Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. III (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161532405, 9783161536885, 3161532406

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

72

Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic Literature Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. III edited by

Nathan MacDonald and Ken Brown

Mohr Siebeck

Nathan MacDonald, born 1975; studied theology and classical Hebrew in Cambridge and Durham; currently University Lecturer in Hebrew Bible at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of St John’s College. Ken Brown, born 1982; 2010 MA in Biblical Studies; 2014 Dr. theol. at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; currently teaching at Whitworth University (Spokane, WA, USA).

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153688-5 ISBN 978-3-16-153240-5 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface The essays in this volume stem from a colloquium held in the Paulinerkirche in the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen in June 2012. The theme of the conference was Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. We are grateful to the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung who have funded the Early Jewish Monotheisms research group in Göttingen of which the conference was a part. The editors wish to thank Profs. Hermann Spieckermann, Mark S. Smith and Bernd Janowski for accepting the volume for publication in their series Forschungen zum Alten Testament and for their encouragement and advice. Similarly we are grateful to Dr Henning Ziebritzki for his help and support. Finally, we would like to thank Rike Köhn for assistance in the preparation of the volume.

Contents Preface ………………………………………………………………………V Abbreviations …………………………………………………………….IX KEN BROWN AND NATHAN MACDONALD Introduction ………………………………………………………………XI ULRICH BERGES AND BERND OBERMAYER Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah ……………………………………1 BERND SCHIPPER ‘The City by the Sea will be a Drying Place’: Isaiah 19.1–25 in Light of Prophetic Texts from Ptolemaic Egypt …………………………………25 MARK S. GIGNILLIAT Who is a God like You? Refracting the One God in Jonah, Micah and Nahum ……….…………………………………………..……………….57 LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER YHWH, the Divine Beings and Zechariah 1–6 ….………………………73 NATHAN MACDONALD The Beginnings of One-ness Theology in Late Israelite Prophetic Literature …………………………………………………………………103 REINHARD ACHENBACH Monotheistischer Universalismus und frühe Formen eines Völkerrechts in prophetischen Texten Israels aus achämenidischer Zeit ……………125 JAKOB WÖHRLE The God(s) of the Nations in Late Prophecy ……………………………177 JOHN J. COLLINS Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence: Fantasized Solutions to a Theological Dilemma in Second Temple Judaism ………201

VIII

Contents

STEFAN BEYERLE Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism in Ancient Jewish Apocalyptic Writings …………………………………………………………………219 J ENNIE GRILLO Worship and Idolatry in the Book of Daniel through the Lens of Tertullian’s De idololatria …………………………………….…………247 Contributors ………………………………………………………………263 Scripture Index ...…………………………………………………………265

Abbreviations The bibliographies use the system of abbreviations found in S.M. SCHWERTNER, Theologische Realenzyklopädie: Abkürzungsverzeichnis, Berlin 19942. In addition the following abbreviations are used: BZAR CBibR DDD EBR EncDSS FAT HCOT HThK JAJ.S JBSt LHBOTS LSTS PTSDSSP TA TDOT ThWQ TLOT Trans. ZAR

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Currents of Biblical Research Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn) Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Forschungen zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Journal of Ancient Judaism, Supplement Series Journal of Biblical Studies Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project Tel Aviv Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (eds. G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry) Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (eds. E. Jenni und C. Westermann) Transeuphratene Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte

Introduction KEN BROWN AND NATHAN MACDONALD In the scholarly discussion about Israelite and Jewish monotheism which flourished from the 1980s late prophetic and apocalyptic literature rarely featured. The reasons are understandable enough. The focus of academic attention was upon the gestation of monotheism: the causes that gave rise to the first monotheistic expressions. The later development of monotheistic religion was only of peripheral interest, if at all. This must be regarded as unfortunate, because late prophetic and apocalyptic literature offers some interesting examples of how Jewish monotheism developed. The essays in this volume seek to address that lacuna. They cover a broad range of texts and issues relevant to the portrayal of monotheism in prophetic and early apocalyptic literature. The texts addressed mostly stem from the Persian (Achaemenid) and Hellenistic periods, but a range of approaches are taken toward them. Some essays focus on specific texts such as Isaiah, Zechariah or Daniel; others trace broader thematic concerns across a larger corpus. Several emphasize the secondary reshaping of this material by later editors; others stress the interpretive links between particular texts. Some focus on Yhwh’s ‘oneness’ and its implications, others on portrayals of violence, international law or idolatry. What unites the volume is a common recognition that early Jewish monotheism is by no means monolithic, but reflects a complex and often divergent set of reflections on the character of Yhwh in the face of new situations and experiences. As will be seen, many of these essays complement one another, but there remain significant points of dispute between them. The essays are broadly organized into two groups. The first half of the volume has essays that focus on specific texts from the Hebrew Bible, whilst those in the second half are focused more thematically. In the opening essay, Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer take the book of Isaiah as a test case to explore the differing ways that divine violence is portrayed in biblical literature. They distinguish two primary images, each of which is employed with diverse connotations: God as a commander, summoning third parties to fight on his behalf, and God as a warrior, fighting directly for or against his people or others. It is therefore necessary to trace out the shifting portrayals both of God’s own actions, and of those affected by and

XII

Nathan MacDonald

involved in God’s violence. For instance, they observe that Assyria is first depicted in idealized terms as Yhwh’s instrument to punish his people (Isa 5.25–30; 7.18–20), then portrayed as the target of Yhwh’s own attacks, carried out directly and for Israel’s benefit (cf. Isa 10.5–27). By contrast, the destruction of Babylon is carried out through third parties (Isaiah 13), though also portrayed as an act of salvation (Isaiah 14). Unlike the Assyrians and Medes, the Babylonians are never portrayed as Yhwh’s agents in Isaiah, which Berges and Obermayer suggest may reflect the book’s dominant Zion theology. In other images of divine violence in Isaiah 24–66, Yhwh is typically depicted fighting directly rather than through an intermediary, but with shifting nuances. In particular, Berges and Obermayer detect a change in the depiction of the enemy as one proceeds to the later portions of the book. God’s violence is directed first against nations – Israel or its enemies – then against the cosmos as a whole (e.g. Isaiah 24–27; 34), but later it becomes a means of distinguishing between distinct factions within Israel itself (e.g. Isaiah 63; 65–66). They conclude that this may reflect priestly polemics within post-exilic Judaism. Bernd Schipper focuses more closely on the remarkable oracle in Isaiah 19, which begins by condemning Egypt but ends by predicting that Egypt will be called “my people” and blessed alongside Assyria and Israel. This apparent universalism is sharply curtailed in the Septuagint, which restricts the blessing to diaspora Jews, rather than extending it to the nations among whom they live. This raises the question of whether the universalizing trajectory of the Hebrew text represents a climax of Old Testament theology, or merely a dead end. Schipper approaches that question from a new angle, by linking Isaiah 19 with a set of Egyptian prophetic texts from the Ptolemaic period. It has previously been suggested that the Greek translation may reflect familiarity with these texts – especially the Oracle of the Lamb and the Oracle of the Potter – which share both an overall structure and several motifs with Isaiah 19. Schipper argues that not only the Greek but also the earlier Hebrew text should be linked to these oracles. He observes that there are two versions of the Oracle of the Potter, the first of which appears to reflect a conflict between the traditional Egyptian temples and the new Hellenistic metropolis of Alexandria, but the second is explicitly directed against the Jews. He argues that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 can be read as a response to texts like the earlier version of the Oracle of the Potter, insisting that it is not the Egyptian gods but Yhwh alone who strikes and heals (echoing Deut 32.39). Meanwhile, the Greek translation derives from the more charged atmosphere reflected in the anti-Jewish version of the Oracle of the Potter, abandoning universalism in favor of a renewed emphasis on salvation for the Jews alone.

Introduction

XIII

A different interest in the secondary shaping of the text is seen in Mark S. Gignilliat’s exploration of the character of God in the canonical form of Jonah, Micah and Nahum. He argues that the order and framing of these books in the Masoretic Text offers a more nuanced portrayal of Yhwh’s character than any of the individual books alone. In particular, he focuses on the distinctive ways in which the self-revelation of God in Exod 34.6–7 is taken up at key junctions in each of these three books (Jon 4.2; Mic 7.18; Nah 1.3). Where Jonah and Micah emphasize Yhwh’s mercy – the first in frustration, the second in hope – Nahum highlights Yhwh’s severity. The prophetic canon reflects a similar balance to that seen in Exod 34.6–7 itself. One way in which the imbalance in Yhwh’s character plays out is in the portrayal of Yhwh’s relationship to the nations. Where Jonah depicts Yhwh’s mercy to Nineveh, Nahum promises judgment against it, but Micah’s placement between them modulates this contrast, allowing Jonah and Nahum to be seen as complementary possibilities, rather than contradictory perspectives. This is seen especially in the central positioning of Micah 4, which mirrors the tension between Jonah and Nahum: Mic 4.1–4[5] presents a positive eschatological possibility, which is illustrated through the idealized narrative in Jonah. But Mic 4.11–13 and Nahum present ‘the facts on the ground’: the nations have not sought refuge in Yhwh, and face judgment. Gignilliat concludes that the question in Mic 7.18 – “Who is a God like you?” –becomes a touchstone for the whole complex in its canonical reflection on Exod 34: Yhwh will by no means clear the guilty, but he is merciful and compassionate to all who seek him. Micah’s question can be answered not only with reference to Yhwh’s relation to the nations, but also with reference to other deities and divine beings. The latter issue is taken up by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer in the context of the visions in Zechariah 1–6. There is a sharp contrast between the preponderance of divine beings in the visions themselves, and their absence from the accompanying oracular material, in which Yhwh is typically the only divine figure. For instance, a wide range of figures appear in Zech 1.8–12, including an interpreting angel, a man, the angel of Yhwh, several horses and a rider, all of which are portrayed as divine agents of Yhwh. Yet in the oracle that follows all of these disappear except the interpreting angel, while Yhwh himself declares his intention to act for Jerusalem, directly (1.13–17). This tendency to multiple divine beings in the vision reports, while eliminating them from the oracular material, has often been interpreted as a sign that the latter are secondary. Tiemeyer argues, however, that it more likely reflects the change of genre than of a change in theology. Though the visions refer to a greater number of divine beings, all but one of them is portrayed as a subordinate of Yhwh, and the one apparent exception – the ‘woman’ in the ephah in Zech 5.7 – is not even identi-

XIV

Nathan MacDonald

fied as a goddess, but as ‘wickedness’, and she is imprisoned and carried away by Yhwh’s own servants. The lack of divine figures in the oracular material reflects a shift from visions of the heavenly realm to clarifications of their earthly significance, but Yhwh’s supremacy is at the forefront throughout. The remaining essays are more thematic, though employing varying methodologies. Nathan MacDonald explores the earliest references to God’s ‘oneness’. Against frequent claims that the declaration ‫יהוה אחד‬, ‘Yhwh is one’, in Deut 6.4 serves a programmatic function in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, he observes that the preferred monotheistic affirmation is not the Shema but ‘Yhwh is God’. In the whole canonical history, the only potential allusions to Deut 6.4 are 2 Sam 7.22– 23, which connects ‘one’ people to Yhwh’s incomparability, and 2 Chr 32.12, in which Sennacherib mocks Hezekiah’s ‘one altar’. It is not until very late prophetic texts in Mal 2.10–16; Zech 14.9 that God himself is described as ‘one’, and the term only becomes a prominent means of linking God’s uniqueness to that of other things in later Hellenistic Jewish literature (e.g. Philo, Josephus and Paul). Reinhard Achenbach explores a different aspect of Yhwh’s supremacy in late prophecy, tracing the relation between monotheistic universalism and international law in a number of Achaemenid-period texts that extend Yhwh’s authority to nations other than Israel. Focusing on the religioushistorical background to these depictions, he notes that the basis for Yhwh’s judgment differs substantially from text to text, implying authority over a broad range of human activities, even in areas unrelated to Israel. For instance, the Cyrus oracle in Isaiah 45 extends Yhwh’s demand for exclusive loyalty to all nations, turning Israel into Yhwh’s witnesses before the world (Isa 42.1–3; 49.6–7). Elsewhere, however, Yhwh’s authority over the nations is formulated not in terms of exclusive existence or loyalty, but on socio-economic grounds, or with a view to their practices in war. Sometimes the nations are judged primarily for their treatment of Yhwh’s own people (e.g. Jeremiah 50); other times they are judged for their actions towards one another (e.g. Amos 1-2), or without specific charges raised (e.g. Jer 18.7–10). In many texts, hubris (‫ )זדון‬is singled out for judgment (e.g. Isa 13.11; Jer 50.31, 32; Ezek 28.2), but elsewhere judgment is tied to more concrete offenses. For instance, Amos 1–2 condemns Damascus, Edom, Tyre, the Ammonites and Moab for grave military and ‘human rights’ offenses, most of which were not directed at Israel. Habakkuk condemns not only the violence and hubris of Babylon, but also its economic abuses against many nations (e.g. Hab 2.8–11). Zephaniah 3 goes further, anticipating a day when the boundaries between peoples will be abolished and all nations purified by fire; their survivors will invoke

Introduction

XV

Yhwh ‘by name’ and serve him as one (Zeph 3.9). Similar depictions of the gathering of all nations for judgment appear in a number of prophetic books. In such texts we see the beginnings of a monotheistic ground for international law, which remains a vision that is never fully realized. Jakob Wöhrle takes up the depictions of the nations’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem from another angle, emphasizing that even this apparently monotheistic image is never tied to a denial that other deities exist. Challenging the notion that monotheism was widely taken for granted in the post-exilic period, he explores the diverse portrayals of the gods of the nations in late prophecy, and concludes that even there it was typically assumed that other gods exist, and may even be appropriate objects of worship for non-Jews. For instance, unlike Tiemeyer, Wöhrle argues that the woman in the ephah in Zech 5.5–11 is a goddess, and indeed one who can and will be worshipped in Babylonia, just not by Jews. On his reading, Zechariah 5 demands Israel’s exclusive worship of Yhwh without denying the existence of other deities or their worship by other peoples. Similarly, though Mal 2.11–16 refers to ‘one God’ and criticizes marriage to ‘the daughter of a foreign god’, the existence of foreign gods is not challenged, only the people’s lack of faithfulness. Going further, in the late text of Jonah the worship of other gods by other peoples is explicitly recounted without overt critique, even though it is Yhwh who demands their repentance. Wöhrle therefore suggests that the nations’ veneration of their own gods is itself seen as veneration of Yhwh, who is the universal God. Finally, in Mic 4.5, foreigners’ worship of other gods is not only affirmed but projected into the eschaton. Wöhrle concludes that the question these texts address is not whether other gods exist, but how Yhwh’s own people should relate to the nations and their deities. Two essays consider the portrayal of God in early apocalyptic literature. In the first, John J. Collins challenges the frequent claim that monotheism tends to lead to violence, by looking at some of the most extreme ‘fantasies of violence’ from the Second Temple period. He focuses on three primary issues: the motivation behind depictions of eschatological violence, the dualistic tendencies inherent in many of these portrayals, and their practical effects. Regarding the first, Collins suggests that the basic problem that motivates these depictions is cognitive dissonance, specifically the gap between belief in the supremacy of Yhwh and the contemporary subservience of God’s people. Where Wöhrle discussed the image of the nations streaming to Zion as an indication of ‘universal monolatry’, Collins sees this as an exercise in counter-factual fantasy, a response to the reality of foreign domination. It is that dissonance, rather than belief in Yhwh’s uniqueness per se, that drives these portrayals of violence. Second, Collins argues that many of the most violent images are inherently

XVI

Nathan MacDonald

dualistic, rather than strictly monotheistic. Some draw on older combat myths in which Yhwh’s cosmic enemies have been subordinated rather than completely destroyed (e.g. Isaiah 24–27; Daniel 7–12), while others seem to have been influenced by Zoroastrian cosmic dualism (e.g. 1QM). Though God’s adversaries are always vanquished in the end, their power is significant, and seriously qualifies these texts’ purported monotheism. Finally, though there have been scattered examples of physical violence motivated by eschatological fervor, there is little evidence of such an effect in early Judaism. On the contrary, several of these texts urge patient endurance rather than violent activism on the part of their readers, who can rest assured that God will soon act decisively (e.g. Daniel; 1QS; cf. Revelation). By projecting the correction of perceived injustice into the future – even if depicted in violent terms – apocalyptic literature serves a valuable role in preserving values and encouraging perseverance in the face of crisis and oppression. In contrast to Collins, the essay by Stefan Beyerle argues that the dualistic tendencies in this literature are firmly subordinated to their affirmation of the supremacy of the creator God. He denies that Jewish apocalyptic includes any counterpart to the Zoroastrian concept of cosmic dualism, though other forms of dualism are at times prominent. Instead, we find texts like Isa 45.5–7, which attributes to Yhwh the creation of both light and darkness, good and evil (cf. 1QIsaa). He thinks even this is more likely a response to Marduk veneration than to Zoroastrianism, but it is firmly opposed to both. That Isaiah 45 is not merely an exception is evident from the appearance of similar claims in a number of apparently ‘dualistic’ texts from Qumran. For instance, the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ in 1QS III.13–IV.26 is one of the most commonly invoked examples of ‘cosmic dualism’ at Qumran, yet even it affirms that God created both spirits (III.25). The dualism of the Treatise, therefore, is restricted to the human and angelic realms, but all of this stands under the authority of the one God, who not only created and planned the present order, but will also bring it to an end. Similarly, for all its emphasis on the final war with Belial, even the War Scroll emphasizes God’s incomparability in language reminiscent of Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 1QM X.8–9; XII.1) and affirms that God also made Belial (1QM XIII.10–13). Finally, though he notes that the image of the ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel 7 may derive from older polytheistic myths, he concludes that it too is monotheistic in its present form, as this figure is clearly subordinated to the high God. The final essay looks more specifically at Daniel, but from a different angle. Whereas all of the previous essays focus on the meaning and implications of monotheism itself, Jennie Grillo examines instead its mirror image, the portrayal of ‘idolatry’. As she notes, concepts of idolatry are just

Introduction

XVII

as diverse as concepts of God, and do not always appear in the forms we might expect. In Daniel especially, readers have often been struck by the apparent contradictions in its portrayals of proper and improper worship. For instance, worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue is condemned in Daniel 3, yet Nebuchadnezzar himself had just fallen down and ‘worshipped’ Daniel – using exactly the same terms – in the previous story, with no condemnation being voiced (cf. Dan 2.46; 3.16, 18). Similarly, the very ‘service’ that is condemned when directed at the statue in Dan 3.17 is given to the ‘Son of Man’ in Dan 7.14, 27, even though this figure is clearly distinguished from God. These tensions within Daniel’s portrayal of idolatry have been explained in various ways, but Grillo insists that they neither be dismissed nor taken to imply that the text is inconsistent. Instead, she suggests that a better appreciation of Daniel’s perspective can be gained through comparison with Tertullian’s De idololatria (ca. 203–206 CE), which appears to reflect similar assumptions. Both texts show remarkably little unease with worship within their own religious systems – even when directed at humans or angels – yet both thoroughly repudiate the same practices when they bring honor to ‘alien’ religious systems. As such, Daniel’s conception of idolatry shows little concern with the existence of other deities – the only affirmation of God’s uniqueness in the book appears on Nebuchadnezzar’s lips (3.29). Instead, the emphasis throughout is on Judean worship of Yhwh alone. There is little corresponding concern that foreigners should also worship Yhwh, only that they should allow the Jews to do so. Ultimately, Daniel presents monotheism and its attendant rejection of idolatry as the foremost sign of Jewish identity. Taken together the essays in this volume cover a wide range of questions concerning monotheism in late prophetic and early apocalyptic literature, but a number of key issues recur in several of them from different perspectives. These include the nature of Yhwh’s own character, his relation to the nations and their gods, the portrayal of other divine beings, and Yhwh’s associations with evil and violence. In many cases, these discussions are complementary, as virtually all of the essays in this volume conclude that depictions of Yhwh’s supremacy or uniqueness vary widely across this literature. Nevertheless, disagreements remain in both the interpretation of specific texts and in the larger reconstruction of the nature of Jewish monotheism in the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism.

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah ULRICH BERGES AND BERND OBERMAYER1

Introductory Remarks In the discussion of monotheism in late prophetic literature, the violent portrayal of God clearly demands attention. The present joint article does not intend to add to the well-trodden discussion initiated by Jan Assmann2 which mainly dealt with the question of whether the development of monotheism decisively intensified the problem of violence in biblical Israel compared to its neighbouring cultures.3 Instead, the main focus is how Yhwh’s potential for violence is reflected in biblical literature. The Book of Isaiah will serve as a ‘test case’. Due to its approximately five hundred year history of formation the book constitutes a fruitful object in order to analyse the following questions: How does divine violence occur within this comprehensive prophetic scroll which covers the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persion Period as well as the Hellenistic Era? Are there historical turning points with regard to the depiction of Yhwh as a violent deity? How do the means and targets of divine violence change throughout the book? Who might be responsible for the variations in the semantics of violence and war? Since an inductive approach will be pursued by collecting literary observations, the essay is meant as a preliminary survey for a future systematization. Recent studies have demonstrated that warfare constitutes a crucial theme throughout the Book of Isaiah.4 As we want to show in the following essay, it is also a central theme for the book’s portrayals of Yhwh. In order to locate relevant texts the semantics of military violence serve as a

1 Bernd Obermayer has recently completed his dissertation under the direction of Prof. Berges in Bonn (See OBERMAYER, Göttliche Gewalt). In the present article Obermayer is responsible for the interpretative observations on Isa 1–27 and Berges for the interpretation of Isa 34; 40–66. 2 Cf. ASSMANN, Moses; IDEM, Price; IDEM, Monotheismus. 3 On this subject see LOHFINK, Gewalt, 61–78; ZENGER, Gewalt; IDEM, Der Mosaische Monotheismus; ALBERTZ, Monotheism, 373–387. 4 For recent Old Testament studies on warfare see TRIMM, Research, 171–216.

2

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

methodical tool.5 Taking into account all belligerent actions, the book virtually unfolds an entire divine campaign: God summons (‫קרא‬, ‫שרק‬, ‫עור‬ hiphil, inter alia), equips (‫אזר‬, ‫)לבש‬, and examines (‫ )פקד‬armies and soldiers. Yhwh sends troops into combat (cf. 5.25–30; 13.2–6), or he himself enters the battlefield (cf. 26.21–27.1; 42.13; 59.16–18). God uses the bow (‫ )קשת‬as well as siege engines (‫)מצורה‬. God fights (‫לחם‬, ‫ )צבא‬and smites (‫ )נכה‬whereas his enemies fall by the sword (‫ נפל בחרב‬hiphil). He imposes the ban (‫ )חרם‬upon his foes, and destroys their dominion (‫)חרב‬. Nevertheless, in the Book of Isaiah Yhwh’s violence is not restricted to the battlefield. In other words, the military aspect is only one – admittedly important – trait of violence ascribed to Yhwh. Sickness,6 pedagogical violence (cf. 1.4–6) or physical punishment7 shed complementary light on the Holy One of Israel, notwithstanding other more positive attributes. In the realm of warfare it seems that two divine portrayals can be discerned. They differ in the way Yhwh’s violence is depicted. On the one hand, God is presented as commander who summons foreign nations in order to wage war on his behalf. On the other hand, Yhwh himself takes up arms. As a warrior he fights against his own people, foreign nations or even the whole universe. Given these differences it appears to be crucial to extend our main focus – on the perpetrator Yhwh – to the other parties affected by, or involved in, the violent acts: the victims as well as the abettors.8 As will be shown all three are connected by means of their literary presentation. Furthermore, these relations are either maintained or changed throughout the book by deliberately adopting or avoiding specific military terms or motifs in the portrayal of Yhwh. Of course, in making one’s way through the sub-compositions, the complex literary history of the text has to be taken into account. Thus, in order to examine different aspects of continuity and discontinuity in Yhwh’s depiction as belligerent deity the beginning of the Book of Isaiah will serve as a starting point.

5 An elaborated concept for the localisation of violent texts has been developed by M ICHEL, Gott, 66–114; see also DIETRICH AND MAYORDOMO, Gewaltüberwindung, 17– 20. In the past biblical scholarship was predominantly influenced by René Girard’s concept; for a critical evaluation of the cultural-anthropological approach see B AUMANN, Gottesbilder, 27–28. 6 Cf. KUSTÁR, Durch seine Wunden. 7 Cf. LECLERC, Yahweh. 8 Similarly B AUMANN, Gottesbilder, 35–36.

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

3

1. Divine Violence against Judah and Assyria (Isaiah 1–12) 1.1 Assyria as Yhwh’s Bellicose Instrument (Isaiah 5.25–30; 7.18–20) Since the first subdivision (Isaiah 1–12) mainly deals with the sins of Yhwh’s own people, God’s violence is primarily directed against Judah and Jerusalem (cf. 3.1–4.1). Thus, the ‘sinful nation’ (‫גוי חטא‬, cf. 1.4) is also the first target of military violence. In 5.25–30 the prophet predicts that Yhwh will stretch out his hand to strike: He will raise a signal for a nation far away, and whistle for a people at the ends of the earth; Here they come, swiftly, speedily! None of them is weary, none stumbles, none slumbers or sleeps, not a loincloth is loose, not a sandal-thong broken; their arrows are sharp, all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs seem like flint, and their wheels like the whirlwind.

