria (v. 28), and Babylon.”3 Bowen makes an important observation: the public location of Jerusalem’s buildings are meaningful indeed, as I will show in a moment. I would argue that the specification of the kinds of buildings she constructed are equally as important. The text states that Jerusalem built three kinds of structures: colorful shrines, domes, and high places. Before I discuss the specific significance of each of these places in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature more broadly, it is necessary to address the problematic tendency of commentators to conflate the spaces Jerusalem builds with sites of cultic sex work. After clarifying these issues, I will turn to a more general discussion of how these spaces come together to emphasize a common theme, namely, the high visibility of Jerusalem’s practices. I will conclude by arguing that Jerusalem’s construction and use of these spaces offers important clues about her emotional state. 7.2. Where Did Cultic Sex Work Take Place in the Near East, If Anywhere? Some commentaries on Ezekiel state that Jerusalem’s construction of shrines and high places and the sexual activities she performs in them are an allusion to the practice of sacred sex work in a cultic setting.4 3.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 87. 4.  See Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 280. Block does not explicitly draw a parallel between Canaanite cultic sex work and the structures Jerusalem builds but does

106

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Zimmerli, for example, claims that domes and high places are the spaces in which the “Canaanite cult practices of Israel” took place.5 He attempts to contextualize these practices with reference to the supposed practice of cultic sex work in the temples of Ishtar, stating that “sexual initiation rites of the newly betrothed…could have been at home in Jerusalem.”6 HALOT, following Zimmerli and Eissfeldt, asserts this interpretation when it comes to the contextualization of dome (‫ )גב‬and high place (‫)רמה‬ in Ezek. 16:24, 31, 39.7 HALOT offers no examples outside of Ezek. 16 where these terms are translated as references to sites of cultic sex work. Schunck does not cite Ezek. 16 in his discussion of the term shrine (‫ )במה‬but does state that the prophets’ criticism of such structures was probably due to their association with the Canaanite fertility rites and child sacrifice.8 There are numerous issues with the claim that Jerusalem engaged in the “foreign” practice of cultic sex work. First, the evidence for the practice of cultic sex work in ancient Mesopotamia is scarce.9 Roth stresses that, disregarding Herodotus’s salacious claims that Babylonian women had to worship the goddess Ishtar by offering themselves to a male stranger (Herodotus 1.199),10 there is no evidence at all that sacred sex work was practiced in Mesopotamia.11 In particular, the silence on the issue from hint at such a connection (Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 494). Compare Bowen, who follows LaRocca-Pitts in arguing such sites should not be associated with fertility cults (Bowen, Ezekiel, 33; Elizabeth C. LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters, HSM 61 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 180). 5.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, 342–3. 6.  Ibid., 343. 7.  HALOT, s.vv. “‫במות‬,” “‫גב‬,” “‫רמה‬.” Note that BDB does not assume the connection between high places and cultic sex work. See BDB, s.vv. “‫במות‬,” “‫גב‬,” “‫רמה‬.” 8.  K. D. Schunk, “‫במה‬,” TDOT 2:144. 9.  See Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” HTR 82 (1989): 245–66, at 260; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: The Free Press, 1992), 201–2; Phyllis A. Bird, “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qadeš-Qadešim,” in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995, ed. J. A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 38–40. 10.  For the questionable accuracy of Herodotus’s depiction of ancient Mesopotamia see Otto E. Ravn, Herodotus’ Description of Babylon (Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1942). 11.  See the classic study by Daniel Arnaud, “La Prostitution Sacrée en Mésopotamie, un Mythe Historiographique?” RHR 183 (1973): 111–15. See also Martha

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

107

Mesopotamian sources from the Old Babylonian period describing the various roles and “categories of female cultic personnel” gives good reason to doubt that such a practice existed at all.12 While there is one document from Mesopotamia that refers to sex work in exchange for monetary compensation, this text refers to the goddess Inanna, not a human sex worker, and thus there are complications of using this passage to draw conclusions about the role and existence of sex workers in everyday life in Mesopotamia.13 Other references to sex workers are found in Mesopotamian legal texts, but these are within the context of regulations concerning adultery.14 Second, and perhaps unsurprising given the paucity of evidence in Mesopotamian sources, there is good reason to question whether cult sex workers existed at all in ancient Israel. Bird explains that the only evidence in the Hebrew Bible that links sex workers to the cult is in Hosea, where the marriage metaphor and the personification of Israel as a sex worker (‫ )זונה‬confuses the issues.15 She does conclude, however, that the references to sex work in shrines nonetheless “seems to have been occasioned by practices at local sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom that involved sexual activity of some sort.”16 The question remains as to whether this activity refers to cultic sex work in particular. Others argue that cultic sex work existed in ancient Israel on the basis of the association between the two terms sex worker (‫ )זונה‬and ‫קדשה‬, which are coupled with each other in Gen. 38:15-21 and Deut. 23:18-19 (verses in the Hebrew);17 however, Gruber shows that the notion that

Roth, “Marriage, Divorce, and the Prostitute in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), 21–4. 12.  Roth, “Marriage, Divorce,” 23. For more detail on these specific roles that women assumed in cult settings see Bird, “The End of the Male,” 45 n. 25; Westenholz, “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu,” 260–5. 13.  Roth, “Marriage, Divorce,” 24–5. 14.  For example, LL §30. 15.  Phyllis A. Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World and Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel,” in Faraone and McClure, eds, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, 52. 16.  Ibid. 17.  See for example Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (New York: Doubleday, 1977). Van der Toorn offers a different view of ‫ קדשים‬as using sex work as “a source of profits for the Temple” but denies that this was part of a larger fertility cult. See Karel van der Toorn, “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel,” JBL 108 (1989): 193–205, at 202–3.

108

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

‫“ קדשה‬denotes ‘cult prostitute’ is unknown to the ancient versions of the Bible” as the LXX does not distinguish between ‫ קדשה‬and sex worker (‫ )זונה‬in Gen. 38:15, 21, 22.18 In addition, Bird rightly questions the notion that cultic sex work would have been permitted for ancient Israelite women at all considering the strict sexual role imposed upon women in patriarchal ancient Israelite society, namely, one that precludes any sexual contact outside of a marriage relationship between a husband and wife.19 Rather than identify the ‫ קדשה‬as a cult sex worker Bird suggests that these women were “a class of female attendants at the rural shrines representing a form of cultic service on the part of women that may once have had a recognized place in Israelite worship, but was ultimately rejected.”20 Third, it is important to remember that shrines (‫ )במות‬can refer to ancient Israelite shrines as well as non-Israelite shrines depending on context. ‫ במה‬was a designation for shrines used to worship Yhwh (1 Sam. 9:12-25; 10:5, 13; 1 Kgs 3:2-4) as well as shrines used for worship of other gods (e.g. 1 Kgs 11:7; Isa. 15:2; 16:12; Jer. 19:5; 32:35).21 To summarize, the claim that Jerusalem engages in the “foreign” practice of cultic sex work in Ezek. 16 falsely assumes that such a practice existed, for which there is no compelling evidence. Having established that the spatial significance of the structures Jerusalem builds is not to be found in their association with cultic sex work, let us explore a more likely contender for their spatial significance. 7.3. Colorful Shrines (‫)במות תלאות‬ The text underscores Jerusalem’s political and cultic infidelity not only through her actions—that is, the sacrificing of her children and her sexual infidelity—but through her construction of colorful shrines (‫)במות תלאות‬, which are the first structures that Jerusalem builds in Ezek. 16. Any attempt to understand the significance of the spaces Jerusalem builds must ask the question, what exactly were these structures that Jerusalem built? The answer is not straightforward. LaRocca-Pitts has shown that 18.  Mayer I. Gruber, “Hebrew Qedesha and Her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates,” UF 18 (1986): 133–48, at 135–6 n. 8. 19.  Bird, “The End of the Male,” 42. To be sure, sex workers existed in ancient Israel nevertheless. What is under question here is whether sex workers were a part of cultic rituals. 20.  Ibid., 46. 21.  For a table of the usage of ‫ במות‬for worship of other gods in the Hebrew Bible see LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone,” 154.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

109

scholarly attempts to homogenize the biblical sources that mention ‫במות‬ into a single, unified definition are unconvincing at best.22 This is largely because of the variety inherent in the biblical sources with regard to the description and function of these structures. Contradictory descriptions of ‫ במות‬in different biblical sources frustrate attempts to come to a textual consensus on their nature, structure, and function. LaRocca-Pitts notes that similar complications abound in archaeological studies, which have not arrived at a consensus regarding the precise physical features of ‫ במות‬that might allow one to distinguish them from other cultic structures.23 LaRocca-Pitts argues that issues are further complicated by the fact that some Israeli archaeologists conflate the Modern Hebrew meaning of ‫ במות‬with the ancient Hebrew phenomenon—designating any structures that remotely resemble “small, often open-air, shrines” as ‫ במות‬when in fact these structures could be “shrines or temples or other types of cultic structures.”24 I will not consider archaeological sources in this review because they rely predominantly on textual mentions of ‫במות‬ and further confuse the issues. As LaRocca-Pitts has already undertaken an extensive analysis of the presentation of ‫ במות‬in the Hebrew Bible, I will briefly summarize her findings here to contextualize the discussion of ‫ במות‬in Ezekiel that will follow. 7.4. The Location of Shrines (‫)במות‬ Though some translations render ‫ במה‬as “high place” (NIV, KJV) it is disputed whether all ‫ במות‬were located on elevations. To be sure, the equation of ‫ במות‬with high hills (1 Kgs 14:23; Jer. 17:2-3) or mountains (1 Kgs 14:23) and references to Samuel “going up” to a ‫( במה‬1 Sam. 9:13) and prophets “coming down” (1 Sam. 10:5) from a ‫ במה‬suggests that some ‫ במות‬were indeed built on heights; however, this picture of ‫ במות‬as structures built on high elevations is contrasted by Jeremiah, who envisions ‫ במות‬that were built in valleys or ravines (Jer. 7:13; 19:5; 32:35), and also in 1 and 2 Kgs, where ‫ במות‬were located in the village itself (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:32; 2 Kgs 17:9). Schunck suggests that “a small elevation for cultic use” or “cult place” would be more accurate translations for ‫במה‬, as they take into account the ambiguity in the sources.25 22.  For a comprehensive analysis of the term ‫ במות‬in the Hebrew Bible see ibid., 135–59. 23.  Ibid., 133. 24.  Ibid., 130–3. 25.  Schunck, “‫במה‬,” TDOT 2:141.

110

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

7.5. The Function of Shrines (‫)במות‬ The association of ‫ במות‬with priests,26 cultic statuaries,27 and sacrifice28 gives the impression that ‫ במות‬were primarily places in which cultic activity took place.29 As such, I will translate this term using the word “shrine.” The sacrificial rites performed on shrines (‫ )במות‬were varied and included sacrifice to Yhwh (1 Kgs 3:2), and sacrifice to other gods (Jer. 48:35), as well as the more controversial practice of child sacrifice (2 Kgs 23:9; Jer. 19:5; 32:35). LaRocca-Pitts shows that Israelite shrines could be viewed in a positive light (or at least not denounced) if they were built and used before the temple; however, their continued use after the establishment of the first temple is condemned in Deuteronomy, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ps. 78, and Ezekiel, in which shrines are deemed as illegitimate places of worship.30 In these texts, shrines are pitted against the temple and viewed as “lesser in scope, lesser in sophistication, and lesser in efficacy than right worship in YHWH’s chosen temple in Jerusalem.”31 If LaRocca-Pitts is right, then the specification that Jerusalem builds shrines may be mocking their inferior status to the temple (according to Ezekiel). 7.6. Shrines (‫ )במות‬and Their Association with Moab Though it would be mistaken to assume that ‫ במות‬are connected to Canaanite worship in particular, as mentioned above, it is important to note that ‫ במות‬are associated with the people who lived in the land before the people of Israel in Num. 33:52; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:9-11.32 These passages use general designations for the previous inhabitants of Israel who built these structures, such as “all the inhabitants of the land”; however, other passages that mention ‫ במות‬specifically associate them with the Moabite nation and/or land. For example, ‫ במות‬designate specific places located in Moab (Num. 21:28; 22:41; Josh. 13:17), are named as a location for Moabite worship (Isa. 15:2; 16:12; Jer. 48:35), and they are built and dedicated to Moabite gods (1 Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 26.  1 Kgs 12:31-32; 13:2, 32-33; 2 Chron. 11:15 (LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone,” 152 n. 68). 27.  For references to cultic statuaries see ibid., 153–5. 28.  For references to sacrifice see ibid., 150–3. 29.  See William F. Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” in Volume du Congrès International pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament, Strasbourg 1956, ed. G. W. Anderson et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1957), 242–58. 30.  LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone,” 136. 31.  Ibid., 148. 32.  Ibid., 140.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

111

23:13; Jer. 19:5; 32:35).33 The connection between Moab and ‫ במות‬is strengthened by the Mesha Inscription, which is also the only extrabiblical written evidence for ‫במות‬.34 The inscription notes that Mesha’s father, king of Moab, “made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh.”35 Further, Beth-bamoth is included among the places Mesha himself built during his reign. 7.7. Shrines (‫ )במות‬in Ezekiel The variety amongst the biblical sources regarding the nature, function, and physical characteristics of ‫ במות‬somewhat limits their usefulness for our understanding of ‫ במות‬in Ezek. 16. As such, it is necessary to prioritize the descriptions of ‫ במות‬in Ezekiel, paying close attention to the contexts, other structures, and cultic functions with which they are associated. ‫ במות‬are mentioned six times in Ezekiel at 6:3, 5; 16:16; 20:28, 29; 36:2.36 In terms of the physical features of ‫ במות‬and their position in space, Ezekiel describes them as being located both on high hills (6:3; 20:28), in the city (16:16), and in valleys (6:3). In other words, according to Ezekiel, they were a pervasive feature of the landscape in ancient Israel. ‫ במות‬are associated with other cultic items such as altars (6:6), incense (6:6; 16:18), and idols (6:6; 16:17), and are described as sites on which (child) sacrifice took place (16:16-21; 20:28-31). In all instances in which ‫ במות‬are mentioned in Ezekiel they are referred to disparagingly due to their association with idolatry (6:6; 16:16; 20:28), child sacrifice (16:16-21; 20:27-31), or their occupation by the “enemy” (36:1). The negative stance Ezekiel takes towards Israel’s worship on ‫ במות‬makes sense given the emphasis he places on the temple as the proper place for worship of Yhwh (even though he expresses these sentiments within the context of the mistreatment of the temple by the people of Israel).37 33.  Ibid., 140–3. For a discussion of ‫ במות‬in Isa. 15:2 see William B. Barrick, “The Bamot of Moab,” Maarav 7 (1991): 67–89. 34.  Lisbeth S. Fried, “The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation,” JAOS 122 (2002): 437–65, at 441. 35.  For an English translation see William F. Albright, “Palestinian Inscriptions: Moabite Stone,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 320–1. 36.  Ezekiel 43:7 is uncertain. ‫ במתם‬could mean “their shrines” or “in their death.” 37.  Cf. Schunck who writes, “for the prophets the ‫במה‬, as a cultic institution, must have become a general symbol for a place that was detrimental to the pure Yahweh faith and Yahweh cult, and which therefore was to be rejected” (Schunck, “‫במה‬,” TDOT 2:144).

112

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

While commentators have attempted to conflate ‫ במות‬with non-Israelite worship in Ezek. 16:16, specifically, Canaanite worship,38 the text itself gives no explicit indication that the author intended to evoke the use of ‫ במות‬for Canaanite worship in particular. While it may be unclear that ‫ במות‬were used in 16:16 in service of a Canaanite deity, the text does suggest that Jerusalem did not worship Yhwh on the shrines she built, but instead worshipped “foreign” gods. Specifically, she makes “images of men” (‫)צלמי זכר‬, that is, idols,39 before whom she places incense, oil, and food offerings. These are all actions that were performed in a cultic setting to god(s), which Jerusalem performs here for her idols. Jerusalem then sacrifices her children to these idols in an act reminiscent of child sacrifice to Molech.40 The shrines Jerusalem builds are made from the garments Yhwh bestowed upon her, which are the same material that dressed the ark of the covenant, in which the divine presence resided.41 The fact that Jerusalem’s shrines are built of this material is important for three reasons: 1) her act of building renders her partially naked because the material she uses to build the shrines is her clothing; 2) the use of this material heightens the irony because she dresses the shrines as though they are the ark of the covenant when they are just “inferior” shrines, “less than” the temple;42 3) by using this material to don a street shrine dedicated to a god who is not Yhwh Jerusalem misuses the sacred material and displaces it from its typical location in the Holy of Holies. In fact, the shrines Jerusalem builds are the antithesis of the Holy of Holies—they are located in open, public

38.  With regard to Ezek. 16 Greenberg draws attention to the worship of foreign Gods on ‫ במות‬but does not acknowledge the worship of the God of Israel on ‫במות‬ (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 280). Block argues that, “The ambiguity of ‫ במות‬is intentional, referring simultaneously to the high places on which Israel committed her spiritual harlotry (cf. 6:3), and to raised pedestals on which prostitutes performed their services” (Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 488). 39.  Mein argues that these images are “full representative images of gods” rather than phallic symbols (Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 116). For an alternative interpretation that supports the understanding of ‫ צלמי זכר‬as “phallic images” see Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 207; Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 120. 40.  See Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer. 32:25. 41.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 95. 42.  Cf. Mein, who draws a similar conclusion when he writes, “The woman’s finery, representative of the furnishings of the temple, is used to decorate a different, and therefore illegitimate, site of worship” (Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 115).

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

113

streets as opposed to the closed, exclusive space of the temple, they are not used to beautify but for “whoring” on, and they are used in service of a god who is not Yhwh. 7.8. Jerusalem’s Domes (‫ )גבות‬and High Places (‫)רמות‬ The term ‫ רמה‬is used most commonly in the Hebrew Bible in reference to several specific locations (e.g. 1 Kgs 15:17; Josh. 18:25; Judg. 4:5; Hos. 5:8). The root ‫ רום‬means “to be high” (e.g. Hab. 3:10) or “to be exalted” (e.g. Ps. 66:17).43 The only occurrences where the term ‫ רמה‬is not used to refer to a specific place, but rather to describe high places can be found in 1 Sam. 22:6, where it refers to elevations in the land, and in Ezek. 16:24, 25, 31, 39, where ‫ רמה‬describes the tall structures Jerusalem builds.44 In Ezek. 16, ‫ רמה‬always occurs in conjunction with ‫ ;גב‬however, this relationship does not offer further clarification as to what exactly Jerusalem built due to the obscure meaning of ‫גב‬, whose translations include “back” (Ezek. 10:12; Ps. 129:3), “eyebrows” (Lev. 14:9), “rim” (1 Kgs 7:33; Ezek. 1:18), and “bosses of a shield” (Job 15:26; Ezek. 43:13). What all these translations have in common is their domed shape, suggesting that ‫ גב‬might take on the meaning “mound” or “dome” in Ezek. 16, while ‫ רמה‬takes on the meaning of high place.45 What is clear, however, is that unlike shrines (‫)במות‬, high places (‫ )רמות‬and domes (‫ )גבות‬do not necessarily specify cultic locations; rather these terms emphasize the conspicuous nature of Jerusalem’s structures. The main features of the high places and domes that warrant further comment are their height and location. This height ensured that Jerusalem’s display of infidelity was very public, coloring her acts with a voyeuristic bent. Adding to the public nature of Jerusalem’s acts, the text

43.  Compare the Aramaic in Dan. 3:1, which uses the noun “height” as a measurement, and Dan. 4:34, which uses ‫ ומרומם‬in the sense of “exalt.” 44.  Contra Zsolnay who claims, “It is only in Ezekiel that the terms ‫ גב‬and ‫רמה‬ are used to indicate high-places” (Ilona Zsolnay, “The Inadequacies of Yahweh: A Re-Examination of Jerusalem’s Portrayal in Ezekiel 16,” in Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, ed. S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim, LHBOTS 465 [New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 69). 45.  NIV translates ‫ גב‬as “mound,” KJV as “eminent place,” RSV and ESV as “vaulted chamber.” Block explains, “Based on the apparent convex quality of a ‫גב‬, and its pairing with ‫ רמה‬here and in vv. 31, 39, the word probably denotes either the platform on which the harlot’s bed is placed, or, less likely, a domed structure” (Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 494).

114

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

specifies that the locations of the high places and domes she built were “in every square (‫ ”)רחוב‬and “at the head of every street (‫( ”)דרך‬Ezek. 16:24-25, 31), that is, they were built in high-traffic areas.46 Jerusalem’s use of the street is subversive and brings to mind the status of the street as a site for people who lived outside of the bounds of the acceptable household.47 Roth cites Mesopotamian texts through which it is possible to identify acts of sex work due to their association with the “street” (designated e.sir2 in SLE , tilla2 in LL).48 This is of particular relevance to the context of Ezek. 16, in which Jerusalem performs sex acts on the street and in the squares. The biblical texts offer numerous examples where the street becomes the location for women seeking sex, demonstrating that such an association persisted in ancient Israel. Tamar stands on the street (‫ )דרך‬when she attempts to fool Judah that she is a sex worker (Gen. 38:16, 21), the foreign woman (‫ )אשה זרה‬in Prov. 7:5-27 does not stay at home, but instead is dressed like a sex worker and roams “outside” (‫ )בחוץ‬and in the “squares” (‫ )רחובות‬looking for men to have sex with, and the name of Rahab, the sex worker who offers hospitality to Joshua’s spies (Josh. 2:1), shares the same root as the word for street (‫ )רחוב‬probably due to her profession and its association with this location.49 Roth draws attention to the “thematic tension of the house versus the street” that underlies much of the Mesopotamian evidence for sex workers.50 I would suggest a similar tension is implicit in Ezek. 16, albeit in a more complex form. The tension is twofold: it is between the house (‫ )בית‬and the street—private space and public space, as well as between the temple (‫( )בית‬signified by Jerusalem’s body) and the street—the sacred space and the profane space. Before I elucidate how this tension manifests in Ezek. 16, it is important to stress that it is not the case that the street was associated with extramarital sex while the house was not. Numerous texts show that, in the 46.  Cf. ibid. 47.  Julia A. Assante, “The Kar.Kid/Harimtu: Prostitute or Single Woman? A Reconsideration of the Evidence,” UF 30 (1998): 5–96; Westenholz, “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu,” 251. 48.  Roth, “Marriage, Divorce, and the Prostitute,” 27. See also Westenholz, who argues that, “In the myth of Enlil and Sud, Enlil mistakes her for a prostitute since she is standing in the street” (Westenholz, “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu,” 251). 49.  See also Sir. 9:6-7; Prov. 7:7-8. Song 3:1-5 is not about sex work but demonstrates that while one might search for their lover on the streets and in the squares, the appropriate place to consummate love is the house. 50.  Roth, “Marriage, Divorce, and the Prostitute,” 36 n. 10.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

115

mental space of sex workers, both the street—where the service is advertised—and the house—where the service is delivered—feature. Jeremiah 5:7 accuses the inhabitants of Jerusalem of roaming “to the house of sex workers” (‫)בית זונה‬. Sirach 23:1-21 warns the man who “sins against his marriage bed” and is unconcerned about being punished because he is hidden by walls (implicit: of his house) that he will be “punished in the streets of the city.” Proverbs 7:7-12 describes a young man who follows an adulteress, dressed like a sex worker, from the street to her house for sex.51 While these women find their sexual partners on the street, it is often the house that is named as the actual location in which sex occurs, suggesting a different scenario to Jerusalem’s public sex acts. To be sure, the naming of the house as one location for sex with sex workers does not necessarily exclude other locations. What I am highlighting here is that the above texts name the house as the primary location. The image of Jerusalem whoring on the streets rather than in the accepted place, hidden inside a house, is a grotesque exaggeration of her desire through its inversion of the expected location for sex work. Just as Jerusalem inverts the expected economic arrangement between a sex worker and her clients by bribing her lovers for sex rather than being offered pay in return for sex (Ezek. 16:33-34), she refuses to perform her services in the private sphere (the house) like the typical sex worker would. Instead, Jerusalem finds men on the streets then invites them to have sex with her in the same public location. It might be argued, however, that on one level of the metaphor—in which Jerusalem’s body is the temple (‫—)בית‬Jerusalem does in fact follow the expected activity of a sex worker by inviting her “clients” to enter her metaphorical “temple.” That is, she entices her “clients” to penetrate her body through their acts of sex, transforming her body from a sacred space to which Yhwh (her husband) has exclusive access to a profane thoroughfare into which Jerusalem invites “every passer-by” (16:25). The temple of her body has been transformed from a sacred space to a brothel through Jerusalem’s socially unacceptable use of the space. Once again, the connection between space and Jerusalem’s body is made

51.  Regarding Prov. 6–7 Bird notes that, “It is not clear from this passage how much of the description of the woman’s behavior is drawn from the figure of the prostitute, whom she impersonates in order to draw the unwary youth into her lair, but the description of her stalking the streets and market and ‘lurking on every corner’ (v. 12) appears to reflect the general stereotypical behavior of a prostitute” (Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World,” 45).