In the first text where military violence is directly ascribed to divine initiative Yhwh is presented as a powerful commander. He accomplishes the summoning easily as it is done only by raising a banner (‫)נס‬9 and a whistle (‫)שרק‬.10 Notably, this is the only divine action described. Yhwh remains absent until the end of the chapter, the main focus being the overwhelming power of the anonymous army. Historically, it represents the Assyrian troops in disguise.11 Remarkably the depiction of the army bears positive, idealistic traits,12 since even the toughest soldiers have to rest once in a while. And how quickly a thong breaks, even more so when the journey starts at the ends of the earth (cf. v. 26)! Moreover, there are divine fea-

9

Cf. Isa 5.26; 11.10, 12; 13.2; 18.3; 30.17; 31.9; 33.23; 49.22; 62.10. In the Old Testament whistling (‫ )שרק‬often expresses scorn and derision for the defeated in the aftermath of wars (e.g. Jer 19.8; Ezek 27.36; Zeph 2.15; Lam 2.15–16). 11 This is primarily indicated by the lion-motif in vv. 29–30. Nevertheless, the troops’ anonymity makes it possible to apply the text to other historical contexts since Zion/Jerusalem is threatened by foreign armies throughout the literary history of the Book of Isaiah. 12 Cf. EIDEVALL, Prophecy, 26: ‘One of the most conspicuous traits in the characterization is the complete absence of unambiguously negative attributes…An alternative would be to regard it [i.e., the portrayal] as an instance of propagandistic praise.’ Cf. B EUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, 155. The adoption of warfare rhetoric from the Assyrian royal ideology has been pointed out by MACHINIST, Assyria, 719–737. 10

4

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

tures observable in the depiction:13 the only other figure in Isaiah who comes like a whirlwind (‫כסופה‬, v. 28) is Yhwh in his chariot (66.15). In addition, God is the only one who neither ‘slumbers nor sleeps’ (see Ps 121.4). Contrary to Israel’s keeper (‫ )שומר ישראל‬in Psalm 121, these troops do not provide security, but are a considerable threat for Israel. As Isa 5.29 states there is no saviour (‫אין מציל‬, v. 29), because Yhwh, the only ‫( מציל‬cf. 31.5; 38.6; 50.2) in the Book of Isaiah, calls up the army! What impact does this depiction have on the portrayal of Yhwh? Without a doubt, a close interrelation between the image of God and the image of the enemies is established. Yhwh is so powerful that he is able to summon the most effective army from the end of the world in order to punish his sinful people. In doing so, the troops remain nothing but God’s instruments of war. They totally obey his will. Concerning its literary function, this powerful portrayal of God perfectly fits the text’s literary context.14 On the one hand, the passage can be read as a ferocious coda to the woeoracles in 5.8–24. As a ‘commentary to the tribunal’,15 it presents the consequences of the evil committed. God punishes the rejection of the Torah (cf. v. 24) by waging war against his people. On the other hand, 5.25– 30 ‘serves as the immediate preface to the core narrative’ – as Joseph Blenkinsopp puts it.16 This observation is confirmed by the many keywords Isaiah 5 and 6 have in common.17 Since God’s sphere of control is extended to the end of the world (‫ )קצה הארץ‬in 5.26, the seraphs proclaim in 6.3 that ‘the whole world (‫ )כל־הארץ‬is full of his glory (‫’)כבדו‬. As is often the case elsewhere in the book, the aspects of violence and power in the portrayal of the ‘holy one of Israel’ (5.24; cf. 6.3) are closely connected.18 In addition, Friedhelm Hartenstein has pointed out that God’s wrath (‫ )אף‬which had its first reference in 5.25 is also present in the temple vision – not semantically but by the smoke (‫עשן‬, 6.4; cf. 9.17–18; 65.5) in the sanctuary. 19 In the so-called ‘Isaiah Memoir’ (6.1–8.18) there is surprisingly little evidence of the motif of a war-waging God. To avoid any misunderstand13 A similar process of overlap between God and his instrument of warfare can be discerned in Isa 41.2 where there is no clear distinction made on the grammatical level between God’s initiative and Cyrus’ violent actions. 14 On the redaction-historical relation between the woe-oracles (5.7–24; 10.1–4) und the poem of the ‘outstretched hand’ (5.25–30; 9.7–20) see B EUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, 31–32. 15 BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, 154: ‘Kommentar zum Strafgericht’. 16 B LENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39, 221. 17 These are e.g. ‫( רחק‬5.26; 6.12); ‫ קצה‬and ‫( שרק‬5.26; 7.18); ‫( כשל‬5.27; 8.15); ‫ חץ‬and ‫( קשת‬5.28; 7.24). 18 Cf. BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, 154: ‘Im Vordergrund steht JHWHs Entschlossenheit, das Unrecht zu bekämpfen, wozu er berechtigt und verpflichtet ist.’ 19 Cf. HARTENSTEIN, Unzugänglichkeit, 219–222.

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

5

ing, the passage interprets military conflicts, namely the Syro-Ephraimite war, theologically. And Assyria remains Yhwh’s favorite weapon. However, the corresponding semantic field is hardly applied to describe divine actions. In 7.18 God once more calls up foreign people by a whistle (‫)שרק‬. But in contrast to 5.26 the image is not transferred to the martial domain but is continued as an animal metaphor:20 Egypt and Assyria will settle down in the land like bees and flies (v. 19). In the next verse Yhwh shaves the entire body using a razor hired at the Euphrates (!)21 The mighty flood of this stream is said to be brought up by Yhwh until it ultimately sweeps Judah away (8.7). All these prophetic visions are literary depictions of military conflicts and similar depictions can be found in other Near Eastern literary accounts.22 But on the surface of the text the only protagonists who are waging war (‫)מלחמה‬, are the Syro-Ephraimite coalition parties threatening Zion/Jerusalem (cf. 7.1). Strikingly, this is also the only passage in the book where wrath (‫חרי אף‬, 7.4; ‫ קצף‬hithpael 8.21) describes human emotions and is not used as a term for God’s anger.23 1.2 God’s Bellicose Instrument Becoming His Enemy (Isaiah 10.5–27) A decisive modification in the depiction of divine violence becomes apparent at the end of the Isaiah memoir.24 Although the cast in 10.5–27 remains the same (Yhwh, his own people and Assyria) the interrelation between the protagonists shifts significantly. While in Isa 5.26–30 the foreign nations were summoned in order to execute the ‘Woe’, Assyria now stands under the ‫( הוי‬10.5). The shift can be observed by the use of the key terms ‘rod’ and ‘club’ throughout the chapter: Assyria, the rod of God’s anger (‫שבת אפי‬, v. 5), whose club once executed God’s wrath, should not have vaunted herself over the one who is really in charge of raising rod and club (10.15). Jerusalem should not be afraid of Assyria who is beating her with a rod (v. 24), for as God promises: ‘In a very little while my in-

20 The result is a dehumanized portrayal which is also characteristic for enemy images in the ancient Near East; cf. EIDEVALL, Prophecy, 5: ‘This means that the status (and value) of an allegedly hostile and dangerous group of human beings, is reduced to a…sub-human level. The adversaries can be spoken of, or depicted graphically, as if they were dispensable things, or as if they belonged to some despised animal species that ought to be exterminated (rats, snakes, insects, etc., varying from culture to culture).’ 21 The motif of ‘hiring’ foreign military powers is also documented in the inscription on the Kilamuwa stela (9th century BCE); cf. RÖLLIG, Assur, 121. 22 For the motifs used see LIWAK, Großmächte, 209–218. 23 Cf. 34.2; 47,6; 54.8–9; 57.16–17; 60.10; 64.4, 8. 24 Isa 9.5 already promises that all tramping boots (‫ – סאון‬an Akkadian loanword which symbolizes the overwhelming power of the Assyrian army) will be burned. In v. 6 the deliverance is finally ascribed to the ‫קנאת יהוה‬.

6

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

dignation will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction’ (v. 25). In the core part of the chapter reasons are given for the change of Assyria’s fate (vv. 8–15). While the foreign nation in Isaiah 5 was described positively, Assyria’s actions are now depicted negatively. Ernst Haag has shown that in the course of redaction history Assyria becomes the ‘AntiYhwh’.25 This turn for the worse can be observed on the semantic level. In v. 7 Assyria is accused of having planned destruction (‫ )שמד‬in her own heart (‫)בלבבו‬. In addition to ‘beating’ (‫נכה‬26) and ‘banning’ (‫חרם‬27), ‘destruction’ (‫ )שמד‬is an expression which is exclusively used as a theological term throughout the entire book (cf. 13.9; 14.23; 23.11; 26.14; 48.19). Assyria had planned independently (‫ )בלבבו‬what legitimately is executed only by God himself or on his orders. Furthermore, Assyria is accused of cutting off many nations (‫לא מעט‬, ‘not a few’, v. 7). In doing so the army violated the divine command cited in v. 6 where Zion/Jerusalem constituted the only target. In v. 13 Assyria’s boastful thoughts are cited: ‘I have done this by my own hand…I have removed the boundaries of peoples, and have plundered their treasures.’ Here the raid is not described as ‫ שלל‬or ‫ בזז‬like in the divine command (v. 6). Rather the root ‫ שסה‬is used, a term for the taking of booty which is never interpreted theologically in the Book of Isaiah and is always employed in a negative way (cf. 17.14; 42.22).28 Assyria’s punishment is carried out by Yhwh alone. Instead of military means he uses fire and illness (cf. 10.16–19). As Israel is not set in the position of an executive instrument for the wrath, the triangular structure of violence is not reversed entirely. While Yhwh frequently uses foreign powers in order to wage war, he never uses his own people as a bellicose instrument.29 As Yhwh previously has sent (‫שלח‬, 10.6) Assyria against the godless nation, he now sends (‫שלח‬, v. 16) a ‘wasting sickness’. Assyria’s boastful heart (‫)לבב‬, in which she planned the wanton destruction (cf. v. 7), is now punished (‫פקד‬, v. 12). This specific term foreshadows God’s violent acts in the second subdivision. In 13.11 the punishment hits the whole world, ‫תבל‬. In 24.21–22 it even reaches cosmic dimensions as Yhwh punishes (‫ )פקד‬the kings of the earth (‫ )מלכי האדמה‬and the host in the heights 25

Cf. HAAG, Jesaja, 18–37. According to B EUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, 73, the striking constitutes ‘a theological notion’ in the Book of Isaiah (Cf. HIBBARD, Isaiah XXVII 7, 461–476). 27 See 34.2, 5; 43.28 (and inappropriately the Rabshakeh in 37.11!). 28 With the exception of Judg 2.14, 16; 2 Kgs 17.20 the same is true for all other references in the Hebrew Bible; cf. 1 Sam 14.48 (Amalek!); 23.1; Ps 44.11; Jer 50.11. 29 Even though Israel is waging war in some passages (e.g. Isa 11.13–15; 14.2) clear indications for a divine command are absent in these texts. 26

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

7

(‫)צבא המרום‬.30 By the end of Isaiah 10 the downfall of the Assyrian military power is already a done deal. It no longer appears as a serious threat for Zion/Jerusalem nor as a considerable divine enemy (cf. 11.11, 16). Before Assyria is utterly destroyed in 14.24–27,31 the doxology in Isaiah 12 makes a final recourse to the divine wrath on Zion/Jerusalem.32 What has been denied throughout the entire subdivision (cf. 5.25; 9.11, 16, 20; 10.4), has come true by v. 1: the divine wrath has turned (‫)שוב אף‬. In 66.15 – the verse with God’s whirling chariots – Yhwh will once more turn his wrath in order to judge all flesh (‫כל־בשר‬, 66.16) in post-exilic Judah. But prior to that, Yhwh has to face further powerful enemies as we turn to the oracles against foreign nations (Isaiah 13–23).

2. Divine Violence against Babylon, Foreign Nations and the Cosmos (Isaiah 13–27) Regarding the semantics of violence, the second subdivision offers a new aspect: more often than in Isaiah 1–12 they appear in God’s direct speech.33 As a consequence a closer connection between the violator and his acts is established since Yhwh himself describes his destructive activity. As far as the frequency of divine violence is concerned, the subdivision is characterised by a significant decline.34 In some oracles as the ones against Kush (Isa 18), Dumah and Arabia (21.11–17), this aspect is entirely absent. The same holds true for the semantic field of divine wrath. After 13.13 there is no more reference to God’s ‫אף‬. Since the next instance is found in 30.27, it remains absent throughout the entire second part of the subdivision (Isa 24–27) as well.35 The divine anger (‫ )חמה‬is missing too as Yhwh explicitly states: ‘I have no anger!’ (‫חמה אין לי‬, 24.6). Of all passages, it is the oracle against Edom (Isa 34) where the divine ‫ חמה‬will arise again.

30 In the last oracle of the collection Yhwh is haunting (‫ )פקד‬Tyre who is portrayed as a prostitute (cf. 23.17). 31 Cf. CLEMENTS, Isaiah 14,22–27, 253–262. 32 Concerning Isa 12 as a redactional bridge between first and second subdivision see B EUKEN, Song, 96–113. 33 In Isa 1–12 only in 1.24–26; 5.5–6; 10.6, 12 (?) whereas in Isa 13–23: 13.3, 11–13; 14.22–23, 24–25, 30; 15.9; 19.2–4; 22.19. 34 BERGES, Book, 123 points out that ‘there are found among them…oracles against or about foreign nations’. 35 God’s ‫ זעם‬is referred to only once: in 26.20.

8

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

2.1 God’s Campaign and Babylon’s Merciless Destruction (Isaiah 13–14) Turning to the first ‫משא‬36-saying against Babylon, it can be divided into three parts:37 the summon of the divine army in vv. 2–5 leads to the vision of the ‫( יום יהוה‬vv. 6–16) which is followed by the Babylonian destruction caused by the Median assault on Yhwh’s initiative (vv. 17–22). Subsequently, Isaiah 14 constitutes the taunting song on the fallen king of Babylon. The introductory part of the oracle is dominated by military vocabulary and shares many features with Isaiah 5. Once more the foreign nations are summoned. More pronounced than before Yhwh is depicted as military commander, since he proclaims his own military draft: ‘I myself have commanded my consecrated ones’ (‫אני צויתי למקדשי‬38) and ‘summoned my warriors’ (v. 3). In v. 4 he ‘musters (‫ פקד‬Piel) his army for the battle’. This particular image is remarkable as it is the only Old Testament reference where Yhwh himself musters soldiers. The singularity of the divine portrayal might be reflected in the verbal form as well since 13.4 is the only biblical appearance of the Piel of ‫פקד‬. The quality of the troops has significantly changed: the army is depicted as a terrestrial-transcendent superpower. While in Isaiah 5 the soldiers came from the end of the earth ( ‫מקצה‬ ‫הארץ‬, v. 26), they now even come from the end of the heavens (‫מקצה השמים‬, 13.5).39 Since Yhwh comes (‫בוא‬, v. 6) with his soldiers, he seems to participate in the campaign. The consequences of the ‫( יום יהוה‬vv. 9–13) which is described as a punishment carried out by Yhwh himself functions as a transition to the downfall of Babylon (vv. 17–22). The ‘falling by the sword’ (v. 15b; cf. 3.5; 31.8; 37.7) as well as the ‘thrusting’ (‫דקר‬, cf. Judg 9.54; 1 Sam 31.4; Lam 4.9) in v. 15 belong to the semantics of warfare. The most dreadful and heinous facet of war is depicted in v. 16 – violence against defenceless civilians: Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives raped.

36

Cf. 14.28; 15.1; 17.1; 19.1; 21.1, 11, 13; 22.1; 23.1; 30.6. According to B ERGES, Isaiah, 137–140, the original oracle against Babylonia (13.1a, 17–22) is to be dated around 540 BCE. In the present text it is used as a frame for the vision about the day of the Lord (vv. 2–16). 38 The ancient Near Eastern nexus between holiness and war which is prominently reflected in Old Testament prophecy has been examined by BERGES, Heiligung, 43–57. 39 Even though Isa 5.26 and 13.5 express the same issue in substance, the depiction in the latter text is intensified; cf. W ILDBERGER, Jesaja 13–27, 514. 37

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

9

As Andreas Michel has demonstrated ‫ רטש‬is the Old Testament terminus technicus for violence against children in war (cf. Nah 3.10).40 Since it is committed before the eyes of the defeated the text virtually hits the rock bottom of bellicose cruelty. This way the existence of two generations is destroyed at a single blow! In the Old Testament infanticide is usually paralleled with the ripping up of pregnant women.41 But here – as in Deut 28.30 – it is accompanied by rape,42 sadly and shamefully still a common practice of warfare. While Yhwh was participating in the campaign in v. 6 and directly punished the world in vv. 9–13 he now remains conspicuously absent. Consequently, the ones who escaped the divine punishment are not annihilated by Yhwh, but kill one another (v. 15). As Willem Beuken remarked it is ‘exaggerated’, to consider the verb forms as passivum divinum’.43 It seems more likely that the book intends not to connect Yhwh directly with these cruel deeds. Immediately after the horrific scenario Yhwh re-enters the scene. As he proclaims ‘I will stir up the Medes’ (v. 17) it becomes implicitly clear that the Babylonians are his targets. This observation is confirmed by the semantics of violence. The Hebrew root ‫ עור‬Hiphil is documented elsewhere in the book only in chapters 44–55 and is exclusively used with the divine subject. With the exception of 42.13 (‫ )קנאה‬and 50.4 (the servant’s ear) it describes the summoning of the Persians against Babylon (41.2, 25; 45.13). In both passages Yhwh acts like a commander who is able to acquire a powerful army for his purposes. Concerning the depiction of the Median troops Isaiah 13 mainly focuses on their cruelty and mercilessness. What is once again remarkable regarding the portrayal of Yhwh is his absence from the described act. Thus the Median cruelty is only indirectly attributed to God. Once more the reader faces the merciless dashing (‫רטש‬44) of children. While the Medes do not show mercy on their Babylo40

MICHEL, Gott, 108. Concerning divine violence against children in the books of Isaiah and Lamentations, see BERGES AND OBERMAYER, Gewalt, 53–75. 41 On rape as a metaphor for warfare see GORDON, Rape, 308–325. 42 Cf. SCHOLZ, Witness, 195–199. Sexualized violence which aims at the enemy’s humiliation is alluded to in 20.2 and 47.2–3. For the latter text see B AUMANN, Gott, 55–67. 43 BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 75: ‘…übertrieben, diese Formen als passivum divinum anzusehen’. 44 Literally it is executed by ‘bows’ (‫)קשתות‬. This was already considered as a conundrum by the antique translations of the Hebrew text and caused major emandations. LXX, Vg and Tg keep the Medes as subject from v. 17. In the LXX they dash the bows of the young men (τοξεύµατα νεανίσκων συντρίψουσιν). In Vg they kill (!) the young men, albeit not with bows, but with arrows (sagittis parvulos interficiant). Tg changes the verb and thus the form of physical damage with the result that ‘their bows pierce young men’ (‫ ;)קשתתהון עולימין יבזען‬cf. ZAPFF, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 172–175 who considers the different emandations of modern commentators ‘eher eine der Not gehorchende Lösung’ (175).

10

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

nian enemies, this lack of pity is stated as the main reason for Babylon’s destruction in 46.7: ‘I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy.’ Thus, the theologically vital question is inevitable: is Yhwh applying double standards45 or does God merely give tit for tat (cf. Jer 51.35)?46 2.2 Babylon’s Downfall as Israel’s Deliverance (Isaiah 14) Turning to Isa 14.1–3, this transitional passage already looks back at Babylon’s downfall. In the portrayal of Yhwh significant shifts can be discerned. Babylon’s destruction on Yhwh’s behalf is now interpreted as Israel’s divinely accomplished deliverance. This can be observed by the adoption of the catchwords ‘pity’ (‫ )חמל‬and ‘mercy’ (‫ !)רחם‬While the Medes had ‘no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes did not pity children’ (13.18), Yhwh proved his mercy (‫רחם‬, 14.1) by having given his people rest (‫ נוח‬hiphil) from the turmoil (v. 3). In the same way as God gives rest to Israel the whole world is at rest (‫נוח‬, v. 7). Since Babylonia formerly struck down peoples in wrath and anger (v. 6), the whole world (‫ )כל־הארץ‬breaks forth into exultation. Obviously, Babylon’s violence affected not only Israel but the whole world as was also the case with Assyria (cf. 10.7). Regarding his violence the Babylonian king actually acted worse since he even did not stop at his own people as v. 20 states: ‘you have destroyed your land, you have killed your people’. Therefore he is facing a disgraceful death apart from a regular grave next to loathsome carrion (v. 21). As v. 5 has already solemnly anticipated, Yhwh has crushed the staff of the wicked and the sceptre of the rulers. These weapons link the Babylonian violence with the Assyrian power in Isaiah 10, whereas the term ‘crushing’ (‫ )שבר‬connects the bitter fate of Babylon to the Assyrian breakdown which is ultimately declared at the end of the chapter (14.25; cf. v. 29). Thus, on the level of semantics the two military powers melt into one tremendous arch-enemy of Yhwh. Willem Beuken has characterized this phenomenon as ‘telescoping’ (‘Teleskopierung’47) which means that different historical events are brought into a continuum and a shared literary context. What impact does this amalgamation have for the depiction of Yhwh as a belligerent God? Two major differences are of particular significance:

45

Cf. DAVIES, Standards. This vital question is comprehensively discussed by BERGES, Babylon, 140–151. 47 Cf. B EUKEN, Jes 13–27, 26–28. 46

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

11

1. Babylonia’s role in Yhwh’s plan. There is one feature which turned out to be crucial for God’s portrayal in Isaiah 5 and 10, but is strikingly absent in the depiction of Babylonia. According to the book’s interpretation of history Babylonia has at no time functioned as a divine military instrument. Neither at the end of the seventh century BCE when the collapse of the Assyrian empire was accelerated by the Babylonian military force, nor in 586 BCE when Jerusalem was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and Judah ultimately ceased to exist. In our view the reasons for this omission can be traced back to the Zion theology which has been a driving force for the development of the Book of Isaiah. The king who destroyed the Judean capital and its temple is not worth a mention, whereas in the Book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is considered to be Yhwh’s servant (e.g. Jer 25.9).48 Literally, this would be an outrageous violation of taboo for the Book of Isaiah. In contrast, Cyrus the conqueror of Babylon is stirred up as Yhwh’s military instrument (Isa 13.17; 44.28–45.7).49 Therefore he is acclaimed as God’s messiah, as ‘his anointed one’ (‫משיחו‬, 45.1). Babylon in turn becomes Yhwh’s enemy par excellence. This is accomplished by the literary overlap with Assyria on the one hand and on the other hand by the vision of the ‫ יום יהוה‬which has been inserted in Isaiah 13. Thus, the divine punishment of the whole world becomes apparent in the summoning of the Medes in order to destroy Babylonia. Conversely Babylon functions as a cipher for all ‫‘( רשעים‬wicked’; cf. 14.5). 2. the enemy’s final fate. While the Assyrians who escape God’s punishment are so few that a child can write them down (10.19; cf. 17.6 [Damascus]), Babylonia faces complete elimination. The slaughtering block is prepared (‫ )קום‬for the sons due to the sins of their father (v. 21). Yhwh prepares himself/rises up (‫קום‬50) in order to ‘cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity’ (v. 22). So in the second oracle against Babylon the watchman can proclaim: ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon’ (21.9; cf. 13.15; 14.19). At the same time so did ‘all the idols of her gods’ (‫ )כל־פסילי אלהיה‬as the observer additionally states. Remarkably, this is the first passage where the divine conflict with foreign nations is intermingled with the discourse about the potency of foreign deities which is a crucial theme from Deutero-Isaiah onwards.

48

Cf. SCHMID, Antritt, 150–166. This position is indirectly affirmed by the Cyrus-oracle: the primary goal of the divine order to the Persian ruler is not the conquest of Babylon (45.1–3). As can be seen in the frame parts (44.26; 45.13) it culminates in the (re-)construction of Jerusalem. 50 With divine subject only in 28.21; 31.2; 33.10. 49

12

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

2.3 The Divine Warrior Punishing the Entire Cosmos (Isaiah 24–27) Two illuminating spotlights will be cast on the portrayal of Yhwh in the so-called ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’ (Isaiah 24–27). The framing chapters offer telling examples of how Yhwh’s depiction as belligerent deity is continued in these texts dating from the late post-exilic period. Once again a decisive shift in the portrayal takes place: Yhwh the commander over foreign armies turns into an active warrior. The reason for this change is to be traced on the level of the book’s inner logic. After the strife with the nations in Isaiah 13–23 there is no more terrestrial power left to command. As has already been announced programmatically in Isa 14.5, Yhwh has broken the sceptre of the rulers. In addition, God neither uses transcendent powers as was the case at the beginning of Isaiah 13. Instead of mustering the kings of the earth and the hosts of heaven for the battle as in 13.2 (cf. ‫פקד‬ piel, 13.4), he punishes them in 24.21 (‫פקד‬, cf. v. 22). This is ‘eine Aufnahme dessen, was bereits früher über Gottes Volk selbst (10,3), Assur (10,12) und die Völker, von Babel (13,11) bis Tyros (23,17…) gesagt wurde’.51 Even though the targets and instruments of divine violence may alter again and again, the careful reader is able to discern blood-red ‘threads’ through the Book of Isaiah by means of the semantics of warfare and military violence. At the end of the subdivision Yhwh himself takes up his arms for the first time. In 26.21 he goes out (‫יצא‬,52 cf. 37.9, 36; 42.13!; 43.17!) as a warrior to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. In the following verse these people are mythologically paralleled by Leviathan (cf. Rahab in 30.7; 51.9). Once again a significant overlap takes place, this time between Yhwh’s punishment of the world and the mythologeme of the divine battle against chaos (Chaoskampf). While the earth will no longer cover its slain (‫ )הרג‬as Yhwh punishes (‫ )פקד‬the inhabitants of the earth (26.21), he will simultaneously punish and slay the twisting serpent (‫ פקד‬and ‫הרג‬, 27.1). For that purpose Yhwh raises his sword (‫ )חרבו‬for the first time. In doing so the divine portrayal points forward to Isaiah 34, where God’s sword appears in the sky drenched in blood und ready to execute the ban (‫ )חרם‬on Edom, the second divine arch-enemy.

51

BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27, 335. This is a terminus technicus for troop movements and military attacks; cf. R IEDE, Netz, 94. 52

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

13

3. Divine Violence against Edom (Isaiah 34; 63.1–6) and the Post-Exilic Community (Isaiah 65–66) One of the main points in the second part of this essay consists in the shift from divine violence against nations – foreign nations or Israel itself – to special group(s) in post-exilic Israel. The link between these two subjects of divine violence seems to be Edom, symbolizing, on the one hand, the brother nation (like Moab in Isaiah 15–16), and, on the other hand, the false brother, the anti-Jacob, the enemy in the post-exilic community. These two aspects are to be seen in the two Edom-texts in the Book of Isaiah, i.e. Isaiah 34 (Edom as nation) and 63.1–6 (Edom as false brother). 3.1 Edom as Nation under the Wrath of God (Isaiah 34) After the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13–23 the next scenery of pronounced divine violence is to be found in Isaiah 34. Here Yhwh’s wrath against all nations (‫ )כי קצף ליהוה על־כל־הגוים‬falls on Edom (Isa 34.2). Like no other nation Edom is ‘the people of my curse’ (‫( )עם חרמי‬v. 5) and the other nations should see this judgment as an example and warning to give up their hostile attitude towards Yhwh and Zion.53 There is no doubt that the oracle of total destruction against Edom was shaped on basis of the oracle of doom against Babylon in Isaiah 13. It is striking that the semantic connections appear when the fate of both nations is compared to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. 13.9; 34.9). Thus the Pentateuch traditions were slowly picked up and alluded to in prophetic writings (from the fifth century BCE onwards). But Edom is not just as bad as Babylon, it is even worse54 – see the list of chaos/wild animals in 13.21–22 and 34.11–15! Thus Hugh Williamson correctly affirms: ‘it looks as though we have here a post-exilic development whereby in some circles Edom became a type of enemy of the people of God, just as Babylon had been’.55 If the Babylon chapters (Isa 13–14) originated in connection with Xerxes’ activities against the revolting city in 482 BCE this would be a terminus a quo for Isaiah 34. Most probably the Edom oracle was not included in the ten oracles (Isa 13–23) because the composition had already been fixed and was not restructured anymore. But why was Edom’s destruction put on stage at all? At least two reasons may be given: historically speaking Edom disappeared at the end of the fifth century, most 53 BEUKEN, Jesaja 28–39, 306: ‘Sie [= the peoples, UB] verkörpern diejenigen, die aus der Gerichtsankündigung immer noch lernen können’. 54 Cf. B ERGES, Isaiah, 230–231. 55 W ILLIAMSON, Book, 217.