116

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

manifest. The impurity of Jerusalem’s body reflects the impurity of the city, Jerusalem, and the temple. The city and the temple are polluted just as Jerusalem’s body is polluted. It is interesting that the author also emphasizes that Jerusalem established multiple high places in which to whore (16:24, 25, 31). A similar accusation is brought against the people of Judah in 1 Kgs 14:23, in which they build “shrines and pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree.”52 The establishment of numerous high places “at the head of every street” seems excessive and raises the question, how can one woman service all these sites? The use of hyperbole portrays the image of a frantic sex worker running from high place to high place in search of customers.53 Jerusalem’s use of the city space is expansive and her movement through the city reflects her emotional state, specifically, her unquenchable yearning for sex as one site alone cannot satisfy her desires. 7.9. Jerusalem’s Use of Space as an Indication of Her Misplaced Pride What the above structures have in common is that they stand out physically in the cityscape and demand to be noticed. They are high up, they are attractive and enticing, they proliferate in the busiest places in the city. As Bowen has already noted, “In the public arena where political alliances were made, Jerusalem consorted with Egypt (v. 26), Assyria (v. 28), and Babylon.”54 In the discussion that follows I would like to extend Bowen’s observation further by asking, what do the physical characteristics of these places reveal about Jerusalem’s emotional state? It is important to appreciate that the physical reality of spaces—for example, whether they are open or closed, exposed or hidden, colorful or plain—evokes certain emotions in those who occupy the spaces and those who pass by such spaces.55 A related and important observation 52.  Compare 2 Kgs 17:10. 53.  Cf. Block, who notes that the “multiplication of sites recalls Ahaz’s construction of pagan altars ‘in every corner of Jerusalem’ (2 Chr 28:24)” (Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 491 n. 164). 54.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 87. Zsolnay makes the interesting suggestion that, “since Jerusalem is accused three times of building high-places, perhaps each accusation should be paired with one nation. If read this way, each high-place may be located on a road which leads to a particular land” (Zsolnay, “The Inadequacies of Yahweh,” 69). 55.  See Winifred Gallagher, The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape Our Thoughts, Emotions, and Actions (New York: Poseidon, 1993), 11–16.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

117

is made by Mountford, who notes, “Spaces have heuristic power over their inhabitants and spectators by forcing them to change both their behavior…and, sometimes, their view of themselves.”56 In other words, spaces can provide valuable insights into the emotions of those who occupy them and those who move through them, as I have already underscored in Chapter 3. The power of space with regard to appraisal is particularly relevant to Ezekiel’s depiction of Yhwh’s view of Jerusalem as she constructs her spaces, which I will turn to below. Before examining the ways in which space communicates and constructs appraisal, it will be useful to foreground the discussion in a consideration of the recent research of Gammerl. The work of Gammerl has done much to bring the interplay of space and emotion into scholarly consciousness.57 Gammerl’s article, “Curtains Up! Shifting Emotional Styles in Gay Men’s Venues Since the 1950s,” is particularly useful for contributing to a better understanding of how space and emotion are related when it comes to the behavior of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 and her use of space.58 Gammerl’s research explores the manner in which the layout and design of gay men’s venues in West Germany have changed from the 1950s to the 1990s and interrogates these changes to draw conclusions about the shifting societal attitudes towards gay men during this time. Scholars argue that the transition from discrete homophile bars in the 1950s to publicly accessible discos in the 1970s is “linked with an emotional shift that replaced shame and fear with pride and self-assertion” in gay men’s experience.59 Gammerl shows that while this might be the case in some instances, one should bear in mind that this simplistic supposition is not representative of every man’s experience. The idea that “spaces and actors performatively co-constitute each other” is central to Gammerl’s analysis of shifting spaces and their impact on emotions, as it is to my own analysis.60 Gammerl compares two venues in which men who love men could meet each other: the homophile bars of the 1950s and the gay discos that became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. He uses oral history interviews and gay magazines to understand how the men who frequented these

56.  Roxanne Mountford, “On Gender and Rhetorical Space,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 31 (2001): 41–71, at 50. 57.  Other examples of his work into space and affect include Gammerl, “Emotional Styles,” 161–75; Gammerl, Hutta, and Scheer, “Feeling Differently,” 87–94. 58.  Gammerl, “Curtains Up!” 57–64. 59.  Ibid., 58. 60.  Ibid.

118

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

spaces felt when occupying them. The different spatial compositions of the two venues had a significant bearing on the emotions of the occupants. The homophile bars, for example, were hidden and discrete spaces with guarded access. Prospective entrants had to ring a doorbell and were screened by a doorman who sat at the other side of the entryway and looked through a spy hole to approve each person’s entry. This provided a measure of protection against potentially antagonistic people for those inside the bars. The homophile bars featured heavy curtains which draped any windows as well as the entry way. This prohibited passers-by from seeing inside and created a safe space for the patrons of the bars. Gammerl argues that while the curtains and the doorbells provided a safe space, they also hinted at the emotional state of those who frequented the bars. He observes, “by guarding patrons against the gazes of passers-by, the curtains and closed doors also implied the logic of shame. One wanted to avoid being seen.”61 The design of the gay discos that became popular in 1970s, West Germany could not have been further removed from the hidden and secretive nature of the homophile bars. For one, Gammerl observes that “access to the gay disco was less restrictively controlled than in most homophile bars.”62 In addition, many featured large windows that allowed passers-by to look in and an open dance floor that facilitated physical contact between men. Gammerl concludes, “if [the men in these bars] were not proud of, they were at least not ashamed enough about their sexual orientation to hide themselves when meeting other men.”63 What does this have to do with Ezek. 16? Gammerl argues that a “logic of shame” is implied by the physical features of the homophile bars that made them secretive, just as an absence of shame is implied by the willingness of the men who frequented the gay discos and refused to hide their desire. An analogous situation appears to be the case when it comes to Jerusalem and the structures she chooses to build in Ezek. 16. Jerusalem’s construction of spaces and her activities within these spaces imply the logic of pride. Unlike the homophile bars that are guarded by a doorman with restricted access, Jerusalem invites “every passer-by” to enter her space (16:15, 25). Unlike the field in which Jerusalem is exposed in isolation in her infancy, outside the city and far away from the gaze of onlookers, Jerusalem’s high places are highly visible.

61.  Ibid., 60. 62.  Ibid., 61. 63.  Ibid.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

119

Jerusalem’s structures are not discrete, hidden buildings like the homophile bars, but rather are fully exposed and tall in height, proudly placed in very public areas of the city. Her meeting places are noticeable, public, and accessible, just as her body is. Jerusalem is not ashamed of her behavior and this is evidenced by her unwillingness to hide it. Jerusalem’s body language is also described as open and conspicuous, mirroring the structures she has built. The text specifies that Jerusalem spreads her legs wide to every passer-by (‫ )ותפשקי את־רגליך לכל עובר‬at the head of every street at each one of her high places (16:25). The use of the piel exaggerates the degree to which she spreads her legs, while the reference to her ‫רגליים‬, here used in the context of indiscriminate sex, is sexually suggestive.64 To state this is hardly the body language of one who is ashamed would be an understatement. The hyperbole inherent in both descriptions magnifies Jerusalem’s transgressive nature.65 I do not think it is unreasonable to posit that Jerusalem is not merely unashamed of her behavior; she is proud.66 While this is not explicitly stated in Ezek. 16:16-31, pride (‫ )גאון‬is counted among one of Sodom’s (and thus Jerusalem’s) downfalls in 16:47-50. As Jerusalem’s abominations way surpassed those of her sisters, it is implied that her pride, too, was magnified and misplaced and should be counted as a “misdeed” (‫עון‬, 16:49). Perhaps the most telling signifier of Jerusalem’s pride is the high places she builds. While height (‫ )גבה‬is used to describe physical objects in Ezekiel, for example, mountains and the temple (Ezek. 40:42; 41:8, 22), it is most often used as a metaphor or metonym for pride. When Assyria is described as a cedar that is taller than all the trees in the field it is her height that signifies her pride (Ezek. 31). The two concepts, pride and height, are explicitly connected at 31:10, when the text specifies that Assyria was proud (lit. “high”/“exalted”) because of her height (‫רם לבבו‬ ‫)בגבהו‬. Where height is used as a metonym for pride, ‫ גבה‬often appears as a verb in conjunction with heart (‫ )לב‬in the phrase ‫( גבה לב‬28:2, 5, 17).67 Pride—or the action of “making your heart high” (‫—)גבה לבך‬is associated with playing God and exalting one’s heart to the status of God’s (28:2, 5-6). 64.  Kamionkowski points out that Jerusalem’s actions involve an inversion of her gender: she adopts a masculine performative stance rather than the one expected for women (Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 110–33). 65.  For the connection between disgust, the female body, bodily boundaries, and non-marital sex see Chapter 6. 66.  Or, more precisely, Yhwh’s view of Jerusalem is that she is proud. 67.  Though not always, see 16:50 for the verb form ‫ותגבהינה‬.

120

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Related to the action of making ones heart “high” like God’s is the notion that God is located on high, though this is not overtly present in Ezekiel; however, the fact that theophanies often occur on the tops of mountains (Exod. 19:20; 24:17; Isa. 2:2), references to God “most high” (‫עליון‬, e.g. Gen. 14:18; Deut. 32:8; Isa. 14:14; Ps. 18:13), and allusions to God’s location in the heavens (e.g. Gen. 24:7; 28:17; Isa. 66:1; Jonah 1:9; Pss. 2:4; 11:4; 14:2) suggest that the heights were thought to be the domain of God in Ezekiel’s cultural milieu. The association of pride with height is by no means confined to the Hebrew Bible. Expressions such as “she is up herself” and “pride comes before a fall” are English examples of this association between pride and height. Such an association might be explained as a reflection of the body language of one who is proud. For example, in Isaiah’s portrayal of the daughters of Zion as proud (‫)גבהו‬, he describes them as walking with “outstretched necks” (‫( )נטוות גרון‬Isa. 3:16). 7.10. Jerusalem’s Subversive Use of Space as Power There is another feature of height and pride as they are represented in Ezekiel that is relevant to the present discussion, namely, their relation to power. The strength, height, and greatness of the cedar Assyria—in other words, its power—are what cause it to be proud (Ezek. 31:10). The wealth of the prince of Tyre causes him to be proud and “sit in the seat of gods” (28:2).68 Clothing items worn on the head (i.e. the highest part of the body) that are a display of power, turbans and crowns, are removed when God “exalts that which is low and brings down that which is high” (21:26). Lefebvre’s observation that “verticality and great height have ever been the spatial expression of potentially violent power” holds true when it comes to Ezekiel’s conceptualization of height.69 In reference to the city Jerusalem, Berquist makes a similar observation, stating that “elevation is a powerful symbol of authority and power. Height provides Jerusalem with symbolic advantages.”70 Although Berquist’s remark pertains to the physical features of the city Jerusalem—that is, its location on a mountain—the symbolic significance of elevation as power nonetheless applies to the metaphor of the wife Jerusalem building high

68.  In this context, the seat of gods is located in the seas and thus, height is not emphasized outside of the term for pride (‫)גבה‬. 69.  Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 98. 70.  Jon L. Berquist, “Space of Jerusalem,” in Berquist and Camp, eds, Constructions of Space II, 43.

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

121

places in the city. Jerusalem’s use of space and her elevation in space signify her pride and quite literally put her in a position of power. Her building of tall structures physically brings her closer to the heavens— the domain of God. By placing the “whore” Jerusalem on heights, Ezekiel underscores the defiant nature of Jerusalem’s behavior. Through her blatant defiance in this high location she is not only playing God, it is almost as if Jerusalem is rubbing her unfaithfulness in God’s face. It is not only the spaces Jerusalem builds that reflect her emotions and power, it is the subversive way she uses these spaces as locations for sex. By engaging in indiscriminate, public sex Jerusalem transgresses the physical and social boundaries in which sex was confined for married women in ancient Israelite society, namely, the home and reserved for husband and wife, and challenges the use of public and private space by bringing the private into the public arena.71 Jerusalem’s use of space is a subversive display of feminine power as it challenges the traditional order of the father’s household (‫)בית אב‬, in which the father/husband controlled and contained his daughter’s/wife’s/wives’ sexuality within the appropriate societal structures (i.e. marriage) and spaces (i.e. the home).72 If female sexuality slipped out of these appropriate containments, the integrity of the man was questioned. Keefe notes that the integrity of the father’s household was not only dependent on his control and containment of female sexuality, but also of his control of his patrimonial lands.73 In other words, the integrity of the man of the household was maintained through the regulation of female sexuality and space. Keefe reasons, “In this context, a prophetic metaphor regarding a man’s loss of sexual control would resonate with the anxieties of Israel’s many less powerful bate ‘ab concerning the loss of control of their land.”74 This link between the loss of male control of female 71.  Compare CD 12:1-2, which entirely outlawed sexual relations in Jerusalem. 72.  Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World,” 42. The term ‫ בית אב‬referred to both the physical space of the “father’s home” and the conceptual connotations of this term “to indicate the ownership and defining role of the head of the family with respect to his (Firstspatial) dwelling place and the (Thirdspatial) ‘household’ ” (Claudia Camp, “Home of the Mother, Exile of the Father: Gender and Space in the Construction of Biblical Identity,” in Contesting Religious Identities: Transformations, Disseminations and Mediations, ed. Bob E. J. H. Becking, Anna-Marie J. A. C. M. Korte, and Lucien van Liere, Numen Book Series 156 [Leiden: Brill, 2017], 18–38). 73.  Alice A. Keefe, “The Female Body, the Body Politic and the Land: A Sociopolitical Reading of Hosea 1–2,” in Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets, 95–6. 74.  Ibid.

122

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

sexuality and the land is clear in Ezek. 16, in which female sexuality becomes space personified—Yhwh’s promiscuous wife is the city. On the level of the source of the metaphor, Yhwh’s honor is questioned because of his inability to control his wife, who is openly sexually unfaithful to him; on the level of the target of the metaphor, Yhwh’s honor is questioned because he is unable to control his land, which is being invaded by foreign troops. 7.11. Jerusalem’s Embodied Representation as a Rejection of Yhwh’s Containment While I have alluded to the significance of Jerusalem’s embodied representation for understanding the shifting power dynamics in Ezek. 16, it is necessary to further tease out this significance. In Chapter 6, I argued that Jerusalem’s body is a disgusting body whose boundaries are compromised until Yhwh contains these boundaries and cleanses Jerusalem’s body in 16:8-14. Further, I argued that Yhwh’s envelopment of Jerusalem’s body with clothing and adornments, which are signifiers of his control, was an attempt to contain the threat of uncontrolled feminine sexuality. In 16:15-34, Jerusalem rejects Yhwh’s containment of and control over her body space in a public defiance against hierarchically established boundaries. This rejection is enacted when Jerusalem removes the garments, jewelry, and food Yhwh bestowed upon her (16:16-19), which she uses to construct shrines and make idols, as well as when she engages in sex with men other than her husband. Yhwh’s act of cleansing Jerusalem’s adult body from her mother’s lochia (16:4-6), which I argued was an attempt to quell the threat of Jerusalem’s compromised bounded body, is undone when Jerusalem rebels against her husband. Following Jerusalem’s rejection of her husband’s control, she yet again comes into contact with fluids that spill out of the body, many of which are impure. These fluids include the blood of her children whom she sacrificed (16:36), vaginal discharge (16:15, 36), and implicitly include the seminal fluids of her lovers.75 The repetition of the 75.  For an interpretation of Ezek. 16:15 that argues that the phrase –‫ותשפכי את‬ ‫ תזנותיך‬is a reference to female ejaculation see Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 117–20. Greenberg argues that ‫ נחשת‬is a reference to vaginal fluids (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 285–6). See similar interpretations by David J. Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 146; Lemos, “ ‘They Have Become Women’,” 101 n. 50. Compare Ezek. 23:20, which the NIV translates: “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like donkeys’ and whose emission was like that of horses.”

7. Jerusalem’s Transformation of City Space

123

root “pour out” (‫ )שפך‬in 16:15, 36, and 38 emphasizes this excessive fluid spillage (cf. Ezek. 23:8), which is notably performed by a female subject in every instance it is used in Ezek. 16. As I discussed above, Jerusalem proudly ignores the societal boundaries and constraints imposed upon ancient Israelite women by indiscriminately whoring herself out to any man who will have her, threatening the power of her husband through the contestation of his right of exclusivity to her body.76 In other words, Jerusalem compromises both societal boundaries and the physical boundaries of her body through her participation in extramarital sex—an act that involves penetration of her bodily boundaries. The specification of who enters Jerusalem’s body, namely, “foreign men” (‫)זרים‬, sharply brings into view Ezekiel’s anxieties concerning the state of the temple in Jerusalem, which are expressed by Yhwh elsewhere in the book (e.g. Ezek. 8:5-18). As far as the body of Jerusalem is concerned, Yhwh’s anxiety is triggered by the penetration of his wife’s female body by foreigners—an act which compromises its holiness (that is, Yhwh’s exclusive access to it as “separated” for him); however, if Jerusalem’s body is read as symbolically representing the temple, it becomes clear that the underlying anxiety that has shaped the metaphor of Jerusalem’s penetration by foreign men is anxiety concerning the entry of foreigners into the temple. The presence of foreigners in the temple is similarly framed elsewhere in Ezekiel as compromising the holiness of the temple by profaning it (44:7), and these foreigners are forbidden from entering the new temple (44:9). In other passages, however, the presence of foreigners in the temple is described as Yhwh’s punishment for the people’s idolatry (7:20-22). In Ezek. 16, both of these ideas are blended: the abominable behavior of the people of Judah is expressed through the metaphor of the unfaithful wife who takes foreign lovers; however, these foreign lovers are also the instruments of Yhwh’s judgment (16:37ff.).

76.  A similar observation is made by Shields about the sex worker (‫ )זנה‬in Jeremiah: “When women take control by transgressing the boundaries (sexual or otherwise) that men have set, the entire order of patriarchy is challenged” (Mary E. Shields, “Circumcision of the Prostitute: Gender, Sexuality, and the Call to Repentance in Jeremiah 3:1–4:41,” in A Feminist Companion to Prophets and Daniel, A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 2nd Series, ed. Athalya Brenner [London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 130).

124

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

7.12. Conclusion In Ezek. 16:15-34, Jerusalem disorders, deconstructs, and reconstitutes the city’s spaces as well as her body space.77 On the one hand, Jerusalem’s use of space is subversive in that it disorders the nature of worship and the spaces of worship, transforming spatial expressions of devotion from worship of Yhwh in the temple to worship of other gods in the streets. On the other hand, Jerusalem’s use of space is a defiant deconstruction and critique of the ancient Israelite conception of the appropriate spatial and social confinements for women’s sexuality and worship of Yhwh. Jerusalem reconstitutes the city space and her body space as sites in which and through which the feminine regains power, expresses pride, and unleashes desire. She rejects the house as the site for sex by building public shrines in which to copulate, she rejects the exclusivity of her body for her husband by inviting many men to penetrate her, and she performs this defiance openly. Jerusalem’s defiance is short lived, however, and is swiftly followed by retribution and a re-ordering of space that returns it to its former state. I will now turn to consider this aspect of the transformation of city space— the destruction of space as an assertion of control over the agency, body, and emotions of Jerusalem.

77.  I borrow this wording from Maier, who, in her exploration of Jerusalem’s body as public space in Lamentations, sums up Soja’s concept of thirdspace as a use of space that, “introduces a critical ‘other than’ choice that speaks and critiques through its otherness. That is to say, thirding does not derive simply from an additive combination of its binary antecedents but rather from a disordering, deconstruction, and tentative reconstitution of their presumed totalization, producing an open alternative that is both similar and strikingly different” (Maier, “Daughter Zion,” 103, emphasis added).

Chapter 8

T

D

J B

(E

’ S 16:35- 43)

8.1. Introduction The destruction of the various spaces Jerusalem built and occupied is an important component of Yhwh’s judgment against her (Ezek. 16:35-43). The destruction of subversive feminine sexuality is conceptualized and realized spatially: through the destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings and body. In other words, the shifting constitution of space and power that occurs in the text through the destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings is mirrored in the shifting constitution of Jerusalem’s body and through the violence inflicted upon it. Yhwh’s impending judgment of Jerusalem is announced when he declares, “And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy” (Ezek. 16:38). The judgment that follows is the destruction of Jerusalem’s domes (‫גב‬, 16:39), high places (‫רמות‬, 16:39), and houses (‫בתים‬, 16:41) followed by violent retribution that destroys Jerusalem’s body. Given that the spaces Jerusalem creates are representative of her power, pride, and desire, as I have established in the previous chapter, the destruction of these spaces has significant implications for Jerusalem’s emotions, status, and portrayal in Ezek. 16. In this section, I begin by showing that the ruin of the structures Jerusalem has built effects an undoing of Jerusalem’s autonomy and renders her powerless, ashamed, and undesirable. I then turn to explore the destruction of Jerusalem’s body. 8.2. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Domes (‫)גבות‬ and High Places (‫)רמות‬ Yhwh’s judgment of Jerusalem begins with her envelopment by her lovers and her haters, who will enact Yhwh’s judgment upon her (Ezek. 16:37).

126

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

The specific components of Yhwh’s judgment are then described in detail in 16:39-41. Yhwh’s judgment of Jerusalem is made up of four components, two of which are directed against Jerusalem’s body and two of which are directed against Jerusalem’s spaces. These components are arranged in a pattern that alternates between female body and constructed space: 1. Body: Jerusalem’s genitals (‫ )ערוה‬are exposed before her lovers (16:37) and her body is returned to the bloody state it was in when she was a baby (16:38). 2. Space: Jerusalem’s domes (‫ )גבות‬and high places (‫ )רמות‬are destroyed (16:39a). 3. Body: Jerusalem’s body is stripped, removed of ornaments (16:39b), stoned, and sliced up (16:40). 4. Space: Jerusalem’s houses are burned down in the sight of many women (16:41). The first component of Yhwh’s judgment against Jerusalem I would like to discuss is the destruction of her domes and high places by her lovers. As I have detailed above, the domes and high places are the physical manifestation of Jerusalem’s rebellion against her husband. They are symbolic of her pride and desire. They are sites of pleasure and infidelity. They are monuments that display her autonomy and power. It is therefore fitting that Yhwh judges Jerusalem by destroying her domes and high places in an attempt to reclaim and re-order the city space, and by doing so, assert his power over his wife (who is the city).1 Just as the directional metaphor of being raised up indicates Jerusalem’s pride and power in Ezek. 16:16-31, its opposite—being brought down—indicates Jerusalem’s humiliation and weakness in 16:39-41. The breaking down of Jerusalem occurs on two levels in the text: both literally, as her spaces and her body are destroyed, and figuratively, as by destroying Jerusalem’s spaces Yhwh demolishes her status and agency. Two verbs are used to describe the destruction of Jerusalem’s domes and high places respectively in 16:39, tear down (‫ )הרס‬and break down (‫)נתץ‬. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ נתץ‬most commonly describes the breaking down of built structures, for example, pillars (Deut. 7:5), altars (Exod. 34:13), cities (Judg. 9:45), and walls (2 Kgs 25:10). Where the verb ‫ נתץ‬has a person as its object it is used figuratively to describe the

1.  Zimmerli points out that v. 39 mentions the destruction of Jerusalem’s mound and high places but does not specify that Jerusalem’s shrines are to be destroyed (Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 342).

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

127

removal of someone’s power and/or will to live by God (Ps. 52:7; Job 19:10). A similar semantic range is demonstrated by the verb tear down (‫)הרס‬, which can designate the demolition of built structures (Judg. 6:25; 2 Sam. 11:25; Ezek. 13:14; 26:4) as well as nations and/or people (Exod. 15:7; Isa. 22:9; Jer. 24:6; Ezek. 30:4; Ps. 28:5).2 The frequent pairing of build (‫ )בנה‬with tear down (‫ )הרס‬in the Hebrew Bible suggests that the two were considered to be conceptual opposites (e.g. Prov. 14:1; 29:4; Jer. 45:4; Job 12:14; Mal. 1:4)—with ‫ בנה‬conveying construction and ‫ הרס‬conveying destruction.3 These two conceptual opposites feature in Ezek. 16, with Jerusalem building (16:24, 25, 31) and Yhwh—or more precisely, Jerusalem’s lovers who mete out Yhwh’s judgment—tearing down her buildings (16:39-41). A tug of war ensues between Jerusalem and Yhwh in which the use of space is contested. The constitution of the city space shifts as structures are built by Jerusalem and torn down by her lovers on Yhwh’s behalf. This transformation of space conveys a shift in power wherein the person who controls space holds the power. While this power is wielded by the woman, Jerusalem, in 16:15-34 as she builds her shrines, high places, and domes, using them as sites for her whoring, the power is snatched away and transferred to the males—Yhwh (as husband) and her lovers—when these same structures are destroyed in 16:39-41. 8.3. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Houses (‫)בתים‬ The final component of Yhwh’s judgment against Jerusalem occurs when Jerusalem’s houses are burned down by her lovers and she is judged “in the sight of many women” (Ezek. 16:41). Whereas Jerusalem’s domes and high places had already been referenced earlier in 16:16-25, this is the first time in the passage that Jerusalem’s houses are mentioned.4 It is surprising that the burning of Jerusalem’s houses is given prime emphasis as the climax of Yhwh’s judgment against her considering the absence of these houses from the rest of Ezek. 16. The unexpected reference to the burning of Jerusalem’s houses raises numerous questions: What do Jerusalem’s

2.  Ezekiel also uses “tear down” (‫ )הרס‬to designate the annihilation of mountains (Ezek. 38:20). 3.  By contrast, the root for build (‫ )בנה‬does not occur in the same verses as “break down” (‫)נתץ‬. 4.  Compare the very similar use of ‫ בית‬+ pronominal suffix in Ezek. 23:47, where the houses of Oholah and Oholibah are similarly burnt down (‫)ובתיהן באש ישרפו‬. The LXX renders ‫ בתיך‬as τοὺς οἴκους σου.

128

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

houses signify and why does Yhwh want them destroyed? Why would one agent—and a woman no less—have multiple houses? Is the use of the 2nd person singular pronominal suffix attached to houses (‫ )בתים‬significant? Why are Jerusalem’s houses burnt down, not demolished like the other structures she builds? In Ezekiel, the term ‫ בית‬can refer to a house or to the temple.5 When it is used to refer to the temple it is always in the singular form. I would like to suggest that, just as the usage of ‫ בית‬reflects two different but related meanings throughout Ezekiel, the interpretive significance of ‫בתים‬ in Ezek. 16:41 is multifaceted and works on numerous levels within the broader metaphor of ch. 16. On the level of Jerusalem as Yhwh’s wife who is an actor in the narrative, the burning of Jerusalem’s houses signifies the destruction of her power, one aspect of which may be displayed in the text through her ownership of property.6 On the level of Jerusalem as the physical city, the burning of the houses foreshadows the razing of the city Jerusalem, and particularly its temple, by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE. There are two reasons I argue that Jerusalem’s houses signify her power. First, there are only a handful of instances in the Hebrew Bible where the 2nd or 3rd feminine pronominal suffix is attached to house (‫)בית‬. It is much more common to see the 2nd or 3rd masculine pronominal suffix attached to house (‫)בית‬, as one would expect. When ‫ בית‬is accompanied by the feminine pronominal suffix, the context is usually describing the house of a woman of significant influence (i.e. Potiphar’s wife in Gen. 39:14; Pharaoh’s daughter in 1 Kgs 9:24), or the house of a woman who has a greater degree of independence than the typical married Israelite woman—in other words, she is responsible for the care of her household, family, and lands (e.g. a widower as in 1 Kgs 17:15 and 2 Sam. 14:8;7 Rahab the sex worker in Josh. 2:3, 15, 18). The story of Abigail, who saves her household by proving her allegiance to David over her own husband (1 Sam. 25:35), fits the latter category of women who exhibit a high degree of agency and do not submit to a husband, as does the adulteress in Prov. 7:27, whose house is described as “the way to Sheol.”8

5.  For the use of ‫ בית‬as house in Ezekiel, see 3:24; 7:24; 8:1; 23:47; 44:30. For the use of ‫ בית‬as temple in Ezekiel see 23:39; 44:7, 17. 6.  I understand ‫ –ך‬here to be used in the sense of ownership. 7.  The woman of 2 Sam. 14:8 is actually a wise woman playing the part of widower at Joab’s request. Nevertheless, wise women were highly esteemed in their communities and had more influence than the average woman. 8.  The other instances of the 2nd or 3rd singular feminine pronominal suffix attached to house (‫ )בית‬are: 2 Sam. 11:4; 2 Kgs 8:1; Prov. 5:8; 14:1; 31:15, 21.

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

129

If Jerusalem’s possession of houses is understood in light of the women above, who clearly have a greater degree of independence than the typical female in ancient Israel, it follows that she too shares a similar measure of power. Indeed, Jerusalem resembles Abigail, Potiphar’s wife, and the adulteress in Prov. 7 in her defiance of her husband. Similarly, Jerusalem resembles the widowers and Rahab through her control over space. Given that the portrayal of Jerusalem in the rest of Ezek. 16 involves a great degree of gender reversal, as Kamionkowski has persuasively argued,9 Jerusalem’s ownership of property is by no means out of step with her masculine characterization. If understood thus, Jerusalem’s houses signify her financial independence, which in turn offer her a greater degree of autonomy than a woman whose finances are completely under the control of her husband. As such, when Jerusalem’s property is burned down, her ability to maintain her financial independence also goes up in flames and renders her at the mercy of her husband. The examples above attest to the possibility that a woman could have some measure of control over her house(hold); however, what is striking when it comes to Ezek. 16:41 is that it is the only example of the use of the plural houses (‫ )בתים‬in the Hebrew Bible with a feminine singular pronominal suffix. Where ‫ בתים‬does occur it is accompanied by a masculine pronominal suffix elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and, in addition, the accompanying suffix is likewise usually plural (e.g. Gen. 42:33; Exod. 12:19; Num. 16:32; Jer. 17:22; Ezek. 7:24). In other words, these instances indicate the houses of many men. The only exceptions are Exod. 8:5, 7, 17 and 10:6, where Moses refers to Pharaoh’s houses (‫)בתיך‬, where ‫ בתים‬takes on the extended meaning of families and thus conveys the families of Egypt over which he rules, and 1 Chron. 28:11, which refers to the houses of the temple (‫)בתיו‬. Notably, both of these examples use the masculine singular pronominal suffix with ‫בתים‬. Returning to Ezek. 16:41, in which Yhwh declares to Jerusalem “they will burn down your houses” (‫)ושרפו בתיך‬, the question that arises is why does a woman have multiple houses? Two possibilities present themselves: the first is that the different layers of the metaphor are being confused. In other words, the metaphor, in which Jerusalem signifies both Yhwh’s wife and the city itself, is breaking down and the plural is being used here to indicate that “the houses in the city” will be burned down. The other possibility is that both layers of the metaphor are simultaneously being evoked, and the houses signify the physical houses of the 9.  Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 110–33. For a discussion of Jerusalem’s financial independence see ibid., 123–5.

130

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

city as well as the illegitimate houses Jerusalem has established through her harlotry (that is, illegitimate because they are not under the control of the husband Yhwh). Given the subversive nature of Jerusalem’s actions and the hyperbole that pervades Ezek. 16, it does not seem unreasonable to argue that “your houses” could be evoking both meanings in this instance. For a woman to have one house is rare; for her to have control over multiple houses is an absolute overturning of expected norms for women in ancient Israel. The fact that the burning of Jerusalem’s houses is followed immediately by the specification that this judgment will occur “in the eyes of many women” (16:41) suggests that Jerusalem’s judgment for transgressing feminine gender norms will be used as an example for other women.10 On the level of the metaphor in which Yhwh’s wife Jerusalem is representative of the city, the burning of the houses evokes the razing of a city that accompanied its invasion. In the case of Ezekiel’s specific historical context, it foreshadows the burning of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians. Descriptions of the burning of the temple can be found elsewhere in 2 Kgs 25:9; Isa. 64:11; and Jer. 52:13. Though fire was a major agent of destruction and the burning down of Jerusalem was by no means an exceptional event, the descriptions of the destruction of the city Jerusalem in 2 Kings and Jeremiah nonetheless bear striking similarities to Ezek. 16:41, in which Lady Jerusalem’s houses are burned down by her lovers. The invasion and destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan, captain of king Nebuchadnezzar’s guards, is described in 2 Kgs 25:9 as follows, “And he burned down the house (‫ )בית‬of Yhwh and the house (‫ )בית‬of the king and all the houses of Jerusalem (‫)בתי ירושלם‬ and every great house (‫ )בית‬he burned down with fire.” The repetition of house (‫)בית‬, which appears four times in the one verse, is striking, as is the repetition of the verb to burn down (‫)שרף‬, which is mentioned at the beginning and the end of the verse. The emphasis is very much on the fire engulfing the city and burning down all its houses. 2 Kings 25:9 provides an example analogous to the usage of ‫ בית‬in Ezekiel, where ‫ בית‬takes on multiple meanings. In 2 Kgs 25:9, ‫ בית‬refers to both the temple—“the house of Yhwh”—and the houses in the city. The use of the plural ‫ בתים‬in construct with Jerusalem (‫)כל־בתי ירושלם‬ provides an interesting parallel to Ezek. 16:41, as does the specification that the houses of Jerusalem would be burned down with fire (‫)באש‬. 10.  Similar sentiments are paralleled in Ezek. 23:10, when Yhwh states that Oholah became “a byword among women (‫ )ותהי־שם לנשים‬when judgment was executed against her.”

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

131

Both aspects can be found in Ezek. 16:41, in which Yhwh tells his wife Jerusalem “they will burn down your houses with fire.” The agent of destruction in 2 Kgs 25:9 is also paralleled in Ezek. 16:41, namely, the Babylonians, whom the text specifies were among Jerusalem’s lovers (Ezek. 16:29) and therefore were among those who executed the burning down of her houses in 16:41. It is no coincidence that the Babylonians played a part in destroying the city Jerusalem in Ezek. 16. The description of Jerusalem’s houses being burned down by the Babylonians communicated Ezekiel’s stark view of the future of Jerusalem and foreshadowed the city’s impending destruction by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE. The destruction of the spaces Jerusalem builds and occupies has important implications for Jerusalem’s portrayal in Ezek. 16. I have shown that who controls space, how space is used, and how the constitution of space shifts all provide important clues about the shifting power dynamics in the text. The demolition of Jerusalem’s domes and high places conveys the taking down of Jerusalem’s pride and power over the city space. The burning of Jerusalem’s houses signifies the destruction of her financial independence, while simultaneously foreshadowing the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem during which the city was razed and the temple destroyed. The destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings is only one facet of Yhwh’s judgment against his wife; I will now turn to examine the other aspect of Yhwh’s judgment: the destruction of Jerusalem’s body. 8.4. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Body (Ezekiel 16:35-43) It is crucial to appreciate that Yhwh’s violent judgment upon Jerusalem in Ezek. 16:35-43 is not only a transformation of space, as I have argued above, but a transformation of Jerusalem’s body in space. As I outlined in Chapter 3, feminist scholars have rightly problematized the gendered violence inflicted upon Jerusalem’s body, highlighting the implications of this gendered violence for contemporary appraisals of women.11 In this section, I consider the implications of the violence inflicted against Jerusalem’s body for her shifting emotional representation and agency, examining the relationship between Jerusalem’s body and Ezekiel’s theodicy. Ezekiel’s theodicy emphasizes Yhwh’s sovereignty amidst his apparent inaction, insofar as the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem was viewed by some as a reflection of Yhwh’s unwillingness to protect his 11.  See, for example, Shields, “Multiple Exposures,” 6; Bryan Bibb, “There’s No Sex in Your Violence: Patriarchal Translation in Ezekiel 16 and 23,” Review and Expositor 111 (2014): 337–45, at 338; Stiebert, “The Woman Metaphor,” 204.

132

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

people from foreign nations and their foreign gods (Ezek. 8:12). I argue that Jerusalem’s body is the main signifier through which Ezekiel conveys his theology of exile in Ezek. 16 and through which he communicates the appropriate emotional response on behalf of the Judahites in light of this theology. This signification is achieved through the portrayal of the boundaries of Jerusalem’s body as the site through which the powerplay between Yhwh, his people, and the foreign nations surrounding Judah is enacted. Through Jerusalem’s body Ezekiel underscores in a very visceral way that Yhwh remains in control of the Judahites. At a basic level, the dynamics of the powerplay between Yhwh and his people are communicated by the marriage metaphor—where Yhwh is husband and Jerusalem his wife. Yhwh’s control is signified by the submission of Jerusalem’s body to him, while rebellion is signified by Jerusalem’s rejection of her body’s male-imposed containment. The violence perpetrated against Jerusalem’s body in Ezek. 16:35-43 is her husband’s attempt to put an end to his wife’s rebellion and eradicate his loss of control—both of which are underscored by the compromised boundaries of his wife’s body. What constitute as compromised female bodily boundaries is rooted in the thoroughly gendered hierarchies of ancient Israel—as are the emotions associated with these boundary violations. When ancient Israelite social hierarchy is upheld, the daughter/wife is expected to be subordinate to her father/husband and the father/husband has complete control over his daughter/wife, including control over her body. At times, this has dire implications for the ancient Israelite female (e.g. Gen 19:8-11; Judg. 19). Lemos draws attention to Mesopotamian evidence that sanctioned a husband’s violence against his wife. Notably, some of these examples do not stipulate the man even needed a reason to inflict such violence against his wife.12 In light of this evidence, she states that “Israelite audiences would not have found the behaviour described in Ezekiel to be completely outlandish.”13 In other words, Yhwh’s decision to punish Jerusalem by handing her over to her lovers and watching while they strip and torture her (Ezek. 16:36-43) is perfectly in alignment with the rights of a husband concerning his wife’s body in ancient Israel. Similarly, if we bring a consideration of emotions into the discussion, it is clear that Yhwh’s fury (‫חמה‬, Ezek. 16:38, 42), trembling rage (‫רגז‬, 16:43), and anger (‫כעס‬, 16:26, 42) were culturally appropriate emotional reactions to

12.  Tracy M. Lemos, Violence and Personhood in Ancient Israel and Comparative Contexts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 84–5. 13.  Ibid., 86.

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

133

his wife’s disregard for the social and gendered hierarchies that policed bodily control. Anger is an emotion closely tied to social hierarchies as it is triggered by a perceived violation of expected behavior. The expression of Yhwh’s anger in Ezek. 16 serves to correct behavior and uphold status and established hierarchies, including gendered hierarchies (as it does elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible).14 In the previous chapters, I suggested that boundaries are an important heuristic tool through which to understand the intersection between space and emotions in Ezek. 16. Unsurprisingly, Ezekiel’s preoccupation with boundaries and their transgression also characterizes Jerusalem’s destruction in 16:35-43, in which the boundaries of her body (her clothes, her ornaments, and her flesh) are ripped apart and her insides are spilled out. The violent assault on Jerusalem’s bodily boundaries results in the opposite of containment, threatening the total disintegration of Jerusalem’s body. Insofar as Jerusalem’s body represents the body politic, the metaphor evokes the Judahites’ fear of annihilation that would have accompanied the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s punishment is described by Yhwh as one that mirrors Jerusalem’s own rebellious way (16:43). Notably, Jerusalem’s rebellion was characterized by a complete disregard for her husband’s right to police her bodily boundaries through her adultery. Now, Yhwh reminds Jerusalem that he has control over her body by removing the clothing and ornaments he bestowed upon her in 16:10-13—items that conferred her status as royalty (16:13) and symbolized her favor with Yhwh. In 16:39, Jerusalem is stripped of her clothes, robbed of her ornaments, and left naked, exposed, and vulnerable. The same verb that is used to describe a city that is raided (‫ )והפשיטו‬is used to describe the violation of Jerusalem’s body, evoking the violence that accompanies the invasion of a city.15 The stripping of Jerusalem reverts her to her former state when Yhwh found her as an infant (16:4-8), in which she was naked and

14.  Van Wolde, “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions,” 16–17; Lemos, “Apotheosis of Divine Rage,” 107–8. Van Wolde notes that males are exclusively the subject of expressions of anger in the Hebrew Bible and when anger is directed towards other males, these are males of lower status than the subject expressing the anger. The only exception are the three occurrences of the term ‫ כעס‬with Peninnah as the subject in 1 Sam. 1:6-7. Van Wolde suggests these instances should be translated “distress” rather than anger (Van Wolde, “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions,” 12). 15.  For the use of the root ‫ פשט‬as “raid” see 1 Sam. 23:27; 30:14; Job 1:17; 1 Chron. 10:8.

134

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

exposed in the field.16 The removal of Jerusalem’s clothes and ornaments (16:39) transforms Jerusalem’s body from one that is beautiful to one that is naked and signifies the removal of Yhwh’s protection and status and, importantly, the removal of Jerusalem’s personhood.17 After the objects that make up the outermost envelope around Jerusalem’s body are removed, her clothes and ornaments, the text then turns to the attack on her flesh. Jerusalem is stoned and cut with swords (16:40). Just as Jerusalem’s placement in the field in 16:4-8, devoid of clothing, rendered her akin to a wild animal, her stripping, stoning, and dismemberment in 16:39-41 is reminiscent of acts of violence inflicted upon animals in ancient Israel to establish appropriate social hierarchies.18 In other words, the actions of stripping, stoning, and dismembering dehumanize Jerusalem. This vocabulary of violence—of stoning and cutting—envisages a body that is sliced open, dismembered, and broken, rendered incapable of defiance (16:41) and, importantly, a body that is not contained. On a related note, when Yhwh promises restoration to Jerusalem he says to her “and you will not open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done” (16:62-63). In her restoration, then, Ezekiel envisions Jerusalem as being contained. In a literal sense, the absence of mouth opening is probably referring to Jerusalem’s silence;19 however, the embodied metaphor nonetheless describes a closed opening and envisions speech as being contained. As I will explain in Chapter 9, this theme of containment dominates Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple in chs 40–48. The nature of the violence executed against Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 is markedly sexual. Jerusalem is penetrated by swords and forcibly stripped in public. Through the violence enacted against her body, which involves aggressive entry and the splitting up of her body, the boundaries of Jerusalem’s body envelope are compromised. While Jerusalem was the agent who exceeded boundaries in 16:15-34, the tables turn when Yhwh judges her. For example, in 16:25 Yhwh laments that Jerusalem spread her legs wide for her lovers. By contrast, in 16:37, Yhwh declares “I will 16.  See Michael Fishbane, “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 38 (1984): 131–50, at 138; Thelle, “Self as ‘Other’,” 118; Kamionkowski, Gender Reversal, 152. 17.  Lemos, Violence and Personhood, 89. 18.  Lemos compares the stoning and slicing up of the women in Ezek. 16 and 23 to the stoning of the ox in Exod. 21, seeing both as reasserting “subordination through a communal act of ritual violence” (ibid., 86–7). 19.  Though see Odell, who views this phrase as indicating the cessation of a “formal petition to God” (Odell, “The Inversion of Shame,” 107).

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

135

expose your nakedness to them (‫)וגליתי ערותך‬.”20 The agent of exposure has changed from the 2nd person (Jerusalem) at v. 25 to the 1st person (Yhwh) at v. 37. Jerusalem has lost her status and power—both of which are signified by a body she no longer controls. With regard to the emotional dimension of this forced exposure, scholars are quick to point out that Jerusalem’s nakedness symbolizes her shame (cf. Gen. 3:7, 10; Ezek. 23:29).21 Stiebert notes that this connection between shame and nakedness is particularly prominent in the prophets.22 Isaiah 20:4 uses the same terms for nakedness used in Ezek. 16:37 (‫)ערוה‬ and 16:39 (‫ )עירם‬to describe the Cushite and Egyptian captives, whom the king of Assyria will drive away. Isaiah 20:5 states that they will be shattered (‫ )וחתו‬and ashamed (‫ )ובשו‬because of their exposure and the loss of their former beauty (‫)תפארת‬. Similarly, the removal of Jerusalem’s clothes and beautiful jewels (‫כלי תפארת‬, Ezek. 16:39) causes her to rest (‫)והניחוך‬, naked and bare (‫)עירם ועריה‬. She too is broken down by a foreign enemy and is led into captivity. Jerusalem’s position resting on the ground is a marked contrast to the heights she built for herself in Ezek. 16:15-34.23 The language of nudity evokes her status as a foundling, when Yhwh made her “flourish like a plant of the field” and yet she was still “naked and bare” (16:7). The image of a plant flourishing similarly suggests height and grandeur, both of which are notably bestowed upon Jerusalem by Yhwh. On the other hand, the image of Jerusalem forced to “rest naked and bare” in 16:39 evokes notions of shame and humility, which are metonymically associated not only with nudity, as scholars have previously suggested, but also with being LOW in the Hebrew Bible. This association likely arose out of the embodied experience of these emotions, as one who feels shame or humility assumes a low bodily position.24 The contrast between HIGH AS PROUD and LOW AS HUMBLE/ASHAMED features repeatedly in 20.  The root ‫ גלה‬can also mean “to go into exile” (e.g. Isa. 5:13; Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 39:23; Amos 1:5) and is used to describe the captivity of the city Jerusalem in Jer. 1:3. 21.  See, for example, Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 105; Havilah Dharamraj, Altogether Lovely: A Thematic and Intertextual Reading of the Song of Songs, South Asian Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2018), 128; Stiebert, The Construction of Shame, 161; Dempsey, “The ‘Whore’ of Ezekiel 16,” 65. 22.  Stiebert, The Construction of Shame, 122. 23.  For similar use of ‫ נוח‬to convey being lowered see Ezek. 37:1; 40:2. Cf. Exod. 17:11. 24.  Thomas Kazen, “Viewing Oneself Through Other’s Eyes: Shame Between Biology and Culture in Biblical Texts,” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 84 (2019): 51–80, at 56.

136

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Ezekiel, often within the context of God bringing down the proud from their heights and forcing them into a position of humility on the ground (28:17) or even lower, in Sheol/the pit (31:10-17).25 Indeed, this very contrast occurs in 16:39-41. The demolition of Jerusalem’s buildings represents her shame, as does the tearing down of her body. The judgment scene against Jerusalem in Ezek. 16:35-43 not only transforms her body, it transforms her embodied experience of space. As I established in Chapter 7, Jerusalem’s sexual encounters are prolific and are characterized by a desire that is never truly satiated—the intensity of which is conveyed by the repetition of the verb multiply (‫ )רבה‬paired with the noun harlotry (‫( )תזנות‬16:25-29). In other words, these are actions that might be spatially construed as expansive and ever growing, especially as they are described as occurring in multiple places in the city. By contrast, Yhwh’s punishment against Jerusalem transforms her experience of space from one that is expansive to one that is contracted. Jerusalem’s freedom of movement is severely restricted by her judges, who are gathered against her “from every side” (‫מסביב‬, 16:37), and the crowd (‫ )קהל‬that is brought up against her (16:40).26 Jerusalem no longer galivants around the city building her shrines, but is instead closed in, surrounded by her accusers. She is literally being contained in space, much like the city itself when it was besieged by the Babylonians in 597/6 BCE. The vocabulary used in vv. 37-40 evokes the reality of the siege and invasion of Jerusalem. As Swanepoel notes, the term ‫ קהל‬is used throughout Ezekiel to designate armed forces (Ezek. 17:17; 26:7; 32:3, 22; 38:4, 7, 13, 15).27 The root surround (‫ )סבב‬is also used in the Hebrew Bible to describe armies besieging towns and surrounding enemy troops (e.g. 1 Kgs 5:17; 2 Kgs 6:15; Qoh. 9:4; 2 Chron. 21:9) and breaking down a city’s surrounding walls (2 Kgs 25:10). It is noteworthy that the root surround (‫ )סבב‬is used with startling frequency in Ezekiel.28 In Ezek. 1–39, “surround” is mainly used in violent contexts of defeat that describe 25.  Compare Jer. 49:16. 26.  Compare Ezek. 23:22, 24, which also describe the woman as being surrounded by her enemies akin to a city that is besieged. 27.  M. G. Swanepoel, “Ezekiel 16: Abandoned Child, Bride Adorned, or Unfaithful Wife?” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 98. 28.  For the verbal form of ‫ סבב‬see Ezek. 1:9, 12, 17; 7:22; 10:11, 16; 26:2; 41:7, 24; 42:19; 47:2. For the adverbial form see Ezek. 1:4, 18, 27-28; 4:2; 5:2, 5-7, 12, 14-15; 6:5, 13; 8:10; 10:12; 11:12; 12:14; 16:33, 37, 57; 19:8; 23:22, 24; 27:11; 28:23-24, 26; 31:4; 32:22-26; 34:26; 36:3-4, 7, 36; 37:2, 21; 39:17; 40:5, 14, 16-17,

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

137

the city Jerusalem and/or the land being surrounded by neighboring enemies, besieged in battle, as a reference to the nations surrounding Judah themselves, or in contexts where Yhwh will defeat Judah’s neighbors.29 The term appears 64 times in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple in chs 40–48, demonstrating Ezekiel’s clear concern to tightly control the boundaries, edges, walls, and gateways that provide entry into the city and temple. I will return to this in Chapter 9, when I explore how the theme of boundaries in Ezekiel’s vision of the new city and temple relates to the portrait of the “old” Jerusalem offered in Ezek. 16. Using language reminiscent of Ezek. 16:39-41 that also combines being torn down with being surrounded, Job laments that God, “tears me down on every side (‫ )יתצני סביב‬and I am gone, he has plucked up like a tree my hope” (Job 19:10). Unlike Job, there is no explicit naming of Jerusalem’s emotional reaction to her experience of being surrounded in 16:39-41. Nevertheless, such a description would have surely evoked the lived experience of the Judahites who received Ezekiel’s message, whom the Babylonians besieged and attacked. Through the description of the character Jerusalem surrounded and subjugated by her enemies, the Judahites are forced to remember and relive their own experience of siege and subjugation and to do so through the humiliating subject position of a woman.30 8.5. Conclusion In Ezek. 16:15-34 Jerusalem rebels against her husband by controlling the city spaces and her body, rejecting her husband’s right to police the boundaries of her body by acting through her own agency, choosing who enters her body and has access to it. By contrast, in the judgment scene described in 16:35-43, the gendered hierarchy is re-established as the male regains spatial control. Yhwh reasserts his authority over his wife through the demolition of the spaces Jerusalem has built and through the destruction of his wife’s body. A reordering is enacted where the female body is transformed from a body imbued with beauty, power, and agency to a body that is rendered undesirable, powerless, and vulnerable—completely at 25, 29-30, 33, 36, 43; 41:5-8, 10-12, 16-17, 19; 42:15-17, 20; 43:12-13, 17, 20; 45:1-2; 46:23; 48:35. 29.  The only uses of ‫ סבב‬I could find that were not in this context of defeat or neighboring enemies in chs 1–39 were Ezekiel’s visions in 1:18-28 and 10:12, the blessing described in 34:26, Israel’s future redemption in 37:21, and the sacrificial feast described in 39:17. 30.  Cf. Smith-Christopher, “Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib,” 155.