14

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

likely as a result of attacks from the Arabian desert. This fact still got included in the book – especially because it confirmed and verified one of the main theological points of the Isaiah-scroll: all enemies of Zion have perished and will perish! On the literary level, in the course of the merging of the two main parts of the Isaiah scroll,56 an oracle against Edom was integrated in the second part (63.1–6) which had no complement in the first. Therefore the question could arise: since Isaiah had spoken against less prominent nations, why did he not leave an oracle against this archenemy of God’s nations before his disappearance as an acting character in Isaiah 39? Thus the Edom oracle was added in Isaiah 34 – in conjunction with the positive image of Zion’s salvation in Isaiah 35.57 Many decades ago it had already been stressed by Karl Elliger (followed inter alia by Gosse, Koenen) that Isaiah 34 is not only dependent on Isaiah 13 but also on 63.1–6. According to him Isaiah 34 elaborates the latter text in many details and thus Elliger concludes, that ‘the one is a poet, the other a scholar who makes an essay out of the poet’s poem, an essay whose theme he has perhaps borrowed from 66.16’.58 This verse reads as follows: ‘For by fire Yhwh will execute judgment, and by his sword, on all flesh; and those slain by Yhwh shall be many’. The wording ‘day of vengeance’ (‫ )יום נקם‬in 34.8 is taken from 63.4 which depends on 61.2. Against the opinion of Odil Hannes Steck who favors a dependence in the opposite direction (63.1–6 from 34.1–17) we maintain the position that Isaiah 34 was written with a clear knowledge of Isa 63.1–6. Nevertheless there is one major difference between the two Edom oracles in their respective contexts: in Isaiah 34 Edom is presented as a symbol for all foreign and hostile nations (cf. the stress laid on the wrath of God against all (!) nations in 34.2),59 whereas in Isa 63.1–6 Edom represents Zion’s internal enemies. This is underlined by the bracketing of the Zion chapters, Isaiah 60–62, by 59.15–20 on the one hand and 63.1–6 on the other. That way Edom becomes a cipher for those in Jacob who do not want to repent of their sins (cf. 59.20). Consequently all divine promises in Isaiah 60–62 are strictly limited to those in Israel/Jacob who turn to 56

For Isa 33 as the first bridge text see BEUKEN, Spiegeltext, 5–35. Cf. STECK, Heimkehr. 58 ELLIGER, Deuterojesaja, 275: ‘…der eine ist ein Dichter, der andere ein Schüler, der einen Aufsatz über das Gedicht jenes Dichters machte, einen Aufsatz, zu dem er sich das Thema vielleicht aus 66,16 geholt hat.’ 59 VERMEYLEN, Du prophète Isaïe, 445 interprets the portrayal differently. According to him Isa 34 reflects the confrontation with the inner adversaries in the Zion community in late post-exilic times: ‘…la péricope émane de la communauté pieuse de Jérusalem en conflit violent avec les “impies”. Nous sommes sans doute à la fin de la période perse, à la vielle du schisme samaritain.’ 57

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

15

Yhwh. Whoever disapproves loses the status of belonging to Jacob! Consequently the enemies of the servants (the main theme of Isaiah 55–66) are considered and stigmatized as ‘Edom’. The connotation of Edom as rebellious member of God’s people is absent in chapter 34.60 In this text Edom is depicted as the hostile nation which will be punished in sight of all the nations for its hostility towards Zion and Jerusalem. After having shown that the two Edom texts in their respective compositions serve different theological goals let us take a closer look at the semantics used in these chapters. In Isaiah 34 the relevant verses are vv. 1– 10 whereas the list of animals (vv. 11–15) and the comment on that list (vv. 16–17) are later additions. In vv. 1–10 there are four important semantic fields of violence: ‘wrath’ (2–4) – ‘sword’ (5a–6) – ‘slaughter’ (6b–7) – ‘day of Yhwh’ (8–10). a. The word ‘wrath’ (‫ )קצף‬is found in the book of Isaiah – with the exception of Isaiah 34 – only in the second half of the book where it is exclusively used as a ‘personal’ affection of God himself (for example ‘my wrath’ or ‘I was angry’).61 Differently from texts of divine violence in the first part of the book it is now God’s wrath which determines to act violently towards his targets. This development becomes apparent in Isa 34.2 through the wording: ‘there is a wrath for Yhwh’ (‫)קצף ליהוה‬. It indicates that a clear distinction is made between Yhwh and his wrath as an independent characteristic of God’s behavior. This seems comparable to the characteristic of God’s repentance (also in post-exilic times) that does not form a part of his love or justice but stands as ‘criterion’ between them: Die Reue steht den Eigenschaften Gottes gegenüber und hält diese für ihre jeweiligen Realisierungen offen. Als solche beschreibt sie Gottes Bewegung zwischen den beiden in sich spannungsvollen und unaufgebbaren Eigenschaftspolen der Gerechtigkeit und Liebe…Als dynamische und dynamisierende Größe verhält sich die Reue damit zu den Prädikationen der Gnadenformel im Wortsinne kritisch, nämlich entscheidend.62

b. The sword (‫ )חרב‬is a typical element in the presentation of human and divine violence in the Old Testament and thus in the Book of Isaiah as well.63 Like sinful Jerusalem (1.20) and its people (3.25), Babylon (13.15), Assyria (31.8), Sennacherib (37.7) and Edom (34.5, 6) will also fall by the sword. The same is true for the enemies of God and of his servants in 60

MATHEWS, Zion, 167, does not share this view due to the juxtaposition of Edom and Zion in Isa 34–35. 61 34.2; 47.6; 54.8, 9; 57.16–17; 60.10; 64.4, 8 (in 8.21 as human rage); in contrast other relevant terms (esp. ‫ )אף‬are used more frequently. 62 DÖHLING, Gott, 529. 63 Positively the sword appears in 2.4 within the context of the reversal of war in peace.

16

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

65.12; 66.16. But in no other passage does the term ‘my sword’ (and ‘my cherem’) appear as prominently as in 34.5. Once more the vocabulary of violence is particularly present in the words spoken by God (cf. Isa 13– 14)! He presents himself as the executor of violence and destruction.64 c. Sacrifice (‫ )זבח‬and slaughter (‫ )טבח‬are frequently used as metaphors for violent and warlike actions as is the case in Isa 34.5–6 as well as, e.g., in Ezek 39.17, 19 or Zeph 1.7. But only in Isa 34.6 and 65.12 does one find the combination of ‘sword’ (‫ )חרב‬and ‘slaughter’ (‫)טבח‬.65 Thus the parallelism of violence against Edom and individuals is not restricted to Isaiah 34//63.1–6 but spreads further into the very last chapters of the Book of Isaiah. d. The wording ‘day of vengeance’ (‫ )יום נקם‬in Isa 34.4 is dependent on 63.4 which in turn goes back to 61.2. In all three instances the phrase is paralleled by a ‘year’ in the b-colon characterized by a word indicating divine action.66 Looking back on Isaiah 34 one can conclude that the semantics of violence in vv. 1–10 bundles up the expressions from the oracles against Babylon (and Assyria) in Isaiah 13–14. Accordingly, Edom is presented as a hostile nation (and even worse than its Mesopotamian predecessors). But Isaiah 34 also picks up terms from 63.1–6 and subsequent chapters. Thus the designation ‘Edom’ starts to be used with regard to the inner conflicts of the post-exilic community. On a synchronic level the announcement of the divine punishment against Edom in the sight of all the nations functions as a foretelling of the fate of those in Israel who do not behave like Jacob but like his hostile twin-brother Esau, the father of the Edomites! 3.2 Edom Representing the Servant’s Enemies in the Divine Wine Press (Isaiah 63.1–6) This passage opens the last chapters of the book (Isaiah 63–64; 65–66). There is no doubt that the collective prayer/lament in 63.7–64.11 should be read as the servants’ reaction (see 63.17) to the ‘inquiry of the watchmen’ in 63.1–6. On a synchronic level the question, ‘who is this that comes from Edom…?’ (63.1), functions as the realization of the announcement of doom and destruction in Isaiah 34. What once has been announced is now fulfilled – but the imagery has changed: from the great slaughter to the treading of the wine press. 64 Cf. B EUKEN, Jes 28–39, 314 on 34.5: ‘In diesem Abschnitt verdichtet sich der Sprecher für einen Moment zu JHWH selbst.’ 65 In the Old Testament the combination appears only in Jer 50.27; Ezek 21.20, 33; Ps 37.14; Lam 2.21. 66 BEUKEN, Jes 28–39, 317: namely ‘vengeance’ (‘Vergeltung’), ‘favour’ (‘Wohlwollen’) and ‘redeeming’ (‘Freikauf’).

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

17

Yet, 63.1–6 is not only connected to Isaiah 34 but also and foremost to 59.15b–20: there God puts on his armour to get ready for the fight whereas in Isaiah 63 he appears as victorious hero after the battle.67 In the subsequent chapters (Isaiah 65–66) there are no more problems with nations fighting from outside against Zion/Jerusalem. The real enemies are people fighting from inside against the community living on Zion and in Jerusalem. Therefore Edom in 63.1–6 no longer represents the external enemy but the internal opponent who afflicts his brother Jacob,68 i.e. his brethren, the true Jacob. Edom has become the cipher for those who are not willing to turn from transgression (cf. 59.20). On the other hand, the servants belong to the offspring of the true Jacob/Israel.69 The word-play on ‫ֶא דוֹם‬ ‘Edom’ and ‫‘ אָד ֹם‬red’ in 63.1–2 can be interpreted in this direction. Those from Jacob who do not turn from their sins, lose their right of primogeniture like Esau did when he said to his twin-brother: ‘let me swallow from that red stuff…therefore he was called Edom’ (Gen 25.30).70 In other words the prerogative of primogeniture is passed over to those who turn from their sins, i.e. who confess their sinfulness like the servants do with their prayer of lament in Isa 63.7–64.11. A short look at the semantics of violence in Isa 63.1–6 shows that important words are missing such as ‘to hit’, ‘to burn’, ‘to destroy’ etc. The main image is that of treading (‫ )דרך‬the wine press (‫)פורה‬, an activity whose primary objective is not annihilation but the production of good juice. God pursues the same goal in 65.8: ‘As the wine is found in the cluster, and they say, “Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it”, so I will do for my servants’ sake, and not destroy them all’. It is not a matter of destroying (‫ )שחת‬but a matter of blessing (‫ )ברכה‬which can be achieved only by crushing the bad grapes, i.e., by the separation of the servants and their opponents. Since the servants consider themselves as the part of Jacob which turns from its sins, they are the ones portrayed praying a collective lament in the book of Isaiah (cf. Psalms 44; 74; 77; 79). For the formulation of Isa 63.7– 64.11 the servants used an older early exilic psalm of lament.71 The fact that the servants integrated the exilic prayer into this part of the scroll shows that they are responsible for the latest composition of the book. Furthermore, it indicates that they had access to the literary and theological 67

KOENEN, Ethik, 85. POLLIACK, Typological Use. 69 Cf. inter alia KOENEN, Ethik, 87; VERMEYLEN, Du prophète Isaïe, 2: 489. 70 Cf. B ERGES, Isaiah, 455. 71 AEJMELAEUS, Prophet, 46: ‘Möglicherweise wurde ein älterer, frühexilischer Psalm bei der Erarbeitung unseres Psalms als Vorlage benutzt, was die Berührung mit den Klagepsalmen des Psalters und der Psalmensprache erklären würde.’ 68

18

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

heritage of Israel. This becomes even more plausible if one assumes that these servants were close to exilic and post-exilic singers of levitical origin.72 Like Moses during the crossing of the wilderness the servants (63.17) present themselves as the ones who intercede in order that the wrath of God would not destroy the whole nation (see Ps 106.23). If Yhwh does not return from his anger there cannot be a future anymore since city, temple and the land already lay in ruins (Isa 64.9–11). These final petitions closely resemble the ones at the end of the Book of Lamentations: Yhwh should give up his wrath because the people cannot take any more of the post-exilic misery (Lam 5.20–22). Regarding the semantics of violence in the prayer of the servants one verse attracts special attention: ‘they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he became their enemy (‫ )ויהפך להם לאויב‬and he himself fought against them (‫( ’)הוא נלחם־בם‬Isa 63.10). With the exception of Lam 2.4–5 where Yhwh acts ‘like’ an enemy and Jer 21.5 where he also fights against his nation, the wording in Isa 63.10 is exceptional in the Old Testament.73 Though it is not unusual that Yhwh could act against his own people, it is a unique wording of the servants that he turns into their enemy ( ‫ויהפך להם‬ ‫)לאויב‬. As God remembering his people and Moses (63.11) prevented him from destroying the whole nation that rebelled in the wilderness, thus he should now – in the post-exilic wilderness of Zion (64.9) – turn to his people for the sake of his servants, ‘the tribes of your inheritance (‫’)שבטי נחלתך‬ (63.17). Looking back on the lament of 63.7–64.11, the servants’ community still appears united with the people (fourfold ‫‘ כלנו‬we all’ in 64.5–8), yet the communal solidarity can no longer be maintained. It is not the servants but Yhwh who divides ‘Israel’, separating the faithful from the apostates. The period of silence and concealment (64.6) was a period of testing, similar to that of the wilderness wandering, when it became apparent who would hold fast to him and who would fall away to other practices. In 65.8–16a this separation will be accomplished by God himself. 3.3 The Ultimate Separation of Servants and Opponents (Isaiah 65–66) The divine oracle in 65.1–7 can be interpreted as Yhwh’s answer to the servants’ anxious question of whether there would still be a divine relationship (63.17). This prophecy appears to be crucial for the overall progress of chapters 65–66.74 God no longer remains inactive (65.6), but vehe72

See BERGES, Farewell, 575–595; also BERGES, Isaiah, 82. According to FISCHER, Jahwe, 145–146. 74 STECK, Heimkehr, 74: ‘Das Gebet 63,7–64,11 verlangt nach Antwort und eben diese Antwort wird in 65–66 gegeben’. 73

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

19

mently urges for a separation between servants and opponents,75 which culminates in the re-creation of Jerusalem (65.16b–25).76 The separation of the two parties highly resembles the wine press trodden by God himself, in order to get out the ‘blessing’ (65.8). The final goal of this process is a peaceful and non-violent Jerusalem. This is underlined by the quotation of 11.7 at the very end of the chapter, in 65.25. But contrary to 11.6–9 the motif of peace among the animals does not stand for the harmony between stronger and weaker animals but for ‘the righteous judgement in which curse for the strong will be a blessing for the weak’.77 The central rationale behind the opposition of Yhwh’s faithful and the apostates in chap. 65 is that the divine relationship is broken for some, but remains preserved for others (cf. 65.2, 12, 24). The covenantal climate78 comes strongly to the fore: ‘The curses of the covenant will be reversed, and the subsequent idyllic conditions will be enjoyed by Yahweh’s new people.’79 But there is an essential difference between Isa 65.11–16 and the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. While in Deuteronomy both are applied to the entire people of God, the positive and negative consequences of the covenant are here divided among the servants and the apostates. Can there be a clearer indication that Israel’s unity was experienced as truly broken, not as a result of a foreign aggressor but because of behaviour that flouted the covenant? Curse and blessing no longer lie over Israel as a national community, but over each individual who either turns to Yhwh or away from him!80 The semantics of violence is omnipresent in this chapter. First, the apostates who dedicate themselves to illegitimate cult practices will become ‘smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all day long’ (65.5b). The divine first-person speech gets even stronger in v. 12 where Yhwh announces with a word-play that he will destine (‫ ָמ נִי ִת י‬, maniti) those to the sword who offer sacrifices to ‘Meni’, the God of fortune.81 In v. 15 it is declared that the opponents of the servants will leave their names to them as a curse that reads: ‘Adonai Yhwh will put you to death’ ( ‫והמיתך אדני‬ ‫)יהוה‬. Even if this colon might be a gloss it is still crucial for the interpreta-

75

Note the sevenfold reference to servants in 65.8–16a. Esp. the threefold ‫ ברא‬in vv. 17–18. 77 RUITEN, Relationship, 42. 78 ‫ עזב‬with Yhwh as object: Deut 28.20; 31.16; Josh 24.16, 20; Judg 2.12, 13; 10.6, 10, 13; 1 Sam 8.8; 12.10, among others; see KOENEN, Ethik, 182 n. 149; SEHMSDORF, Studien, 526–527 already pointed out that the combination ‫ לב‬+ ‫ טוב‬occurs only in Deut 28.47 and Isa 65.14. 79 SMITH, Rhetoric, 152. 80 KOENEN, Ethik, 183. 81 ‘Slaughter’ (‫ )טבח‬together with ‘sword’ (‫ )חרב‬is taken over from Isa 34.2, 6 (see above). 76

20

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

tion of the whole passage.82 Although it is often stated in the Old Testament that Yhwh is able to kill and indeed puts to death (‫ מות‬hiphil) (Gen 18.25; 38.7; Exod 4.24; Num 14.15; 1 Sam 2.6; 2 Kgs 5.7) two references stand out with regard to Isa 66.15. On the one hand, 11.4 (Yhwh kills with the breath of his lips) due to the quotation of 11.7 in 65.25 and, on the other hand, Deut 32.39 (‘there is no God beside me. I kill and I make alive’). Since Isaiah 65 constantly refers to Deuteronomy (cf. Isa 65.13–14 to Deut 28.47–48; Isa 65.16a to Deut 29.18)83 the Mosaic allusions are not casual but pragmatically important. The servants in Isaiah 65 present themselves like Moses. In the same way as Yhwh eliminated the apostates during the trek through the wilderness he will now get rid of the servants’ opponents! Why does the Book of Isaiah not end with the peaceful image in 65.25 that ‘no one should hurt or destroy on all God’s holy mountain’? It seems that there was still something to come to terms with, something that had to do with the sacrificial cult of the newly inaugurated temple. Yhwh’s question about the nature of the house and his place of rest (66.1–2) is not simply or even primarily about the quality of the temple, but first and foremost about the quality of the community on the Mount of God. Yhwh does not look with favor on those who engage themselves in the propagation of the sacrificial cult in the temple of Jerusalem. Instead, he endorses those who tremble (‫ )החרדים‬at God’s word and who are hated and rejected by their brethrens. This ‘sectarian’ group84 is convinced that God is on their side and that he will justify them by executing vengeance on their opponents (v. 6). If individuals are killed, pagan rites performed, and other evil doings prevail at the temple the sanctuary will never become a place of rest! According to the Isaianic group those who insolently disregard cultic and social rules must disappear before Jersualem/Zion will fulfil her destiny. Yhwh takes care of this himself, and retributive punishment upon his enemies proceeds from the temple! The recourse to this motif in 66.15–17 shows how urgently the servants awaited Yhwh’s intervention for the purification of Zion. Here, Jerusalem’s enemies are not foreign powers as in the first part of the book, but the brethren. Most probably they are of priestly origin and duty because they are the ones who would be most interested in the vigorous propagation of animal sacrifices in post-exilic times. While Yhwh will act as loving mother in favor of his servants he will proceed with fire and sword against their enemies, so that ‘the slain by God will be many’ (‫( )ורבו חללי יהוה‬v. 16). The expression ‘slain by Yhwh’ does occur once more in the Hebrew Bible, in Jer 25.33, and it seems that 82

Cf. among others KOENEN, Ethik, 173. On this see inter alia, BERGES, Isaiah, 472–473. 84 Cf. particularly B LENKINSOPP, Sect, 5–20; IDEM, ‘Servants of the Lord’, 392–412.

83

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

21

the imagery of the corpses thrown away in Isa 66.24 was also taken from there.85 What can be seen in the so called Trito-Isaianic chapters in general is true especially for this last chapter of the Book of Isaiah: the authors were skilled literary craftsmen having access to Israel’s written heritage in post-exilic times. There can be little doubt that the temple in those times functioned not only as the centre of the official cult and the final destination of pilgrimage but also as the centre of the conservation and further production of Israel’s literary traditions (Traditionspflege).86

4. Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah and Beyond – An Outlook If it is true that the servants in the Book of Isaiah were descendants of former exiled levitical singers the polemic against the priestly-promoted sacrificial cult in Jerusalem makes very good sense. For the servants the trembling at the word of God is more important than offering expensive animals to be slaughtered on God’s holy mountain. So their adoption of Moses as role model (cf. Isa 63.7–64.11) gains a new and deeper meaning since not only the Levites but also the Aaronides – the ones responsible for the actual offerings – claimed a special closeness to the founding father of the Torah. The profoundness of this conflict can be observed in the polemics of Numbers 16–17, where Korah, a cousin of Aaron, the brother of Moses, is accused of having claimed too much for the Levites as Moses affirms in v. 7b., ‘You Levites have gone too far!’ (‫)רב־לכם בני לוי‬.87 So the die has already been cast: the Aaronides claimed the priestly prerogatives exclusively for themselves while the Levites were more and more pushed into the position of the clerus minor.88 In the Book of Isaiah, this struggle likewise turned out to be one, if not the deciding pivot point in the literary presentation of divine violence. In post-exilic Israel, literary violence is no longer directed against foreign nations or God’s own people in toto, but is predominantly used by one group against the other. Thus, the monotheistic idea of Yhwh which neces85

Even though different words have been used: Jer 25.33 ‘dung’ (‫)דמן‬, Isa 66.24 ‘abhorence’ (‫)דראון‬. 86 On this phenomenon in general see VAN DER T OORN, Culture. 87 Cf. DAHMEN, Leviten, 401: ‘Hier vermischen sich pro-levitische Ansprüche und priesterliche Abwehr/Zurückweisung, allerdings – bei aller literar- und redaktionskritischer Schwierigkeit dieses Textes – deutlich erkennbar in priesterlicher Diktion…’. 88 The conflict of Zadokites and Aaronides seems to be a subsequent one. Even the Zadokites claimed to be of levitical descent (see Ezek 40.46; 43.19; 44.15); cf. DAHMEN, Leviten, 397; BERNER, Laien, 3–28.

22

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

sarily includes violent traits does not exclusively serve as an identity marker distinguishing Israel from the rest of the peoples (external boundary). The concept becomes increasingly important with regard to the conflicts among the different factions within post-exilic Judah, thus for the establishment of group identities (internal boundary). The War Scroll of Qumran expecting an ultimate combat between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness can be viewed as the climax of this development.

Bibliography AEJMELAEUS, A., Der Prophet als Klageliedsänger. Zur Funktion des Psalms Jes 63,7– 64,11 in Tritojesaja, ZAW 107 (1995) 31–50 ALBERTZ, R., Monotheism and Violence: How to Handle a Dangerous Biblical Tradition, in: The Land of Israel in the Bible, History, and Theology, FS Ed Noort (VT.S 124), eds. J. van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, Leiden/Boston 2009, 373–387 ASSMANN, J., Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge 1997 – Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt (Wiener Vorlesungen 116), Wien 20095 – The Price of Monotheism, Stanford 2010 B AUMANN, G., Gott als vergewaltigender Soldat im Alten Testament? Ein Vergleich von Jes 47,2f und Nah 3,4–7, in: Machtbeziehungen, Geschlechterdifferenz und Religion (Geschlecht – Macht – Religion 2), eds. B. Heininger and U. Sals, Münster 2004, 55– 67 – Gottesbilder der Gewalt im Alten Testament verstehen, Darmstadt 2006 B ERGES, U., Farewell to Deutero-Isaiah or Prophecy without a Prophet, in: Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VT.S 133), ed. A. Lemaire, Leiden 2010 – How Babylon Became Merciless: A Subversive Rereading of Isaiah 47.6, in: The Centre and the Periphery. A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (HBM 27), ed. J. A. Middlemas, Sheffield 2010, 140–151 – Zur Heiligung des Krieges in der alttestamentlichen Schriftprophetie, in: Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. FS H.-J. Fabry (BBB 159), eds. U. Dahmen and J. Schnocks, Bonn 2010, 43–57 – Isaiah. The Prophet and His Book, Sheffield 2012 – The Book of Isaiah. Its Composition and Final Form (HBM 46), Sheffield 2012 B ERGES, U. AND B. OBERMAYER, Gottes Gewalt gegen Kinder in den Büchern Jesaja und Klagelieder, in: Gewalt im Spiegel alttestamentlicher Texte, eds. N. C. Baumgart and M. Nitsche, Würzburg 2012, 53–75 B ERNER, C., Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden. Zum Ort der Korachbearbeitung innerhalb der Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 16–17, BN 152 (2012) 3–28 B EUKEN, W. A. M., Jes 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch, EThL 67 (1991) 5–35 – Jesaja 1–12 (HThK.AT), Freiburg 2003 – A Song of Gratitude and a Song of Malicious Delight: Is Their Consonance Unseemly? The Coherence of Isaiah Chs. 13–14 with Chs. 11–12 and Chs. 1–2, in: Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS Erich Zenger (HBS 44), eds. F.-L. Hossfeld and L. SchwienhorstSchönberger, Freiburg 2004, 96–113 – Jesaja 13–27 (HThK.AT), Freiburg 2007

Divine Violence in the Book of Isaiah

23

– Jesaja 28–39 (HThK.AT), Freiburg 2010 B LENKINSOPP, J., A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period, CBQ 52 (1990) 5–20 – The ‘Servants of the Lord’ in the Third Isaiah: Profile of a Pietistic Group in the Persian Epoch, in: The Place Is Too Small for Us (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5), ed. R.P. Gordon, Winona Lake 1995, 392–412 – Isaiah 1–39 (AncB 19), New York 2000 C LEMENTS, R. E., Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered, in: The Book of Isaiah (BETL 81), ed. J. Vermeylen, Leuven 1989, 253–262 DAHMEN, U., Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (BBB 110), Bodenheim 1996 DAVIES, A., Double Standards in Isaiah: Re-evaluating Prophetic Ethics and Divine Justice (BIS 46), Leiden 2000 D IETRICH, W. AND M. MAYORDOMO, Gewalt und Gewaltüberwindung in der Bibel, Zurich 2005 DÖHLING, J.-D., Der bewegliche Gott. Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel (HBS 61), Freiburg 2009 EIDEVALL, G., Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah (CB.OT 56), Winona Lake 2009 ELLIGER, K., Deuterojesaja in seinem Verhältnis zu Tritojesaja (BWANT 63), Stuttgart 1933 F ISCHER, I., Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7–64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (SBB 19), Stuttgart 1989 GORDON, P., Rape as a Military Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, in: A Feminist Companion to the Latter Prophets (The Feminist Companion to the Bible), ed. A. Brenner, Sheffield 1995, 308–325 HAAG, E., Jesaja, Assur und der Antijahwe. Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jes 10,5–15, TThZ 103 (1994) 18–37 HARTENSTEIN, F., Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum. Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997 H IBBARD, J. T., Isaiah XXVII 7 and Intertextual Discourse about ‘Striking’ in the Book of Isaiah, VT 55 (2004) 461–476 KOENEN, K., Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (WMANT 62), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990 KUSTÁR, Z., ‘Durch seine Wunden sind wir geheilt’. Eine Untersuchung zur Metaphorik von Israels Krankheit und Heilung im Jesajabuch (BWANT 154), Stuttgart 2002 LECLERC, T. L., Yahweh is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah, Minneapolis 2001 LIWAK, R., Die altorientalischen Großmächte in der Metaphorik der Prophetie, in: Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. FS für Siegfried Hermann, eds. R. Liwak and S. Wagner, Stuttgart 1991, 206–230 LOHFINK, N., Gewalt und Monotheismus. Beispiel Altes Testament, in: Monotheismus – eine Quelle der Gewalt? (Arnoldshainer Texte 125), ed. H. Düringer, Frankfurt 2004, 61–78 MACHINIST, P., Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah, JAOS 103 (1983) 719–737 MATHEWS, C. R., Defending Zion. Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s Restoration (Isaiah 34–35) in Context (BZAW 236), Berlin 1995 M ICHEL, A., Gott und Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament (FAT 37), Tübingen 2003

24

Ulrich Berges and Bernd Obermayer

OBERMAYER, B., Göttliche Gewalt im Buch Jesaja. Untersuchung zur Semantik und literarischen Funktion eines theologisch herausfordernden Aspekts im Gottesbild (BBB 170), Göttingen 2014 P OLLIACK, M., Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal, in: Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, eds. H.G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman, London 2002, 72-110 R IEDE, P., Im Netz des Jägers. Studien zur Feindmetaphorik in den Individualpsalmen (WMANT 85), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000 RÖLLIG, W., Assur – Geißel der Völker, Saec. 37 (1986) 118–128 RUITEN, J. VAN, The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6–9, in: The Scriptures and the Scrolls, FS A.S. van der Woude (VT.S 49), eds. F. García Martínez et al., Leiden 1992, 31–42 SCHMID, K., Nebukadnezars Antritt der Weltherrschaft und der Abbruch der Davidsdynastie. Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung und universalgeschichtliche Konstruktion im Jeremiabuch, in: Die Textualisierung der Religion (FAT 62), ed. J. Schaper, Tübingen 2009 SCHOLZ, S., Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis 2010 SEHMSDORF, E., Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Jesaja 56–66 (I), ZAW 84 (1972) 517–562 SMITH, P. A., Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 (VT.S 62), Leiden 1995 STECK, O. H., Bereitete Heimkehr. Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121), Stuttgart 1985 TOORN, K. VAN DER, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge 2009 TRIMM, C., Recent Research on Warfare in the Old Testament, CBR 10 (2012) 171–216 VERMEYLEN, J., Du prophète Isaïe à l'apocalyptique. Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d'un demimillénaire d'expérience religieuse en Israël, Vol. 1, Paris 1977 – Du prophète Isaïe à l'apocalyptique. Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d'un demi-millénaire d'expérience religieuse en Israël, Vol. 2, Paris 1978 W ILDBERGER, H., Jesaja 13–27 (BK.AT X/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978. W ILLIAMSON, H. G. M., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994 ZAPFF, B. M., Schriftgelehrte Prophetie – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (fzb 74), Würzburg 1995 ZENGER, E., Gewalt als Preis der Wahrheit? Alttestamentliche Beobachtungen zur sogenannten Mosaischen Unterscheidung, in: Religion, Politik und Gewalt (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 29), ed. F. Schweitzer, Gütersloh 2006, 35–57 – Der Mosaische Monotheismus im Spannungsfeld von Gewalttätigkeit und Gewaltverzicht. Eine Replik auf Jan Assmann, in: Das Gewaltpotential des Monotheismus und der dreieine Gott (QD 216), ed. P. Walter, Freiburg, 2005, 39–73

‘The City by the Sea will be a Drying Place’: Isaiah 19.1–25 in Light of Prophetic Texts from Ptolemaic Egypt1 BERND U. SCHIPPER Matthias Köckert zum 70. Geburtstag The oracle concerning Egypt in Isa 19.1–25 is one of the most remarkable passages in the Hebrew Bible. It begins with a condemnation of Egypt and ends with a prediction that the land of Egypt – side by side with Assyria and Israel – will be blessed by Yhwh: 24 In that day, Israel shall be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth; 25 for Yhwh Sabaoth will bless them, saying, ‘Blessed be my people, Egypt, and the work of my hands, Assyria, and my heritage, Israel.’