138

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

the mercy of males (Yhwh and her lovers). The acts of violence in Ezek. 16:35-43 restore Yhwh to a position of power, as the one who controls the bodily boundaries of his wife. This powerplay between husband and wife over Jerusalem’s bodily boundaries reflects Ezekiel’s conceptualization of divine sovereignty—namely, that the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem and deportation of the Judahites is the result of the Judahites’ disobedience and a demonstration of Yhwh’s power. It is noteworthy that there is no end to Jerusalem’s suffering in ch. 16. Jerusalem is forced to remain in this space of bodily invasion against her will until Yhwh decides to “restore” her at some indefinite future time (Ezek. 16:53-63). Even in her restoration at 16:53ff. Jerusalem will suffer emotionally by feeling shame and humiliation. In the end, we are left with Jerusalem’s destruction as a subject—the annihilation of the feminine (m)other—which in turn reaffirms the hegemonic hierarchy, the order of masculine domination and of a male deity who remains in control. It is important to remember that the wife Jerusalem is a metonym for the Judahites, whom the author feminizes in Ezek. 16 through the marriage metaphor. In Ezek. 16, the destruction of Jerusalem’s body—the destruction of the feminine—signifies the ruin of the body politic: the Judahites themselves. The use of feminine imagery to describe the people is, of course, not unique to Ezekiel but can also be found in other prophets. Referring to Jer. 3:1-5 in particular, Shields argues that, “The use of gender-specific language is a particularly powerful way to indicate the breaking of boundaries in a patriarchal context such as the Bible. In the patriarchal symbolic world, where the self is defined as male, the primary image of the ‘other’, that which is not self, is woman.”31 In Jeremiah (just as in Ezekiel), the accusation of the people’s disobedience is communicated through the metaphor of the sex-worker and adulteress, with whom Shields argues the audience is invited to identify in Jeremiah; however, Shields notes that “when the promises connected with repentance are given…the address changes to masculine plural” and the audience is encouraged to subjectively identify as sons.32 No such shift in gendered language occurs in Ezek. 16. The “you” the narrator addresses remains persistently feminine throughout the chapter, forcing the audience, who is implicated in this “you”-address, to identify with the wife Jerusalem. This identification may be resisted—after all the self is male—however, it is this tension between the male self and the female other that forces the audience to confront themselves and 31.  Shields, “Circumcision of the Prostitute,” 125–6, emphasis added. 32.  Ibid., 128.

8. The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Spaces and Body

139

their behavior. The audience is not given an “out”—a masculine identity with whom they might comfortably identify; they are left in the claustrophobic space of the “not-self”—the feminine, that which has been devoid of personhood, overpowered and surrounded by the masculine, and is promised unrealized restoration. The restoration that Ezekiel describes in later chapters is virtually devoid of feminine imagery. As I explained in Chapter 1, one of the main reasons the exile triggered a crisis of identity was because the Judahites’ identity was so intimately tied to the place from which they were exiled: the city Jerusalem and its temple. Ezekiel wrote during a time in which the Judahites’ identity was forced to undergo a transformation in order to survive; however, in order to transform, the “old” identity, with its ties to Jerusalem and the temple, had to be destroyed first. In light of this context, it is worthwhile asking to what extent is the disappearance of the feminine imagery that occurs from Ezek. 25 onwards a destruction of the Judahites’ identity as it is constructed by Ezekiel? Citing Irigaray, Best explains, “Woman, as the pole formulated according to the needs of masculinity, is ‘the resource of reflection—the red blood of resemblance’ (Irigaray 1985b: 151), ‘the living mirror’ for man’s reflection and speculation (Irigaray 1985a: 221).”33 The wayward wife Jerusalem—the female other—is the mirror held up to the Judahites to force them to confront their own shortcomings in Ezek. 16. They look into the mirror and see themselves—mutilated, abused, and publicly shamed. The wayward wife returns in Ezek. 23, but disappears thereafter, her restoration unrealized.34 Ezekiel builds up an unsavory point of identification for the Judahites—the adulterous wife— only to tear it down at the conclusion of ch. 16 and eliminate mention of her from descriptions of the future restoration of the people, the temple, and the city. In order to survive, a new vision needed to be presented, one almost entirely devoid of the feminine and the risks it posed to order.

33.  Sue Best, “Sexualizing Space,” in Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism, ed. Elizabeth Grosz and Elspeth Probyn (London: Routledge, 1995), 187. 34.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 147–8.

Chapter 9

S B

S

R -

P

: D

F

(E

40–48)

9.1. Introduction Ezekiel’s vision of the new city and temple in Ezek. 40–48 stands in stark contrast to the portrayal of the old city and temple that is found in Ezek. 16.1 In previous chapters, I have suggested that the female body of Yhwh’s wife is a complex and multivalent symbol in Ezek. 16. The permeable boundaries of the female body convey the anxiety surrounding the invasion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians due to the inability of the body politic to separate between holy and profane, clean and unclean, which led to the exile. Galambush observes that one of the most obvious differences between the portrayal of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 and the vision of the new city and temple is that the metaphor of the city as Yhwh’s wife does not feature in Ezek. 40–48.2 Galambush convincingly argues that this disappearance of the feminine persona is a critical aspect of 1.  Many scholars consider Ezek. 40–48 to be secondary material due to the unique vocabulary and style found in these chapters. See e.g. Michael Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 (Berlin: Philo, 2001). Zimmerli suggested that a “school of Ezekiel” was responsible for these later redactions and additions, which were undertaken over many years (Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 70–2). For a contrasting view that argues against the secondary nature of Ezek. 40–48 see Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181–208, esp. 185–9; Menahem Haran, “The Law Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and Its Relation to the Priestly School,” HUCA 50 (1979): 45–71. I refer to the author(s) as Ezekiel here for convenience and interpret these chapters in their final literary form as belonging to a unified whole. 2.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 148. Bowen notes that even the name Jerusalem is completely absent from chs 40–48 (Bowen, Ezekiel, 241).

9. Sacred Space Re-established

141

the new temple’s ongoing integrity: “[Jerusalem’s] restoration, hinted at in Yahweh’s promises of 16:59-63, will never come to pass; rather, the elimination of the marriage metaphor will be an apparent precondition for the renewed and sustainable purity of Yahweh’s new house in Ezekiel 40–48.”3 In this chapter, I consider the emotions that accompany this elimination of feminine imagery and the spatial organization of the new temple. I compare Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple and city to the representation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16 in order to articulate the shifting emotions evoked by and communicated through these different spatial representations of Yhwh’s city in Ezekiel. I argue that the disgust and fear evoked by Jerusalem’s female body due to its compromised boundaries and uncleanness is eradicated in Ezekiel’s vision. I show that this eradication of disgust and fear is linked to the eradication of the feminine from Ezek. 40–48,4 but it is also expressed in the spatial organization of the new temple and city, which have clearly defined and tightly controlled boundaries, and in the strict policing of the male bodies permitted access to these spaces. The feminine persona of Jerusalem that evoked fear and disgust is replaced with a vision of a new city and temple that evokes security, purity, and hope. 9.2. Trauma and the New Temple in its Exilic Context The vision of the new temple in Ezek. 40–48 is replete with detailed measurements and exhaustive descriptions of architectural features, including gates, rooms, doors, windows, embellishments, and stairways. Numerous scholars have suggested that this sustained focus on spatial precision is best understood within Ezekiel’s exilic context and as reflecting theological tensions that arose following the destruction of the temple. Simon understands the focus on geometry as offering some temporary “precision” and order during a “chaotic” time of great emotional, theological, and moral upheaval.5 Similarly, Lapsley describes the “architectural precision and solidity” of the new temple as an attempt to resolve

3.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 123. Galambush convincingly argues that Jerusalem’s body symbolizes both the city and the temple, with her womb signifying the inner sanctum of the temple (ibid. 104, 120, 128). Ezekiel 23:39, 43-44 also depicts the body of Yhwh’s wife as a temple entered and defiled by foreigners. 4.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 150. 5.  Bennett Simon, “Ezekiel’s Geometric Vision of the Restored Temple: From the Rod of His Wrath to the Reed of His Measuring,” HTR 102 (2009): 411–38, at 414.

142

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

the theological tensions written on the body in early sections of Ezekiel.6 According to both Lapsley and Simon, despite Ezekiel’s best efforts, some of these tensions remain unresolved—indications of Ezekiel’s latent anxiety that the mistakes that led to exile will be repeated.7 Ganzel suggests that the appropriate context within which to interpret Ezekiel’s vision is the Neo-Babylonian one that Ezekiel claims as the setting for the book.8 Ganzel makes a convincing case that Ezekiel’s description of the new temple shares many features also found in Babylonian descriptions of temples. Like Ezekiel’s temple, Babylonian metrological texts include detailed measurements of the various features of temples, with some texts paying particular attention to temple walls and gates.9 Bowen suggests that Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple is a trauma response which attempts to “imagine a place of safety.”10 Bowen is right to draw attention to the role of safety, which I too argue is a crucial feature of the new temple; however, it is more precise to describe the new temple as a visionary space to which Ezekiel is carried by the hand of Yhwh (Ezek. 40:1-2), rather than an imagined space. This is an important distinction as Ezekiel himself presents his visions as divinely guided, embodied experiences which transport Ezekiel to another place.11 Bowen herself highlights that this place is not “a mythical or unknown place”—it is the known land of Israel.12 Yhwh’s promise of future security (‫ )בטח‬for his people is repeatedly mentioned in the chapters leading up to Ezek. 40–48 that address the people’s return to the land (28:26; 34:25-28; 39:26). The promise of security in the chapters preceding Ezek. 40–48 is connected to the establishment of a covenant of peace (34:25), deliverance from foreign enemies (34:27-28), the absence of fear (34:28), and ecological

6.  Jacqueline Lapsley, “Doors Thrown Open and Waters Gushing Forth: Mark, Ezekiel, and the Architecture of Hope,” in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Patrick D. Miller (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 145–7. 7.  Ibid.; Simon, “Ezekiel’s Geometric Vision,” 434–5. 8.  Tova Ganzel, Ezekiel’s Visionary Temple in Babylonian Context, BZAW 539 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021), 4. 9.  Ganzel, Ezekiel’s Visionary Temple, 64, 74. 10.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 269. 11.  On the important role of Ezekiel’s body in the vision of the temple and its potential role in healing trauma see Adriane Leveen, “Returning the Body to Its Place: Ezekiel’s Tour of the Temple,” HTR 105 (2012): 385–401. 12.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 263.

9. Sacred Space Re-established

143

abundance (34:27, 29). This sets the scene for Ezekiel’s vision of the new city and temple, which fulfills the promise of security through its architectural design, regulations for access, and naturally occurring abundance.13 I turn now to consider each of these features of Ezekiel’s vision. 9.3. Boundaries, Security, and the Temple Ezekiel’s tour of the new temple is the last of a series of visions whereby Ezekiel is transported to Israel by the hand of Yhwh (Ezek. 1:1ff.; 8:1ff.; 40:1ff.; 43:1ff.). A man who looks like bronze stands in the gateway of the city and orders Ezekiel to declare what he will show him to the house of Israel (40:3). This man then proceeds to offer detailed measurements of the temple complex, starting with the outer walls, gates, rooms, and courts (40:5ff.). Notably, this description of the new temple pays particular attention to the structural boundaries that permit and prohibit access to the temple—the walls, gates, and courts surrounding the temple, paying less attention to the temple itself.14 The emphasis on these features leads Stevenson to convincingly argue that boundary maintenance is, in fact, the “primary motivation of the design of the temple complex.”15 This includes physical boundary maintenance, for example, restricting access to certain spaces in the temple (e.g. Ezek. 44:9, 13) and dividing up the land into tribal boundaries (47:1320). It also includes the maintenance of social boundaries, for example, the detailed behavioral regulations the sons of Zadok must observe (44:15-27).16 The focus on boundaries continues when it comes to the temple building itself. There is a marked concern to restrict and control access to each section inside the temple. The closer Ezekiel is led to the inner sanctum, the narrower the entrances become (Ezek. 41:2, 3). This makes access more difficult and offers a measure of protection to both the people and Yhwh.17 The emphasis on access to the temple is made explicit when 13.  See also Ezek. 38:8, 11, 14. 14.  Ganzel observes, “The book devotes sixty-three verses to walls, courtyards, and gates and only twenty-six verses to describing the temple building” (Ganzel, Ezekiel’s Visionary Temple, 53). 15.  Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 45. 16.  Cf. Susan Niditch, “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context,” CBQ 48 (1986): 208–24, at 220. 17.  Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book,” in Cook and Patton, eds, Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 14.

144

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

the glory of Yhwh enters the temple and Yhwh orders Ezekiel to “pay attention to the entrance of the house and all the exits of the temple” (44:5; cf. 43:11). This specific command prioritizing entrances and exits is followed by strict regulations concerning who may enter and exit the various parts of the temple (44:9ff.). These regulations explicitly exclude foreigners from temple access (44:9), which is a feature that is unique to Ezekiel.18 Even the Judahites’ role in the temple is restricted. The house of Israel is allowed to enter the outer court (44:19), but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.19 The Levites who practiced idolatry are permitted to minister at the gates and to preside over the burnt offering in the temple (44:11), but they are excluded from the holy of holies as punishment (44:13). The privilege of entering the inner court is reserved for the sons of Zadok (44:15-17). The clearly demarcated boundaries of the new temple, with its thick, impenetrable walls, limited accessibility, and exclusion of foreigners offer a measure of protection that ensures against future “boundary violations,” that is, inappropriate admixtures of holy/profane and clean/unclean that resulted in the exile.20 This is made clear at the conclusion of the description of the temple in Ezek. 42, where it is stated that the purpose of the enormous walls around the temple complex, which measure 500 × 500 cubits, is “to make a separation between the holy and the profane” (42:20). The specification of the size and function of the walls immediately precedes Yhwh’s entry into the temple (43:1-7), implicitly emphasizing that unlike the old temple, the new temple effectively maintains the separation between holy and profane and is therefore a fitting place to house Yhwh’s presence. The eastern gate of the temple through which Yhwh entered is to remain permanently closed. Only the prince is permitted to sit at the gate (44:3). Others are prohibited from entering “because Yhwh the God of Israel entered through it” (44:2). The word “closed” (‫ )סגור‬is repeated three times in quick succession, emphasizing its permanent and final closure.

18.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 149. Compare Isa. 56:1-8. The exclusion of foreigners is, however, a feature that Ezekiel’s new temple shares with Babylonian temple protocols. Alstola argues that while deportees, including the Judeans, may have been included in other aspects of Babylonian society, they were not allowed access to the temple cult (Tero Alstola, Judeans in Babylonia: A Study of Deportees in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE, CHANE 109 [Leiden: Brill, 2020], 226). 19.  Ganzel, Ezekiel’s Visionary Temple, 54. 20.  Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, xxiv.

9. Sacred Space Re-established

145

The portrait of the temple in Ezek. 40–48 presents a highly controlled space with restricted access that effectively maintains the boundaries between holy and profane, clean and unclean. This could not be further removed from the portrait of Jerusalem as Yhwh’s wife in Ezek. 16. Simon notes that Jerusalem’s portrayal as having open and accessible bodily orifices (the entry and exit points of her body) stands in stark contrast to Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, which is envisioned as having “carefully regulated” exits and entrances.21 As I have argued in Chapters 6–8, it is not only the entry and exit points of Jerusalem’s body that are open and therefore compromised in Ezek. 16. Rather, Jerusalem’s entire body envelope—the “wall” that separates that which is within from that which is outside—is ineffective. Ezekiel underscores his anxiety about Jerusalem’s lack of separation from foreign influences through Jerusalem’s infant body, which is covered in her mother’s unclean birthing blood and connected to her mother through her uncut umbilical cord. Yhwh may cleanse Jerusalem of this uncleanness (16:9), but she goes on to once again blur the line between clean and unclean through her adultery. Unlike the new temple, into which uncircumcised foreigners are prohibited from entering (44:7), Jerusalem allows foreigners of all kinds to enter the “inner sanctum” of her body (16:26, 28, 29).22 The gates to the entryway of Jerusalem’s “inner sanctum,” which are meant exclusively for her husband Yhwh to enter and exit, are not permanently closed and impenetrable like the east gate of the new temple, through which Yhwh alone has entered (44:1-2). Rather, Jerusalem’s “gates” are wide open as she spreads her legs to all passers-by (16:25), allowing entry to foreigners in place of her husband (16:32). Jerusalem’s mouth is also envisioned as being open in her rebellion as Yhwh tells her, “you will no longer open your mouth because of your shame when I atone for you” (16:63). Even in Yhwh’s judgment against Jerusalem for allowing access to her body, her body is exposed and sliced to pieces (16:40), blurring the line between inside and outside. 9.4. Policing the Priestly (Male) Body The controlled and restrictive architecture of the temple building with its proliferation of gates, walls, and doors as well as the careful boundary divisions of city and land are mirrored in the control and division of the bodies that are present in the vision of Ezek. 40–48. The male, 21.  Simon, “Ezekiel’s Geometric Vision,” 430. 22.  Ibid.

146

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

Israelite, Zadokite body epitomizes purity, controlled boundaries, and privileged access to Yhwh that mirrors the security of the new temple and city. This is a notable contrast to the mirroring of bodily space and constructed space in Ezek. 16, which is performed using the female body of Yhwh’s wife and conveys the uncleanness, invasion, and destruction of the temple and city. Mirroring of bodily space and constructed space can be observed in Ezek. 40–48 in the regulations concerning the bodily boundaries of priests, in the regulations concerning who has access to the temple, and in regulations that tightly control movement throughout the temple. The bodily boundaries of the priests are highly policed through strict regulations, including detailed instructions concerning what they can eat, wear, and touch.23 They are restricted to wearing linen garments when ministering in the temple, which shall cover their heads and waist (44:17-18). Wool and other material that causes sweat is prohibited. They are prohibited from shaving their head or having excessively long hair (44:20). They are not permitted to drink wine in the inner court (44:21). Their food includes various offerings of grain, fruits, and sacrifices (44:29-30) and excludes animals that have died a natural death or been killed by wild beasts (44:31). These various regulations policing the priestly body ensure that the profane and unclean is not brought into the temple and into contact with Yhwh’s holy presence, to whom the priests draw near. While some male bodies enjoy privileged access in the temple, their movements are nevertheless highly restricted. This is the case even with Ezekiel himself. Stevenson notes that Ezekiel does not move through the temple of his own accord. Rather, the frequent use of the hiphil of ‫ בוא‬and other verbs of movement indicates that Ezekiel’s access to the various parts of the temple is controlled.24 Each time Ezekiel crosses a boundary or moves to another part of the temple he is granted authority to do so by Yhwh and his visionary guide, who “causes [him] to enter” (e.g. 40:2-4).25 Similar restrictions on movement can be seen in the detailed regulations concerning priests’ movements in the holy chambers of the temple. The priests are the subject of multiple verbs of movement, such as “draw near” (‫קרב‬, 44:15, 16), “enter” (‫בוא‬, 44:16, 17, 25, 27), “stand” (‫עמד‬, 44:15), and “exit” (‫יצא‬, 44:19). These verbs of movement are oriented around Yhwh’s presence at the altar in the innermost part of 23.  Compare Lev. 16:4. 24.  Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 54–6. 25.  Ibid., 55.

9. Sacred Space Re-established

147

the temple. Yhwh himself dictates where the priests shall stand, enter, exit, and draw near to him. Their privileged access is emphasized by the pronoun “they” (‫)המה‬, which precedes the verbs of movement in 44:15-16 and implicitly excludes the right of access to others.26 The priestly male body is envisioned as being contained, controlled, and predictable. There is a certain safety that accompanies this policing of priestly bodies in that through these regulations the risk of repeating the cultic transgressions that were partially responsible for the exile is mitigated. 9.5. Female Bodies and the New Temple There is little room for female bodies in the vision of the new temple and city. Simon observes that virtually all the bodies mentioned in Ezek. 40–48 are male bodies.27 This is perhaps not surprising given the use of the female body to represent the political and cultic infidelity of Israel’s male leaders in previous sections of Ezekiel. In the final chapters of Ezekiel, the metaphor of unfaithful wife is abandoned. On the two occasions when women are mentioned the verses refer to actual women. Ezekiel 44:22 and v. 25 refer to women in a context that is concerned with maintaining the purity of the male (priest) by limiting the women to whom he draws near. While the focus may be on maintaining the purity of the male, there is nevertheless an implicit emphasis on the purity of the female. This focus, however, is due to the risk the female poses to the priest’s own status as holy and clean. It does not arise out of some concern for the female in and of herself. Female impurity within the metaphor maps male sinfulness (i.e. openness to political alliances) in earlier sections of Ezekiel, especially Ezek. 16. The female body is discussed in a context that is concerned with preserving male purity in Ezek. 44:22 and 44:25. Ezekiel 44:22 states that the sons of Zadok are restricted to marrying Israelite virgins or the widow of another priest. Divorced women and widows of other men are prohibited. The women are identified only by their status as either virgins, divorced, or widowed and by their husband’s status as priest or non-priest. These titles exclusively relate to their marital status, which limits who has access to their bodies prior to the priests’ intimate contact with them. In other words, the priests are permitted to marry women whose bodies have not yet been entered by a man or those who have only known another priest. Access to the bodies of these women has been highly restricted and controlled. 26.  Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, 56. 27.  Simon, “Ezekiel’s Geometric Vision,” 428.