Biblical scholarship has been discussing this passage for decades, asking whether one should see these words as the climax of Old Testament theology or merely as a dead-end. Do we have a concept of universalism here, which sensibly expands other texts from the Hebrew Bible, or does the idea to include Assyria and Egypt among the people receiving the blessing of Yhwh question the proprium israeliticum?2 The ancient versions of the book of Isaiah illustrate that this is not only a challenge for modern scholarship. By adding two little words, the Septuagint shifts the focus so that the blessing of Yhwh no longer aims at Egypt and Assyria but refers to the Jews in the Diaspora:3 25 εὐλογηµένος ὁ λαός µου ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ὁ ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ ἡ κληρονοµία µου Ισραηλ

1 I would like to express my gratitude to Anselm C. Hagedorn for a fruitful discussion of my argument and for his help in bringing the article into acceptable English. 2 A term introduced by W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 746; and taken up by GROß , Israel, 157– 158. Cf. HAGELIA, Crescendo, 73; HAAG, Volk, 144 (ein ‘einmalige[r] Höhepunkt’), and SELDMEIER, Israel, 89–91. See also KÖCKERT, Erwählung, with a compelling interpretation to which I will refer in the following. 3 This was already stated by Wilhelm Gesenius in 1821 (GESENIUS, Jesaja, 61). See also Isac Leo Seeligmann in 1948 (SEELIGMANN, Septuagint, 288).

26

Bernd U. Schipper

‘Blessed be my people that are in Egypt and among the Assyrians, and Israel, my heritage.’

A comparison of the versions shows that the Septuagint does not simply add the word ἐν. It also omits the qualifications of Egypt and Assur as ‘my people’ and ‘the work of my hands’ respectively (‫)עמי מצרים ומעשה ידי אשור‬. The Targum expands this idea even further and paraphrases Isa 19.24–25 as follows:4 24 In that time Israel will be a third with the Egyptians and the Assyrians, a blessing in the midst of the earth, 25 whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed are my people whom I brought forth from Egypt; because they sinned before me, I exiled them to Assyria, and now that they repent they are called my people and my heritage, Israel.’

For both the authors of the Septuagint and the Targum the theological universalism of the Hebrew text began to appear to be problematic.5 In the following, I will argue that the theological universalism as well as the change of this concept in the Septuagint can be explained by the sociocultural situation, a situation that is closely linked to prophetic texts from Ptolemaic Egypt. As a result, Isaiah 19 in both its versions – the Hebrew one and the Greek one – should be seen as a text that offers an interpretative window into the religious-political situation of the Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt during the third and second centuries BCE. The following essay falls into three parts: first, the structure and innerbiblical allusions of Isaiah 19 will be explained; this is followed by a comparison with the prophetic texts from Egypt, often labelled ‘apocalyptic’; and finally a possible Sitz im Leben of Isaiah 19 within the socio-cultural milieu of the text will be investigated.

1. The Structure and Inner-Biblical Allusions of Isaiah 19 Isaiah 19 begins with a theophany. Yhwh rides on a swift cloud to Egypt so that the gods of Egypt tremble before him (19.1).6 Following this, 19.2– 10 describes a time of social and cosmic doom for Egypt:7 2 I will incite Egypt against Egypt, 4

CHILTON, Isaiah Targum, 39. SEDLMEIER, Israel, 90. See as well CHILTON, Isaiah Targum, 39 (notes) and HOM, Characterization, 73. 6 See also Pss 68.5, 34; 104.3; 18.10–16; 99.1; Deut 33,26; KAISER, Jesaja, 82, and P FEIFFER, Jahwes Kommen, 222–223, who pointed to Ps 68.29–32. 7 See W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 704: ‘eine Naturkatastrophe’. 5

Isaiah 19.1 –25

27

and a man will fight against his brother and a man against his neighbour, city against city, kingdom against kingdom.

Isaiah 19.4 connects this description of doom to a foreign ruler: 4 And I will place Egypt into the hand of a harsh master, and a mighty king shall rule over them.

This is followed by the account of a cosmic disaster such as aridity, drought and the ebbing of the Nile (that is called ‫ נהר‬here):8 5 Water shall fail from the seas,9 the river be parched and dried up.

Verses 6 and 7 supplement this description by stating that the channels of Egypt (labelled ‫)מצור‬10 run dry, nature decays and the sown plots no longer yield fruit. The people bewail the loss of their livelihood. Isaiah 19 mentions fishermen, flax workers, carders and weavers. What is described here is a cosmic disaster with considerable implications.11 The next section (Isa 19.11–15) is a tirade against the nobles and sages, introduced by ‫אך‬:12 11 The princes of Zoan are fools, The counsellors of Pharaoh have counselled him folly. How can you say to Pharaoh, ‘I am the son of sages, A son of ancient kings?’ 12 Where then are your sages?

The counsel of the sages (verb ‫ ;יעץ‬see also 19.13) is placed in opposition to Yhwh’s counsel (‫יעץ‬, 19.12, 14) who has brought a spirit of confusion ‫רוח עועים‬, cf. v. 3: ‫ )עצה‬over Egypt. Apparently it is Yhwh who caused the disaster described in 19.1–10. He is the one who is responsible that ‘nothing shall be achieved in Egypt’ (‫ )ולא־יהיה למצרים מעשה‬that has ‘head or tail, palm branch and reed’ (v. 15). Within Isaiah 19 the first part (Isa 19.1–15) is followed by a second part (Isa 19.16–25) with five oracles that are all introduced by the formula ‘on that day’ (‫ ;ביום ההוא‬vv. 16, 18, 19, 23, 24).13 Isaiah 19.16 connects the sec8

Normally the Nile is called ‫יאר‬, see for this HALOT 365 and below n. 74. Interestingly, the river Nile is called ‫‘ ים‬sea’ (BEUKEN, Jesaja, 185). 10 Egypt is mentioned in this verse as ‫ מצור‬in contrast to ‫מצרים‬, which is used in the other passages of the text. On this see GROSS, Israel, 151. 11 This was already mentioned by DUHM, Jesaja, 142. 12 HAAG, Volk, 139. 13 This is the scholarly consensus: B EUKEN, Jesaja, 178; HAGELIA, Crescendo, 74; FEUILLET, Sommet, 66. 9

28

Bernd U. Schipper

ond part with the theme of the first part: the coming of Yhwh against Egypt.14 16 On that day, Egypt will be like women, trembling and terrified because of the raised hand of Yhwh Sabaoth when he raises his hand against him.

This ‘introduction’ is followed by the well-known words of the five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and that swear loyalty to Yhwh Sabaoth (19.18a).15 One of them shall be called Ir-Heres, i.e. City of the Sun.16 This is supplemented by the much-discussed phrase of ‘an altar to Yhwh in the middle of the land of Egypt’ ( ‫מזבח ליהוה בתוך ארץ‬ ‫ )מצרים‬and a pillar (‫ )מצבה‬dedicated to him at its frontier (v. 19). Against this backdrop 19.20 is remarkable since it marks a turn: 20b …when they cry out to Yhwh against oppressors, he will send them a saviour (‫)מושיע‬ who will come to their defence and rescue them.

This thought is elaborated in the following verses: 19.21 mentions worship and offerings to Yhwh, and 19.22 continues with a revelation of Yhwh to the Egyptians: 22b … when they turn back to Yhwh, he will respond to their entreaties and heal them.

According to this Yhwh afflicts and heals the Egyptians. The chapter concludes with a statement regarding a highway from Egypt to Assyria (v. 23), a description of Israel in covenant with Egypt and Assyria and finally the blessing of Yhwh for the three people mentioned above (v. 25). 1.1 The Structure of Isaiah 19 Scholars who discuss Isaiah 19 often argue that the chapter is of a disparate literary form. Most commonly one assumes a literary break between 19.1–15 and 19.16–25 as both sections not only differ stylistically but also seem to address different topics. Isaiah 19.1–15 describes a punishment on Egypt, while 19.16–25 addresses oracles of salvation.17 Moreover, 19.1–15

14

See for this translation B LENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 312, whom I follow in my translation. It has often been assumed that vv. 16–17 are a later addition since vv. 18–23 have a positive attitude to Egypt while vv. 16–18 are negative (HAGELIA, Crescendo, 74). 16 I follow B ARTHÉLEMY, Critique, 149, who reconstructs ‘city of the sun’ (‫)עיר החרס‬ as the oldest reading in contrast to the pointing of MT ‫‘ עִיר ַה ֶה ֶר ס‬city of destruction’. See as well S AWYER, People, 62, who argued that the Masoretic version ‘reflects Pharisaic attitudes to the temple of Onias at Leontopolis, possibly after its destruction in 73 AD’. For a broader text-critical discussion see SEDLMEIER, Israel, 91, n. 7, BEUKEN, Jesaja, 176–177, and B ARTHÉLEMY, Critique, 143–150. 17 This was already observed by Hitzig in 1833 (HITZIG, Jesaja, 218). See FEUILLET, Sommet, 65, nn. 1 and 2, with reference to older literature (and FEUILLET, Sommet, 79, 15

Isaiah 19.1 –25

29

has a poetic structure, while vv. 16–25 appears to be prose.18 Taking these basic observations as a starting point, scholars have generally discussed whether we have a text here that displays literary growth over several stages.19 This is often combined with a specific historical approach: since Egypt and Assyria are mentioned in 19.23–24 one is tempted to trace some passages back to the eighth-century prophet.20 The following analysis will show that this is hardly plausible. The oracle of Isaiah 19 is a late text, which receives its meaning against the backdrop of a number of inner-biblical allusions, on the one hand, and Ptolemaic prophecies from Egypt, on the other. As a result, the oracle against Egypt supports the scholarly consensus that has emerged over the past decades:21 we can find in Isaiah 1–39 (‘Proto-Isaiah’) several texts that presuppose earlier literary material (from within and outside the Book of Isaiah) and can be described as examples of ‘scribal exegesis.’22 Such an insight does not mean, however, that a late text has to be seen as a unity without any secondary additions.23 All disruptions of coherence as well as observations which point to a literary growth of the text have to be taken seriously and should be explained carefully. 24 Given that the aim of the for a summary on the question of date); for more recent literature see B EUKEN, Jesaja, 172–173, and for a current approach LAUBER, Universalismus, 369, and COOK, Sign, 82. 18 HAGELIA, Crescendo, 75; SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39, 264; HAAG, Volk, 139. 19 It has often been assumed that in the first part vv. 5–10 has to be seen as a later addition, see W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 704, and the overview in HAYS, Damming, 614, who followed Sweeney in taking 19.1–10 as a unity (SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39, 265). 20 See, e.g., J. B ARTON, Isaiah 1–39, who connected vv. 1–15 with the historical prophet Isaiah, but argued that the oracles in 19.16–25 ‘can surely not be by the prophet.’ Interestingly even scholars who wanted to read the text as being written by Isaiah assumed that the text ‘may indeed have been updated by later editing and secondary additions’ (ROBERTS, Oracles, 206). 21 See, e.g., BECKER, Jesajaforschung, 1–37, 117–152. 22 For the phenomenon of ‘scribal exegesis’ see KRATZ, Judentum, 126–156, and for the book of Isaiah, see the recent commentary of Schmid (SCHMID, Jesaja, 18–20, 33– 35). 23 GROSS, Israel, 142 n. 6, summarized this fact convincingly: ‘In der Forschung vermischen sich, wie häufig, eigentümlich Literarkritik und Beurteilung der Authentizität. Wer, mit den besseren Gründen, Jes 19,1–15 insgesamt Jesaja abspricht und nachexilisch ansetzt, tendiert, mit weniger guten Gründen, eher dazu, den gesamten Abschnitt als literarische Einheit anzusehen, da die Literarkritiker an redaktionelle Texte nicht nur andere, sondern auch weniger hohe Kohärenzansprüche stellen als an “ursprüngliche” bzw. “authentische” Texte.’ 24 A classical list of such ‘Kohärenzstörungen’ can be found in W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 703–706. On the other hand, the connections and keywords between vv. 1–15 and vv. 16–25 have to be taken seriously as well. So, for example the ‘counsel’ of Yhwh (‫ )עצה‬in v. 17 corresponds to the verb ‫ יעץ‬and the noun ‫ עצה‬in vv. 3 and 11 (BEUKEN, Jesaja, 191). Furthermore, it is possible to describe vv. 18–25 with R. Kilian as ‘eine literarische

30

Bernd U. Schipper

present article is to locate the oracle of Isaiah 19 in an Egyptian environment, the following argumentation has to focus on this and it cannot be the place for a detailed discussion of the literary history of Isaiah 19. Thus, I will concentrate on two points: first a synchronic reading of the text, uncovering its structure and its use of other texts from the Hebrew Bible and second, a comparison with the so-called ‘prophetic texts’ from Ptolemaic Egypt.25 I will show that, despite all the discussions of the literary growth of the text, the final version of the Masoretic Text can be explained coherently. When scrutinizing the text from a synchronic perspective Isaiah 19 displays a sensible structure. The first part can be divided into three stanzas, while part two consists of five stanzas. Both parts display a clear progression of thought and both parts are basically connected by the main subject Egypt.26 In part one (19.1–15), stanza one (vv. 1–4) announces the dissolution of the religious and public order of the land; stanza two (vv. 5–10) speaks of the destruction of its economic basis while stanza three (vv. 11–15) stresses the perplexity of the royal officials and Pharaoh.27 All three stanzas are connected by catchwords such as ‫‘( רוח‬spirit’) or the root ‫יעץ‬. The spirit of Egypt (v. 3) will be confounded because Yhwh brings a spirit of distortion (v. 14); the counsel of the Egyptian sages (‫עצה‬, v. 3) is set in opposition to the decision/counsel of Yhwh (v. 12, verb ‫)יעץ‬.28 Furthermore, stanzas one and two are connected by the two-tier pattern of classic descriptions of a theophany: the coming and intervention of Yhwh (vv. 1– 4) is followed by the reaction of the world, nature and humanity (vv. 5– 10).29 The second part (vv. 16–25), too, contains a clear progression of thought, connected to a specific structure. I have already mentioned the introduction ‘on that day’ that introduces the five oracles and that is followed by a preformative conjugation of ‫( היה‬vv. 16, 18, 19, 23, 24).30 Isaiah 19.16 relates to the topic of the fear of the Egyptian deities in 19.1, Einheit…in der ein späterer Autor seine Zukunftserwartung, sich schrittweise vortastend, aphorismenartig entfaltet hat’ (KILIAN, Jesaja, 123). 25 The latter has been discussed more recently for the Septuagint of Isa 19 (VAN DER KOOIJ, Old Greek, 77–84, and VAN DER MEER, Visions, 301–312). The following article will show, however, that the MT of Isa 19 can also be connected to Ptolemaic Egypt. 26 HAAG, Volk, 145. 27 KAISER, Jesaja, 81. 28 GROSS, Israel, 151. 29 BEUKEN, Jesaja, 182. This formal argument has to be taken into account when considering vv. 5–10 as a secondary addition, as is often assumed; see KAISER, Jesaja, 18; W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 703. 30 SEDLMEIER, Israel, 93.

Isaiah 19.1 –25

31

but connects this with the Egyptians in general: ‘they will tremble and be in dread’.31 Isaiah 19.16–17 describes the terror that is a result of Yhwh’s descending upon Egypt (cf. v. 1), while v. 18 mentions five cities speaking the language of Canaan (‫)מדברות שפת כנען‬. Finally, 19.19–22 speaks of a saviour figure sent by Yhwh and vv. 23–24 contain the aforementioned word of blessing that announces a period of salvation in the future for Egypt next to Assyria and Israel.32 This line of argument is connected to a specific construction. In 1976 W. Vogels pointed to the double chiastic structure of vv. 16–25. The proclamation that an altar of Yhwh will stand in Egypt ‘on this day’ forms the centre (vv. 19–20) of a double ring-composition: vv. 19–20 are echoed by vv. 21–22, v. 18, the swearing of the five cities to Yhwh, is complemented by v. 23 and the outer ring contains vv. 16–17 and vv. 24–25.33 1.2 Intertextual References When moving from the structure of the text to the allusions to other parts of the Hebrew Bible, some interesting evidence can be unearthed. The oracle as a whole echoes a number of texts within and outside the book of Isaiah.34 The coming of Yhwh in 19.1 is not only part of a theophany,35 it is mentioned in Proto-Isaiah in 3.14; 5.19 and 13.5–6. Given that Isaiah 13 and 19 frame the oracles against the nations, it is hardly accidental that both texts start with a theophany. 36 The trembling of the gods of Egypt in 19.1 can be paralleled with Isa 7.2.37 There the heart of the people trembles when being informed that the Arameans formed an alliance with the Israelites, both enemies of Judah. In both texts the trembling is expressed with

31

This was already noted by HAGELIA, Crescendo, 75. See HAAG, Volk, 140, who argued on the basis of a different literary approach for a specific structure of the passage, labeled by him as ‘konzentrische Symmetrie’. 33 VOGELS, L’Égypte, 494–514, and KÖCKERT, Erwählung, 294 n. 65. See also SEDLMEIER, Israel, 93, with a different structure of the text which illustrates its logical structure, albeit from a different perspective. 34 See COOK, Sign, 83. 35 See BEUKEN, Jesaja 182. 36 There are further parallels between Isa 13 and 19. Just as in Isa 19, the coming of Yhwh is connected to a threat against a foreign nation: Babel in Isa 13, Egypt in Isa 19. Additional shared characteristics are the chaos or destruction of the land described in 13.6, 9 (cf. 13.22). Exactly this connection is also found in Isa 19.1–10. On Isa 13 and 19 as a frame to the oracles against the foreign nations see BEUKEN, Jesaja, 23–24. 37 For the classical motif of theophanic texts see Judg 5.5; Pss 18.16; 29.6; 46.7; 77.19 and JEREMIAS, Theophanie, 137. 32

32

Bernd U. Schipper

the verb ‫ נוע‬Qal.38 Both motifs in v. 1 tie to the beginning of the prophecy of Isaiah. The gods and their haughty worshippers will fall (Isa 2.6–22).39 Interestingly enough, vv. 2–4 and 5–10 are not strongly connected with other passages from the book of Isaiah. Some motifs can be found in other texts, such as ‘brother against brother’ (Lev 25.46; 26.37), ‘neighbour against neighbour’ (Judg 7.22; 1 Sam 14.20; Jer 9.4), ‘city against city’ (2 Chron 15.6) and ‘kingdom against kingdom’ (Jer 19.28; Ezek 37.22; Ps 46.7). But the combination of these motifs in Isa 19.2 as well as the description of doom in vv. 5–10 is unique in the Hebrew Bible.40 On a broader level, these motifs can be connected to the reaction of the people, whether the inhabitants of Zion or others, facing divine punishment (verbal form ‫ אבל‬in 19.8 = 24.4; 33.9).41 This corresponds with the reaction of the leaders of Egypt in v. 14. The metaphor of intoxicating drink and the stumbling following it can be found in 5.22; 28.7–8; 29.9–10; 37.7 and 51.17–22.42 And finally, for the first part of Isaiah 19, the strange phrasing of v. 15bα (‘head or tail, palm branch and reed’/‫ )ראש וזנב כפה ואגמון‬seems to echo the ordeals of the Northern Kingdom in 9.13.43 When moving to the second part of Isaiah 19 it can be seen that the literary horizon widens. Not only are passages from other parts of the book of Isaiah used, but several theological traditions of the Pentateuch also become important (ancestors of Israel, the covenant, the exodus-motif). The metaphor of v. 16 that Yhwh swung and raised his ‘hand’ against Egypt echoes a common feature in the book of Isaiah. It can be found in the seven woes of 5.25 as well as in 9.12, 17, 21 and 10.4.44 The raising of the hand is also prominent in the exodus-tradition. It is connected to the march through the Sea of Reeds which was made possible by the hand of Yhwh (Exod 15.12; Isa 51.9–10). The following three verses, vv. 17–19, tie in with the aforementioned traditions from the Pentateuch. In 1951 André Feuillet drew attention to the similarity between the five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and the five cities mentioned in Josh 10.1–27.45 In Joshua

38

See as well Exod 20.18b and for other references HALOT 644. Especially Isa 2.18, 20–21, cf. 10.10–11; BEUKEN, Jesaja, 183. 40 See for this Part 2 of this article, below. 41 See as well Isa 16.8; 23.9; 24.4, 7; 29.22 and BEUKEN, Jesaja, 185, and COOK, Sign,

39

87.

42

Cf. 1 Kgs 22.20–23; Jer 25.15–17; Hab 2.15–16; B EUKEN, Jesaja, 190. Already Hitzig numbered this among the ‘Eigenthümlichkeiten des Jesaja’ (HITZIG, Jesaja, 217). 44 HAGELIA, Crescendo, 77 n. 13, and SEDLMEIER, Israel, 95. 45 In contrast Hagelia referred to the cities mentioned in Jer 44.1 as locations of the Judeans, but here we only have four cities and not five (HAGELIA, Crescendo, 79). See 43

Isaiah 19.1 –25

33

10 the five cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon symbolize the opposition of Canaanite kings to the conquest of Israel. The word five (‫ )חמש‬is mentioned in 10.5, 16 and 23.46 According to the narrative of the conquest of Canaan, the victory over the five kings completed Israel’s occupation of the land. Despite the fact that the number ‘five’ could be seen simply as a ‘round lot’ (pars pro toto, see Isa 30.17 and Job 1.2–3),47 a symbol of victory and of a final decision as it is intended in Joshua 10, it does make sense in the framework of Isaiah 19. Haag pointed to the fact that the expression ‫ שפת כנען‬in v. 18aβ should not be understood in the sense that the five cities speak a specific language such as Hebrew or Aramaic.48 In Hebrew a specific idiom is expressed by ‫לשון‬, not by ‫שפה‬ (Isa 28.11; 33.19; Ezek 3.5–6).49 ‫‘ שפה‬lip’ means ‘form of speech’ (Gen 11.1) and has to be understood in Isa 19.18 not linguistically as representing a specific dialect but metonymic as a ‘confession of Canaan’ which is elaborated in v. 18aγ when these cities ‘swear’ to Yhwh.50 Both aspects point to the specific relationship between the Egyptian cities and Yhwh.51 This evidence shows that the five cities should be interpreted in a symbolic and not in a historical way. 52 In Isaiah 19 the most interesting case of references to the main theological traditions of biblical Israel can be found in the third oracle (vv. 19–22). The motifs of the ‘altar to Yhwh’ (v. 19a), the ‫‘ מצבה‬for’ him (v. 19b)53 and the crying of the Egyptians to Yhwh (v. 20) in combination with Yhwh’s making himself known (v. 21) point to the story of the ancestors and the Exodus. In the story of the ancestors of Israel the altar and the ‫מצבה‬ express the divine presence and the location of communication with the deity. The ‘altar to Yhwh’ echoes the passages of the building of an altar in Gen 12.7 (Abram), 26.24–25 (Isaac) and 35.7 (Jacob) and the ‫ מצבה‬points to 28.18.54 Given that already on the level of Genesis these passages are all

also HITZIG, Jesaja, 233, who pointed to Heliopolis, Leontopolis, Migdol, Daphne and Memphis. 46 FEUILLET, Sommet, 70. Five Kings are mentioned as well in Gen 14.9, and in 1 Sam 6.2 the number ‘five’ refers to five rulers of the Philistines. 47 See DEISSLER, Gottesbund, 15. 48 W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 734–735. 49 UEHLINGER, Weltreich, 348. 50 HAAG, Volk, 142. 51 See B EUKEN, Jesaja, 192, and SEDLMEIER, Israel, 97, who both argued that the ‘language of Canaan’ could refer simply to cultic language. 52 HAAG, Volk, 142, and SEDLMEIER, Israel, 95–96. 53 The preposition ‫ ל‬in the phrase ‫ ומצבה אצל־גבולה ליהוה‬has to be read as ‘in favour of’ or ‘for’ Yhwh (MEYER, Hebräische Grammatik, §102.4a). 54 SEDLMEIER, Israel, 97.