148

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

In addition to this, there is an underlying anxiety that limits the priests’ access to foreign bodies, broadly conceived. Zimmerli states that the prohibition against marrying any widow other than the wife of a late priest ensures that the holiness of the priests is not compromised through “contact with the alien sphere of the non-priest.”28 The concern to prohibit contact with the “alien” is also present in the specification that only Israelite virgins are permitted for marriage, which consequently excludes foreign women. The women permitted to priests are a far cry from adulterous Jerusalem in Ezek. 16, who defiled her body with her many lovers and is described as a woman of Canaanite heritage (Ezek. 16:3)—a people biblically associated with incest, promiscuity, and bestiality (Lev. 18:1-23).29 In Ezek. 44:25, priests are only allowed to draw near to the deceased bodies of close relatives. The women named among these relatives include their mother, daughter, and unmarried sister. This limits opportunities for priests to contract corpse impurity, thus preserving their holiness and purity. Similar to 44:22, the marriage status of one of the female relatives is mentioned. Specifically, the sister’s unmarried status is singled out as a requirement for the priest’s proximity to her in 44:25 despite the fact she is deceased. This implies that the priest is not permitted to draw near to a deceased married sister. Permitting proximity to an unmarried deceased sister may be a concession that was made due to burial obligations (i.e. the priestly brother may be the head of the family), but this is far from clear in the passage. There is no specification concerning the priest’s deceased brother’s marriage status, nor any specification concerning the marriage status of the priest’s daughter or mother. As the caretakers of Yhwh’s sanctuary, the priests are prohibited from being exposed to certain bodies, including corpses and certain female bodies, due to the threat these bodies pose to their holiness. 9.6. The Role of Disgust and Shame in the New Temple One of the primary ways disgust is conveyed in earlier portions of Ezekiel is through the image of the city as a female body overflowing with and covered in blood (e.g. Ezek. 7:19-20; 16:5; 22:2; 24:6; 36:1721). Frequently, this is menstrual blood that renders the city unclean and signifies being cut off from Yhwh. Blood does not feature frequently in Ezek. 40–48; however, Galambush has shown that when blood does appear in the final chapters of Ezekiel it is in its capacity as a purifying 28.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, 460. 29.  Compare Ezek. 23:3, in which Oholah and Oholibah’s breasts are described as “virgin breasts.”

9. Sacred Space Re-established

149

substance carefully controlled by priests.30 This sacrificial blood is not defiling, as is the female blood in earlier portions of Ezekiel, but rather functions to purify “the defiled ‘other’,” bringing them once again “within the boundaries of Yahweh’s domain.”31 Any trace of disgust evoked by the threat of (female) blood that is unclean and out of (male) control disappears in the description of the laws for the altar. These regulations limit where blood is placed, stipulating that it can only be sprinkled on specific parts of the altar (Ezek. 43:20). Furthermore, this blood is completely under male control as contact with the blood is restricted to the priests who perform the sacrifices (43:18-19). Descriptions of Jerusalem overflowing with unclean blood in earlier sections of Ezekiel, which I have shown evoke disgust and anxiety of contamination, give way to different descriptions of the temple in Ezek. 47 that in turn evoke different emotions. The new city and temple do not overflow with unclean blood that signifies a missed opportunity for new life, but with waters that coalesce into a fertile and life-giving river (47:121).32 This Edenic river turns salt water into freshwater (47:8-9), swarms with fish (47:9-10), and supports trees that bear fruit and healing leaves all year round (47:12).33 Bowen explains that this image is particularly striking when compared to the descriptions of famine, desolate land, and death that dominate the first half of Ezekiel.34 The fear and loss expressed in earlier sections of Ezekiel are washed away by the vision of the new temple overflowing with healing waters, which is a relentlessly optimistic image conveying hope for new life.35 30.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 152. 31.  Ibid. 32.  Ibid., 154. 33.  Numerous scholars highlight the similarities between Ezekiel’s vision of the river and the rivers flowing out of Eden in Gen. 2:10-14. See Niditch, “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context,” 217; Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 696; Steven Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Genesis 2:10-14,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 171–89. For the motif of the flowing river the in Babylonian context and its parallels in Ezek. 47 see Daniel Bodi, “The Double Current and the Tree of Healing in Ezekiel 47:1-12 in Light of Babylonian Iconography and Texts,” Die Welt des Orients 45 (2015): 22–37, esp. 27–31. 34.  Bowen, Ezekiel, 263. 35.  Cf. Lapsley, “Doors Thrown Open,” 148–9. Lapsley argues the water is unmeasurable; however, this is not clear from the passage. Indeed, the measuring of the man is in sharp view here as the verb “to measure” is repeated three times. The magnitude of the river is quantified through the many thousand cubits of water he measures (47:3, 4, 5). Ezekiel himself cannot pass through it (Ezek. 47:5), but the man nevertheless measures the river.

150

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

The only time disgust is evoked in the vision of the new temple is at Ezek. 43:7-9. This passage recalls the previous sins of the people that led to the destruction of the old temple. It is also the only time feminine imagery is explicitly mentioned in Ezek. 40–48.36 This is no surprise as disgust and femininity are closely linked in Ezekiel.37 One of the primary problems of the old temple, according to Ezekiel, was precisely the inappropriate proximity of the people to Yhwh and the idolatry the people introduced into the temple. The problem of proximity is communicated through the language of insufficient boundaries (thresholds, doorposts, walls), while the peoples’ idolatry is communicated using the term “whoring” (‫ )זנות‬and “abominations” (‫( )תועבות‬43:7-9). Similar language also features prominently in Ezek. 16. In 43:7-9, the repulsive behavior is no longer Jerusalem’s and the insufficient boundaries are no longer the boundaries of her body as at Ezek. 16. Rather, it is the house of Israel and its kings who defiled Yhwh’s holy name “by their whoring and the corpses of their kings on their high places, by putting their threshold by my threshold and their doorpost by my doorpost, with only a wall between me and them” (43:7-8). Yhwh states he will dwell amongst the people forever as long as they distance their idolatrous behavior and corpses from him (43:9). While the imagery of “whoring” may be present in this section, it is used very differently to Ezek. 16. Unlike Jerusalem the adulterous wife, who is the sole subject of the verb “to whore” (‫ )זנה‬and is designated by its related noun “sex worker” (‫זונה‬, e.g. 16:35), the ones who perform this action in 43:7-9 are all male (the house of Israel and the kings) as the target domain of the previous metaphor, namely, idolatry, is now sharply in view. In other words, in 43:7-9 “whoring” (‫ )זנות‬is a behavior that men are accused of performing, not an identity they are associated with. This means that Yhwh’s command for these men to “distance their whoring” and the abject bodies of their king’s corpses from him (43:9) can be fulfilled through a change in future behavior. No such command is made of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16—she herself possesses an abject body and she is wholly associated with the identity of sex worker that Yhwh bestows upon her. The only time she is relieved of this identity is in the violent destruction that is forced upon her by Yhwh (16:41). Even then, however, the reader is haunted by the image of the violated and mutilated female body, which threatens to become an abject corpse (16:37-41).

36.  Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, 149. 37.  See Chapters 5 and 6.

9. Sacred Space Re-established

151

Disgust also has a different function in Ezek. 43:7-9 to its function in Ezek. 16. Disgust magnifies Jerusalem’s uncleanness and transgressive nature in Ezek. 16, justifying Yhwh’s judgment against her. By contrast, in 43:7-9 the threat of uncleanness brought on by corpses, insufficient boundaries, and repulsive behavior is mentioned at the very moment Yhwh’s holiness is climactically revealed in Ezek. 40–48—when Yhwh enters the temple and occupies his throne, where he will dwell amidst the people of Israel forever (43:1-9). The juxtaposition of behavior and bodies that evoke disgust with the awesome holiness of Yhwh’s glory underscores just how out of place these deeds of the past are in Yhwh’s holy place and ensures such transgressive behavior will not re-occur. In other words, disgust has a preventative function in Ezekiel’s vision, not an accusatorial function as in Ezek. 16. Similar to the disgust evoked by the memory of Israel’s misdeeds at 43:7-9, shame also has a preventative function in 43:10-11.38 Shame is the only emotion that is explicitly named in Ezekiel’s vision in chs. 40–48 and has an important role in the revelation of the new temple to the house of Israel. In the first instance, Yhwh commands Ezekiel to “tell the house of Israel about the temple so that they shall be ashamed about their misdeeds and measure the plan” (43:10).39 Yhwh goes on to explain that only if the people feel shame should Ezekiel reveal the specific details of the temple to them—that is, its form, arrangement, entrances and exits (43:11).40 Lapsley notes that “the self-knowledge produced by shame…is a prerequisite for admittance” into the new temple, even if this admittance is not yet physically possible.41 Shame is crucial to ensure that the people do not re-offend and instead adhere to the laws that will be made known together with the temple plan (43:11). Block observes that Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple is not simply spoken to the people, it is also written down.42 Oral word becomes

38.  Throughout Ezekiel, Israel’s shame is repeatedly linked to their future restoration (e.g. Ezek. 16:53-54; 36:32). 39.  Textual variants between manuscript witnesses to Ezek. 43:10-12 suggest these verses underwent various stages of editing. See Ingrid E. Lilly, “ ‘Like the Vision’: Temple Tours, Comparative Genre, and Scribal Composition in Ezekiel 43,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, FAT 112, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), esp. 218–23. The injunction to “measure” is not found in the LXX nor is any mention of shame (ibid., 221). 40.  Lapsley, The Moral Self, 179. 41.  Ibid. 42.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 589.

152

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

physical. The word also becomes physical in the requirement that the people actively participate in the revelation by familiarizing themselves with the temple through measurement, a privilege that was previously reserved for the bronze man, who exclusively holds the cord and measuring reed (40:3). Measuring the temple is an embodied act and one that involves keen attention to the temple’s physical boundaries (entrances and exits) as well as their theological importance in preserving sacred space.43 I suggest that actively participating in measuring these tangible boundaries also functions to reassure Israel that they are safe in the new temple by bringing an embodied awareness of the “solidity of the building” and its secure boundaries.44 This connection between safety, restoration, and shame is also found in 39:26-27. The safe dwelling of the people “upon their ground without trembling” will arouse their shame and cause them to bear the full weight of their disloyalty against Yhwh. Block states that the revelation of the new temple evokes the exiles’ shame because it metaphorically “puts them in their place” as responsible for the breakdown of the covenant.45 In addition to highlighting the culpability of the exiles, this realization of future safety quite literally puts them in their place in exile by reminding them of the reality of their current location in Babylonia, far from the land of Israel and living in a time where their temple is yet to be rebuilt. 9.7. Conclusion In Ezek. 16, the uncontained, sexualized female body is a potent symbol of boundary violation whose destruction conveys the dangers of covenantal disobedience. In Ezek. 40–48, the body of Yhwh’s wife disappears and gives way to the non-gendered “body” of the temple. I have argued that safety and hope evoked by the new temple are conveyed in its solid boundaries and highly controlled access. Both of these features are contrasted by the portrait of Jerusalem as Yhwh’s unfaithful wife in Ezek. 16, whose body had neither solid boundaries nor restricted access and thus became a site of disgust and anxiety. 43.  Ibid. 44.  The phrase “solidity of the building” is borrowed from Leveen, who argues that the detailed descriptions of the temple allow the exiles to participate in the tour, offering them the opportunity to heal by “tentatively [shedding] their exilic selves in preparation for a more permanent return to land and city” (Leveen, “Returning the Body,” 397). Contrary to my approach here, Leveen argues that the boundaries highlight the liminality of the temple (ibid., 398). 45.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 589.

9. Sacred Space Re-established

153

The safety and hope of the new temple which are conveyed in its architectural features of impenetrable walls, secure gates, and restricted access are mirrored in the male, priestly bodies present in Ezekiel’s vision. Just like the temple itself, the boundaries of these bodies are highly policed. The priests responsible for maintaining the temple and therefore ensuring the continued maintenance of the new covenant are envisioned as having contained and tightly controlled bodies that maintain the utmost purity. In Ezek. 16, the feminization of the Judahites through the metaphor of Jerusalem as Yhwh’s unfaithful wife conveyed the dangers of blurring the boundaries between holy and profane, clean and unclean, which led to the exile. The humiliating feminization of the Judahites is replaced by an emphasis on masculine obedience in Ezek. 40–48. Ezekiel presents a portrait of men who are under control, men who are obedient, and the Zadokite priestly body is presented as the pinnacle of this masculine obedience—the pinnacle of purity. Through the controlled male bodies in the vision of the new temple, Ezekiel offers the exiles hope that their masculinity will be restored and presents a model of this ideal masculinity—the Zadokite male who faithfully serves Yhwh by perfectly maintaining both physical and moral boundaries (44:23-24).46 Ultimately, however, this priestly masculine ideal cannot be fulfilled in exile because it is contingent on rebuilding the temple. As such, Ezekiel presents a hopeful vision for an identity that can only be embraced in the future. Ezekiel concludes his vision with the assertion that “Yhwh is there” (48:35), that is, in the new city that bears the same name. This concluding statement is a painful reminder of the exiles’ position as “here,” in Babylonia. For all its hopefulness, Ezekiel’s vision leaves the exiles as emasculated subjects in a foreign land. To be sure, the exiles are now subjects with hope that their masculinity might be restored one day; however, this remains unrealized.

46.  Graybill, on the other hand, argues that there is “no radical reconfiguration of the male body or the category of masculinity” in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple (Rhiannon Graybill, Are We Not Men? Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets [New York: Oxford University Press, 2016], 119).

Chapter 10

C

10.1. Introduction The Babylonian conquest was an attempt to gain power over the Judahites by asserting control over space through the siege and invasion of the city Jerusalem, and control over the elite inhabitants of the city through their displacement. Both of these displays of dominance were executed in space and through space. That is, they were fundamentally spatial in nature. As displaced exiles, both Ezekiel and his audience would have been keenly aware of their spatial dislocation. Indeed, spatial dislocation and the consequences that accompanied it were responsible for a great deal of the trauma the exiles would have suffered. In one sense, much of the trauma was triggered by the exiles’ shifting experience of spaces and its implications—their forced removal from one space over which they had control (Jerusalem) followed by exile to another space where they were reduced to subjects (a foreign land, Babylonia). This move would have triggered a sense of loss: loss of familiarity, loss of status, and loss of security.1 In another sense, the spatial component of the trauma was ever present in the imprint it left behind in the bodies of the exiles, which, while physically unavailable to us, finds expression in texts that give voice to the embodied experience of exile.2 10.2. Contributions of this Book Considering that the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem were spatially executed, it is perhaps not surprising that space resides 1.  Camp convincingly argues that “the spatial construction of home and exile is gendered in the biblical text” and crucial for the construction of religious identity (Camp, “Home of the Mother,” 19). 2.  See Christl Maier, “Body Space as Public Space: Jerusalem’s Wounded Body in Lamentations,” in Berquist and Camp, eds, Constructions of Space II, 119–38.

10. Conclusion

155

at the very core of the emotionally evocative metaphor through which Ezekiel sought to theologically explain these events in Ezek. 16: the metaphor of the city Jerusalem as Yhwh’s adulterous wife. Scholars have predominantly sought to understand this metaphor and its emotional dimensions through recourse to the gendered representation of Jerusalem, which is a vital component of her portrayal to be sure. After all, the naming of Yhwh’s wife as Jerusalem makes plain the target domain of the gendered metaphor; however, I have stressed that it also maps the spatial dimension of the target domain onto that gendered and interpersonal metaphor—an aspect of Jerusalem’s portrayal that has been largely overlooked. The inherent spatiality of the metaphor of the city as Yhwh’s wife necessitates a sustained consideration of the representation of space in Ezek. 16 in order to understand the text’s emotional dimensions. This book sought to undertake this examination while also offering a framework for interpreting emotions in the Hebrew Bible that is sensitive to spatiality. The importance of space for understanding emotions goes well beyond its utility for understanding spatial metaphors in the Hebrew Bible like the city as Yhwh’s wife in Ezek. 16. Following Scheer, Chapter 2 stressed that emotions are, first and foremost, embodied practices that are situated in specific social, historical, and cultural contexts. Chapter 3 suggested that the fundamental role of the body in emotional experience and expression necessitates that any study of emotions must also consider the spaces in which and through which these emotions are formed and expressed and to which they respond. Similarly, the role of emotions in shaping our environments also necessitates that studies of space seriously consider emotions. A consideration of space is critical for interpreting the power dynamics in Ezek. 16, Jerusalem’s shifting emotional representation, and its rhetorical impact. This book sought to demonstrate this by analyzing Jerusalem’s engagement with the various spaces mentioned in the text—the open field and the city spaces, including the structures that Jerusalem builds—with a pronounced focus on Jerusalem’s embodied representation in these spaces and its import for her emotional representation. Jerusalem’s various emotions (e.g. desire, pride, fear, shame) and her shifting power status are communicated through space and intensified by space, as is Jerusalem’s representation as disgusting and shameful. While Jerusalem’s power is largely expressed through Jerusalem’s movement through, engagement with, and placement in space, Jerusalem’s representation as disgusting is conveyed predominantly through the compromised boundaries of her body and her mother’s body.

156

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

The conceptualization of the city as a woman is informed by the constant threat of invasion and the crucial requirement that the city is contained and protected—that its boundaries are not penetrated. Just as the city is vulnerable to invasion by outsiders and thus must be contained by walls and protected by guards, so too the female body is vulnerable to penetration by male outsiders and thus is contained within the bounds of marriage under the protection of the husband, or if the female is not yet married, the protection of the father. Ezekiel blends the concept of the city at risk of invasion with that of the female body out of male control in order to convey the precarious state of Jerusalem leading up to and following the Babylonian invasion. Conflict arises in Ezek. 16 due to the lack of containment of the female body of Yhwh’s wife, Jerusalem. The dangers of this lack of containment are communicated through the compromised boundaries of the female body. Chapter 5 linked boundaries and bodies to disgust, suggesting that fear of contamination underpins disgust responses and turns the object of disgust into a potential threat that should be avoided. The female body, in particular, is a key signifier of disgust in Ezekiel due to the author’s unique understanding of purity, which blends female menstrual uncleanness with repulsive behavior and strongly associates Jerusalem with unclean blood. When Jerusalem’s representation is considered within Douglas’s framework of the body as a bounded system and Ezekiel’s disdain towards female uterine blood,3 the female body becomes an object of disgust that represents Ezekiel’s anxiety concerning the breakdown of social order leading up to and following the Babylonian invasion of the city Jerusalem. Chapter 6 suggested that Jerusalem’s female body is a threatening object of disgust in both its infant state and when it develops to have reproductive potential. This is because Jerusalem’s body is unclean, not contained, and connected to the body of her foreign mother. These characteristics compromise the separateness to which the people of Israel were called when they entered into covenant with Yhwh. Jerusalem’s infant body is symbolically connected to a foreign mother through an umbilical cord that has not been severed and by being covered in the mother’s unclean birthing fluids. The hybridity of Jerusalem’s infant body renders it abject, “neither subject nor object,”4 and therefore threatening, while the unclean uterine blood covering Jerusalem’s body evokes disgust. Ezekiel blends the uncleanness of female uterine blood with notions of sin and immorality, making Jerusalem doubly disgusting, while also appealing to stereotypes about the “foreign” other in order to heighten Jerusalem’s 3.  Douglas, Purity and Danger, 115. 4.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 2.

10. Conclusion

157

unfavorable portrayal. In other words, Jerusalem is associated with both morally disgusting behavior and ritual uncleanness through her embodied representation. Yhwh attempts to remedy Jerusalem’s abjection by caring for her and then marrying her, in turn separating Jerusalem from her foreign lineage; however, this attempt is revealed to be ultimately unsuccessful following Jerusalem’s rebellion against her husband, which is blamed (in part) on her ancestry. The metaphor of the female body as a system whose boundaries have been compromised implicitly reveals the masculine fear of the uncontained, reproductive feminine Other. This fear was triggered by potential challenges to patriarchal lineage and land inheritance that might arise if the identity of a child’s father was uncertain. Control over the female body through social institutions such as marriage was implemented in ancient Israel in order to mitigate these uncertainties. The threat of the reproductive female is momentarily contained in Ezek. 16:8-14 through Yhwh’s marriage to Jerusalem. The social containment of Jerusalem through the covenant of marriage is reflected in the physical containment of her body, which is transformed from being covered with blood and having compromised boundaries in its nakedness to being cleansed and enveloped by gifts and adornments which are signifiers of Yhwh’s control; however, this containment is short lived as Jerusalem removes all signifiers of Yhwh’s control, exposes her body, and invites other men to penetrate her (16:15-34). Space, particularly who controls space, reveals important insights about power and emotions in Ezekiel. Chapter 4 demonstrated that the initial portrayal of Jerusalem as abhorred and of low social status is intensified through her placement in an open field (16:5), a space that is conceptualized by Ezekiel as a wild and dangerous location removed from the social cradle of the city. Yhwh’s sovereignty over nature, and over life and death in particular, is confirmed when he saves Jerusalem from the field by making her flourish then marrying her, transforming her status from abhorred orphan to renowned consort (16:6-14). Chapter 7 revealed that Jerusalem’s engagement with space in 16:15-34—the structures she builds, the way she moves through and uses city space, and her embodied representation—offers important information about her emotional representation and power. Jerusalem’s desire and her power are underscored through her subversive use of the city space and the subversive use of her body, both of which amount to a rejection of the appropriate spatial and social confinements for women’s sexuality. By using the city space as a site for public sex with strangers, Jerusalem disregards ancient Israelite customs that confined sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife in private as well as disregarding

158

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

the expectation that sex workers would perform their services in private (though they may find their business on the street). In addition, it is important to remember that custom circumscribed a dependent female’s contact with males from outside the household more generally. As such, Jerusalem conforms to neither the societal expectations placed on wives nor even those placed on sex workers; she is portrayed as doubly subversive through her use of the city space. The various structures Jerusalem builds and their physical constitution also contribute to Jerusalem’s emotional representation. The exaggerated number of the structures Jerusalem erects, which Yhwh alleges are “in every square” and “at the head of every street” (16:24-25), conveys Jerusalem’s insatiable sexual desire, as one site alone cannot keep up with her demands, just as one man cannot satisfy her. Further, the tall, decorated structures Jerusalem builds and their location in the busiest spaces in the city reveals that Jerusalem is not ashamed of her behavior, but rather openly flaunts her unfaithfulness to her husband. I suggested that height, which represents pride and power throughout other chapters in Ezekiel (e.g. 31:10; 28:2), is also evoked in Ezek. 16 through Jerusalem’s construction of high places (‫ )רמות‬and domes (‫ )גבות‬to convey Jerusalem’s (misplaced) pride and (momentary) power. Jerusalem’s subversive sexuality and the power that accompanies it are communicated spatially, through her control over space and her embodied representation. Therefore, it is not surprising that Yhwh’s destruction of Jerusalem’s subversive sexuality and reclamation of his power is also realized spatially, through the destruction of Jerusalem’s buildings and the subjection of Jerusalem’s body to violence. Chapter 8 suggested that the destruction of Jerusalem’s high places and domes, which were sites that conveyed Jerusalem’s pride, power, desire, and infidelity, amounted to a reordering of space that placed Yhwh back in control of the city and signified Jerusalem’s loss of power and the humiliation that accompanied her downfall. This reordering of space is communicated by the terms tear down (‫ )הרס‬and break down (‫)נתץ‬, which express both literal destruction of built structures as well as figurative destruction of one’s power. Jerusalem’s humiliation is communicated by the spatial metaphor LOW AS HUMBLE/ASHAMED, which characterizes her location in space following her judgment and is a stark contrast to her position on high in the preceding section of Ezekiel that details her rebellion. Jerusalem’s shifting spatial position from high to low conveys her shifting power and her shifting emotions. She moves from dominant to submissive and from proud to humiliated. The attack on Jerusalem’s body conveys her loss of power and humiliation in thoroughly gendered terms through the reestablishment of Yhwh’s control over his wife’s bodily boundaries. This

10. Conclusion

159

control is asserted through stripping, forced exposure, dismemberment, and stoning—all actions that seek to humiliate and shame Jerusalem into submission. The representation of Jerusalem as a woman with threatened boundaries disappears in the vision of the new city and temple in Ezek. 40–48 and is replaced by a non-gendered space with solid boundaries. Chapter 9 suggested that the spatial organization of the new city and temple and the carefully regulated bodies who were allowed access to these spaces come together to portray a visionary space with a very different emotional quality to the portrait of the city as Yhwh’s wife. The fear and disgust associated with the disobedient, unclean, and threatening female body in Ezek. 16 give way to a vision of controlled space and controlled bodies that convey security, purity, and hope. The central position boundaries occupy in Ezekiel might be explained through recourse to the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem and the theology of separateness that lies at the heart of Ezekiel’s conceptualization of purity. According to Ezekiel, one of the fundamental causes of the exile was the inability of the people to separate between holy/profane and clean/ unclean. In other words, appropriate boundaries were not maintained with respect to purity. This resulted in a breakdown of boundaries on the physical level caused by the Babylonian invasion of the city Jerusalem as Yhwh’s punishment of the Judahites. Spatial control was executed by putting pressure on the boundaries of the city through siege, invasion, and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem. The trauma that accompanied this boundary violation informs the descriptions of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16. Bowen suggests that trauma also plays a key role in the description of the visionary temple in Ezek. 40–48. I believe she is correct. I concluded Chapter 9 by suggesting that the visionary temple presents the exiles with an example of an ideal space and an ideal body—both of which share the feature of carefully regulated boundaries. Notably, the ideal body is the male, Zadokite body that strives to maintain the utmost purity—the ultimate opposite of the female body of the unclean, disobedient wife in Ezek. 16. This portrait of the ideal male body evokes the exiles’ hope that their masculinity will one day be restored—a hope that ultimately remains unrealized. 10.3. Implications of Findings The approach of this book and its findings have numerous implications for approaches to the study of emotions in Ezekiel in particular and the Hebrew Bible in general, especially in other biblical texts featuring the marriage metaphor that personifies the city or land as wife. With regard

160

Jerusalem as Contested Space in Ezekiel

to approaches to the study of emotions in the Hebrew Bible, this book has shown that space is an essential tool for understanding emotions. With regard to interpreting the marriage metaphor, this book raises the question, to what extent does metonymic chaining that links place to people (i.e. where Jerusalem stands for Judah which in turn stands for its covenant people) invite a spatial consideration of what is basically the interpersonal relationship of marriage? In other words, by placing the metaphor of marriage on this metonymic chain, has a spatial component inevitably been introduced into that very metaphor? It has been argued above that this is indeed the case; by naming the woman Jerusalem the mental constructs of both place (city) and person (wife) are blended. The findings of this book bring into sharp relief the divine wager that lies at the heart of the covenantal relationship, namely, whether Israel will remain faithful to her covenantal promises. The question that arises in Ezekiel is whether unfaithfulness to those promises is worth the risk. In Ezek. 16, the exercise of choice by Jerusalem is an act of independent agency (construed in terms of power); however, in choosing disobedience Jerusalem is shown to lose her wager as her power to choose disobedience inevitably leads to vulnerability and weakness. This tension is played out in Ezek. 16 through Jerusalem’s female embodiment and its relationship to power. Specifically, Jerusalem exercises power over the space of her body by choosing who enters her body and consequently threatening her husband’s rights to exclusivity; however, in doing so she paradoxically weakens herself and makes herself vulnerable by exposing herself to danger through the permeation of her bodily boundaries. Jerusalem’s loss of power reaches its peak when her body is torn apart and mutilated by her lovers at Yhwh’s command in an attack that signifies the Babylonian conquest of the city and the breakdown of the Judahite community. In other words, Jerusalem’s female body signifies both the city that was invaded and the social body, the Judahite community, who are torn apart by the Babylonians when a portion are relocated to Babylonia. Space thus plays a vital role on every level of the metaphor of the city as Yhwh’s wife. 10.4. Directions for Future Study This book was mainly confined to a consideration of the role of space in shaping Jerusalem’s shifting emotional representation in Ezekiel, interpreting the power dynamics between Jerusalem and Yhwh and understanding the rhetorical function of the text. Much remains to be explored as far as space, gender, and emotions are concerned when it comes to

10. Conclusion

161

Ezekiel, including how power, masculinity, emotionality, and spatiality intersect in the portrayal of the male characters in the book, particularly Yhwh. Comparing the role that space plays for Jerusalem’s emotional representation in Ezek. 16 that has been laid out here to that in Ezek. 23 provides another promising avenue for further research as far as the representation of Jerusalem in the book of Ezekiel is concerned. Leaving aside the character Jerusalem, examining Ezekiel’s sign acts with a view to elucidating their emotional-spatial components would greatly enrich existing research. After all, these are embodied, emotive, and emplaced communications. Outside of Ezekiel, there are seemingly endless possibilities for further research into the intersection between space and emotion and their importance for the interpretation of biblical texts. How are important spaces, such as the temple, household, and camp, emotionally appraised, and what contribution do emotions have for their organization and function? How can Gammerl’s concept of “emotional repertoires” enrich our understanding of spatial practice and spatial control as it is represented in the Hebrew Bible?5 How does the organization of space facilitate, prohibit, and encourage the expression of certain emotions by certain groups of people in ancient Israel? These are but a few questions regarding the vital relationship between space and emotions that demand sustained consideration.

5.  Gammerl, “Emotional Styles,” 164.

B

Abu-Lughod, Lila. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Oakland: University of California Press, 1986. Ackerman, Susan. “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. Adams-Hutcheson, Gail. “Spatialising Skin: Pushing the Boundaries of Trauma Geographies.” Emotion, Space and Society 24 (2017): 105–12. Agnew, John. “Space and Place.” Pages 316–30 in The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowledge. Edited by John Agnew and David Livingstone. London: SAGE Publications, 2011. Ahmed, Sara. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge, 2004. Albright, William F. “Palestinian Inscriptions: Moabite Stone.” Pages 320–1 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University, 1969. Albright, William F. “The High Place in Ancient Palestine.” Pages 242–58 in Volume Du Congrès International Pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament, Strasbourg 1956. Edited by G. W. Anderson, Henri Canzelles, P. A. H. De Boer, E. Hammershaimb, Millar Burrows, and Martin Noth. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Waco: Word, 1994. Alstola, Tero. Judeans in Babylonia: A Study of Deportees in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE. CHANE 109. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020. Arnaud, Daniel. “La Prostitution Sacrée en Mésopotamie, un Mythe Historiographique?” RHR 183 (1973): 111–15. Arnold, Bill T. “The Love-Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5-11.” VT 61 (2011): 551–69. Assante, Julia A. “The Kar.Kid/Harimtu: Prostitute or Single Woman? A Reconsideration of the Evidence.” UF 30 (1998): 5–96. Averill, James R. “A Constructivist View of Emotion.” Pages 305–99 in Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience. Edited by Robert Plutchik and Henry Hellerman. New York; Academic Press, 1980. Avrahami, Yael. “‫ בושׁ‬in the Psalms—Shame or Disappointment?” JSOT 34 (2010): 295–313. Avrahami, Yael. The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 454. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Barrick, William B. “The Bamot of Moab.” Maarav 7 (1991): 67–89. Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron. The Subtlety of Emotions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. Berquist, Jon. L. “Space of Jerusalem.” Pages 40–52 in Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. LHBOTS 490. Edited by Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008.

Bibliography

163

Berquist, Jon L., and Claudia V. Camp, eds. Constructions of Space I: Theory, Geography, and Narrative. LHBOTS 481. London & New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008. Berquist, Jon L., and Claudia V. Camp, eds. Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. LHBOTS 490. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008. Best, Sue. “Sexualizing Space.” Pages 181–94 in Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism. Edited by Elizabeth Grosz and Elspeth Probyn. London: Routledge, 1995. Betts, Terry J. Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Tôrâ. Studies in Biblical Literature 41. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources. New York: Schocken Books, 1984. Bibb, Bryan. “There’s No Sex in Your Violence: Patriarchal Translation in Ezekiel 16 and 23.” Review and Expositor 111 (2014): 337–45. Biess, Frank (facilitator). “Forum: History of Emotions.” German History 28 (2010): 68. Bird, Phyllis A. “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qadeš-Qadešim.” Pages 37–80 in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. Edited by John Adney Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bird, Phyllis A. “Prostitution in the Social World and Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel.” Pages 40–58 in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Laura McClure. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. 2 vols. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bodi, Daniel. “The Double Current and the Tree of Healing in Ezekiel 47:1-12 in Light of Babylonian Iconography and Texts.” Die Welt des Orients 45 (2015): 22–37. Boer, Roland. “The Forgetfulness of Kristeva.” JSOT 33 (2009): 259–76. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. Bowen, Nancy R. Ezekiel. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010. Boyarin, Daniel. “Homotopia: The Feminized Jewish Man and the Lives of Women in Late Antiquity.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1995): 41–81. Brenner, Athalya. “On Prophetic Propaganda and the Politics of ‘Love’: The Case of Jeremiah.” Pages 259–64 in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets. Feminist Companion to the Bible. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Camp, Claudia. “Home of the Mother, Exile of the Father: Gender and Space in the Construction of Biblical Identity.” Pages 18–38 in Contesting Religious Identities: Transformations, Disseminations and Mediations. Numen Book Series 156. Edited by Bob E. J. H. Becking, Anna-Marie J. A. C. M. Korte, and Lucien van Liere. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Carroll, Robert. “Desire Under the Terebinths: On Pornographic Representation in the Prophets—A Response.” Pages 275–307 in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets. Feminist Companion to the Bible. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Chytry, Josef. “Walt Disney and the Creation of Emotional Environments: Interpreting Walt Disney’s Oeuvre from the Disney Studios to Disneyland, CalArts, and the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT).” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 16 (2012): 259–78.

164

Bibliography

Clark, Andy, and David J. Chalmers. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58 (1998): 7–19. Coddington, Kate, and Jaque Micieli-Voutsinas. “On Trauma, Geography, and Mobility: Towards Geographies of Trauma.” Emotion, Space and Society 24 (2017): 52–6. Cook, Stephen L. and Corrine L. Patton. “Introduction: Hierarchical Thinking and Theology in Ezekiel’s Book.” Pages 1–26 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Dalenberg, Constance J., Straus, Elizabeth., and Eve B. Carlson. “Defining Trauma.” Pages 15–33 in APA Handbook of Psychology: Foundations in Knowledge, Volume 1. Edited by Steven N. Gold. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2017. Day, Linda. “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence in Ezekiel 16.” BibInt 8 (2000): 205–30. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. “Ezekiel’s Justifications of God: Teaching Troubling Texts.” JSOT 17 (1992): 97–117. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Davidson, Joyce, and Christine Milligan. “Embodying Emotion Sensing Space: Introducing Emotional Geographies.” Social and Cultural Geography 5 (2004): 523–32. Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. JSOTSup 78. Bible and Literature Series 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Day, Peggy L. “The Bitch Had It Coming to Her: Rhetoric and Interpretation in Ezekiel 16.” BibInt 8 (2000): 231–54. De Troyer, Kristin. “Blood: A Threat to Holiness or toward (Another) Holiness.” Pages 45–64 in Wholly Woman, Holy Blood: A Feminist Critique of Purity and Impurity. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Edited by Kristin De Troyer. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003. De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Dempsey, Carol J. “The ‘Whore’ of Ezekiel 16: The Impact and Ramifications of GenderSpecific Metaphors in Light of Biblical Law.” Pages 57–78 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 262. Edited by Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Dharamraj, Havilah. Altogether Lovely: A Thematic and Intertextual Reading of the Song of Songs. South Asian Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2018. Di Vito, Robert A. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity.” CBQ 61 (1999): 217–38. Douglas, Mary. Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1970. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger, 1966. Driver, Godfrey R. “Ancient Lore and Modern Knowledge.” Pages 277–86 in Hommages a Andre Dupont-Sommer. Edited by Andre Caquot and Marc Philonenko. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971. Duncan, Nancy. “Introduction: (Re)Placings.” Pages 1–12 in BodySpace: Destablizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. Edited by Nancy Duncan. London: Routledge, 1996.

Bibliography

165

Duschinsky, Robbie. “The Politics of Purity: When, Actually, Is Dirt Matter out of Place?” Thesis Eleven 119 (2013): 63–77. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace Friesen. “Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (1971): 124–9. Erbele-Küster, Dorothea. Body, Gender, and Purity in Leviticus 12 and 15. LHBOTS 539. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Exum, J. Cheryl. Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women. JSOTSup 215; Gender, Culture, Theory 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Exum, J. Cheryl. “Prophetic Pornography Revisited.” Pages 122–35 in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad. Edited by Rannfrid I. Thelle, Terje Stordalen, and Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Febvre, Lucien. “La Sensibilité et l’histoire. Comment Reconstituer la Vie Affective d’autrefois?” Annales d’histoire Sociale 3 (1941): 5–20. Febvre, Lucien. “Sensibility and History: How to Reconstitute the Emotional Life of the Past.” Pages 12–26 in A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre. Edited by Peter Burke. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. Feder, Yitzhaq. “Contagion and Cognition: Bodily Experience and the Conceptualization of Pollution (tum’ah) in the Hebrew Bible.” JNES 72 (2013): 151–67. Fishbane, Michael. “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 38 (1984): 131–50. Flanagan, James W. “Ancient Perceptions of Space/Perceptions of Ancient Space.” Semeia 87 (1999): 15–43. Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16 (1986): 22–7. Foucault, Michel. “Space, Knowledge, and Power.” Pages 239–56 in The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1982. Fried, Lisbeth S. “The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.” JAOS 122 (2002): 437–65. Fritz, Volkmar. The City in Ancient Israel. Biblical Seminar 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: The Free Press, 1992. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of D. N. Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. SBLDS 130. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Galambush, Julie. “ ‘This Land Is My Land’: On Nature as Property in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 71–94 in “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Gallagher, Winifred. The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape Our Thoughts, Emotions, and Actions. New York: Poseidon, 1993.

166

Bibliography

Gammerl, Benno. “Curtains Up! Shifting Emotional Styles in Gay Men’s Venues Since the 1950s.” Suomen Queer-Tutkimuksen Seuran Lehti 10 (2016): 57–64. Gammerl, Benno. “Emotional Style—Concepts and Challenges.” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 16 (2012): 161–75. Gammerl, Benno, Jan Hutta, and Monique Scheer. “Feeling Differently: Approaches and Their Politics.” Emotion, Space, and Society 25 (2017): 87–94. Ganzel, Tova. “The Concept of Holiness in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2005. Ganzel, Tova. “The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple in Ezekiel.” Biblica 89 (2008): 369–79. Ganzel, Tova. Ezekiel’s Visionary Temple in Babylonian Context. BZAW 539. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Ganzel, Tova. “The Reworking of Ezekiel’s Temple Vision in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 230–52 in Law, Literature, and Society in Legal Texts from Qumran: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Leuven 2016. Edited by Jutta Jokiranta and Molly Zahn. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Garber, David G. Jr. “Trauma Theory and Biblical Studies.” CBR 14 (2015): 24–44. Garber, David G. Jr. “Traumatizing Ezekiel, the Exilic Prophet.” Pages 215–35 in Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures, Volume 2. From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision. Edited by J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins. Westport: Praeger, 2004. Garber, David G. Jr. “A Vocabulary of Trauma in the Exilic Writings.” Pages 309–22 in Interpreting Exile: Displacment and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. SBLAIIL 10. Edited by Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames and Jacob L. Wright. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Garfinkel, Sarah N., Emma Zorab, Nakulan Navaratnam, Miriam Engels, Nüria MallorquíBagué, Ludovico Minati, Nicholas G. Dowell, Jos F. Brosschot, Julian F. Thayer, and Hugo D. Critchley. “Anger in Brain and Body: The Neural and Physiological Perturbation of Decision-Making by Emotion.” Social Cognitive and Affect Neuroscience 11 (2016): 150–8. George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. SBLAIIL 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. George, Mark K., ed. Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space. LHBOTS 569. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gibbs, Raymond W., John S. Leggitt, and Elizabeth A. Turner. “What’s Special About Figurative Language in Emotional Communication?” Pages 124–49 in The Verbal Communication of Emotions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Susan R. Fussell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Goldstein, Elizabeth W. “ ‘By the Blood That You Shed You Are Guilty’: Perspectives on Female Blood in Leviticus and Ezekiel.” Pages 57–69 in Jewish Blood: Reality and Metaphor in History, Religion and Culture. Routledge Jewish Studies. Edited by Mitchell B. Hart. London: Routledge, 2009. Gorman, Frank H. The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology. JSOTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Graybill, Rhiannon. Are We Not Men? Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 181–208.

Bibliography

167

Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. AYBC 22. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37. AYBC 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Greenberg, Moshe. “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” Pages 123–35 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by Johan Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Gregory, Derek. “Space.” Pages 707–10 in The Dictionary of Human Geography. Edited by Derek Gregory, Ron Johnston, Geraldine Pratt, Michael Watts, and Sarah Whatmore. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Griffiths, Paul E., and Andrea Scarantino. “Emotions in the Wild: The Situated Perspective on Emotion.” Pages 437–53 in Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Edited by Philip Robbins and Murat Aydede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Gruber, Mayer I. “Hebrew Qedesha and Her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates.” UF 18 (1986): 133–48. Haidt, Jonathan. “The Moral Emotions.” Pages 852–70 in Handbook of Affective Sciences. Edited by Richard J. Davidson, Klaus R. Scherer, and H. Hill Goldsmith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Haran, Menahem. “The Law Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and its relation to the priestly school.” HUCA 50 (1979): 45–71. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harkins, Jean, and Anna Wierzbicka, eds. Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. Harré, Rom, and Grant Gillet. The Discursive Mind. London: Sage Publications, 1994. Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. Heider, Karl G. Landscapes of Emotion: Mapping Three Cultures of Emotion in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Herrmann, Johannes. Ezechiel. KAT. Leipzig: Deichert, 1924. 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: Gabalda, 1982. Irigaray, Luce. Speculum of the Other Woman. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. Jacobs, Mignon R. “Ezekiel 16—Shared Memory of YHWH’s Relationship with Jerusalem: A Story of Fraught Expectations.” Pages 201–24 in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. SBLAIIL 13. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Jenson, Philip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel. LHBOTS 368. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. Leviticus. Wisdom Commentary 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2018. Kawale, Rani. “Inequalities of the Heart: The Performance of Emotion Work by Lesbian and Bisexual Women in London, England.” Social and Cultural Geography 5 (2004): 565–81.

168

Bibliography

Kazen, Thomas. “Disgust in Body, Mind, and Language: The Case of Impurity in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 97–115 in Mixed Feelings and Vexed Passions: Exploring Emotions in Biblical Literature. Edited by Scott Spencer. Atlanta: SBL, 2017. Kazen, Thomas. Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach. HBM 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Kazen, Thomas. “The Role of Disgust in Priestly Purity Law.” Journal of Law, Religion and State 3 (2014): 62–92. Kazen, Thomas. “Viewing Oneself through Other’s Eyes: Shame between Biology and Culture in Biblical Texts.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 84 (2019): 51–80. Keefe, Alice A. “The Female Body, the Body Politic and the Land: A Sociopolitical Reading of Hosea 1–2.” Pages 70–100 in A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Kelle, Brad E. “Dealing with the Trauma of Defeat: The Rhetoric of Devastation and Rejuvenation of Nature in Ezekiel.” JBL 128 (2009): 469–90. Kim, Brittany. “YHWH As Jealous Husband: Abusive Authoritarian or Passionate Protector? A Reexamination of a Prophetic Image.” Pages 127–47 in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Carol J. Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. SBLAIIL 13. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. King, Philip. “Metaphor and Methodology for Cross-Cultural Investigation of Hebrew Emotions.” Journal of Translation 8 (2012): 9–24. King, Philip. Surrounded by Bitterness: Image Schemas and Metaphors for Conceptualizing Distress in Classical Hebrew. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2012. Kipfer, Sara, ed. Visualizing Emotions in the Ancient Near East. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kleef, Gerben van. The Interpersonal Dynamics of Emotion: Toward an Integrative Theory of Emotions as Social Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Kohn, Risa Levitt. A New Heart and A New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. JSOTSup 358. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Konkel, Michael. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). BBB 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Kornfeld, Walter. Levitikus. Würzburg: Echter, 1983. Koschut, Simon. “The Power of (Emotion) Words: On the Importance of Emotions for Social Constructivist Discourse Analysis in IR.” Journal of International Relations and Development 21 (2018): 495–522. Koskenniemi, Erkki. The Exposure of Infants Among Jews and Christians in Antiquity. SWBA, 2nd Series, 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Kotzé, Zacharias. “A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Emotion of Anger in the Old Testament.” HTS 60 (2004): 848–56. Kotzé, Zacharias. “Metaphors and Metonymies for Anger in the Old Testament: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach,” Scriptura 88 (2005): 118–25. Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Kövecses, Zoltán. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Bibliography

169

Kraft, Tara L., and Sarah D. Pressman. “Grin and Bear It: The Influence of Manipulated Positive Facial Expression on the Stress Response.” Psychological Science 23 (2012): 1272–8. Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Léon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. Kruger, Paul A. “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Observations on Prospects and Challenges.” OTS 28 (2015): 400–403. Kunin, Seth D. “Neo-Structuralism and the Contestation of Place in Biblical Israel.” Temenos 41 (2005): 203–24. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Doors Thrown Open and Waters Gushing Forth: Mark, Ezekiel, and the Architecture of Hope.” Pages 139–54 in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Patrick D. Miller. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–73 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret Odell and John Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000. LaRocca-Pitts, Elizabeth C. “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters. HSM 61. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Launderville, Dale. “ ‘Misogyny’ in Service of Theocentricity: Legitimate or Not?” Pages 193–214 in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho. SBLAIIL 15. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Lawrence-Zuniga, Denise. “Space and Place.” Oxford Bibliographies Online. https://www. oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-97801997665670170.xml. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Lemos, Tracy M. “The Apotheosis of Rage: Divine Anger and the Psychology of Israelite Trauma.” BibInt 23 (2015): 101–21. Lemos, Tracy M. “The Emasculation of Exile: Hypermasculinity and Feminization in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 377–93 in Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob Wright. SBLAIIL 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Lemos, Tracy M. “ ‘They Have Become Women’: Judean Diaspora and Postcolonial Theories of Gender and Migration.” Pages 81–109 in Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Saul M. Olyan. SBLRBS 71. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Lemos, Tracy M. “The Universal and the Particular: Mary Douglas and the Politics of Impurity.” JR 89 (2009): 236–51. Lemos, Tracy M. Violence and Personhood in Ancient Israel and Comparative Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Lemos, Tracy M. “Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions.” JSOT 37 (2013): 265–94.

170

Bibliography

Leveen, Adriane. “Returning the Body to Its Place: Ezekiel’s Tour of the Temple.” HTR 105 (2012): 385–401. Levine, Baruch. “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel.” Pages 9–34 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Levine, Baruch. Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989. Lilly, Ingrid E. “ ‘Like the Vision’: Temple Tours, Comparative Genre, and Scribal Composition in Ezekiel 43.” Pages in 210–32 in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions. Edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. FAT 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Lust, Johan. “The Ezekiel Text.” Pages 153–68 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan Goldman, A. van der Kooij, and Richard Weis. VTSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Lutz, Catherine A. “Emotion, Thought, and Estrangement: Emotion as a Cultural Category.” Cultural Anthropology 1 (1986): 56–76. Lutz, Catherine A. Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesia Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Lyons, Michael A. “How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments About the Relationship Between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code.” Pages 1055–74 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Macwilliam, Stuart. Queer Theory and the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. BibleWorld. Sheffield: Equinox, 2011. Maier, Christl M. “Body Space as Public Space: Jerusalem’s Wounded Body in Lamentations.” Pages 119–38 in Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. Edited by Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp. LHBOTS 490. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008. Maier, Christl M. “Daughter Zion as Gendered Space in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 102–18 in Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. Edited by Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp. LHBOTS 490. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008. Maier, Christl M. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Malul, Meir. “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1-7.” JSOT 46 (1990): 97–126. Malul, Meir. Knowledge, Control, and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 2002. Massey, Doreen. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. McKay, Heather. “Gendering the Body: Clothes Maketh the (Wo)Man.” Pages 84–104 in Theology and the Body. Edited by Robert Hannaford and J’annine Jobling. Leominster: Gracewing, 1999. Meigs, Anna S. “A Papuan Perspective on Pollution.” Man 13 (1978): 304–18. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Bibliography

171

Meredith, Christopher. “Taking Issue with Thirdspace: Reading Soja, Lefebvre and the Bible.” Pages 75–104 in Constructions of Space III: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred. Edited by Jorunn Økland, J. Cornelis De Vos, and Karen J. Wenwell. LHBOTS 540. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Miceli, Maria, and Cristiano Castelfranchi. “Contempt and Disgust: The Emotions of Disrespect.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 48 (2018): 205–29. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Miller, Susan Beth. Disgust: The Gatekeeper Emotion. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press, 2004. Mirguet, Françoise. “What is an Emotion in the Hebrew Bible?” BibInt 24 (2016): 442–65. Mohammad, Saif M. “Sentiment Analysis: Detecting Valence, Emotions, and Other Affectual States from Text.” Pages 201–237 in Emotion Measurement. Edited by Herbert L. Meiselman. Duxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing, 2016. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. OTM. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mountford, Roxanne. “On Gender and Rhetorical Space.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 31 (2001): 41–71. Mylonas, Natalie F. “Intersectional Emotions: Emotion Stereotypes and Emotional Repertoires in Ezek. 16” (forthcoming). Nakhai, Beth Alpert. “Female Infanticide in Iron II Israel and Judah.” Pages 257–72 in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His 60th Birthday, edited by Shawna Dolansky. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Newell, Rachel C. “The Thanksgiving of Women after Childbirth: A Blessing in Disguise?” Pages 38–52 in Exploring the Dirty Side of Women’s Health. Edited by Mavis Kirkham. London: Routledge, 2007. Niditch, Susan. “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context.” CBQ 48 (1986): 208–24. Nussbaum, Martha C. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Odell, Margaret S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Odell, Margaret S. “Fragments of Traumatic Memory: Ṣalmê Zākār and Child Sacrifice in Ezekiel 16:15-22.” Pages 107–24 in Bible Through the Lens of Trauma. Edited by Elizabeth Boase and Christopher G. Frechette. SBLSS 86. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Odell, Margaret S. “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:59-63.” JSOT 56 (1992): 101–12. Odell, Margaret S. “You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll.” JBL 117 (1998): 229–48. O’Grady, Kathleen. “The Semantics of Taboo: Menstrual Prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 1–28 in Wholly Woman, Holy Blood: A Feminist Critique of Purity and Impurity. Edited by Kristin De Troyer. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003. Økland, Jorunn, J. Cornelis De Vos, and Karen J. Wenwell, eds. Constructions of Space III: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred. LHBOTS 540. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Pain, Rachel. “Geotrauma: Violence, Place and Repossession.” Progress in Human Geography 45 (2021): 972–89.