34

Bernd U. Schipper

formulaic and summative,55 the wording of Isa 19.19 receives a deeper sense. The verb ‫‘( צעק‬to cry to Yhwh’) as well as the ‘saviour’ (‫ )מושיע‬in v. 20 point to the exodus-tradition.56 The root ‫ צעק‬refers to crying for help out of pain or suffering and is used numerous times in the Pentateuch for Israel’s crying to Yhwh (cf. Exod 3.7, 9; 5.8, 15; 8.8; 14.10).57 It is used as well in the summaries, which structure the Deuteronomistic history of biblical Israel (Deut 26.7; Jos 24.7).58 Verse 21 contains two words which are strongly connected to the exodus. The root ‫ ידע‬points to the concept of the ‘knowledge of Yhwh’ which is elaborated in the cycle of plagues against Egypt and during the exodus of the people (Exod 7.17; 8.6, 18; 9.14, 29; 14.4, 18). The idea that the Egyptians too should ‘know’ Yhwh is a crucial theological concept of the book of Isaiah. It ties to Isa 12.4: ‘make known his doings among the people’.59 As a result, in 19.21b the Egyptians will worship Yhwh and will make vows. According to several passages in the book of Isaiah as well as in the exodus narrative, the people should serve Yhwh by worshipping him with animal sacrifice and cereal offerings.60 Such a combination of theological ideas from the book of Isaiah and motifs from the exodus can also be found in the final verse of this part of Isaiah 19. In v. 22 the verb ‫ נגף‬brings the tenth plague to mind (Exod 7.27; 12.13, 23, 27). To ‘pray to Yhwh’ (verb ‫ עתר‬Niphal) refers to what Pharaoh asks Moses to do during each plague.61 And finally, the ‘healing’ (verb ‫ )רפא‬in v. 22b can be connected to Isa 6.10. Yhwh brings the punishment to his people ‘so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds and turn and be healed (‫’)רפא‬.62 The last two stanzas (vv. 23 and 24–25) shift from the exodus to Isaianic tradition. The highway (‫ )מסלה‬in v. 23 points to 40.3 and 62.10. It is, as Oswalt pointed out, ‘the favorite metaphor for the removal of alienation and separation’ in the book of Isaiah.63 There a highway is mentioned for the people of Israel returning from Babylon to Jerusalem. The wording 55

HAAG, Volk, 143. SEDLMEIER, Israel, 98. For the savior see B EUKEN, Jesaja, 196, with a broader discussion of the motif. 57 DEISSLER, Gottesbund, 16, and LAUBER, Universalismus, 377. For a list of references – including in the book of Judges – see GROSS, Israel, 155 nn. 9 and 10. 58 For the passage in Deut 26.7, see KÖCKERT, Leben, 28–29, 45. 59 BEUKEN, Jesaja, 197, and WILDBERGER, Jesaja, 741. 60 See BEUKEN, Jesaja, 197, with a list of references. 61 BEUKEN, Jesaja, 197. 62 See also the wording in Exod 15.26: ‘I am Yhwh your healer’ (LOHFINK, Ich bin JHWH). 63 OSWALT, Isaiah, 380. See also SEDLMEIER, Israel, 99. 56

Isaiah 19.1 –25

35

of v. 23 also refers to 11.16 where one reads:64 ‘there will be a highway for the remnant of his people who will be left in Assyria, like as it was to Israel at the day that they came up out of Egypt.’ By taking up this motif vv. 24–25 connect to a theological concept that is prominent in Deutero-Isaiah. It is the tradition of the covenant between God and his people, a covenant the foreign people can participate in when they accept the unity of God. In Isa 45.22–24 this is universalistically expanded: Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other. By my life I have sworn, I have given a promise, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness; and will not return. That to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear. Only in the Lord – one will say – are righteousness and strength.

Alongside the fact that the rare construction ‫ שבע‬Niphal with the preposition ‫ ל‬in 19.19 can be connected to 45.23,65 there can be no doubt that the theological universalism of Isaiah 19 elaborates on the idea of Isaiah 45. In a careful analysis, Matthias Köckert has shown how the final verses of Isaiah 19 expand on a theological concept also found in Zech 2.15–16; Pss 47.10; 89.9 and 100.3.66 According to him, the universalism of Isaiah 19 with the singular theological concept of Egypt and Assur side by side with Israel has to be seen in the context of late texts. It ties in with theological ideas found in the whole book of Isaiah – not only in Proto-Isaiah – and is connected with a reception of theological traditions such as the ancestors of Israel or the exodus. To summarize the argument thus far: Isaiah 19 was written not only against the backdrop of other passages from the book of Isaiah, but of Pentateuchal traditions too, including the exodus, the ancestors, and the covenant. The oracle against Egypt in Isaiah 19 appears to be a text of highly theological reflection. It is a piece of literature that should be understood against its biblical background – not primarily in a historical, but in a theological sense. Despite the question whether such a theological profile should be seen as a ‘dead-end’ of Old Testament theology or rather as its ‘climax’, it is a matter of fact that this theological statement was not 64 DEISSLER, Gottesbund, 17, and LAUBER, Universalismus, 379, who want to read 19.16–23 mainly against the backdrop of 11.11–16 (LAUBER, Universalismus, 380–383). 65 There combined with the preposition ‫ב‬, see KÖCKERT, Erwählung, 295. 66 KÖCKERT, Erwählung, 295–300.

36

Bernd U. Schipper

challenged in other texts of the Hebrew Bible but only later in the Septuagint and other Jewish texts.67 This stands in the context of the use of Isaiah 19 in the midrash on the book of Exodus. In Exodus Rabbah v. 14 the passage Isa 19.11 is used to illustrate Exod 5.1–2. When Pharaoh asks his sages about the name of the god of the Hebrews, they answer by quoting Isa 19.11: ‘We have heard, he is son of sages and of ancient kings’.68 In sum, the evidence discussed above supports the thesis that Isaiah 19 is not only a post-exilic, but a very late text from the last stages before the Book of Isaiah received its final form. The oracle concerning Egypt appears to be a product of scribal literature as typical for late prophetic texts and other literature from the Persian and Hellenistic period.69 This double evidence, the theological concept as well as the late date of the text should serve as the starting point for the following investigation of a possible socio-cultural Sitz-im-Leben.

2. Prophecies from Ptolemaic Egypt It has often been observed that Isaiah 19 contains a number of Egyptian motifs. So, for example, Ockinga in 1979 expanded an earlier argument by Donner on the strange wording of 19.15 (cf. 9.13).70 He connected the wording of ‘head nor tail, palm branch nor reed’ (‫ )ראש וזנב כפה ואגמון‬in v. 15 with the Egyptian symbols for the two parts of Egypt: the northern part, ‘Lower Egypt’ and the southern ‘Upper Egypt’. ‘Head’ and ‘tail’ mean, thus, from the beginning of the land of Egypt to its end. This is echoed by the reference to the ‘palm branch’ and the ‘reed’ in v. 15bβ, which refers to the heraldic plants of the two parts of Egypt.71 Another Egyptian motif can be found in v. 16. Niccati explained the phrase ‘Egypt shall be like women’ (‫ )מצרים כנשים‬by reference to the socalled ‘Piye-stela’ from the late eighth century.72 On this victory stela of the Cushite ruler Piye one reads:73 Now the kings and counts of Lower Egypt who came to see his majesty’s beauty, their legs were the legs of women (ll. 149–150)

67

LAUBER, Universalismus, 373–374, and n. 5 above. BEUKEN, Jesaja, 187. Midrash Rabbah, 95–96. 69 See for an evaluation of such a ‘scribal exegesis’ in wisdom literature, SCHIPPER, Hermeneutik. 70 DONNER, Israel, 72–73. 71 OCKINGA, Rosch Wezanab, 31–34. See also COOK, Sign, 97. 72 NICCATI, Isaiah XVIII–XX, 220. 73 HALLO, Context of Scripture II, 50 (translation: Miriam Lichtheim). 68

Isaiah 19.1 –25

37

And in the final passage of the text, a hymn to Piye, one can read:74 Oh mighty ruler, O mighty ruler, Pye, mighty ruler! You return having taken Lower Egypt, You made bulls into women! (ll. 156–157)

Egyptian influence, however, can also be found on the level of language. The Nile (in Egyptian itrw) is normally mentioned in the Hebrew Bible without the article or, when the definite article is used, as ‫( היאר‬Gen 41.1– 3, 17–18; Exod 1.22; 2.3; Dan 12.5–6).75 The transcription of the Egyptian article p3 and the word itrw (p3 itrw) appears only in Isa 19.7: ‫פי יאור‬. The Hebrew transcription of the Egyptian phrase with the article masculine singular and the noun correlates to the normal Hebrew use as can be found in place names such as ‘Bubastis’ (Egyptian pr-Bst.t; Hebrew ‫פי־בסת‬, Ezek 30.17), ‘Pithom’ (Egyptian pr-Itm; Hebrew ‫פתום‬, Exod 1.11) or in the in the personal name Potiphar (Hebrew ‫פוטי פרע‬, Egyptian p3-dj-p3-Rʿ, Gen 41.45).76 And finally, the imagery of Isa 19.16b–17 could be read with ‘Egyptian eyes’ as well. Scholars often wondered why Judah will become a ‘terror’ (‫ )חגא‬to the Egyptians (v. 17a).77 The term ‫חגא‬, a hapax legomenon, describes a motif that is singular in the Hebrew Bible. Normally Egypt is a threat for Judah but not the other way around.78 However, in combination with the motif of Yhwh raising his arm against Egypt (v. 16b) the word ‘terror’ (‫ )חגא‬would make sense. The scene where a standing pharaoh raises his arm to destroy the enemies can be found in Egyptian art from the Old Kingdom to Hellenistic times.79 It is connected with the idea that the enemies symbolized disorder (Egyptian Isfet), whereas pharaoh represents order or righteousness (Macat).80 Against this backdrop, the Egyptian concept of ‘pharaoh smiting his enemies’ is turned upside down in 19.16–17. Yhwh acts like the Egyptian pharaoh who destroys the chaotic forces.

74

HALLO, Context of Scripture II, 50–51. See ISRAELIT-GROLL, Background, 300. 76 For a further examination of these words see SCHIPPER, History, 497–499. 77 FEUILLET, Sommet, 68. For the interpretation of the Septuagint, which differs from MT in v. 16, see CROUGHS, Intertextuality, 93. 78 See HAGELIA, Crescendo, 78. 79 SCHIPPER, Background; for the motif itself, see HALL, Pharao, 47–49. 80 ASSMANN, Search, 3–5. 75

38

Bernd U. Schipper

The concept of Macat and the importance of the Pharaoh as part of traditional Egyptian royal ideology leads to a set of texts which should be discussed in the following in more detail. It has often been stated that the description of chaos in 19.5–10 is unique in the Hebrew Bible but displays a remarkable propinquity to Egyptian predictions of doom. In his commentary on the book of Isaiah, Beuken speaks of a couleur local and makes reference to the Prophecy of Neferti.81 This text from the 19th century BCE. (the so-called ‘Middle Kingdom’)82 contains a series of motifs that also appear in Isaiah 19. More recently van der Kooij and van der Meer expanded the Egyptian parallels by connecting the Septuagint of Isaiah 19 with Egyptian prophecies from the Ptolemaic period.83 The following investigation will show that not only can the Septuagint of Isaiah 19 be related to Egyptian prophecies but the Hebrew text can be as well. 2.1 Ptolemaic Prophecies The Ptolemaic material is part of a set of texts that is normally discussed in reference to the background of ancient Jewish apocalypticism.84 The reason for this is the fact that these texts contain a scenario that resembles in certain respects the apocalyptic literature of ancient Judaism: the main motif is the antagonism of two periods of time (aeons); the first age is an age of chaos for nature and humankind, while the second age is an age of

81

BEUKEN, Jesaja, 185, cf. W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 704, 713–714. B LUMENTHAL, Neferti, 21–24. 83 VAN DER KOOIJ, Old Greek, 77–84, and VAN DER MEER, Visions, 301–312. 84 See B LASIUS AND SCHIPPER, Forschungsüberblick, 8–10. 82

Isaiah 19.1 –25

39

salvation.85 The Egyptian texts in question are the Oracle of the Lamb, the Oracle of the Potter, and a prophecy from the archive at Tebtynis, published a decade ago by Quack.86 All three texts display a similar structure. The prophecies that announce a period of doom and salvation are embedded in a narrative frame (Lamb and Potter),87 which situates the oracles in a period long gone. The age of doom is characterized by a reversal of the social conditions and the laws of nature while the age of salvation describes the restoration of the old order.88 This basic idea is developed in the texts by characteristic motifs. In the following, some examples from the three texts will be provided. The Oracle of the Potter states: ‘The flood will not come with enough water, with insufficient’.89 In a similar vein, the text from the Tebtynis archive mentions irregularities in the flooding of the Nile: ‘The flood will come in its time, to ebb’.90 The Oracle of the Potter states: ‘The land will not welcome the sowing of the seed. These…will be blasted by the wind’. And the text from Tebtynis formulates: ‘One will plow the earth at the time of harvest’.91 Social chaos is added to this: ‘They are fighting in Egypt because of the lack of nourishment. What they till, another reaps and takes away…in this generation there will be war and murder which will destroy brothers, and husbands and wives’ states the Oracle of the Potter.92 According to the text from Tebtynis, ‘The small man will rob the great man; the great man will rob him who is smaller than he.’ The Oracle of the Lamb says: ‘The rich man will be poor, no man speaks the truth’.93 Murder, social upheaval, and injustice characterize this period. The period of doom is described as a social and cosmic catastrophe; here several motifs appear again and again: the absence or irregularity of the flooding of the Nile, social chaos with blood and thunder amongst sib-

85

See COLLINS, Imagination, 5, (with a classical definition) and NISSINEN AND SCHIPPER, Apocalypticism, 319–320. 86 All texts can be found in B LASIUS AND SCHIPPER, Apokalyptik. 87 For more extensive argumentation, see SCHIPPER, Erkenntnisse, 283–286. 88 For a more detailed description, see SCHIPPER, Apokalyptik, 25–27, and COLLINS, Apocalyptic, 12. 89 Potter, P2 (Col I), KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 144, see KERKESLAGER, Apology, 73. 90 Tebtynis, 1.8, QUACK, Text, 256 (transcription) and 257 (translation). 91 Potter, P2 (Col I), 6–7, KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 144; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 73; Tebtynis, 1.19–21, QUACK, Text, 256 and 257. 92 Potter, P2 (Col. I), 43–44, KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 147; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 78. 93 Tebtynis, 1.5, QUACK, Text, 256 and 257; LAMB, Col. I, 14, 16, THISSEN, Lamm, 116.

40

Bernd U. Schipper

lings and the upheaval of social conditions.94 All this is contrasted by a period of salvation in which order – Ma’at (in Egyptian m3c.t) – is restored. ‘Truth will come to light, falsehood will perish, justice and order will rule in Egypt.’95 These words of the Oracle of the Lamb are an allusion to the Prophecy of Neferti from the Middle Kingdom:96 Then order will come into its place, While wrongdoing is driven out.

This refers to a new king who will appear:97 Rejoice, O people of his time, The son of man will make his name forever and ever. They who incline toward evil, Who plot rebellion, They subdued their mouth in fear of him. The Asiatics will fall to his slaughter The Libyans will fall to his flame, The rebels to his wrath, the traitors to his might The serpent which is on his forehead will still the traitors for him.

The reference to the Uraeus-serpent and the slaughtering of the people from Asia and other foreigners emphasises who is envisaged here: a new Pharaoh will appear and order will be restored to the world; Macat returns. Before, the condition of the world was so forlorn that it was feared the sun-god Re would have to create the world anew but now – with the arrival of the new king – chaos has been overcome.98 There can be no doubt that this concept as found in the Prophecy of Neferti and taken up in the Oracle of the Lamb is connected to the traditional motif of ‘Pharaoh smiting his enemies’. The aforementioned scene with the standing pharaoh raising his arm to destroy the enemies is not only prominent in Egyptian art. It is a main concept of Egyptian royal ideology. 99 This can be seen in the prophecy from Tebtynis and the Oracle of the Potter. Both tie in with the earlier concept when they too expect a new ruler: this ruler is introduced as a saviour king, as a ‘dispenser of good’ as the Oracle of

94

This catalogue of motifs also appears in other ‘apocalyptic’ texts from the ancient world. See for this the instructive overview of B ERGER, Prodigien, 1455–1459. 95 LAMB, (Col II), 22–23, T HISSEN, Lamm, 117. Nearly the same phrase appears in the Tebtynis-text: QUACK, Text, 261 with n. a. 96 See for the following quote HALLO, Context of Scripture I, 110 (translation: Nili Shupak). 97 HALLO, Context of Scripture, 109. 98 B LUMENTHAL, Neferti, 26. 99 See ASSMANN, Königsdogma, 275.

Isaiah 19.1 –25

41

the Potter calls him.100 In the text from Tebtynis he is called a ruler of the world who also reigns over the foreign countries.101 In both cases, the appearance of a saviour king is preceded by a divine act. In contrast to the Prophecy of Neferti, in the Ptolemaic texts the deity appears himself. In the Oracle of the Potter the deity enters Memphis before the saviour king is appointed by Isis:102 And then Egypt will increase, when for fifty-five years he who is well disposed, the king the dispenser of good, born Helios, established by the great goddess Isis is at hand.

Helios refers to the city of Heliopolis, which will become important in due course.103 As a result of the advent of the deity and the establishment of a saviour king, order is restored: At the end of these things trees will bear leaves and the forsaken Nile will be filled with water, and the winter having been stripped of its natural dress, will run its own cycle. And then the summer will take its own course, and the winds shall be well-ordered and gently diminished.104

2.2 Isaiah 19 and Ptolemaic Prophecies If we move from the Egyptian texts back to the prophecy in Isaiah 19 it becomes apparent that Isaiah 19 is quite close to the Egyptian texts. First and foremost, this can be seen in the opposition of an age of doom and an age of salvation. This antagonism is a constitutive element of the Egyptian prophecies beginning with the Prophecy of Neferti from the nineteenth century BCE and still used in the oracles from the Ptolemaic period.105 As in the Egyptian texts, Isaiah 19 describes the period of doom in terms of chaotic conditions in nature and human life, while the period of salvation is characterized by the appearance of a new king and saviour. This connection between Isaiah 19 and the Egyptian texts can be found on the level of motifs as well. A closer examination of the literary evidence shows a number of parallels especially to the Oracle of the Potter and the prophecy from Tebtynis. These concern, first, the description of the drought and the social chaos as the following overview illustrates:106

100 Potter, P2 (Col I.), 40; P3 (Col I), 66; KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 147; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 77. 101 QUACK, Text, 260 (Fragment E, x+5). 102 Potter, P2 (Col. I.), 39–40, 64–65; KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 146–147; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 77. 103 See part III of this article, below. 104 Potter, P2 (Col. I), 43–47, KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 147; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 78. 105 ASSMANN, Königsdogma, 276–278. 106 See for this as well the overview in VAN DER MEER, Visions, 301–303.

42

Bernd U. Schipper

During this generation there will be war and impious murder of brothers and of wives (Oracle of the Potter). I will incite Egypt against Egypt, and they shall fight: brother against brother, neighbour against neighbor (Isa 19.2). And the river will come not having adequate water but a little, so that the land will be scorched…but unnaturally the land will not harmonize with the seed. The majority of its things will be destroyed by the wind (Oracle of the Potter).107 The water shall fail from the seas, The river will be parched and dried up, The streams will be foul, The canals of Egypt drained and dried up… All that is sown beside the Nile will wither (Isa 19.5–7).

This is complemented by the aspect of foreign rule. In Isa 19.4 a strong king is mentioned who will rule over Egypt (‫)ביד אדנים קשה ומלך עז ימשל־בם‬. The same thought can found in the Oracle of the Potter in which we read: ‘And out of Syria will come he who will be hateful to all men’.108 Similarly, the text from Tebtynis speaks of an ‘evil ruler’ (1.2). As a result, the ‘great gods of Egypt’ flee their temples and their city. Social chaos is the consequence and the city of Memphis is destroyed.109 Its inhabitants despair: ‘They will implore, they will cry because of […] they will say: “why did he let this happen?” But he will not heed their voice’.110 What is described here almost sounds like the description in Isa 19.3: ‘Egypt’s spirit will be poured out and voided, I will confound their plans. They will consult the idols…’. Imploring and crying is taken up in 19.8–10 when the despair and mourning of the fishermen and workers are described. The description of the period of salvation also shows some parallels to the prophecy from Tebtynis. Like Isaiah 19, the text from Tebtynis knows of a certain universalism when it states: ‘He will rule over every land with no exception’.111 Tied to this statement is the thought that Egypt will once again undertake military campaigns against Syria as was done during the times of the Pharaohs and Egypt will no longer suffer from foreign invasions: ‘No longer will the foreigners come to Egypt but one will go up to the land Syria.’112 In reviewing the evidence so far, an interesting picture emerges. Not only does Isaiah 19 contain the pattern of doom and salvation as common 107

Potter, P2 (Col. I), 1–2; 7–8; KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 144. Potter, P2 (Col. I), 16–17, KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 145. 109 Fragment B 1, QUACK, Text, 258. 110 Fragment A Col 1.2–1.4; QUACK, Text, 256. 111 Fragment E, x+5, QUACK, Text, 260. 112 Fragment F, x+2–3, QUACK, Text, 261.

108

Isaiah 19.1 –25

43

in prophecies from the Ptolemaic period but it also contains several individual motifs. These motifs are not only found in 19.5–10, a passage that has long been related to Egyptian material, but also in 19.11–15 and in the second part of the oracle, vv. 16–25. Against the backdrop of the Egyptian prophecies the double structure of Isaiah 19 with vv. 1–15 and vv. 16–25 starts to make sense. The oracle against Egypt is structured and composed in a way which comes close to the Egyptian ‘prophecies’ and which echoes a number of features found in these texts. This is connected with other motifs found in Egyptian texts such as the allusion to the two heraldic plants of Egypt (palm branch and reed, v. 15), the comparison to a woman or the raising of the arm of Yhwh (both v. 16). Given the fact that these motifs can be explained as well against a Hebrew Bible background and some passages from the book of Isaiah itself, the oracle of Isaiah 19 appears to be a text which was written against a double background. On the one hand, the passage is related to other biblical texts – whether texts from the book of Isaiah itself or other books such as Genesis with the reception of the Abraham and Jacob narratives or the book of Exodus with Israel’s sojourn in Egypt. On the other hand, the text echoes the so-called Egyptian prophetic texts. As a result, the oracle of Isaiah 19 seems to target a double audience: someone who comes from a Hebrew or Jewish background as well as someone who is familiar with the Egyptian tradition. Against this backdrop Isaiah 19 seems to be a ‘multicultural text’ which transmits its message by referring to two different cultural backgrounds understandable for two addresses: Jews and Egyptians. Such an assumption becomes more likely if we take into account an Aramaic text published in 2004 by Porten. The so-called Demise of Righteousness is a prophetic text containing a set of motifs that are similar to the earlier Prophecy of Neferti and the later Demotic prophecies: a time of woe with social disorder, and a time when ‘righteousness’ perishes. Interestingly, the text expects a savior from the city of Tanis (see Isa 19.13).113 Although it is unclear whether or not the Aramaic papyrus is a translation of an Egyptian text, it illustrates that motifs from the Egyptian tradition of ‘prophetic texts’ found their way to a foreign group that apparently lived in Egypt. 114 This raises the question, then, of whether a specific socio-historical setting (Sitz im Leben) can also be assumed for Isaiah 19. Is it possible to locate the

113 PORTEN, Prophecy, 454–455. It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss in detail this interesting Aramaic papyrus. For further observations, see QUACK, Interaction, 389. 114 QUACK, Interaction, 389 and P ORTEN, Prophecy, 435.

44

Bernd U. Schipper

oracle against Egypt in its Hebrew version (MT) within an Egyptian-Jewish environment, such as is generally assumed for LXX Isaiah 19?115

3. Oracles from Alexandria, Heliopolis and Memphis: Isaiah 19 (MT/LXX) and Ptolemaic Prophecies Previous scholarship often attempted to relate the prophecies from the Ptolemaic period to the events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. One was of the opinion that texts such as the Oracle of the Lamb or the Oracle of the Potter contained allusions to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. As a result, the texts were seen in the context of the sixth Syrian War (170–168 BCE) and the events around the year 168.116 Recent scholarship, however, has demonstrated that one has to be careful with such hasty attributions, especially as the connection of the ‘Mede’ mentioned in the Oracle of the Lamb with Antiochus IV is far from certain.117 Rather, a thesis put forward by Ludwig Koenen in a publication on the Oracle of the Potter seems plausible: according to Koenen, the texts reflect the rivalry between the traditional Egyptian temples and the new metropolis Alexandria.118 If that is the case, they reflect a situation that began towards the end of the fourth century and intensified during the third century BCE. Here, the traditional temples were confronted with an increasing marginalization that related to the increasing importance of Alexandria. In turn, the conflict between pro-Ptolemaic and anti-Ptolemaic is less important. Rather it is the question of the significance or prestige of the respective cultic places and the relationship to the new centre of Alexandria that seems to determine the debate. The priests were politically involved as they declared a particular ruler to be son of ‘their god’ as, for example, the priests of Ammon at the sanctuary of Siwa had done with Alexander the Great or the priests of Sais did with the governor Ptolemy.119 Who was labeled ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ depended on the individual perspective. Some sources, for example, denounce the native counter-Pharaohs crowned at Thebes in accordance with the old tradition as ‘enemies of the gods’ while they praise the king ruling in Alexandria as the ‘true upholder of Macat’.120 A different perspective is maintained

115

Interestingly enough, even scholars who tried to date the text to the eighth century BCE stated that the ‘text’s content most probably refers to Judeans in Egypt’, HAGELIA, Crescendo, 77. 116 On these earlier attempts see B LASIUS, Historische Situation, 53. Cf. VAN DER KOOIJ, Old Greek, 78. 117 See for this QUACK, Orakel. 118 KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 170–172. 119 HUSS, Ägypten, 70–71 and HÖLBL, Geschichte, 9–13. 120 See the II. Philae-decret, quoted by B LASIUS, Historische Situation, 51.

Isaiah 19.1 –25

45

by the priesthood of Memphis that traditionally sided with the Ptolemies and regularly crowned the Ptolemaic ruler.121 The Oracle of the Potter, the prophecy from Tebtynis and the Oracle of the Lamb are part of such discourse in the Ptolemaic period. And the city by the sea will be a drying place for fishermen because the Agathos Daimon and Kmephis will have gone away to Memphis.

This sentence as part of the description of the period of salvation spells out the antagonism that can be traced in both the Oracle of the Potter (from which the above quotation is taken) and the text from Tebtynis.122 The passage distinguishes between Memphis and the city by the sea. Memphis is, of course, the place from which the deity left and the place to which it will return when the age of salvation begins. The city by the sea, however, is the place that will become a drying place for the nets of fishermen. The term denotes Alexandria, that is, the place that ancient sources call Alexandria ad Aegyptum.123 The Oracle of the Potter and the text from Tebtynis appear to be political prophecies written from the perspective of Memphis. They can be connected to the priesthood at the traditional temple.124 These priests formulate an antagonism between the place where the deity will reveal itself and the city by the sea that stands for chaos. As a result, both texts – the Oracle of the Potter and the text from Tebtynis – must be connected to the situation of the Ptolemaic period, when Alexandria as the new centre became more and more important. 3.1 The Oracle of the Potter and Isaiah 19 If we presuppose the setting discussed above, the prophecy concerning Egypt in Isaiah 19 gains a new dimension. Isaiah 19 has to be seen as a text that takes a firm stand against Memphis. This occurs explicitly in 19.13 where it is said that ‘the princes of Noph (‫ )נף‬are deluded’. According to a number of references there can be no doubt that ‫ נף‬in the Hebrew Bible denotes the city of Memphis.125 A further allusion to Memphis might be found in 19.11. Verse 11 speaks of the foolish princes and sages (‫)אך־אולים שרי צען חכמי יעצי פרעה עצה נבערה‬. Commentators have long noted that the verse does not contain a critique of Pha121

See for this REYMOND, Records, 136–150. Potter, P2 (Col. 1), 35; KERKESLAGER, Apology, 77. 123 See HUSS, Ägypten, 63–69. 124 See also VAN DER KOOIJ, Greek, 80, for the Oracle of the Lamb and the Oracle of the Potter: ‘The oracles reflect the interests of the leading priests of ancient temples.’ 125 See Jer 2.16; 44.1; 46.14, 19; Ezek 30.13, 16, HALOT 669, and SCHIPPER, Memphis, 236–237. 122

46

Bernd U. Schipper

raoh himself as the verse only criticizes his counselors, the princes of Zoan (‫ )שרי צען‬and the wise advisers of the Pharaoh (‫)חכמי יעצי פרעה‬. Both expressions characterize a group of sages who display a monstrous selfunderstanding and see themselves as ‘descended…from kings of ancient times’ (v. 11b). This motif is singular in the Hebrew Bible, but has an interesting parallel in Ptolemaic Egypt. The legendary builder Imhotep, who lived during the Old Kingdom and is regarded as the inventor of the stepped pyramid,126 was transformed during the New Kingdom into the patron of scribes and into the personification of wisdom. Imhotep was worshipped as a god at Memphis, that is, at precisely the place to which Isaiah 19 refers. During the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204–180 BCE) Imhotep’s significance increased as he now became the procurer of offspring and bringer of the annual flooding of the Nile.127 Ptolemaic sources attest pilgrimages to Memphis during the Ptolemaic period to the cult of Imhotep, from whom one expected healing.128 In Ptolemaic Egypt, Imhotep represented the concept of a divine sage who had lived during the dawn of Egyptian history and who was able to offer healing in times of illness. If one looks for a parallel to the statement in Isa 19.11, the Imhotep cult at Memphis comes to mind. Against this background, it is may be possible to understand Isa 19.22 further along the same lines. Here it is Yhwh who strikes and heals. The verse is an obvious allusion to Deut 32.39,129 where the extraordinary motif of Yhwh as healer appears. Not only doom, but also salvation in the form of healing originates with Yhwh.130 Against the backdrop of Ptolemaic texts this motif could also be understood in an Egyptian setting. It echoes a concept which is found in the cult of Imhotep and transfers it to the god Yhwh: he is the one who heals. When following this line of argument two other verses from Isaiah 19 that could be related to the situation in Egypt come to mind. The standing stone at the frontier of Egypt in v. 17 could be connected to the temple of Yahu at the Persian military colony at Elephantine. Despite the fact that the Jewish military garrison ceased to exist by the early fourth century BCE,131 126

The reference to Imhotep is already found in W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 719, who then does not investigate this parallel any further. 127 For this see W ILDUNG, Imhotep, 124, and AUFRÉRE, Imhotep, 1–20. 128 AUFRÉRE, Imhotep, 18. See too HÖLBL, Geschichte, 143, and for the founding of a temple to Imhotep under Ptolemaios V., HUSS, Ägypten, 522. 129 W ILDBERGER, Jesaja, 743. 130 See as well Exod 15.26: SCHIPPER, Num 21,4–9, 379, and LOHFINK, Ich bin Jahwe, 46. 131 A comprehensive overview of the material and its interpretation can be found in KRATZ, Israel, 186–203. See also, WEIPPERT, Textbuch, 475–495, with a translation of the most important texts.

Isaiah 19.1 –25

47

the Elephantine papyri obviously preserved the memory of it. The site of the Judahite garrison, which was part of the Egyptian city of Elephantine, was not abandoned and the Aramaic papyri did not go out of use.132 To give just one example, the reception of the Achiqar-composition in Demotic literature from the Hellenistic Period illustrates the heritage of the multicultural community of Elephantine in later times.133 3.2 Heliopolis in Isaiah 19 and the Versions of the Oracle of the Potter Coming back to Isaiah 19, the second and more important point is the city of the sun mentioned in v. 18. It is a scholarly consensus that this city has to be identified with Heliopolis.134 Interestingly, Heliopolis is also mentioned in the Oracle of the Potter. The place is seen as positive and not as a negative contrast to Memphis. According to the Oracle of the Potter, the savior king will come from Heliopolis and the potter himself (the oracle) will be buried there.135 This is remarkable, as we know of another version of the Oracle of the Potter, first published by L. Koenen in 2002. In contrast to the original version, this one is directed not against the Greeks in Alexandria but explicitly against the Jews:136 Unhappy Egypt, that…men will commit evil deeds (?), the sanctuaries will belong because of the uprising (?) of the forces to the horses. Attack the Jews! Do not allow that your city will be empty.

This perspective is specified a little later when we read: ‘Instead of prophets evildoers and those once banished from Egypt will inhabit Heliopolis because of the wrath of Isis.’137 Apparently, Jews – called ‘evildoers’ and once exiled here – lived at Heliopolis and this is explained as being the result of the wrath of Isis. While Heliopolis in the anti-Hellenistic version of the Oracle of the Potter was seen positively, the city has now – in the anti-Jewish version – acquired a negative meaning. According to Koenen, this anti-Jewish fragment can be connected to another fragment (P5) that contains the main motifs mentioned above.138 This fragment, unfortunately still unpublished,

132

The area of the temple was occupied by the Egyptian Khnum-temple and in the Hellenistic period was fully built over. For the archaeology of Elephantine see VON P ILGRIM, Festung, 203–208. 133 For Ahiqar see the overview by B LEDSOE, Wisdom, 119–120 n. 2. 134 BEUKEN, Jesaja, 193. 135 See KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 186. 136 Oracle P 4, KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 148. 137 KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 148. 138 See the summary of P5 given by KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 148.

48

Bernd U. Schipper

belongs to the version of the oracle of P4, which has to be dated to the middle of the second century BCE.139 If one takes into account that the original version of the Oracle of the Potter can be dated to the end of the third or the first decades of the second century BCE,140 an interesting perspective comes into view for the oracle against Egypt in Isaiah 19 in both its Hebrew (MT) and its Greek (Septuagint) versions. It was Wilhelm Gesenius in his 1821 commentary on the book of Isaiah who connected Isa 19.18 to events reported by Josephus (Ant. 13.3).141 In 160 BCE, according to Josephus, a temple of Yhwh was erected by Onias, son of the High Priest of the same name, at Leontopolis.142 The city of Leontopolis is a part of the district of Heliopolis in Lower Egypt. Bernhard Duhm followed this line of interpretation and pointed to the different readings of the Hebrew ‫ עיר ההרס‬in Isa 19.10 in the Septuagint and other textual witnesses.143 It has been already mentioned that the Septuagint renders ‫ עיר ההרס‬of the Masoretic text as πόλις-ασεδεκ ‘city of justice’. The term ‫עיר ההרס‬ (‘city of destruction’) in the Masoretic Text is probably a later reading for ‫ עיר חרס‬as attested in 1QIsaa, 4QIsab and several other manuscripts. It is likely that ‘city of the sun’ has to be seen as the oldest variant and that this reading refers to Heliopolis.144 Duhm argued that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 reflects this situation and has to be dated to the years after the events of 160 BCE, but because of the evidence from Qumran it is impossible to place the redaction of the book of Isaiah in the middle of the second century BCE.145 At the same time, however, one can ask whether Isaiah 19 can indeed be connected to

139 KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 139–140 with n. 4: P4 and P5 (the latter is still unpublished). 140 This statement has to be explained briefly. Koenen (KOENEN, Töpferorakel, 137– 138 n. 4) dates the main papyri of the Oracle of the Potter to the last third of the second century. The papyri themselves date to the second and third centuries CE (!) which is not atypical for Greek or Demotic texts from Ptolemaic Egypt. Koenen’s dating to the second century therefore is based on a historical reconstruction. If one compares the ‘antiAlexandrian version’ (P2 and P3) with the ‘anti-Jewish’ one (P 4 and P 5) it becomes clear that the former are older than the latter. Given that the Greek version is a translation of an original Egyptian one, the original version has to be dated earlier, probably to the final years of the third or the first decades of the second century (see KERKESLAGER, Oracle, 58 who dates the main text-witness to the middle of the second century). 141 GESENIUS, Commentar, 62; see also HITZIG, Jesaja, 219. 142 See HAYWARD, Temple, 430–435, and for an overview FREY, Temple, 186–194. 143 DUHM, Jesaja, 145, who translated consequently ‘Leontopolis’. 144 See COOK, Sign, 103–106. 145 BEUKEN, Jesaja, 181, and BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 317.

Isaiah 19.1 –25

49

the sanctuary of Heliopolis – not with the Jewish one, of course, but with the Egyptian one. 3.3 The Socio-Political Milieu of Isaiah 19 MT and LXX The literary evidence discussed above supports the assumption that the oracle against Egypt can be related to the situation in Egypt during the third century BCE. The following interpretation takes both versions of the Oracle of the Potter into account and relates these two versions to the Hebrew and Greek versions of Isaiah 19. The final verses of Isaiah 19 are again the point of departure: 26 In that day, Israel shall be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of earth; 27 for YHWH Sabaoth will bless them, saying, ‘Blessed be my people, Egypt, and the work of my hands, Assyria, and my heritage, Israel.’

While MT displays a certain universalism with Assur and Egypt sharing in the inheritance of salvation, the Septuagint places the emphasis on the Jews living in Egypt: 25 εὐλογηµένος ὁ λαός µου ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ὁ ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ ἡ κληρονοµία µου Ισραηλ Blessed be my people that are in Egypt and among the Assyrians, and Israel, my heritage.

The Septuagint formulates a perspective that is clearly in accordance with the views of the Jews living in Egypt.146 It is tempting to think of the Jews at Leontopolis here.147 This fits the fact that the city which the Hebrew text calls ‘city of the sun’, is now labelled ‘city of justice’. Already Duhm mentioned that this is a ‘name of honour’.148 From the biblical perspective it is borrowed from Jerusalem (Isa 1.27)149 and obviously labelled the divine city of the Egyptians. From an Egyptian perspective, however, the ‘city of justice’ could be read as ‘city of Macat’ which fits perfectly with the cultural discourse between Alexandria and the traditional temples of Egypt. In my opinion, the Greek version of Isaiah 19 can be read as a counterpart to the anti-Jewish version of the Oracle of the Potter. In one text Heliopolis becomes the city of justice while in another Memphis is labelled as such and Heliopolis becomes the place where the people who

146

It would be beyond the scope of this article to evaluate the numerous differences between LXX and MT; here a number of differences in vv. 23–25 can be found in the Greek version. See for this most recently NGUNGA, Messianism, 134–145. 147 See VAN DER KOOIJ, Isaiah, 80–81. 148 DUHM, Jesaja, 145. 149 B ARTHÉLEMY, Critique, 149, and BEUKEN, Jesaja, 177, with reference to other literature.

50

Bernd U. Schipper

were previously banned from Egypt now live. But is it possible that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 can also be linked to the Oracle of the Potter? In the light of the evidence discussed above, the allusions to the Egyptian tradition in Isaiah 19 MT are hardly accidental. Isaiah 19 is a text which relates to a number of other biblical texts but nevertheless formulates a message that makes sense – positively as well as critically – in Ptolemaic Egypt. Yhwh’s blessing is valid for Egypt too but the cult of Memphis will be rejected. In contrast to this. the Oracle of the Potter places great emphasis on the legitimacy of Memphis and argues against the city of Alexandria. In regard to this view a number of arguments support the assumption that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 can be connected to the Egyptian Jews at Alexandria.150 They have formulated a message in which Yhwh appears quite similar to the depiction of the gods in Ptolemaic prophecies – he is the God who is responsible for doom and salvation and he is the God who can install a saviour king who will bring salvation even to the foreign nations. As a result, the unique statement in Isa 19.23–25 appears as a specific perspective of Egyptian Judaism – a Judaism that favoured a universalism by bringing Egypt into the group of nations that will receive the blessing of Yhwh. By doing so, this group composed a text that was understandable for Jews as well as for Egyptians. It was a text which does not blame Heliopolis but included the city from where – according to the Oracle of the Potter – the saviour king will come amongst the five cities which will worship Yhwh in the future. All this changed during the second century, when the contrast between the claims of individual sanctuaries became more apparent. This probably happened as a result of the events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucid conquest of Egypt. We can detect this change in the anti-Jewish version of the Oracle of the Potter and in the Septuagint of Isaiah 19. Both texts stand for a sharp antithesis: Heliopolis and Memphis are seen as cultic places that exclude each other. The universalism of the Hebrew version is abandoned in favour of a particularistic view. From now on, salvation is exclusive to the Jews who live in the city of justice, i.e. Heliopolis. This fits a further change in the Septuagint when Isa 19.23LXX reads, ‘the Egyptians will serve the Assyrians’, thus reflecting the political situation under Antiochus IV. Epiphanes in 164 BCE.

150

Cf. KAISER, Jesaja, 88, who pointed to the possibility, ‘daß Alexandria als geistiger Mittelpunkt der ägyptischen Judentschaft gemeint ist.’

Isaiah 19.1 –25

51

4. Summary Isaiah 19 is a text whose universalism formulates a theological statement that turns other views of foreign nations in the Hebrew Bible on their head. Though this universalism can be related to other texts from the Hebrew Bible,151 it nevertheless communicates a specific perspective and thus a socio-cultural place of the text. The literary evidence discussed in the present article supports the reading of the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 as a document of Alexandrinian Judaism that can be set in contrast to the Oracle of the Potter or the text from Tebtynis. All these texts reflect the situation in Ptolemaic Egypt when different models of identity and different claims to power clashed. This was the reason for the reduction of the perspective of Isaiah 19 MT in its Greek version, which belongs, like the Hebrew version, to an Egyptian environment.152 While the Hebrew version postulates a universalism and portrays Yhwh along the lines of an Egyptian deity, the Septuagint version voices the concerns of the Jewish community of Heliopolis/Leontopolis that no longer has a universalistic outlook upon salvation but limits God’s salvation to members of their community. By doing so, it creates a narrative that is close to Egyptian texts such as the Oracle of the Potter. It is not surprising that the anti-Jewish version of the Oracle of the Potter reacts to this interpretation of the Jewish community and characterizes Heliopolis as a place of chaos far removed from God. In sum, Isaiah 19 has to be read in both its Hebrew and its Greek versions as a text that refers to the situation in Ptolemaic Egypt and it has to be interpreted from this perspective. That is the reason for a portrayal of Yhwh who acts like an Egyptian deity: as the god who is responsible for both doom and salvation and who will install a saviour king. This concept is connected in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 19 to universalism and the idea of the supremacy of the god of Israel. Only Yhwh is the god who can give Egypt a future, and the Egyptian gods – called ‫ אליל‬/‫ אליל)י(ם‬in the text – are nothing. The Greek version of Isaiah 19 keeps this monotheistic tendency and reduces the universalism of salvation to a particularistic perspective: only the Jews in Egypt will receive the blessings of Adonai. What in Isaiah 19 MT is open to the Egyptians in general,153 is reduced in 151

KÖCKERT, Erwählung, 295–299. This is the difference between the present article and the view of van der Meer and van der Kooij (VAN DER MEER AND VAN DER KOOLI, Greek, 81) who both situate only Isa 19 LXX in Egypt. 153 For the theological implications of this concept see KÖCKERT, Erwählung, 297: ‘Gottes Wege enden im Jesajabuch nicht an den Grenzen des Volkes, sondern führen zu den Völkern.’ 152

52

Bernd U. Schipper

Isaiah 19 LXX to a specific group, the Egyptian Jews, who define their identity in sharp contrast to the Egyptians. In sum, both versions, the Greek and the Hebrew, appear to be ‘multicultural texts’ whose double cultural context was understandable to an Egyptian as well as a Jewish audience.

Bibliography ASSMANN, J., Königsdogma und Heilserwartung. Politische und kultische Chaosbeschreibungen in ägyptischen Texten, in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm, Tübingen 1983, 345–377 (= IDEM, Stein und Zeit. Mensch und Gesellschaft im Alten Ägypten, München 1991, 259–287) – The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, Ithaca 2001 AUFRÈRE, S. H., Imhotep et Djoser dans la région de la cataracte. De Memphis à Éléphantine, BIFAO 104 (2004) 1–20 B ARTHÉLEMY, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO 50/2), Fribourg 1986 B ARTON, J., Isaiah 1–39 (OTGu), Sheffield 1995 B ECKER, U., Jesajaforschung (Jes 1–39), ThR 64 (1999) 1–37, 117–152 B ERGER, K., Hellenistisch-heidnische Prodigien und die Vorzeichen in der jüdischen und christlichen Apokalyptik, in: Religion. Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Verhältnis zu römischem Staat und heidnischer Religion (ANRW II, 23.2), ed. W. Haase, Berlin/New York 1980, 1428–1469 B EUKEN, W. A. M., Jesaja 13–27 (HThKAT 35), Freiburg et al. 2007 B LASIUS, A., AND B. U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), Leuven et al. 2002 B LASIUS, A., Zur Frage des geistigen Widerstandes im griechisch-römischen Ägypten – die historische Situation, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 41–62 B LEDSOE, S. A., Can Ahiqar Tell Us Anything about Personified Wisdom?, JBL 132 (2013) 119–137 B LENKINSOPP, J., Isaiah 1–39 (AncB 19), New York et al. 2000 B LUMENTHAL, E., Die Prophezeiung des Neferti, ZÄS 109 (1982) 1–27 CHILTON, B. D., The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 11), Wilmington 1987 COOK, P. M., A Sign and Wonder. The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18–20 (VT.S 147), Leiden/Boston 2011 COLLINS, J. J., The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge 1998 2 CROUCHES, M., Intertextuality in the Septuagint. The Case of Isaiah 19, BIOSCS 34 (2001) 81–94 DEISSLER, A., Der Volk und Land überschreitende Gottesbund der Endzeit nach Jes 19,16–25, in: Zion – Ort der Begegnung (FS L. Klein), eds. F. Hahn et. al., Bonn 1993, 7–18 DELCOR, H., Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte, RB 75 (1968) 188–203

Isaiah 19.1 –25

53

DONNER, H., Israel unter den Völkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VT.S 11), Leiden 1964 DUHM, B., Das Buch Jesaja, Göttingen 19685 FEUILLET, A., Un sommet religieux de l’Ancien Testament: L’oracle d’Isaïe XIX (vv. 16–25) sur la conversion d’Égypte, RSR 39 (1951) 65–87 FREEDMAN, H. AND M. SIMON (ed.), Midrash Rabbah transl. into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices. 3. Exodus, London 1951 FREY, J., Temple and Rival Temple. The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis, in: Gemeinde ohne Tempel (WMANT 118), eds. B. Ego et al., Tübingen 1999, 171–203 GESENIUS, W., Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über den Jesaja, Vol. 1, Leipzig 1821 GROSS, W., Israel und die Völker: Die Krise des JHWH-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch, in: Der neue Bund im alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), ed. E. Zenger, Freiburg 1993, 149–167 HAAG, E., ‘Gesegnet sei mein Volk Ägypten’ (Jes 19,25). Ein Zeugnis alttestamentlicher Eschatologie, in: Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur (FS E. Winter), eds. M. Minas et al., Mainz 1994, 139–147 HAGELIA, H., A Crescendo of Universalism. An Exegesis of Isa 19:16–25, SEÅ 70 (2005) 73–88 HALL, E. S., The Pharao Smites His Enemies. A Comparative Study (MÄS 44), München 1986 HALLO, W. W. (ed.), The Context of Scripture. Vol II. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Leiden et al. 2000 HAYS, C. B., Damming Egypt/ Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19,1–10, ZAW 120 (2008) 612–617 HAYWARD, R., The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration, JJS 33 (1982) 429–443 H ITZIG, F., Der Prophet Jesaja, Heidelberg 1833 HOM, M. K. Y., The Characterization of the Assyrians in Isaiah. Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (LHBOTS 449), New York/London 2012 HÖLBL, G., Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994 HUSS, W., Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit. 332–30 v. Chr., München 2001 ISRAELIT-GROLL, S., The Egyptian Background to Isaiah 19.18, in: Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World (FS C.H. Gordon [JSOT.S 273]), eds. M. Lubetski et al., Sheffield 1998, 300–303 KAISER, O., Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 13–39 (ATD 18), Göttingen 1983³ KERKESLAGER, A., The Apology of the Potter. A Translation of the Potter’s Oracle, in: Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT 40), ed. I. Shirun-Grumach, Wiesbaden 1998, 67–79 K ILIAN, R., Jesaja II 13–39 (NEB 32), Würzburg 1994 KÖCKERT, M., Die Erwählung Israels und das Ziel der Wege Gottes im Jesajabuch, in: ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?’. Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels (FS O. Kaiser), eds. I. Kottsieper et al., Göttingen 1994, 277–300 – Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43), Tübingen 2004

54

Bernd U. Schipper

KOENEN, L., Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 139–187 KRATZ, R. G., Das Judentum im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004 – Historisches und biblisches Israel. Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament, Tübingen 2013 LAUBER, S., ‘JHWH wird sich Ägypten zu erkennen geben, und die Ägypter werden an jenem Tag JHWH erkennen’ (Jes 19,21). Universalismus und Heilszuversicht in Jes 19,16–25, ZAW 123 (2011) 368–390 LOHFINK, N., ‘Ich bin JHWH, dein Arzt’ (Ex 15,26). Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung (Ex 15,25b.26), in: IDEM, Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4), Stuttgart 1988, 91–155 MARLOW, H., The Lament of the River Nile – Isaiah xix 5–10 in Its Wider Context, VT 57 (2007) 229–242 MEYER, R., Hebräische Grammatik. Band III: Satzlehre, Berlin 1972 MONSENGWO-P ASINYA, L., Isaïe XIX 16–25 et universalisme dans la LXX, in: Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (VT.S 36), ed. J.A. Emerton, Leiden 1985, 192–207 N ICCACCI, A., Isaiah XVIII–XX from an Egyptological Perspective, VT 48 (1998) 214– 238 N ISSINEN, M., AND B. SCHIPPER, Apocalypticism in the Ancient Near East, EBR I (2009) 318–320 NGUNGA, A. T., Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah. An Intertextual Analysis (FRLANT 245), Göttingen 2013 OCKINGA, B. G., ro’s weznab kippah we’agmon in Jes 9,13 und 19,15, BN 10 (1979) 31– 34 OSWALT, J. N., The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39 (NICOT), Grand Rapids 1986 P FEIFFER, H., Jahwes Kommen von Süden. Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (FRLANT 211), Göttingen 2005 P ORTEN, B., The Prophecy of Hor Bar Punesh and the Demise of Righteousness: An Aramaic Papyrus in the British Library, in: Res severa verum gaudium (FS K.-T. Zauzich [StDe 6]), eds. F. Hoffmann and H.-J. Thissen, Leuven 2004, 427–466 and pls. xxxv–xxxvi. QUACK, J. F., Ein neuer prophetischer Text aus Tebtunis (Papyrus Carlsberg 399 + PSI Inv. D 17 + Papyrus Tebtunis Tait 13), in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 253–274 – Orakel des Lammes, wibilex (2009), www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/ – The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, eds. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming, Winona Lake 2006, 375-401 REYMOND, S. E. A. E., From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis, Vol. 1 (ÄAT 38), Wiesbaden 1981 ROBERTS, J. J. M., Isaiah’s Egyptian and Nubian Oracles, in: Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past. Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History (FS J. H. Hayes [LHBOTS 446]), eds. B.E. Kelle et al., New York/London 2006, 201–209 SAYER, J. F. A., ‘Blessed Be My People Egypt’ (Isaiah 19.25). The Context and Meaning of a Remarkable Passage, in: A Word in Season (FS W. McKane [JSOT.S 42]), eds. J.D. Martin et al., Sheffield 1986, 57–71 SCHIPPER, B. U. AND A. B LASIUS, Die apokalyptischen Texte aus Ägypten – ein Forschungsüberblick, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der

Isaiah 19.1 –25

55

relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 7–20 – ‘Apokalyptik’, ‘Messianismus’, ‘Prophetie’ – Eine Begriffsbestimmung, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 21–40 – Die ‘eherne Schlange’ – Zur Religionsgeschichte und Theologie von Num 21,4–9, ZAW 121 (2009) 369–387 – Memphis, in: Religion in Past and Presence 8 (2010) 236–237 – The History of Egyptology and the Gesenius Dictionary, in: Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie. Das ‘Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch’ von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage (BZAW 427), eds. S. Schorch and J. Waschke, Berlin/Boston 2013, 482–505 – The Egyptian Background to the Psalms, in: Oxford Handbook to the Psalms, ed. W. P. Brown, Oxford 2014, 57–75 SCHIPPER, B. U. AND A. B LASIUS, Apokalyptik und Ägypten? Erkenntnisse und Perspektiven, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 275–302 SCHMID, K., Jesaja 1–23 (ZBK 19/1), Zürich 2011 SEELIGMANN, I. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah (1948), in: I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies (FAT 40), eds. R. Hanhart and H. Spieckermann, Tübingen 2004, 119–294 SEDLMEIER, F., Israel – ‘Ein Segen inmitten der Erde’. Das JHWH-Volk in der Spannung zwischen radikalem Dialog und Identitätsverlust nach Jes 19,16–25, in: Steht nicht geschrieben? Studien zur Bibel und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte (FS G. Schmuttmayr), eds. J. Frühwald-König et al., Regensburg 2001, 89–108 SWEENEY, M. A., Isaiah 1–39. With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL XVI), Grand Rapids 1996 THISSEN, H.J., Das Lamm des Bokchoris, in: Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107), eds. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper, Leuven et al. 2002, 114–138 UEHLINGER, C., Weltreich und ‘eine Rede’. Eine neue Deutung der sog. Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11,1–9) (OBO 101), Fribourg/Göttingen 1990 VAN DER K OOIJ, A., The Old Greek of Isaiah and Other Prophecies Published in Ptolemaic Egypt, in: Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (WUNT 252), eds. W. Kraus et al., Tübingen 2010, 72–84 VAN DER MEER, M.N., Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt, in: Isaiah in Context (FS A. van der Kooij [VT.S 138]), eds. M. N. van der Meer et al., Leiden 2010, 281–316 VOGELS, W., L’Égypte mon peuple – L’Universalisme d’Is 19,16–25, Bib. 57 (1976) 494–514 VON P ILGRIM , C., Die ‘Festung’ von Elephantine in der Spätzeit. Anmerkungen zum archäologischen Befund, in: In the Shadow of Bezalel. Aramaic, Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (FS B. Porten [CHANE 60]), ed. A.F. Botta, Leiden/Boston 2013, 203–208 W EIPPERT, M., Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Mit Beiträgen von J. F. Quack, B. U. Schipper und S. J. Wimmer (HTAT 10), Göttingen 2010

56

Bernd U. Schipper

W ILDBERGER, H., Jesaja. Kapitel 13–39 (BK 10), Neukirchen 2003³ W ILDUNG, D., Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im Alten Ägypten (MÄS 36), München 1977

Who is a God like You? Refracting the One God in Jonah, Micah and Nahum MARK S. GIGNILLIAT

Introduction Identifying the character of God in the Book of the Twelve requires the coalescing of several strains of thought on the biblical material, for example, recent research on the Twelve; relating diachronic ordering with synchronic associative readings; clarifying conceptions regarding ‘monotheism’ in light of Israel’s religious-history and normative history (and where these two differ). As becomes the case, identifying ‘God’ is not a prima facie activity but requires a patient listening to the biblical material and the traditions they proffer. It may be suggested that the shaping of the Twelve by the tradents of the material intended this kind of effect on the reader, namely, an invitation to read and re-read the voices of these prophetic witnesses in increasing relation to one another.1 More closely related to the aims of this volume, it may also be suggested that embedded within the canonical shaping of the Twelve are the remnants of a struggle to identify the character of Yahweh in light of difficult historical exigencies and the constraining pressure of Judah’s anterior traditions. I will not engage all the features mentioned above. Rather, a modest step forward will be taken 1 Rendtorff claims, ‘Finally, I point out that in studying the Book of the Twelve as a whole there is no simple alternative between “diachronic” and “synchronic” reading. The diachronic features are not only obvious but are marked explicitly by the different datings of a number of writings. On the other hand, those who gave the writings their shape (whatever we call them) obviously wanted the reader to read the writings as a connected whole and to reflect on their different messages. I think it is a challenging and fascinating exegetical task to follow their advice.’ (RENDTORFF, How to Read, 87). It is not entirely clear what ‘diachronic’ means for Rendtorff in the above account. Even texts that are clearly dated have their own complex compositional history and cannot always be dated with ease in their given form. But the final point is worth heeding well, those who shaped the materials as a Scriptural/canonical deposit for a future generation of faithful readers intended a continued and associative reading and re-reading of this material. Ben Zvi frames the matter in terms of reading and re-reading. Ben Zvi’s attention is on the individual books themselves, though the extension of his insight to the entire corpus is feasible: a move Ben Zvi himself might resist (BEN ZVI, Micah, 7).