172

Bibliography

Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Patton, Corrine L. “Priest, Prophet, and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct.” Pages 73–90 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Patton, Corrine L. “ ‘Should Our Sister Be Treated Like a Whore?’: A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23.” Pages 221–38 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Piff, Paul K., Michael W. Kraus, Stéphane Côté, Bonnie H. Cheng, and Dacher Keltner. “Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (2010): 771–84. Plamper, Jan. The History of Emotions: An Introduction. Translated by Keith Tribe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Planalp, Sally. Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Poser, Ruth. Das Ezechielbuch Als Trauma-Literatur, VTSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Poser, Ruth. “Embodied Memories: Gender-Specific Aspects of Prophecy as Trauma Literature.” Pages 333–57 in Prophecy and Gender in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Juliana Claassens and Irmtraud Fischer. The Bible and Women 1/2. Atlanta: SBL, 2021. Poser, Ruth. “No Words: The Book of Ezekiel as Trauma Literature and a Response to Exile.” Pages 27–48 in Bible Through the Lens of Trauma. Edited by Elizabeth Boase and Christopher G. Frechette. SBLSS 86. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Prinsloo, Gert T. M., and Christl M. Maier, eds. Constructions of Space V: Place, Space, and Identity in the Mediterranean World. LHBOTS 576. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Prinz, Jesse. “Emotions Embodied.” Pages 44–59 in Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions. Edited by Robert C. Solomon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Quick, Laura. Dress, Adornment and the Body in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Ravn, Otto E. Herodotus’ Description of Babylon. Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1942. Reckwitz, Andreas. “Affective Spaces: A Praxeological Outlook.” Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 16 (2012): 241–53. Reddy, William M. The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Ezekiel as Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology.” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–45. Rosaldo, Michelle Z. Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Rose, Gillian. “As If the Mirrors Had Bled: Masculine Dwelling, Masculinist Theory and Feminist Masquerade.” Pages 57–74 in BodySpace: Destablizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. Edited by Nancy Duncan. London: Routledge, 1996. Rosenwein, Barbara H. “Problems and Methods in the History of Emotions.” Passions in Context: International Journal for the History and Theory of Emotions 1 (2010): 1–24.

Bibliography

173

Roth, Martha. “Marriage, Divorce, and the Prostitute in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 21–39 in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006. Rozin, Paul. “Disgust.” Pages 757–76 in Handbook of Emotions. Edited by Paul Rozin, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark McCauley. New York: Guilford, 2008. Ruane, Nicole J. Sacrifice and Gender in Biblical Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Scheer, Monique. “Are Emotions a Kind of Practice (and Is That What Makes Them Have a History?): A Bourdieuan Approach to Understanding Emotion.” History and Theory 51 (2012): 193–220. Schlimm, Matthew R. “Different Perspectives on Divine Pathos: An Examination of Hermeneutics in Biblical Theology.” CBQ 69 (2007): 673–94. Schlimm, Matthew R. From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Schreiner, Patrick. “Space, Place and Biblical Studies: A Survey of Recent Research in Light of Developing Trends.” CBR 14 (2016): 341–3. Schwartz, Baruch J. “A Priest Out of Place: Reconsidering Ezekiel’s Role in the History of the Israelite Priesthood.” Pages 61–72 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Ultimate Aim of Israel’s Restoration in Ezekiel.” Pages 305–19 in 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 Edited by Chaim Cohen, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi M. Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Shields, Mary E. “Circumcision of the Prostitute: Gender, Sexuality, and the Call to Repentance in Jeremiah 3:1–4:41.” Pages 121–33 in A Feminist Companion to Prophets and Daniel. Edited by Athalya Brenner. A Feminist Companion to the Bible. Second Series. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Shields, Mary E. “Multiple Exposures: Body Rhetoric and Gender Characterization in Ezekiel 16.” JFSR 14 (1998): 5–18. Shields, Stephanie A. Speaking from the Heart: Gender and the Social Meaning of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Simon, Bennett. “Ezekiel’s Geometric Vision of the Restored Temple: From the Rod of His Wrath to the Reed of His Measuring.” HTR 102 (2009): 411–38. Smith, Mark S. “The Heart and the Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology.” JBL 117 (1998): 427–36. Smith, Mick, and Joyce Davidson. “ ‘It Makes My Skin Crawl…’: The Embodiment of Disgust in Phobias of ‘Nature.’ ” Body & Society 12 (2006): 43–67. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Ezekiel in Abu-Ghraib: Re-reading Ezekiel 16:37-39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest.” Pages 141–58 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE).” Pages 7–36 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

174

Bibliography

Soja, Edward. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. Solomon, Robert C. True to Our Feelings: What Our Emotions Are Really Telling Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Stearns, Peter N., and Carol Z. Stearns. “Emotionology: Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards.” American Historical Review 90 (1985): 813–36. Steckler, Conor M., and Jessica L. Tracy. “The Emotional Underpinnings of Social Status.” Pages 201–24 in The Psychology of Social Status. Edited by Joey T. Cheng, Cameron Anderson, and Jessica L. Tracy. New York: Springer, 2014. Stellar, Jennifer E., Vida M. Manzo, Michael W. Kraus, and Dacher Keltner. “Class and Compassion: Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering.” Emotion 12 (2012): 449–59. Stevenson, Kalinda Rose. The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48. SBLDS 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Stiebert, Johanna. The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution. JSOTSup 346. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Stiebert, Johanna. “Within and Without Purity, Danger, Honour, and Shame: Anthropological Approaches in Feminist Hebrew Bible Studies.” Pages 111–35 in Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect: Methods, vol. 3. Edited by Susanne Scholz. RRBS 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016. Stiebert, Johanna. “The Woman Metaphor of Ezekiel 16 and 23: A Victim of Violence, or a Symbol of Subversion?” OTE 15 (2002): 200–208. Swanepoel, M. G. “Ezekiel 16: Abandoned Child, Bride Adorned, or Unfaithful Wife?” Pages 84–104 in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings. Edited by Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Taylor, John R., and Thandi G. Mbense. “Red Dogs and Rotten Mealies: How Zulus Talk About Anger.” Pages 191–226 in Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualization and Expression. Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou and Elżbieta Tabakowska. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998. Thelle, Rannfrid I. “Self as ‘Other’: Israel’s Self-Designation as Adulterous Wife, a Self-Reflective Perspective on a Prophetic Metaphor.” Pages 104–20 in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad. Edited by Rannfrid I. Thelle, Terje Stordalen, and Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Thiessen, Matthew. “Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity.” NovT 54 (2012): 16–29. Tilford, Nicole. “The Affective Eye: Re-Examining a Biblical Idiom.” BibInt 23 (2015): 207–21. Toorn, Karel van der. “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel.” JBL 108 (1989): 193–205. Tuell, Steven. “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezekiel 47:1-12 and Genesis 2:10-14.” Pages 171–89 in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Wagner, Andreas. Emotionen, Gefühle und Sprache im Alten Testament. Vier Studien. Waltrop: H. Spenner, 2006.

Bibliography

175

Weems, Renita. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. “Tamar, Qědēšā, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia.” HTR 82 (1989): 245–66. Whaley, Luke. “Geographies of the Self: Space, Place, and Scale Revisited.” Human Arenas 1 (2018): 21–36. Whitekettle, Richard. “Leviticus 12 and the Israelite Woman: Ritual Process, Liminality and the Womb.” ZAW 107 (1995): 393–408. Wierzbicka, Anna. Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wolde, Ellen van. “Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 16 (2008): 1–24. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Wrede, Thea. “Introduction to Special Issue ‘Theorizing Space and Gender in the 21st Century.’ ” Rocky Mountain Review 69 (2015): 10–17. Wu, Daniel Y. Honor, Shame and Guilt: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel. BBRSup 14. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Yee, Gale A. Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Vol.1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Zsolnay, Ilona. “The Inadequacies of Yahweh: A Re-Examination of Jerusalem’s Portrayal in Ezekiel 16.” Pages 57–74 in Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim. LHBOTS 465. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

I

H B O T Genesis 2:5 2:10-14 3:7 3:8-13 3:10 3:18 4:8-10 4:8 14:18 17:14 19:8-11 23:11-13 23:11 23:13 23:17-20 23:17 23:19 23:20 24:7 25:9-10 25:10 25:29 28:17 29:22 30:16 31:4 33:18ff. 33:18 33:19 34:1 34:7

/

48 n. 4 149 n. 33 135 58 n. 32 28, 135 48 n. 4 58 n. 32, 60 58 120 97 n. 40 132 50 n. 9 47 n. 3, 49 47 n. 3 50 n. 9 47 n. 3, 49 49 47 n. 3 120 49 n. 6, 50 n. 9 47 n. 3 48 n. 5 120 97 48 n. 5 48 n. 5 47 46, 59 47 n. 3 47 48 n. 5

R

36:35 37:7 38:15-21 38:15 38:16 38:21 38:22 39:5 39:14 42:33 45:20 47:24 49:29-32 49:29 49:30 49:32 50:13

Exodus 1:17 1:21 2:6 8:5 8:7 8:9 8:17 9:3 9:19 9:22 9:25 10:5 10:6 10:15 12:19

47, 49, 59 48 n. 5 107 108 114 108, 114 108 47 128 129 54 n. 17, 58 n. 31 48 n. 5 50 n. 9 49 47 n. 3, 49 47 n. 3 47 n. 3, 49, 50 n. 9

49 n. 7 49 n. 7 54 n. 19 129 129 97 n. 39 129 48, 50 48 48 n. 4 48 n. 4, 50 48 n. 4 129 48 n. 4 129

15:7 17:11 19:20 21 21:22-25 22:1 22:5 22:6 23:11 23:16 23:19 24:17 25:5 25:8 29:42-46 30:33 30:38 31:14 34:13 34:26 40:34-38

127 135 n. 23 120 134 n. 18 49 n. 7 92 n. 17 48 48 n. 5 48 48 n. 5 73 120 101 75 n. 58 75 n. 58 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 126 73 77 n. 63

Leviticus 2:7 4:1-7 7:20 7:21 7:25 7:27 8–9 8:15 10:10 11 11:44 11:45

89 101 93 n. 22 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 83 94 75 n. 56 68, 71 75 n. 58 75 n. 58

Index of References 12

12:1-8 12:2-4 12:4 12:5 12:7 13 14:9 14:53 15

15:1-15 15:8 15:16-18 15:16 15:19-31 15:19-30 15:19-24 15:24 15:25 15:31 16:4 16:9 17–26 17:4 17:9 17:10 17:11 17:14 18:1-23 18:19 18:21 18:29 19:2 19:8 19:9 19:19 20:2-5 20:3 20:5 20:6

72 n. 49, 88, 94 n. 28 70, 87 n. 3, 93 88 92, 93 n. 22 88 92 70 113 48 19, 72 n. 49, 93 n. 23 70 70 70 94 n. 28 93 70, 87 94 90 n. 9 88 78 146 n. 23 92 84 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 94 94, 97 n. 40 148 89 n. 9 112 n. 40 97 n. 40 75 n. 58 97 n. 40 47 n. 3 47 n. 3, 48 112 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 97 n. 40

20:17 20:18 20:26 21:8 22:24 23:22 23:29 25:3-4 25:3 25:4 25:13-14 25:29-34 25:29 25:30 25:31 26 26:11 26:15 26:30 26:43 26:44 27:16-24 27:28 29:9 36:23b-38 Numbers 5:3 9:13 13:23 15:30 15:31 16:32 19:13 19:20 21:28 22:4 22:41 33:52 35:27 35:34

97 n. 40 89 n. 9, 97 n. 40 75 n. 58 75 n. 58 97 n. 39 47 n. 3 97 n. 40 47 n. 3 48 48 47 n. 3 48 48 48 48 55 54 n. 20, 55 n. 23 55 n. 20, 55 n. 23 55 n. 20, 55 n. 23 55 n. 20, 55 n. 23 55 n. 23 47 n. 3 47 n. 3 92 n. 17 75 n. 59

78 97 n. 40 97 n. 39 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 129 97 n. 40 97 n. 40 110 48 n. 4 110 110 92 n. 17 78

177 Deuteronomy 110 5–11 28 n. 107 7:5 126 7:16 58 n. 31 11:5 48, 50 13:9 54 n. 18, 58 n. 31 14:21 73 14:22 48 n. 5 19:5 97 n. 39 19:10 92 n. 17 19:13 58 n. 31 19:21 58 n. 31 20:19 48 n. 4, 97 n. 39 20:20 97 n. 39 21:1-2 58 22:8 92 n. 17 22:25-27 58 23:1 97 23:18-19 107 24:19 48 25:12 58 n. 31 26:11 48 27:20 97 28:3 47 28:38 48 n. 5 32:8 120 Joshua 2:1 2:3 2:15 2:18 3:13 3:16 8:24 11:21 13:17 18:25 24:32 Judges 1:14 4:5 6:25

114 128 128 128 97 n. 39 97 n. 39 49 97 n. 39 110 113 47 n. 3

47 n. 3 113 97 n. 39, 127

178

Index of References

Judges (cont.) 6:26 97 n. 39 9:24 92 n. 17 9:26-41 54 n. 20 9:27 48 n. 5 9:32 49 9:45 126 14:10 97 19 132 19:16 48 n. 5 20:31 49 Ruth 2:2 2:22 3:9 4:5

48 n. 5 58 97 47 n. 3

1 Samuel 1:6-7 4:2 4:21-22 9:12-25 9:13 10:5 10:13 11:5 20:11 22:6 23:27 24:10 25:26 25:33 25:35 30:14

47 133 n. 14 49 77 n. 63 108 109 108, 109 108 48 n. 5 46, 59 113 133 n. 15 54 92 n. 17 92 n. 17 128 133 n. 15

2 Samuel 1:21 11:4 11:23 11:25 14:6 14:8 18:6 19:1-3 19:3

55 128 n. 8 49 127 58 128 49 28 28

21:1 21:10 1 Kings 3:2-4 3:2 5:17 7:33 8:10-11 9:24 11:7 11:29 12:31-32 13:2 13:32-33 13:32 14:11 14:23

92 n. 17 60

15:17 17:15

108 110 136 113 77 n. 63 128 108, 110 58 110 n. 26 110 n. 26 110 n. 26 109 49, 50 109, 110, 116 113 128

2 Kings 6:15 7:12 8:1 8:6 16:4 17:9-11 17:9 17:10 23:9 23:10 23:13 25:9 25:10

136 48 128 n. 8 48 n. 5 110 110 109 116 n. 52 110 112 n. 40 110, 111 130, 131 126, 136

1 Chronicles 10:8 27:26 28:11

110 133 n. 15 48 n. 5 129

2 Chronicles 7:1-3 11:15 21:9

110 77 n. 63 110 n. 26 136

28:24 31:19

116 n. 53 47

Ezra

72

Nehemiah

72

Job 1:17 12:14 15:26 18:11 19:10 21:10 24:6

133 n. 15 127 113 28 127, 137 55 n. 22 48

Psalms 2:4 11:4 14:2 18:13 28:5 52:7 66:17 78 78:43 103:15 129:3 142:6 145:14-15

120 120 120 120 127 127 113 110 50 48 n. 4 113 23 97

Proverbs 5:8 6–7 7 7:5-27 7:7-12 7:7-8 7:12 7:27 14:1 29:4 31:15 31:21

128 n. 8 115 n. 51 129 114 115 114 n. 49 115 n. 51 128 127, 128 n. 8 127 128 n. 8 128 n. 8

Index of References Qohelet 9:4

32:35 136

Song of Songs 3:1-5 114 n. 49 Isaiah 2:2 3:16 5:13 13:18 14:14 15:2 16:12 20:5 22:9 33:15 40:6 55:12 56:1-8 61:10 64:11 66:1 Jeremiah 1:2 1:3 3:1-5 4 7:13 7:20 13:14 14:17-18 14:17 14:18 14:19 17:2-3 17:22 19:5 21:7 24:6 32:9 32:25

120 120 135 n. 20 58 n. 31 120 108, 110, 111 n. 33 108, 110 135 127 92 n. 17 48 n. 4 48 n. 4 144 n. 18 97 130 120 14, 110 135 n. 20 135 n. 20 138 48 n. 4 109 48 n. 4 54 n. 18 47 48 46, 48 55 109 129 108, 109, 110, 111 54 127 47 n. 3 47 n. 3, 112 n. 40

32:43 45:4 48:35 49:16 52:13 Ezekiel 1–39 1–5 1:1ff. 1:3 1:4 1:9 1:12 1:17 1:18-28 1:18 1:27-28 1:28 3:23 3:24 4:2 4:4 4:12-15 5 5:2 5:5-7 5:8 5:9 5:10-17 5:11-17 5:11

5:12 5:14-15 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 6

108, 109, 110, 111 47 n. 3 127 110 136 n. 25 130

136, 137 n. 29 83 143 83 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 137 n. 29 113, 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 77 n. 63 77 n. 63 128 n. 5 136 n. 28 83 72 79, 80 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 78, 82 66 n. 16 1 78, 79 53, 58 n. 31, 66 n. 16, 77, 78, 79, 81 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 78 78 78 78 19 n. 55

179 6:3 6:5 6:6 6:9 6:11 6:13 7 7:2 7:3-4 7:3 7:4

7:8-9 7:9 7:15 7:19-20 7:20-22 7:20-21 7:20 7:21-22 7:22 7:24 8 8:1ff. 8:1 8:4 8:5-18 8:6 8:9 8:10 8:12 8:13 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18–9:10

111, 112 n. 38 1, 111, 136 n. 28 111 66 n. 16 66 n. 16 136 n. 28 90 90 66 n. 16 90 53, 54 n. 18, 58 n. 31 66 n. 16 53, 54 n. 18 49, 50 n. 8, 59 19, 90, 148 123 90 66 n. 16 75 136 n. 28 128 n. 5, 129 79, 80 143 128 n. 5 77 n. 63 123 66 n. 16, 79, 81 66 n. 16 136 n. 28 77, 132 66 n. 16 66 n. 16 80 66 n. 16, 80 80

180 Ezekiel (cont.) 8:18 53, 54 n. 18, 79, 82 9:3 82 9:4 66 n. 16 9:5 53, 54 n. 18 9:6-7 80 9:6 82 9:7 79 9:9 92 n. 17 9:10 53 10:3-4 77 n. 63 10:11 136 n. 28 10:12 113, 136 n. 28, 137 n. 29 10:16 136 n. 28 10:18-19 77 11:12 136 n. 28 11:18 66 n. 16 11:21 66 n. 16 11:23 77 12:14 136 n. 28 12:16 66 n. 16 13:14 127 13:19 75 14:6 66 n. 16 14:8 97 n. 40 16:1-7 46–62, 95 n. 30, 99 16:2-14 9, 86–103 16:2 66 n. 16 16:3-7 57 16:3-6 97, 98 16:3-5 45, 87 16:3 53, 99, 148 16:4-14 62, 102 16:4-8 133, 134 16:4-7 8, 52 16:4-6 81, 86, 94, 95, 98, 122 16:4-5 49, 56, 58 16:4 53, 56, 60, 95, 96, 97

Index of References 16:5-7 16:5

16:6ff. 16:6-14 16:6-13 16:6-9 16:6-8 16:6

16:7-14 16:7

16:8-14 16:8-10 16:8 16:9-14 16:9 16:10-13 16:10-12 16:10 16:13 16:14 16:15ff. 16:15-36 16:15-34

16:15-29 16:15-19

62 29, 30 n. 112, 46, 49 n. 7, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57–61, 100, 148, 157 61 157 99 91, 92 53 1, 58, 60, 62, 92, 94, 95 9, 86 50 n. 8, 52, 61, 62, 77 n. 63, 135 100, 103, 122, 157 96 58, 60, 97, 99, 100 45 19, 81, 95, 145 133 77 n. 63 100 100, 101, 133 100 103 43 9, 44, 104–24, 105, 122, 124, 127, 134, 135, 137, 157 45 44 n. 49

16:15 16:16-31 16:16-25 16:16-21 16:16-19 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:20-21 16:22 16:23-25 16:23-24 16:24-25 16:24

16:25-29 16:25

16:26-29 16:26 16:28 16:29 16:31

16:32 16:33-34 16:33 16:35ff. 16:35-43

16:35-41 16:35 16:36ff.