58

Mark S. Gignilliat

by investigating the theologizing instincts present within the complex of Jonah, Micah and Nahum. Though the literature is continuing to expand, some account needs to be given for reading the corpus of the MT from Hosea to Malachi as a multiple, yet unified literary voice. Within this relatively new field of research, even the preceding sentence needs careful argumentation as to why the MT may be preferable to alternate orderings, for example, LXX or Qumran, or whether the ordering we have in the MT on final analysis offers the kind of intentional associations some scholars have identified in the compositional history of the individual books and the corpus itself.2 If the Twelve has been shaped by the tradents of the material to present a multi-voiced choir whose harmonies and melody come together to form a single, if complex, libretto – an outlook affirmed in this essay despite the complexity of providing a compelling account for the diachronic history of its shaping – then the whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts.3 This essay will 2 Schart makes the point well, ‘The main difficulty for all the different models is establishing controls about what is considered deliberate redactional shaping and what is only accidentally connected. Which features should be construed as important goals of the final text, and which should be viewed as less significant?’ (SCHART, Reconstructing, 42–43). From this point, Schart continues by stating that it is most plausible to begin with the so called Book of the Four. Even this is not as plausible as Schart et al. suggest, as argued recently by Levin (LEVIN, Das ‘Vierprophtenbuch’). 3 The most recent attempt to provide a diachronic account of the Twelve’s literary development is that by W ÖHRLE, Die frühen Sammlungen, IDEM, Abschluss. Building on the previous work of Nogalski and Schart, Wöhrle seeks to provide a more thorough analysis of the redaction history of the Twelve by examining carefully the individual books within the corpus and how they were fitted and arranged within a growing corpus. The model Wöhrle presents regarding the final shaping of the Twelve recognizes a developing Fremdvölker corpus, with the later incorporation of Habakkuk, a further Heils-für-die-Völker corpus, a Gnaden corpus, followed by the ending of Malachi and a refitting of the book of Hosea. Wöhrle’s project is concerned to allow the redactionhistorical reconstruction of the Twelve a role in mirroring the various religious and social-historical debates taking place in the exilic, Persian and early Hellenistic periods of Judah. Though impressive in breadth of learning and closeness of reading, Wöhrle’s redaction-critical scheme has been challenged on several levels. Most recently, Levin has challenged the basic starting point of all redaction-critical studies of the Twelve, namely, the so called Book of the Four: Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah (LEVIN, Das ‘Vierprophtenbuch’). Levin suggests another ‘book of the four’: Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, with special attention given to the shaping influence of Isaiah on the other three. The ‘Deuteronomistic’ link between these four as well as the shared form in their superscriptions is thoroughly challenged by Levin. Also, Spronk wonders whether or not it is too crystalline to place the various intertextual appeals to Exod 34.6–7 within the same Gnaden level of redaction. Instead, Spronk suggests the antiquity of the tradition represented by Exod 34.6–7 certainly allows for different authors to appeal to it at different times. Spronk concludes, ‘The repeated use of Exodus 34.6–7 does not have to

Who is a God like You?

59

follow contemporary research on the Twelve giving attention to the characterization of God in Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. Moreover, the strategic placement of Micah between Jonah and Nahum yields a portrait of Yahweh, particularly his relationship to the nations, not on offer in the presentation of the individual books themselves. Put in other terms, the complex of Jonah, Micah and Nahum come together in a combustive dialectic of mutual-interpretation and presentation of the identity of Yahweh not on offer in the individual books on their own.4 Though the Twelve can be read in fruitful ways according to the LXX ordering, the logic of lectio difficilior does render a compelling case for be ascribed to a separate layer, but is probably part of this process of one book reacting to the other.’ (SPRONK, Nahum, 9). Moreover, a general danger in redaction-critical studies is the sometimes brittle assumption that ideas expressed within a text clearly reveal the time of writing or that certain theological viewpoints only fit within a particular segment of Judah’s religious history. Sommer reminds of the perils facing biblical scholars when they too narrowly link particular texts to particular historical periods. He warns, ‘To deny that any idea could have been thought of in a given age is to deny the possibility of intellectual creativity. Such a denial is a very odd position for a scholar of the humanities.’ (SOMMER, Dating Pentateuchal Texts, 96). In a related context and in conversation with Hermisson, Steck and Kratz on Second Isaiah, Brevard Childs warns, ‘However, is there not the same danger present which once afflicted source critical analysis? The assumption that conceptual tension always implies different literary strands results in the endless proliferation of redactions. Is it not possible that the tensions which Hermisson observes regarding divine salvation constitute the very uniqueness of II Isaiah’s message and to posit a separate and later redactional layer pulls apart elements which closely cohere, even in tension?’ (CHILDS, Retrospective Reading, 368). 4 Zapff’s earlier work on the redaction-critical history of the Jonah, Micah, Nahum complex is of particular importance, e.g., ZAPFF, Perspective. Zapff did much of the redaction-critical spadework on this corpus with specific attention given to the position of Micah between Jonah and Nahum. Zapff’s redaction-critical study focuses primarily on the social and historical forces pressuring this redactional history with specific attention given to diachronic reconstruction. He advances the notion that one must make a distinction between the origin of Jonah and its particular placement within the Twelve. Whoever was responsible for the latter is, according to Zapff, most likely the same figure responsible for the redactional insertions of Nah 1.2b, 3a (ZAPFF, Perspective, 301). This article places the redaction-critical emphasis on the theological effects such shaping has on implied readers who receive the text as a normative witness to the identity of God, rather than the religious-historical reconstruction of the various ‘debates’ among differing tradents. Most recently, Zapff has made a compelling case for the theological centrality of Micah to the whole of the Twelve. Micah’s sixth position among the Twelve in the Hebrew ordering is not a redactional happenstance but is indicative of its theologically central place to the larger thematic concerns of the Twelve’s unified voice. Following Wöhrle, Zapff identifies the ending of Micah and its appeal to Exod 34.6–7 as ingredient to the grace layer of redaction (Gnaden Korpus) and thus provides the redaction-critical logic for Micah’s theological centrality. (ZAPFF, Micah, 142–144).

60

Mark S. Gignilliat

the priority of the Masoretic ordering.5 The grouping together of the eighth-century prophets in the LXX – Hosea, Amos, Micah – does appear to be a chronological smoothing out of the minor chronological difficulties present in the MT ordering. In other words, the move to the LXX makes good sense as to why the traditional ordering would be rearranged, whereas the logic of the reverse is not transparent. The placement of Micah in the middle of the collection and not with the identifiable eighth-century prophets at least piques interest in the direction of ‘why?’.6 A rough chronology remains in the MT Twelve because even though Joel is dated by most scholars as late, along with Jonah, their titles do not demand such readings. In fact, Jonah’s appearance in 2 Kgs 14.25 locates the prophet canonically within the eighth-century reign of Jeroboam II. Nevertheless, Micah is identified in its superscription with Hosea and Amos but is not placed next to them as it is in the LXX. This raises paradigmatic questions as to why it might be placed where it is in the Twelve. As mentioned above, it is suggested here that Micah is located between Jonah and Nahum to provide an internal guide for reading these two books in light of the revealed character of Yahweh and what it means to identify Yahweh as God.7 In his oft-cited chapter, van Leeuwan identified the prominent role of Exod 34.6–7 in the growing corpus of the Twelve. His arguments need not be repeated here in toto, but it is worth rehearsing the main line of his thought. The bipartite description of Yahweh in Exod 34.6–7, a description that can be described, in short, as his mercy and severity, provides a sapiential point of entry for the larger theme addressed in the Twelve, namely, the theodicy question in light of the cataclysmic events of 722 and 587 5

Despite claims to the contrary, I find Nogalski’s initial claims persuasive (NOGALLiterary Precursors, 2–3). For the significance of the ordering of the Twelve in the primary textual witnesses to the LXX, see SWEENEY, Sequence and Interpretation, 49–64. The identification of Jonah at the end of 4QXIIa has come under critical scrutiny by Guillaume (GUILLAUME, Malachi-Jonah Sequence). 6 Redaction-critical research on the associate history of Micah has generated several options: The initial point of departure is Stade’s (1881) identification of Micah 1–3 as original to Micah with chs. 4–7 as later accretions (see ZAPFF, Micah, 130–142). The socalled Book of the Four thesis has gained ascendancy among Book of the Twelve researches (e.g., Albertz, Nogalski, Schart, and Wöhrle), namely, a deuteronomisticallyedited collection of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah was the first collection (Sammlungen) in the expanding corpus of the Twelve during the exilic period: the latter two books joined to an earlier Hosea and Amos corpus. As mentioned above, Levin has brought this thesis under critical scrutiny. For sake of argument, however, if an original Book of the Four did exist, then both it and the ordering of the LXX reveal the mobility of Micah in the growing corpus of the Twelve and further raises the paradigmatic question of its placement in the Twelve. Why here? 7 VAN LEEUWEN, Scribal Wisdom. See also, SEITZ, Prophecy and Hermeneutics. SKI,

Who is a God like You?

61

BCE. Van Leeuwan makes his way through the Twelve identifying the key places where the thirteen middot of Exod 34.6–7 appear. He then teases out the import this had for an understanding of the Twelve as a whole. Though not all of van Leeuwan’s findings may be persuasive, the general effect of his work is to provide warrant and an identifiable handle on the unity of the Twelve: an invitation to press the matter more fully. This has been done with some measure of success in the work of Nogalski, Schart, and Wöhrle, to name a few. Sorting out the diachronic history of these three books may at first glance appear straightforward: Micah, Nahum, then Jonah as most scholars agree that Jonah is one of the later additions to the Twelve. And while this is true, the nature of intertextual cross-fertilization and the complexity of the compositional history of the individual books themselves make surefire reconstructions less certain. It is quite likely the gradual growth of the Twelve involved editorial decisions with the individual books at every level of the Twelve’s development, e.g., Wöhrle’s Gnaden Korpus cutting across the grain of all these books. Nevertheless, the reality of the diachronic history of the Twelve and the evidence of shared thematic and linguistic links between books – despite how difficult it is to sort this out even in a relative chronology – provide sufficient justification for the reader of the Twelve to read these texts both as individual prophetic witnesses and in ever increasing association with the other prophetic voices within the corpus. In this sense, the diachronic history of the Twelve’s composition provides internal evidence for reading the Twelve as a unified, if complex, prophetic witness.8 The strategic placement of Exod 34.6–7 is especially noteworthy in Jonah, Micah and Nahum, where reference to the middot appears at key junctures in the books: an intertextual link identified for some time now. In Jonah, the gracious character of Yahweh is a source of frustration for Jonah when he provides his rationale for why he fled to Tarshish in the first place. ‘For I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing’ (Jon 4.2b). The book of Micah ends with the question that plays off the name of Micah, ‘Who is a God like you?’. The answer to this liturgical question has its source in the middot.9 At this juncture it is one of the more identifiable catch-word links (Stichwortverbindungen) between books in the Twelve. Nahum 1.3 refers to the middot as well, creating a chain-link between the end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum. Whereas Jonah and Micah em-

8

See Zapff’s engagement with Ben Zvi on this point (ZAPFF, Perspective, 296–297). The liturgical character of the ending of Micah was observed a century ago by Gunkel. See also, W ILLIS, Prophetic Hope Oracle, 64–76. 9

62

Mark S. Gignilliat

phasize the merciful side of Yahweh in their appeal to Exod 34.6–7, in Nahum the chord is struck on the severe side of Yahweh’s character. An aerial view of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum reveal the balance and direction of the middot in Exod 34.6–7. I am borrowing from Jacob’s classic commentary on Exodus. He identifies the thirteen middot from the Talmud (Roš Haš. 17b) as follows: God of mercy Grace Long of nose (patient) Full of ḥesed Faithful Visting ḥesed to the thousandth Forgiving iniquity Forgiving rebellion Forgiving sin Visiting sins of fathers to the sons Sons sons Visiting sins of the fathers to the third Visiting sins of the fathers to the fourth.

If the Talmudic middoth provide a helpful schema, then the exposition of the divine name in Exod 34.6–7 is a 9 to 4 ratio with the gracious character of Yahweh tipping the scales. The ratio is similar in Jonah, Micah, and Nahum with the deployment of the middot in Jonah and Micah emphasizing Yahweh’s gracious character with Nahum reminding readers of the Twelve that his patience is not limitless. This aerial view of Jonah to Nahum reveals the similar balance and direction of the middot between Exodus and Jonah, Micah and Nahum. Though my engagement will be brief, it is worth examining the function of the middot in Exodus.

1. Exodus 34.6–7: Yahweh Merciful and Severe According to Gowan, ‘The book of Exodus thus reaches its theological conclusion with chapters 32–34, for they explain how it can be that the covenant relationship continues in spite of perennial sinfulness.’10 As is well known, the literary context of the middot is the golden calf episode of Exodus 32. The interchange between Moses and Yahweh on Mount Sinai is brought to an abrupt halt as Yahweh informs Moses of the people’s idolatry. The fury of Yahweh’s jealousy is on full display in this text. With a

10

GOWAN, Theology, 218.

Who is a God like You?

63

key choice of words, he tells Moses to go down to your people (‫)עמך‬.11 The cleavage between Yahweh and his people in light of their idolatry signals their impending doom. ‘Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hotly (‫ )יחר־אפי‬against them and I many consume them; and of you I will make a great nation’ (Exod 32.10). Moses intercedes on their account, and Yahweh relents. The golden calf incident becomes an iconic representation of Israel’s tendency to stray to other lovers and Yahweh’s predilection toward gracious patience. It is important to recognize the backdrop of the golden calf incident to the revelation of the divine name in Exod 34.6–7. On the far side of the golden-calf encounter, Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory and understand his ways (Exod 33.13). What he receives is a divine exposition on the significance of the divine name, Yahweh. Though the syntax creates some difficulties, there is little doubt that the one proclaiming the name, ‘Yahweh,’ in 34.5 and crying out ‘Yahweh, Yahweh,’ in 34.6 is Yahweh himself. Moreover, the link between 34.5–7 and the revelation of the divine name in Exodus 3 should not be overlooked either: 34.5–7 is an extension of chapter 3’s revelation of the divine name. This revelation of the name in Exodus is a revelation of Yahweh’s divine identity, that is, his character or his ‘narrative identity’ if I may borrow a helpful term from Paul Ricouer.12 This is how one recognizes and ‘plots’ Yahweh so as to identify him over against any other. The revelation of the divine name or identity is an explanation of his character and actions: the insoluble relationship between being and action in the divine. It provides a ballast for the people of God to respond to various divine actions with an understanding that such are in accord with Yahweh’s own self-understanding and self-determination. The burning anger of Exod 32.10 elides into the patient character of Yahweh in 34.6–7. Thomas Dozeman identifies a change in the character of Yahweh at this point in the unfolding of the divine name. Whereas in the Decalogue, Yahweh’s response to fidelity or idolatry are presented in polar extremes, love/hate, obedience or punishment (20.4–6), 34.6–7 provides a way forward for Yahweh’s people after the sin of the golden calf.13 ‘Yahweh, the jealous God, now becomes Yahweh, the most merciful and gracious God.’14 As the middot remind in their latter third, this is not a complete displacement of divine jealousy, but it provides the proportionality fit to the character of Yahweh’s own self-disclosure: merciful and se-

11

A similar distancing of Yahweh is noted in the prophets: ‘go and tell this people’ in Isa 6.9; lo-ammi in Hosea. 12 R ICOEUR, Oneself. 13 DOZEMAN, Exodus, 737. 14 DOZEMAN, Exodus, 737.

64

Mark S. Gignilliat

vere, with the former dominating the latter.15 To borrow imagery from another context, Yahweh’s grace is real but not cheap. Yahweh’s emotions toward Israel can change in light of his propensity toward steadfast love. As in Jonah, repentance can lead to a divine reversal of fortunes. And like Jonah, the people of God should not be surprised, ‘It is just like Yahweh to act in this way.’ With this brief look at Exod 34.6–7 in mind, let me turn my attention to Jonah, Micah and Nahum to see how the severity and mercy of Yahweh are worked out in this canonical complex.

2. Jonah, Micah, Nahum: Eschatological Potentialities On the surface, Jonah and Nahum present contradictory views of Yahweh’s dealings with Ninevah. Rolf Rendtorff identifies the Ninevah in Jonah as a literary construct and not a real political power which threatened the existence of Israel and Judah.16 Ninevah represents a sinful Gentile city deserving of God’s punishment. However, Yahweh extends a gracious hand to this sinful Gentile city in light of their repentance. As Jonah laments at the end of the narrative, it is just like Yahweh to act in accordance with his nature: slow to wrath and quick to mercy. Nahum, on the other hand, presents Ninevah in the real: the city known and feared by Israel and Judah who on final analysis continue as a city of bloodshed without the enduring effects of the city-wide repentance of Jonah.17 What appears in Jonah as the ideal, both with the sailors at the beginning of the book and the city of Ninevah toward the end, is revealed in Nahum as life in real time. What appear on the surface to be contradictory accounts on second glance reveal the possibilities extended to the nations by Israel’s severe yet merciful God: potentialities offered but never in full received.

15 Jacob emphasizes the enduring significance of the middot in Israel’s religious life, ‘Immer wenn Israel sündigt, sollen sie hiernach vor mir verfahren, und ich werde ihnen vergeben. Das will sagen: Diese Sätze sind ein Gebet, das gleichsam Gott selbst den Mose gelehrt hat.’ (J ACOB, Exodus, 969–970). 16 RENDTORFF, Read, 83. 17 RENDTORFF, Read, 83–84. Schart lists three options for the tension between Jonah and Nahum. First, the historical solution of Ninevah’s repentance did not last long. Second, Jeremias suggests Jonah represents God’s final will, while Nahum represents his temporary will. Third, Jonah himself comes under critical scrutiny (SCHART, JonahNarrative, 137–138). Rendtorff’s canonical instincts offer a different view given the literature as continued testimony, namely, both Ninevahs are literary tropes witnessing to the different possible routes for the nations vis-à-vis their repentance toward Israel’s God.

Who is a God like You?

65

Micah’s position between these two books provides an angle of repose on the stark contrast between Jonah and Nahum. In other words, Micah offers interpretive clues for how to negotiate such divergent views regarding the character of Yahweh and his posture vis-à-vis the nations. Micah might be seen as the second third of the middot, if the scope and balance of the middot can function in such a metaphorical fashion. The tensions felt between Jonah and Nahum can be identified in Micah’s corpus as well, especially in Micah 4–5.18 By way of procedure, I will begin with an examination of a few key texts in Micah and their relationship to the surrounding literature. The picture of Yahweh’s relationship to the nations is acute in Micah 4. Micah 4.1–4 (5) promises a coming day where the nations stream to Zion to be taught torah in an age of universal peace.19 As the memorable images of 4.3 remind the reader, in that day weapons of war are transformed into tools of the field as everyone sits under their own vine and fig tree. The phrase is particularly memorable because in Joel 4.10 a very different image of Yahweh’s relationship to the nations is given, one in which plowshares and pruning hooks are turned into swords and spears. As one observes the tension between Jonah and Nahum on the relationship of God to the nations, so too does one observe the selfsame pattern between Micah 4 and Joel 4. While resisting the tendency to flatten out the particularity of Joel and Micah into a tidy theological package, the reader on the level of the whole is invited to make some sense of the theological character of the books in relation to one another on the level of a shared subject matter. From a religious-historical perspective it could be claimed that Joel as a postexilic book is expressing the frustrations one might expect from unfulfilled hopes and continued foreign domination in light of previous prophetic promises. Another kind of reading seeks after the substance of the witness as a unified whole and the effects this has on the implied reader in the community of faith. The distinction between the two texts in Joel and Micah may be on the same conceptual/theological field as the distinction between Jonah and Nahum. What Micah 4 presents as an eschatological promise for the future – a presentation of the nations making good on the claim that those 18

My instincts are with Zapff over against Schart to view Mic 4–5 as a canonical text in its present form and not to sort out the tensions on final analysis by appealing to the contrastive theological viewpoints from various post-exilic circles. The importance of the book of Isaiah framing Mic 4 and 5 are indicative of the intentional shaping of this material for an intended theological purpose, multi-perspectival as it may be (ZAPFF, Micah, 133–134). 19 The eschatology presented in Mic 4.1–4 (5) and Isa 2.2–4 need not be understand as end of the world eschatology, but as an event taking place in space and time in the future (T ALMON, Significance).

66

Mark S. Gignilliat

who take refuge in Yahweh are blessed (Nah 1.7) – is presented in Joel and Nahum as the facts on the ground or in the real. The invitation to the nations in Mic 4.1–4 (5) is an eschatological hope promised but not yet actualized. In the idiom of Nahum’s voice, ‘Why do you plot against the LORD? He will make an end; no adversary will rise up twice’ (Nah 1.9). When Joel presents Yahweh as a roaring lion making judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat, the force of the presentation in intertextual association with Micah 4 makes clear the nations have not sought refuge in Yahweh and continue in their plot against God. What Jonah pictures as an ideal response of the nations may be considered a narrative account of the eschatological promise of Micah 4.20 The editorial challenge of 4.5 to walk in the name of Yahweh forever while the nations continue to walk after their gods finds a possible linguistic link in Jon 1.4: ‘each one cried out to his God’. The collective use of ‫ איש‬is deployed in each context. The phraseology in Mic 4.5 is, ‘each one walks in the name of his God’. The nations of Mic 4.5 in this particular moment of the divine economy are much like the sailors at the beginning of Jonah 1; they continue on without taking refuge in him and in the trust of their own gods. By the end of Jonah 1, however, a major transition occurs. This transition takes place at a critical juncture as the sailors respond to and obey the prophetic word from Jonah: throw me into the water. At the end of Jonah 1, the sailors ‘call out to Yahweh’, no longer Elohim (1.4). They address Yahweh in a vocative form: ‘Ah, Yahweh’. In 1.16 the sailors greatly fear Yahweh and make sacrifices and vows to him.21 Speculation regarding the narrative behind the narrative, that is, did the sailors become Yahwists or did they go to the temple to fulfill these promises, misses the laconic point of the narrative. The pagan sailors turn their full attention to Yahweh in recognition of his identity as maker of heaven and earth. In short, they repent. In this light, the sailors and the Ninevites, as Rendtorff suggests, are literary tropes functioning as narrative portraits of what the promises of Micah 4 might look like in a real encounter between the gracious God of Israel and the surrounding nations. The presence of Nahum and Joel 4 provide a challenge to understand this picture as an eschatological hope and not a present reality. The contextual placement of Jonah within its particular location in the Twelve provides sharp relief on the ‘eschatologizing’ of the Jonah narrative. The portrait of the nations in Micah 4 itself is caught in a similar dialectic. ‘Now many nations are assembled against you…Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion…you shall beat in pieces many peoples’ (4.11–13). The 20 21

In a similar vein, see ZAPFF, The Perspective on the Nations, 304. See BEN ZVI, Signs of Jonah, on the pagan sailors in Jonah’s narrative.

Who is a God like You?

67

picture here is surely of a different order than the eschatological vision at the beginning of the chapter. But, again, the nations who will be ‘pulverized’ are those who have set themselves against Yahweh and his people (4.11). The character of 4.11–13 makes historical identification difficult. Israel had many enemies of the past and more to come in the future. Who exactly are the ‘many nations’ rising up against Yahweh? It does not seem necessary to thrust this text into the eschatological future (contra Freedman and Anderson). Rather the text is indeterminate enough to catch all kinds of historical possibilities for Israel now and in her future. The nations who set themselves over against Yahweh both now and in the future will know Yahweh as a roaring lion. While those who take refuge in him will find an extended hand of mercy. As mentioned at the beginning of the paper, for some time now the intertextual link between Joel, Jonah, the end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum has been observed and commented upon. The strategic placement of Exod 34.6–7 at key junctures in these books reveals the gracious character of Yahweh for his repentant people in Joel, for the repentant nations in Jonah, as a concluding promise in Micah, and as a warning in Nahum: Yahweh is patient but his patience is not limitless.22 Micah’s characterization of Yahweh in 7.18–20 is preceded by an account of the nations that is more akin to Joel and Nahum than Micah 4 or Jonah. As in the days of old when Israel was led out of Egypt, so too will Yahweh act again on behalf of his people such that the nations can only respond with acts of ritual shame and genuine fear in the face of Yahweh’s marvelous acts (7.15). The juxtaposition of 7.11–17 and 7.18–20 in the final literary form of the text again creates a field of possibilities for the nations in respect of Yahweh’s identity. The presence of Exod 34.6–7 both in the end of Micah and on the lips of the King of Ninevah in Jonah 3 identifies God as one who responds graciously, who in fact is quick to respond with grace and slow to respond in anger for those who turn to him and take refuge in him. The nations who are placing their hands over their mouths while exiting their fortresses in fear in Mic 7.11–17 also have the opportunity to encounter the mercy of God on the far side of his severity. Like the King of Ninevah in Jonah 3, they too can encounter Yahweh as one who is quick to mercy and slow to anger. The intertextual placement of Exod 34.6–7 in Nah 1.3 has a sharper edge to it than its use in Joel 2, Jonah 3, and Micah 7. Indeed, Yahweh is slow to anger and great in power, but he will by no means clear the guilty. 22

Nogalski identifies the redactional insertion of Exod 34.6–7 in Nah 1.3 because it breaks up the alleged acrostic present in Nah 1.2–8 (NOGALSKI, Redactional Process, 106–107). See also, ZAPFF, The Persective on the Nations, 307.