118, 122, 123 119, 126 127 111 122 104, 111, 112 111 111 74 66 n. 16, 102 104 31 114, 158 104, 105, 106, 113, 116, 127 31, 136 74, 104, 105, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 127, 134, 135, 145 82 105, 116, 132, 145 105, 116, 145 131, 145 31, 105, 106, 113, 114, 116, 127 55, 145 115 55, 136 n. 28 79, 82 10, 45, 54, 125, 131–9 1, 41 150 44

Index of References 16:36-43 16:36-41 16:36

16:37ff. 16:37-43 16:37-41 16:37-40 16:37-39 16:37-38 16:37

16:38ff. 16:38 16:39-43 16:39-41

16:39

16:39a 16:39b 16:40 16:41

16:42-43 16:42 16:43

16:44-45 16:45 16:47-50 16:47 16:49 16:50-51

132 52 57, 66 n. 16, 122, 123 61, 123 82 150 136 5 n. 15, 18 29 38, 57, 58, 82, 125, 126, 134, 135, 136 n. 28 82 123, 125, 126, 132 82 126, 127, 134, 136, 137 101, 106, 113, 125, 126, 133, 134, 135 126 126 126, 134, 136, 145 58, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 150 29 132 66 n. 16, 102, 132, 133 31, 95, 98 53, 55, 99 119 66 n. 16 119 66 n. 16

16:50 16:52-63 16:52 16:53ff. 16:53-63 16:53-54 16:54 16:56 16:57 16:58 16:59-63 16:61 16:62-63 16:62 16:63 17:5 17:8 17:17 17:24 18:6 18:12-13 18:24 18:25 19:8 19:10-14 19:12 19:13 20:4 20:17 20:27-31 20:28-31 20:28 20:29 20:39 21:2 21:26 22:1-27 22:2

22:10 22:11

119 n. 67 17 n. 41 57 138 17 n. 48, 138 18, 151 n. 38 31 57 136 n. 28 66 n. 16 141 31 16, 17, 134 31 17, 145 50 n. 8 50 n. 8 136 50 n. 8, 52 n. 12 90 n. 12 66 n. 16 66 n. 16 17 136 n. 28 52 56 n. 25 61 66 n. 16 53, 58 n. 31 111 111 111 111 75 50 n. 8 120 1 66 n. 16, 90, 92, 148 90 n. 12 66 n. 16

181 22:26 23

23:3 23:7 23:8 23:10 23:13 23:20 23:22 23:24 23:29 23:30 23:36 23:38-39 23:38 23:39 23:43-44 23:47 24:6-9 24:6 24:9 24:14 24:15-18 25 25:7 26:2 26:4 26:6 26:7 26:8 27:11 28:2 28:5-6 28:5 28:17

6, 75, 76 5, 6, 13, 19, 42, 81 n. 77, 99 n. 46, 134 n. 18, 139, 161 148 n. 29 77, 81 n. 77 123 130 n. 10 81 n. 77 70, 122 n. 75 136 n. 26, 136 n. 28 136 n. 26, 136 n. 28 135 81 n. 77 66 n. 16 77, 78 75, 79 128 n. 5, 141 n. 3 141 n. 3 127 n. 4, 128 n. 5 1, 90 92, 148 90, 92 53, 58 1 139 97 n. 40 136 n. 28 127 50 n. 8 136 50 n. 8 136 n. 28 119, 120, 158 119 119 119, 136

182 Ezekiel (cont.) 28:23-24 136 n. 28 28:26 136 n. 28, 142 29:5 50 n. 8, 51, 61 n. 39 30:4 127 31 61, 119 31:1-13 52 31:4-6 50 n. 8 31:4 52 n. 12, 136 n. 28 31:5 52 n. 12 31:6 51 n. 10 31:10-17 136 31:10-15 52 31:10 120, 158 31:13 50 n. 8, 51 n. 10 31:15 50 n. 8, 52 n. 12 32:3 136 32:4 50 n. 8, 51 32:22-26 136 n. 28 32:22 136 33:17 17 33:24-27 51 33:26 66 n. 16 33:27 50 n. 8, 51 33:29 66 n. 16 34:5-8 51 34:5 50 n. 8, 51 n. 10 34:8 50 n. 8, 51 n. 10 34:25-28 142 34:25 142 34:26 136 n. 28, 137 n. 29 34:27-28 142 34:27 50 n. 8, 52 n. 12, 143 34:28 142 34:29 18 n. 50, 143 36 19, 67

Index of References 36:1 36:2 36:3-4 36:7 36:16 36:17-21 36:17-19 36:17 36:22-29 36:23-25 36:25 36:28-32 36:30 36:31 36:31-32 36:32 36:36 37:1 37:2 37:21 38:4 38:7 38:8 38:11 38:13 38:14 38:15 38:20

39:2 39:4-17 39:4-5 39:4 39:7 39:10 39:17

39:23 39:25 39:26-27 39:26

111 111 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 19 90, 148 77 91 75 76 76 18 50 n. 8, 52 n. 12 66 n. 16 91 151 n. 38 136 n. 28 135 n. 23 136 n. 28 136 n. 28, 137 n. 29 136 136 143 143 136 143 136 50 n. 8, 51 n. 10, 127 n. 2 18 51 50 n. 8 51 75 50 n. 8 50 n. 8, 51 n. 10, 60, 136 n. 28, 137 n. 29 135 n. 20 75 152 142

40–48

40:1ff. 40:1-2 40:2-4 40:2 40:3 40:5ff. 40:5 40:14 40:16-17 40:25 40:29-30 40:33 40:36 40:42 40:43 41:2 41:3 41:5-8 41:7 41:8 41:10-12 41:16-17 41:19 41:22 41:24 42:15-17 42:19 42:20 43 43:1ff. 43:1-9 43:1-7 43:6-9 43:7-9 43:7-8 43:7 43:8 43:9 43:10-12 43:10-11 43:10 43:11

7, 10, 134, 137, 140– 53, 159 143 142 146 135 n. 23 143, 152 143 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 136 n. 28 137 n. 28 137 n. 28 137 n. 28 137 n. 28 119 137 n. 28 143 143 137 n. 28 136 n. 28 119 137 n. 28 137 n. 28 137 n. 28 119 136 n. 28 137 n. 28 136 n. 28 137 n. 28, 144 151 n. 39 143 151 144 78 79, 150, 151 75, 150 111 n. 36 66 n. 16 150 151 n. 39 151 151 144, 151

Index of References 43:12-13 43:13 43:17 43:18-19 43:20 43:23 44:1-2 44:2 44:3 44:5 44:6-7 44:7 44:9ff. 44:9 44:11 44:13 44:15-27 44:15-17 44:15-16 44:15 44:16 44:17-18 44:17 44:19 44:20 44:21 44:22 44:23-24 44:23 44:25 44:26 44:27 44:29-30 44:30 44:31 45:1-4

137 n. 28 113 137 n. 28 149 137 n. 28, 149 75 145 144 144 144 66 n. 16 123, 128 n. 5, 145 144 123, 143 144 66 n. 16, 143, 144 143 144 147 146 146 146 128 n. 5, 146 144, 146 146 146 147, 148 153 75 146, 147, 148 76 n. 60 75, 79, 80, 146 146 128 n. 5 146 75, 79

45:1-2 45:6 45:7 46:23 47 47:1-21 47:1-12 47:2 47:3 47:4 47:5 47:8-9 47:9-10 47:12 47:13-20 48:35

137 n. 28 75 75 137 n. 28 149 149 149 n. 33 136 n. 28 149 n. 35 149 n. 35 149 n. 35 149 149 149 143 137 n. 28, 153

183 Habakkuk 3:10 3:16

113 28

Zechariah 10:1

50

Malachi 1:4 2:16

127 97

A N E T Laws of Lipit-Ishtar 114 §30 107 n. 14 Mesha Inscription 111

Daniel 3:1 4:34

113 n. 43 113 n. 43

Sumerian Laws Exercise Tablet

Hosea 1–2 5:8

14 121 n. 73 113

D B Sirach 9:6-7 23:1-21

Joel 1:4 1:12 1:19

48 48 n. 4 48 n. 4

Amos 1:5

135 n. 20

Jonah 1:9 4:10 Micah 4:10

120 54 n. 17

46, 59

114

114 n. 49 115

D S S (Cairo) Damascus Document 12:1-2 121 n. 71 N T Luke 2:22

87 n. 3

G -R L Herodotus 1.199

106

I

Abu-Lughod, L. 21 Ackerman, S. 12 Adams-Hutcheson, G. 3 Agnew, J. 34 Ahmed, S. 31 Albright, W. F. 110, 111 Allen, L. C. 43, 44 Alstola, T. 144 Arnaud, D. 106 Arnold, B. T. 28 Assante, J. A. 114 Averill, J. R. 14 Avrahami, Y. 58 Bakhtin, M. 69 Barrick, W. B. 111 Ben-Ze’ev, A. 12 Berquist, J. L. 40, 120 Best, S. 139 Betts, T. J. 83 Biale, R. 89 Bibb, B. 131 Biess, F. 11, 12 Bird, P. A. 106–8, 115, 121 Blenkinsopp, J. 43 Bloch-Smith, E. 60 Block, D. I. 43, 97, 105, 106, 112–14, 116, 149, 151, 152 Bodi, D. 149 Boer, R. 73 Bourdieu, P. 22 Bowen, N. R. 1, 19, 77, 80, 84, 105, 106, 116, 140, 142, 149, 159 Boyarin, D. 64 Brenner, A. 15, 42 Brosschot, J. F. 25 Camp, C. 40, 121, 154 Carlson, E. B. 4

A

Carroll, R. 42 Castelfranchi, C. 56 Chalmers, D. J. 23 Cheng, B. H. 56 Chytry, J. 40 Clark, A. 23 Coddington, K. 3, 4 Confino, A. 12 Cook, S. L. 143 Côté, S. 56 Critchley, H. D. 25 Dalenberg, C. J. 4 Darr, K. P. 15, 43, 101 Davidson, J. 37–9, 67 Davis, E. F. ix Day, L. 42, 43, 99 Day, P. L. 99 De Troyer, K. 88, 95, 99 De Vaux, R. 97 De Vos, J. C. 41 Dempsey, C. J. 42, 43, 101, 135 Dharamraj, H. 135 Di Vito, R. A. 19 Douglas, M. 9, 63, 65, 67–73, 85–7, 89, 156 Dowell, N. G. 25 Driver, G. R. 96 Duncan, N. 37 Duschinsky, R. 71 Eichrodt, W. 43, 112 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 91, 94 Einstein, A. 35 Eissfeldt, O. 106 Ekman, P. 21 Engels, M. 25 Erbele-Küster, D. 70, 72, 88, 92, 94 Exum, J. C. 42

Index of Authors Febvre, L. 11 Feder, Y. 63, 65, 66 Fishbane, M. 134 Flanagan, J. W. 37 Foucault, M. 36, 37, 104 Fried, L. S. 111 Friesen, W. 21 Fritz, V. 59 Frymer-Kensky, T. 94, 106 Galambush, J. 2, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 32, 42, 44, 51, 52, 55, 59, 77, 81, 90, 93, 101, 112, 135, 140, 144, 148–50 Gallagher, W. 116 Gammerl, B. 38, 39, 117, 118, 161 Ganzel, T. 75, 77–80, 84, 142–4 Garber, D. G. 1, 4, 6 Garfinkel, S. N. 25 George, M. K. 41, 75, 81 Gerstenberger, E. S. 93 Gibbs, R. W. 31, 32 Gillet, G. 13 Goldstein, E. W. 88, 90–2, 98, 102 Gorman, F. H. 80 Graybill, R. 153 Greenberg, M. 7, 43, 92, 105, 112, 122, 140 Gregory, D. 34, 35 Griffiths, P. E. 30, 37, 39, 40 Gruber, M. I. 107, 108 Haidt, J. 56 Halperin, D. J. 122 Haran, M. 80, 140 Harkins, J. 12 Harré, R. 13 Harvey, D. 35 Heider, K. G. 12 Herrmann, J. 85 Hurvitz, A. 85 Hutta, J. 38, 117

Kawale, R. 40 Kazen, T. 63, 66, 67, 91, 135 Keefe, A. A. 121 Kelle, B. E. 1, 61 Keltner, D. 56 Kim, B. 13 King, P. 12, 23 Kipfer, S. 28 Klawans, J. 77 Kleef, G. van 30 Kohn, R. L. 84, 101 Konkel, M. 140 Kornfeld, W. 89 Koschut, S. 64 Koskenniemi, E. 49 Kotzé, Z. 12, 27 Kövecses, Z. 27 Kraft, T. L. 23 Kraus, M. W. 56 Kristeva, J. 9, 63, 73, 74, 86, 93, 95, 98, 100, 156 Kruger, P. A. 27 Kunin, S. D. 80 Kutsko, J. F. 77 Lakoff, G. 23 Lapsley, J. E. 2, 17, 18, 141, 142, 149, 151 LaRocca-Pitts, E. C. 106, 108–11 Launderville, D. 2, 18, 19, 90 Lawrence-Zuniga, D. 34, 35 Lefebvre, H. 34, 36, 41, 120 Leggitt, J. S. 31, 32 Leibniz, G. W. 35 Lemos, T. M. 2, 5, 6, 12, 19, 67, 71, 72, 89, 94, 122, 132–4 Leveen, A. 142, 152 Levine, B. 85, 89 Lilly, I. E. 151 Lust, J. 8 Lutz, C. A. 21, 24, 26, 33 Lyons, M. A. 84

Irigaray, L. 102, 139 Jacobs, M. R. 43, 44 Jenson, P. P. 81 Johnson, M. 23 Kamionkowski, S. T. 5, 43, 44, 59, 70, 80, 81, 96, 98, 112, 119, 122, 129, 134

185

Macwilliam, S. 19 Maier, C. M. 41, 42, 124, 154 Mallorquí-Bagué, N. 25 Malul, M. 94, 95 Manzo, V. M. 56 Massey, D. 36, 37 Mbense, T. G. 29

186

Index of Authors

McKay, H. 101 Meigs, A. S. 68 Mein, A. 90, 98, 112 Meredith, C. 41 Miceli, M. 56 Micieli-Voutsinas, J. 3, 4 Milgrom, J. 70, 88, 89 Miller, S. B. 65 Milligan, C. 37–9 Minati, L. 25 Mirguet, F. 8, 12, 25, 27–31, 33 Mohammad, S. M. 29 Moughtin-Mumby, S. 15, 44, 45, 100 Mountford, R. 117 Mylonas, N. 99 Nakhai, B. A. 49, 59 Navaratnam, N. 25 Newell, R. C. 88, 93, 94 Newton, I. 35 Niditch, S. 143, 149 Nussbaum, M. C. 64 Odell, M. S. 2, 16–18, 53, 83, 134 O’Grady, K. 93 Økland, J. 41 Pain, R. 3 Parker, R. 71 Patton, C. L. 83, 84, 143 Piff, P. K. 56 Plamper, J. 11, 20, 21 Planalp, S. 29 Poser, R. 2, 4, 6 Pressman, S. D. 23 Prinsloo, G. T. M. 41 Prinz, J. 23 Quick, L. 101 Ravn, O. E. 106 Reckwitz, A. 37–9 Reddy, W. M. 22 Renz, T. 13, 32 Rom-Shiloni, D. 92 Rosaldo, M. Z. 21 Rose, G. 100, 102 Rosenwein, B. H. 21, 22 Roth, M. 106, 107, 114

Royzman, E. B. 67 Rozin, P. 63 Ruane, N. J. 89 Sabini, J. 67 Scarantino, A. 30, 37, 39, 40 Schaffer, B. 96 Scheer, M. 22–4, 33, 38, 117, 155 Schlimm, M. R. 12, 15, 26 Schreiner, P. 34, 41 Schunck, K. D. 106, 109, 111 Schwartz, B. J. 18, 83 Shields, M. E. 16, 18, 42, 43, 92, 93, 98, 123, 131, 138 Shields, S. A. 12, 138 Simon, B. 141, 142, 145, 147 Smith, M. 67 Smith, M. S. 27 Smith-Christopher, D. L. 1, 5, 137 Soja, E. 37, 124 Solomon, R. C. 24 Stearns, C. Z. 14 Stearns, P. N. 14 Steckler, C. M. 64 Stellar, J. E. 56 Stevenson, K. R. 75, 143, 144, 146, 147 Stiebert, J. 2, 16, 17, 71, 99, 131, 135 Straus, E. 4 Swanepoel, M. G. 136 Sweeney, M. A. 77, 83 Taylor, J. R. 29 Thayer, J. F. 25 Thelle, R. I. 32, 134 Thiessen, M. 87 Tilford, N. 58 Toorn, K. van der 107 Tracy, J. L. 64 Tuell, S. 149 Turner, E. A. 31, 32 Vawter, B. 107 Wagner, A. 27, 58 Wallis, G. 47, 49, 52, 58 Weems, R. 14, 15, 18, 32 Wenwell, K. J. 41 Westenholz, J. G. 106, 107, 114 Whaley, L. 35

Index of Authors Whitekettle, R. 88 Wierzbicka, A. 12, 24–6, 28, 33 Wolde, E. van 15, 133 Wong, K. L. 74, 84 Wrede, T. 37 Wu, D. Y. 17

187

Yee, G. A. 1 Zimmerli, W. 43, 92, 106, 126, 140, 148 Zorab, E. 25 Zsolnay, I. 113, 116

I

abandonment 8, 46, 57–62 abjection 73, 74, 98, 150, 156, 157 abominations 66, 76–80 adultery. See infidelity ambiguity 98, 99 anger 13, 25, 132, 133 antilanguage 16 Babylonians 1, 130, 131, 154 birth. See childbirth blood life and death and 94, 95 purity laws and 93 types of 89–95, 148, 149 bodiliness. See embodiment body fluids 70 boundaries disgust and 156 embodiment and 67–72 gender and 81, 138 holiness and 6 maintenance of 143–7 new temple and 143, 144 purity and 159 significance of 7 temple and 80 trauma and 6 violations of 133, 145, 159 “bounded system” 86 Canaanites 106 childbirth gender and 88, 89 process of 92–5 purity laws and 87–9 ritual and 87–9, 95, 96 children 49 n. 7, 60 n. 38

S

cities 47, 48 clean/unclean dichotomy 74–7, 80, 81, 144, 145 clothing 101, 102 cognition 23, 24 compassion 52, 54 confessionals 39 contagion 65 contempt 52, 55, 56 control 44, 45, 99–103, 157 covenant 160 cult 1 defilement of Jerusalem 70, 123, 156 order and 71 of temple 16, 79, 80, 123 deportation. See exile destruction 10, 80, 125, 127, 128, 130–8, 146 dichotomies, variety of 7 See also specific dichotomies dietary laws 68, 73 dirt 67, 68 disgust boundaries and 156 declaration of 65–7 definitions of 63 embodiment and 69, 70 exclusion and 64 females and 16, 150, 156 Jerusalem and 9, 63, 64, 86, 91, 151, 156, 157 new temple and 150 purity laws and 8, 9, 65, 66 role of 18–20, 85, 148, 149 dishonor 5

Index of Subjects displacement. See exile domes destruction of 126, 127, 158 high places and 104, 113–16 transgression and 106 elevation 119–21 emasculation 5, 6 embodiment emotion and 23, 24, 33, 38, 69, 70, 155 Jerusalem and 7, 91, 93, 95–9, 131–7 order and 67 purity laws and 65–72 society and 65 n. 8, 67 space and 36 symbolism and 69, 72 emotion associations with 26, 28–30 Bible and 12, 14 n. 25, 20, 27–33 as category 24–7, 33 components of 22, 24, 25, 27 n. 103 concepts of 26, 27 definitions of 11 n. 1, 12 n. 1, 28 dimensions of 24, 30, 31, 33, 39 embodiment and 23, 24, 33, 38, 69, 70, 155 engagement of 13, 14 environment and 20–7, 33 gender and 3, 18, 45 history and 11, 12, 21, 22 judgments and 13 manifestations of 22, 24, 29, 30 narratives and 29 rationality and 14, 15, 19 repertoires of 14, 15, 20, 39, 40 responses to 13 source of 19 n. 60, 20 space and 2, 3, 8, 33, 37–40, 57–61, 116–20, 155, 157, 160, 161 study of 11, 12, 14 n. 25, 20 types of 21 n. 63 environment 20–7, 33, 35 exile 1, 3, 5, 132, 139, 154 eye, the 58 Ezekiel, the prophet 82–5

189

fear 28, 40 feeling 28, 29 See also emotion females blood of 89–95 control over 36, 37, 121, 122, 132, 156, 157 disgust and 156 new temple and 147, 148 purity laws and 73, 74 status of 147 violation of 132, 133 feminine, the control of 99–103 imagery of 19 symbolic significance of 102, 103 feminization 64 See also emasculation fields battles and the dead and 49, 51, 60 cities and 47, 48 cultivation and herding and 48, 52 emotion and 8 isolation by 59 liminality of 50 openness of 51, 61 significance of 46–52 transformation in 62 witnesses and 58 Yhwh and 49–52, 61 filth 73 See also abjection; defilement gender boundaries and 81, 138 childbirth and 88, 89 confusion concerning 5 emotion and 3, 18, 45 Jerusalem and 3, 42, 44, 102, 103, 129, 138, 152, 153, 155, 156, 159 new temple and 159 norms concerning 130 purity and 147 reversal of 44 space and 3, 8, 36, 45, 155 See also females; males

190

Index of Subjects

high places destruction of 126, 127, 158 domes and 104, 113–16 elevation and 109 emotion and 116–20 number of 116 transgression and 106, 121 holiness 6 Holiness Code (H) 84, 85 holy/profane dichotomy 74–7, 81, 144, 145 homosexuality 117, 118 hope 152, 153 houses 127–31 humiliation 135, 136, 158, 159 hyperbole 130 identity, crisis of 139 idolatry 90, 91, 104, 105, 112 n. 38, 150 impurity 77 n. 62, 89–93, 116 infants. See children infection 65 infidelity 14 n. 23, 81, 82 of Jerusalem 15, 16, 108, 113, 122, 123, 139, 148, 152 inside/outside dichotomy 7 invasion 7, 136, 137, 156 isolation 59, 60, 93 jealousy 13 Jerusalem abandonment of 8, 46, 57–62 abjection of 73, 74, 98, 150, 156, 157 as ambiguous (hybrid) 98, 99 animality of 60 anxiety over 103 body of 7, 91, 93, 95–9, 131–7 compassion for 54 complaints of 17 contempt and 55, 56 control of 44, 45, 99–103, 157 defilement of 70, 123, 156 destruction of 10, 80, 125, 127, 128, 130–8, 146

disgust and 9, 63, 64, 86, 91, 151, 156, 157 elevation and 120, 121 emotion and 3, 15, 19, 20, 24, 57, 141 gender and 3, 42, 44, 102, 103, 129, 138, 152, 153, 155, 156, 159 houses of 127–31 humiliation of 135, 136, 158, 159 impurity of 116 infidelity of 15, 16, 108, 113, 122, 123, 139, 148, 152 invasion of 7, 136, 137, 156 isolation of 59, 60, 93 judgment of 54, 56, 78, 80, 82, 125–31, 133, 134, 136, 137 marriage of 41, 99–102, 140, 141, 155, 156, 159, 160 mother of 98 as newborn 87–9, 95–9 personification of 3, 82 pity for 53, 54 power and 9, 10, 43, 44, 155, 160 pride of 118–21, 158 promiscuity of 122, 136 purification of 100, 101 rebellion of 124, 132, 137 reordering of 137, 138 restoration of 134 salvation of 58, 61, 102 sex work in 108, 114, 115 shame of 16–18 siege of 1, 136, 137 space and 41, 42, 161 as subversive 104, 105, 124, 157, 158 as transgressive 9, 31, 119 violence done to 42, 43, 134 Yhwh’s withdrawal from 78, 79 See also domes; high places; shrines Judahite/foreigner dichotomy 7 Judahites 1, 3, 138 See also Jerusalem judgment 13, 54, 56, 78, 80, 82, 125–31, 133, 134, 136, 137

Index of Subjects language 16 loss 154 love 15 male/female dichotomy 81, 88, 89 males 145–7, 160, 161 marriage with foreigners 7 of Jerusalem 41, 99–102, 140, 141, 155, 156, 159, 160 as metaphor 3, 13, 14, 32 n. 125, 132, 160 ritual of 97 masculine, the 5, 6 men. See males menstruation 19, 90, 91, 93 n. 23 mercy 52–4 Mesopotamia 106, 107 metaphors concepts and 27 n. 104 emotion and 31, 32 marriage and 3, 13, 14, 32 n. 125, 132, 160 metonymy 27 n. 104, 31 mind 23, 24 Moabites 110, 111 moral impurity 89–91 mounds. See domes nature 61 new Jerusalem 10, 137, 140, 159 new temple boundaries and 143, 144 disgust and 150 females and 147, 148 gender and 159 healing waters of 149 measurement of 152 safety of 153, 159 shame and 151 trauma and 159 vision of 141–3 newborns 87–9, 95–9 nursing care 54 order 67, 70, 71

191

pain 28 peace 142, 143 personification 3, 82 pity 52–4 place. See space pollution as category 67 embodiment and 68, 69 order and 70, 71 sources of 66 power control and 132 houses and 128–30 Jerusalem and 9, 10, 43, 44, 155, 160 space and 36, 37, 104, 120, 121, 127–31, 155, 157 Yhwh and 10 pride 118–21, 158 Priestly Source (P) 84 priestly traditions 74, 82–5 priests, temple bodies of 146 corpses and 148 females and 147, 148 movements of 146, 147 promiscuity 122, 136 prostitution 15, 105–8, 114, 115, 150 purification 100, 101, 148, 149 purity boundaries and 159 conceptualizations of 9 gender and 147 theodicy and 74–82 purity laws body fluids and 70, 93 childbirth and 87–9 disgust and 8, 9, 65, 66 embodiment and 65–72 emotion and 65, 66 females and 73, 74 rebellion 124, 132, 137 reconciliation 18 restoration 134

192

Index of Subjects

ritual 67, 87–9, 95, 96 See also purity laws ritual impurity 92, 93 sacrifice 110, 112 safety 142–5, 152, 153 salvation 58, 61, 102 security 142–5, 152, 153 separateness. See purity; purity laws sex work 16 n. 31, 105–8, 114, 115 shame 5, 15–19, 118, 135, 151 shrines appearance of 108, 109 attitude towards 111 Canaanites and 106 function of 108, 110 idolatry and 112 location of 109, 111, 113 material composition of 112 Moabites and 110, 111 sinfulness 89–95 space access to 37 conceptions of 35 contesting of 127 control of 158 definitions of 34, 35 embodiment and 36 emotion and 2, 3, 8, 33, 37–40, 57–61, 116–20, 155, 157, 160, 161 gender and 3, 8, 36, 45, 155 power and 36, 37, 104, 120, 121, 127–31, 155, 157 resistance and 37 social interrelatedness of 35, 36 study of 35–7 trauma and 3, 4, 154 types of 35, 41, 42, 50, 114, 115 streets 114, 115 subversion 104, 105, 124, 157, 158

temple, the access and 80, 143–5, 146, 147 defilement of 16, 79, 80, 123 destruction of 128 theodicy and 74–82 See also new temple theodicy 74–82, 131, 132 transgression 9, 31, 65, 119, 121 trauma causes of 4 definitions of 4, 6 protection from 142 space and 1, 3, 4, 6, 154, 159 time and 4 umbilical cord 95–9 uncleanness 65, 89–95 villages 48 violence emotion and 135 by husbands 132 sex and 134, 135 towards Jerusalem 42, 43, 134 visions 10, 79, 141–3, 153 “whoring” 15, 105–8, 114, 115, 150 women. See females; feminine, the Yhwh anger of 43 n. 47, 132, 133 complaints against 17 emotion and 13, 15 fields and 49–52, 61 holiness of 75, 76, 79 husbands’ rights and 132 marriage of 99–102 power and 10 shame of 16 temple and 77–9