68

Mark S. Gignilliat

The chord is struck on the final half of the verse. The tight juxtaposition of severity and mercy in Nahum arrests the reader. Who can endure the heat of his anger (Nah 1.6)? The ‘heat of his anger’ is precisely what the king of Ninevah hoped to avoid in his call for national repentance: from the greatest to the least (Jon 3.9). The Ninevah of Nahum, however, will not experience this because on final analysis they did not take refuge in Israel’s God. Again, the portraits of Ninevah in Jonah and Nahum identify real future possibilities: the eschatological looking forward, the creating of literary tropes that exist as enduring promises and threats that flow from the identity of Yahweh. The reader is allowed to see both the mercy and the severity of Yahweh: slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet by no means clearing the guilty. The nations may walk down the path of Jonah’s Ninevah or Nahum’s Ninevah. Both options are present and the eschatological hope of Micah 4 is that at some point in the future, the former will prevail. Yahweh’s temporal ‘no’ of judgment, though real, is not final. The promise of Micah 4 and its effects are always on offer. Again, in Nahum’s Psalm-like phrase, ‘He protects those who take refuge in him’ (Nah 1.7b). The dialectic of the severity and mercy of Yahweh with the nations is equally at play with his own people as well. The theophanic images at the beginning of Micah 1 and Nahum overlap in force of expression and shared imagery. In Nahum 1 the quaking mountains and melting hills are on display before the earth and its inhabitants. The nations are in view as the superscription indicates. Whereas in Micah, the fire of Yahweh’s wrath is kindled because of the sins of Israel and Judah: the created order is called on as juridical witnesses in the divine court. He by no means clears the guilty irrespective of national identity. An assumed Zion theology with no repentance, no recognition of guilt, is thoroughly challenged by the prophetic word. Though the nations continue to walk in the name of their own gods, Judah is called on to walk in the name of Yahweh forever (Mic 4.5).23 Fabry suggests the redactional joining of Nahum to Habakkuk advances a creation theology as rationale for God’s actions with Ninevah. The hymn of Nah 1.2–8 had a literary independence before its deployment here in the context of the superscription’s purview: Nineveh. The placement of the hymn in this context is not ‘seamless’ (nahtlos) in Fabry’s view but is made compatible with the oracle against Nineveh by the editor. The linking of this theological preamble to the forthcoming speeches against Ninevah provides a window into the identity of Yahweh, his lordship over creation and his sole power over history (einzigen geschichtsmächtigkeit 23

This is a decidedly different reading of Mic 4.5 than offered by Sweeney and a host of scholars who have followed him, to wit, Mic 4.5 presents a religiously plural eschatology over against Isaiah’s non-pluralistic view (SWEENEY, Micah’s Debate).

Who is a God like You?

69

Gottes).24 The linking together of Micah 7 and Nahum 1 with the loan text from Exod 34.6–7 situates together the revenge of God with his patience. The feelings of those within Judah who desired God’s vengeance on their behalf have warrant for such sentiments in light of the character of Yahweh’s own self, ‘die gütige Seite Gottes auch in Vergeltungshandeln an den Feinden im Auge zu behalten und keiner Verfinsterung des Gottesbildes zu verfallen.’25 The vengeance of Yahweh against the nations finds its warrant both in his revealed identity in Exod 34.6–7 and his role as Creator: the whole world and all its nations are under his dominion and reign. The conclusion Fabry draws from the intertextual link between the end of Micah, the beginning of Nahum, and Exod 34.6–7 is especially insightful: ‘Nicht die Feinde Israels generell sind der Vergeltung Gottes ausgesetzt, sondern nur die Feinde JHWHs; das aber können auch – auch wenn es nicht explizit gesagt wird – Israeliten/Judäer sein! Es sind genau diese Feinde, die von der Glut seines Zornes weggefegt werden (Nah 1,6a)’.26 The enemies of Yahweh can be found in all nations, Israel included. Such an outlook may be observed in the description of Ninevah as a ‘city of blood’ (‫ )עיר דמים‬with Micah decrying against the leaders of Israel who build Zion with blood (‫)בדמים‬. Those, on the other hand, who take refuge in him, including those from nations other than Israel, rest secured. The revelation of the divine name on the far side of the golden calf episode creates possibilities of forgiveness and renewal. It is the character of Yahweh to be severe, yet his severity is disproportionally related to his mercy. For the generation of ancient Judah who received and shaped this literature, as well as for future generations, these texts witness to the necessity of forward-looking hope. Even when the effects of divine displeasure are experienced, the community of faith is called on to remember the identity of Yahweh and the significance of his name: merciful, yet severe, with the latter overshadowed by the former. Moreover, the nations come into view as those who fall under the lordship of Judah’s creator God. The gracious character of Yahweh extends to all who take refuge in him. Both the enemies of Yahweh and the friends of Yahweh are reconceived in such a way as to make categories such as universalism and particularism in-

24 Fabry concurs with Schart and Kessler that the redactor who brought together the Psalm and the speeches in Nahum did so in connection with Habakkuk. They locate these texts in Jerusalem during the days of Habakkuk with the residents of Judah as the addressees. This substantiates, for Fabry, Schart’s understanding of the redaction of the Twelve bringing together the Assyrian and Babylonian themes within the complex of theophany (Theophanie-Motivkomplex) (FABRY, Nahum, 96–104). 25 FABRY, Nahum, 92. 26 FABRY, Nahum, 92.

70

Mark S. Gignilliat

creasingly problematic, or at least invite readers to a more nuanced account.

Conclusion: Preliminary Thoughts Building on the work of previous scholarship, this essay’s aim has been to reveal the theologizing instincts of the various authorizing voices within Jonah, Micah and Nahum. ‘Who is a God like you?’ is a rhetorical question whose function within Micah is similar to the sapiential invitation at the end of Hosea: ‘Let the wise discern the ways of the Lord’. There is a call to reflective discernment with a touchstone provided for such theological reflection in the revelation of the divine name in Exod 34.6–7. Socio-political and religious-historical crisis within the history of Israel and Judah are made sense of in light of the revelation of the divine name: gracious and severe. The anterior self-disclosure of the divine name in Exod 34.6–7 exerts a coercive pressure on the authors/tradents of these three books as they provide theological handles for identifying Yahweh in the complexities of a lived experience in God’s presence. Karl Barth’s oftrepeated ‘reading with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other’, though anachronistic, illustrates the theological tension in the Twelve.27 The debates and struggles to come to terms with God’s actions in Israel’s and Judah’s midst – a struggle whose residual tensions may be felt in the Twelve – are theological wranglings after the multifaceted character of the revealed name of Yahweh. It is a perennial difficulty in the synagogue and the church to remain faithful to God in the midst of difficult historical circumstances. If I may draw from the Protestant tradition, the reader may recall Martin Luther’s 27 The tendency to identify the various ‘tensions’ within the prophetic literature as indicative of religious debates within exilic Judah and post-exilic Yehud, though not denied, is framed rather differently by Brevard Childs in light of an understanding of the prophetic traditions preserving of the living voice of God. Childs clarifies, ‘Because the prophetic writings were soon treasured as authoritative Scripture, textual expansion occurred in the process of continual usage not toward the goal of correcting concepts deemed false – a concept quite unthinkable in Judaism – but in order to elucidate and confirm for its hearers the truth of a prophetic message which it was assumed to possess.’ CHILDS, Retrospective Reading, 375. Similarly, Chapman encourages making the distinction between differing ideals and ideologies in the Law and the Prophets. Because the effect of the canonical process was to indict the self, Chapman says, ‘This means that a viewpoint finding expression within the canon has been recognized by the community as an insight leading to self-discipline and the good of the other, and not merely as a propagandistic effort on the part of the politically powerful to restrict or condemn those with whom they disagree.’ (CHAPMAN, The Law and the Prophets, 283).

Who is a God like You?

71

later admission that as a monk he did not love God. He hated God. Luther had no trouble with the severity of God; it was his basic theological category. In fact, it could be argued the Reformation took flight because of Luther’s obsessive desire to find a God he could love. Taking the necessary changes into account, Judah also knew the severity of God. The effect of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum is not to attenuate the reality of Yahweh’s severity, but to put Yahweh’s severity in the necessary dialectical relationship to his mercy. This characterization of Yahweh provides an enduring witness to God’s identity in relationship to his people and the nations. In brief, Yahweh’s severe ‘no’ need never be his final word. Because this is the case, Judah is called to faithfulness in the current moment and to hope for the future reality of the ultimate triumph of Yahweh’s mercy (Mic 4.1– 5).

Bibliography B EN ZVI, E., Micah (FOTL 21B), Grand Rapids 2000 – Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOT.S 367), Sheffield 2003 CHAPMAN, S., The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FAT 27), Tübingen 2000 CHILDS, B., Retrospective Reading of the Prophets, ZAW 108 (1996) 173–184 DOZEMAN, T., Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids 2009 FABRY, H., Nahum (HTKAT), Freiburg 2006 GOWAN, D., Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary, Louisville 1994 GUILLAUME, P., The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa), JHS 7 (2007) 2–10 J ACOB, B., Das Buch Exodus, Stuttgart 1997 LEVIN, C., Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf, ZAW 123 (2011) 221– 235 NOGALSKI, J., Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217), Berlin 1993 RENDTORFF, R., How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity, in: Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney, Atlanta 2000, 75–87 R ICOEUR, P., Oneself as Another, trans. K. Blamey, Chicago 1992 SCHART, A., Reconstructing the Redactional History of the Twelve, in: Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, eds. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney, Atlanta 2000, 12–34 SOMMER, B., Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-historicism, in: The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Scholarship (FAT 78), eds. T. B. Dozeman et al., Tübingen 2011 SPRONK, K., Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jakob Wöhrle, JHS 9 (2009) 2–9

72

Mark S. Gignilliat

SWEENEY, M., Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve, in: Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney, Atlanta 2000, 49–64 – Micah’s Debate with Isaiah, JSOT 93 (2001), 111–124 T ALMON, S., The Signification of ‫ אחרית‬and ‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Hebrew Bible, in: Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (VT.S 94), eds. S. M. Paul et al., Leiden 2003, 795–810 W ILLIS, J., A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle, in: Studies in Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers (VT.S 27), Leiden 1974, 64–76 W ÖHRLE, J., Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Enstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360), Berlin 2006 – Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW 389), Berlin 2008 ZAPFF, B., Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (BZAW 1997), Berlin 1997 – The Book of Micah – The Theological Center of the Book of the Twelve?, in: Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (BZAW 433), eds. R. Albertz et al., Berlin 2012, 129–146 – The Perspective on the Nations in the Book of Micah as ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah and Nahum? Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis in the Book of the Twelve, in: Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 325), eds. P.L Redditt and A. Schart, Berlin 2003, 292–31

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6 LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER

1. Introduction What strikes the reader of Zechariah’s vision report is the appearance of a plethora of divine beings. There are not only angels, i.e., divine beings with anthropomorphic form, but also other types of divine beings that elsewhere appear in the context of the divine assembly. This sparks the question as to whether this is either a chronological issue, part of the wider phenomenon of the transformation of the Israelite understanding of God in the early Second Temple period, or a literary issue, the result of Zech 1.8– 6.8 having the literary form of a vision report. This article investigates the depictions of divine beings in Zech 1.8–6.8. I shall explore the roles of the divine beings in the series of eight vision accounts, and compare them with the roles of divine beings in the accompanying oracular material. It is my hope that this investigation will shed new light upon the religion of the people of Yehud and upon the development of monotheism in the early Persian period. In the present essay I shall propose that: First, the wealth of divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report is characteristic of the literary genre of vision reports, rather than the result of changes to the cult of YHWH in Yehud during the early post-exilic period. Although the appearance of a specific divine being may point to a specific post-exilic development in ancient Israelite religion, the notions of a divine assembly, an opposing force within that assembly, and God’s executive forces on earth which carry out his will, are all attested in texts that, most likely, pre-date the sixth century BCE. Secondly, I will show that it is not unusual for dreamers and seers to see divine beings in their dreams, trances, or experiences of ecstasy.1 In fact, we should not distinguish sharply between the literary 1 See, e.g., the various attestations of divine beings in some contemporary religious experiences. See further RANKIN, Introduction, 93–145. For a discussion of visions, see ibid, 111–113, and of dreams, see ibid, 125–127. For seeing angels, see ibid, 123–125. These contemporary phenomena reflect the modern world and, in many cases, the Judaeo-Christian heritage. Even so, they point to a wide range of types of experiences that the people in Yehud might have experienced.

74

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

genre of the vision report and the visual impression received during an altered state of consciousness (ASC). The people responsible for writing the vision reports in the Hebrew Bible claim that they actually saw visions.2 It is impossible to go beyond the text and to reach the experience behind it,3 yet at the same time it is important to remember that in the ancient Near East, visions and dreams were considered to be real means by which the deities addressed their intermediaries.4 The present essay is open to the possibility that the earliest layers of Zech 1.8–6.8 (constituting the eight vision accounts) are based upon the seer’s visionary experience(s). Finally, I will argue that later authors/redactors added oracular material.5 These additions were aimed at making the earlier visionary impressions applicable to the contemporary period. In the present context, I shall highlight how these authors/redactors, when moving from the literary genre of the vision account to the literary genre of the oracle, fitted the message of the earlier vision report into a mould where YHWH is the supreme actor and where no other divine beings play a significant role.6 In terms of the meaning(s) of the texts in Zechariah 1–6, I propose that each text potentially has three different meanings. On the most basic level, there are the visual impressions that the seer sees. A horse is a horse, a tree is a tree, a lamp-stand is a lamp-stand etc. When we see a horse, we do not need to interpret it as a symbol of something else. The next level is the meaning that the images receive within the written vision report. When the seer identifies what he sees as a message from God, he opens himself to the possibility that the images mean something beyond what they are. For example, the seer understands the lamp-stand to be an image of God and 2 Zechariah’s vision report opens with Zechariah stating that ‘he saw at night’ (Zech 1.8), Ezekiel’s inaugural vision report in Ezek 1 opens with Ezekiel’s statement that ‘I saw visions of God’ (v. 1), and Dan 7.1 claims that Daniel had a dream and saw visions which he later recorded. 3 What we have are vision reports, not the visions themselves. Cf. B EHRENS, Prophetische Visionsschilderungen, 1: ‘Was wir vor uns haben, sind die Berichte von solchen Erlebnissen, die zudem oft längere Überlieferungs- und Redaktionsprozesse hinter sich haben. Der unmittelbare Gegenstand der Auslegung sind literarische Texte, nicht zuerst die darin geschilderte Ereignisse’. 4 For a substantial discussion of dreams in Mesopotamia and the understanding of them as divine communication, see ZGOLL, Traum, esp. 259–265. See also P ONGRATZLEISTEN, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien, 96–127. 5 It should not be excluded that one of these ‘redactors’ was Zechariah who, at a later stage in his life, interpreted his earlier vision accounts. 6 It should be noted that the depictions of divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report are never dualistic. Nothing in either the vision report or the later oracular material contradicts the monolatry of ancient Israelite faith. See further SMITH, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 51, who points out that the idea of a divine assembly is not oppositional to Israelite monotheism.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

75

the two olive trees to be the ‘two sons of oil’ (Zech 4.10b–14). The third level of meaning is located in the oracular material. It removes the descriptions of the visionary elements from their supernatural location and instead anchors them in an earthly context, thus seeking to establish their meaning and relevance within the society of Yehud.

2. What Constitutes a Divine Being? The Hebrew Bible refers to a multitude of divine beings, some appearing in anthropomorphic form and some in other forms. When divine beings appear in anthropomorphic form, they tend to be called ‫מלאך‬, i.e. ‘messenger’ but more commonly translated as ‘angel’. There are angel(s) of God (e.g. Gen 28.12 [‫ )]מלאכי אלהים‬and an/the ‘Angel of YHWH’. There is unlikely to be a distinct border between the different appellations. In Judges 13, for example, Manoah’s wife describes ‘the Angel of YHWH’ (v. 3) as ‘a man of God’ (‫ )איש האלהים‬who looks like an ‘angel of God’ ( ‫ומראהו כמראה‬ ‫)מלאך האלהים‬, and who is ‘very frightening’ (‫ ;נורא מאד‬v. 6). Further, the extant descriptions in the Hebrew Bible do not always distinguish between divine beings (incorporeal) and humans (of flesh and blood). The term ‘man’ (‫ )איש‬sometimes describes a divine being (as in Gen 18.2; 19.5, 8, 10, 12, and 16 [‫ מלאכים‬in 19.1]; probably also Ezek 9.2, 11; 10.2, 6; 40.3). In other cases, the term ‫ מלאך‬denotes a human messenger (as in Judg 2.1– 5; Mal 3.1; Eccl 5.5; Job 1.14).7 In later biblical texts, divine beings with anthropomorphic form often take on superhuman aspects. Ezekiel 40.3, for example, describes Ezekiel’s guide as a person who had the appearance of copper (‫)מראהו כמראה נחשת‬, and Daniel 10 depicts in awe-inspiring terms (v. 6) a person who ‘looked like a man’ (v. 16) but clearly was some kind of divine being. Other divine beings besides angels may also have been understood as having anthropomorphic form. The Adversary in Job 1–2, referred to within the context of ‘sons of God’ (‫ )בני האלהים‬in Job 1.6, is never explicitly described in anthropomorphic language, yet the overall description of his dialogue with God suggests that he has anthropomorphic form. The strongest indicator of the Adversary’s humanoid form is actually Num 22.22a where the Angel of YHWH acts as an adversary ( ‫ויתיצב מלאך ה' בדרך‬ ‫)לשטן לו‬. The Hebrew Bible contains other kinds of divine being that do not have anthropomorphic form. The seraphim in Isa 6.2–7 are members of the divine council (as implied by the literary context). They can communicate 7

See further SULLIVAN, Wrestling with Angels, 27.

76

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

with each other and with humans, yet they are clearly not humanoid, given their three pairs of wings and their ability to fly. Likewise, the cherubim in Ezek 10.1–22; 11.22 do not have anthropomorphic form, even though they are described as having some human features (e.g. Ezek 10.8). They have wings and they are attached to wheels etc. The particular cherubim in Ezekiel 10 apparently did not look like ‘normal’ cherubim, as only one of their heads looked like that of a cherub (Ezek 10.14, ‫)פני האחד פני הכרוב‬.8 In the ensuing discussion, I shall look at all the divine characters that inhabit Zechariah 1–6, and see what characterizes them and what characteristics they share. I shall further explore the differences, in terms of their treatment of divine beings, between the vision report and the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6. Most of the sections fall into two parts. The first part discusses the role of the divine beings in the vision account. The second part outlines the message of the accompanying oracular material and explores the way that it has altered the portrayals of the divine beings. The vision accounts are discussed in the following order: Zech 1.8–17; 6.1–8; 2.5–9; 3.1–10; 4.1–14; 2.1–4; and 5.5–11. I shall not discuss the sixth vision account in Zech 5.1–4 because it does not contain any salient information about divine beings. The speaker in 5.2–3, presumably the Interpreting Angel, is not even identified.

3. Zechariah 1.8–17 The text of Zech 1.8–17 can be divided in various ways. Here, I distinguish between the vision account in vv. 8–11, the oracular material in vv. 13–17, and v. 12 which forms a bridge between the two parts. 3.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 1.8–12 Zechariah 1.8–12 features between one and three anthropomorphic divine beings, depending on how one interprets the text: First, the Angel who speaks with and explains things to Zechariah (v. 9, cf. vv. 13–14aα). For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to him, as is customary, as the Interpreting Angel. The Hebrew name for him, ‫המלאך הדבר בי‬, i.e. ‘the angel who is speaking to me’, is more apt as it captures what the Angel is doing: he is speaking to Zechariah. The Interpreting Angel has two functions in the vision report. First, in the majority of cases (as here in Zech 1.8–12), the Interpreting Angel and Zechariah watch the happenings in the vision8

Alice Wood has offered a detailed study of appearances of the cherubim in the Hebrew Bible, where she argues that the biblical tradition of the cherubim developed over time (W OOD, Wings).

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

77

ary world. The Angel asks Zechariah what he sees and clarifies what it is that Zechariah sees. Secondly, in a few cases, the Interpreting Angel acts within the visionary world itself (e.g. Zech 2.7–8). Secondly, there are potentially two more angels: the man standing near the myrtle (vv. 8, 10) and the Angel of YHWH (vv. 11–12). It is an open question as to whether these characters are two or three individuals or aspects of one and the same character.9 In my view, the identification of the man among the myrtle with the Angel of YHWH is compelling, given that they are both described as ‘standing among the myrtle’ (vv. 8a, 10a, 11a). It is possible that Zechariah did not identify the humanoid figure that he had first seen among the myrtle (vv. 8, 10) with the Angel until later (v. 11). As to the Interpreting Angel, there is support for differentiating between him and the Angel of YHWH and seeing them as each other’s alter ego. While the Interpreting Angel’s role is to communicate with Zechariah, the Angel of YHWH plays a role in the visionary world of which Zechariah receives glimpses.10 We thus have one anthropomorphic divine being in the visionary world (vv. 8, 10, 11) and another anthropomorphic divine being speaking with Zechariah (vv. 9, 13–14aα). In addition to the anthropomorphic divine beings, Zech 1.8–12 speaks about horses. Although horses are not normally thought of as divine beings, three aspects of their presentation together suggest that the seer understood them as such. First, the horses are sent by God to ‘roam the earth’ (v. 10, ‫להתהלך‬ ‫)בארץ‬.11 Even though normal horses can also ‘roam the earth’, the particular choice of the Hithpael stem of the root ‫ הלך‬suggests that these horses are something more than natural horses. The verb appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in connection with divine beings. 1. The closest parallel is Job 1.7; 2.2 where the Adversary (‫ )השטן‬reports that he has ‘roamed the earth’. Already Ibn Ezra noted the link and accordingly suggested that the Adversary and the man on the horse were both angelic beings who performed the same task of patrolling the earth.12

9 There are alternative ways of explaining the three names of the anthropomorphic angelic beings, namely as the result of textual growth. HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 156–158, for example, who identifies the three men with each other, argues that the confusion in the final text is the result of textual growth as the two angels were added later to the material and identified with each other. See also KRATZ, Serubbabel und Joschua, 85, who maintains that the Interpreting Angel in Zech 1.8–11 and 2.5–9 is secondary. 10 In this matter, I follow MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 115. 11 See further T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 189–190. 12 IBN EZRA, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 1.10. Among more modern exegetes, see, e.g., N IDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 144–145.

78

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

2. The same verb is used in a similar sense in Gen 3.8, where it denotes God taking a walk in the Garden of Eden. In a sense, God is out patrolling his realm. 3. The verb is further attested in Ps 82.5 in the context of the gods in the divine council. First, the verb ‫( יתהלכו‬v. 5), attributed to the gods, brings Zech 1.10 to mind where the horses have ‘roamed the earth’ (‫)להתהלך בארץ‬. Secondly, the idea that the gods bring havoc upon the earth (v. 5) is reminiscent of Zech 6.8; yet while the divine beings in Ps 82.5 are criticized for their destructive power, the horses in Zech 6.8 execute God’s will ( ‫הניחו את‬ ‫)רוחי בארץ צפון‬. Secondly, given that the horses in Zechariah’s first and last vision and the divine beings in Job 1–2 have similar roles, Ollenburger suggests that the horses, including the mounted rider-angel, form God’s ‘host’ and that the Angel of YHWH personifies that host. This is made explicit in the Angel’s speech in v. 12 where he addresses God as ‘the Lord of Hosts’ ( '‫ה‬ ‫)צבאות‬.13 Furthermore, the horses in Zech 1.8–11 are described as being able to speak. From both a grammatical and a contextual perspective, the horses are the obvious subject of the verb ‫( ויענו‬v. 11).14 Zechariah sees the single man and the horses (v. 8) and asks ‘What are they?’ (‫( )מה אלה‬v. 9a), whereupon the Interpreting Angel says that he will show him ‘what they are’ (‫( )מה המה אלה‬v. 9bβ). The use of the pronoun ‘what’ (rather than ‘who’ [‫ )]מי‬implies that the horses rather than human beings are the subject. Likewise, the plural pronoun ‫ המה‬indicates that the question concerns the (pl.) horses rather than the (sg.) man. This impression is confirmed in v. 10 where the man in the vision states that ‘they’ (again presumably the horses) are God’s patrol. Against this background, it is natural to assume, come v. 11, that the horses are the speakers. Thirdly, archaeological evidence suggests that horses were venerated at the level of family religion. Uehlinger notes that horses constitute by far the most numerous group of Judahite zoomorphic figurines, and speculates about whether such horses were ‘a conspicuous member of the heavenly host’.15 In a joint publication Uehlinger and Keel interpret the zoomorphic figurines as personifications of the ‘host of heaven’ and connect them to the horses and rider(s) in Zech 1.7–11.16 In the later 2 Macc 5.2–4 and 10.29–30, the celestial army was formed of cavalry.17 The imagery in 2 Maccabees may draw on Zechariah’s vision report or, alternatively, both 13

OLLENBURGER, The Book of Zechariah, 751–752. A small number of scholars are open to the possibility that the horses are the speakers. See, e.g., O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 174, and SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 578. 15 UEHLINGER, Riding Horseman, 706. 16 KEEL AND UEHLINGER, Gods, 341–349, esp. 347. 17 UEHLINGER, Riding Horseman, 706. 14

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

79

texts may preserve an older tradition of horses being part of the heavenly host. After all, the cavalry, alongside chariots, were the most powerful parts of an ancient army. In view of these three aspects of the presentation of the horses in Zech 1.8–12, it is justified to claim that these horses constitute a form of nonanthropomorphic divine beings, whose main roles are to watch over God’s creation, to report to God about the happenings on earth, and to execute his commands. In these roles, they are analogous to the creatures/cherubim in Ezekiel’s vision reports (Ezek 1; 8–11) and to the Adversary of Job 1–2 and Zech 3.1–2.18 To sum up, Zech 1.8–12 is filled to the brim with both anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic angelic beings whose task is to convey God’s message to humans and to carry out his actions on earth. 3.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 1.7, 13–17 do with the divine beings in the vision account? In contrast to the vision account in Zech 1.8–12, the surrounding oracular material in vv. 7, 13, 14aβ–17 contains no angelic beings. Zech 1.7 introduces the ensuing vision report as ‘the word of YHWH to Zechariah’ (‫)דבר ה' אל זכריה‬. Likewise, although v. 14aα features the Interpreting Angel, the following material in Zech 1.14aβ–17 is presented as ‘oracles of YHWH’ (vv. 14, 16, 17), and v. 13aα states that YHWH spoke. The possible exception is v. 17. Although the speaker responsible for uttering the divine oracle is anonymous, the final form of the text invites the reader to identify him with the Interpreting Angel, i.e. the speaker in v. 14aα. It is fair to say that the oracular material ignores the divine beings in the first vision account. It refrains from commenting on the imagery of the horses and the man among the myrtle bushes. Instead, it redirects the readers’ attention to the last statement in v. 11b ‘and behold the whole earth is at rest and in peace’ (‫)והנה כל הארץ ישבת ושקטת‬. The oracular material thus presents the vision account as a prophecy about YHWH’s imminent restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. God, rather than the horses, will carry out his will. YHWH is angry (vv. 14–15), he will return to Jerusalem (v. 16), and he will comfort Zion and choose Jerusalem (v. 17). In its final form, Zech 1.7–17 has become a prophecy about YHWH’s actions on behalf of his city.

18

T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 109–116.

80

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

4. Zechariah 6.1–8 Turning to the last vision account, an account which in many respects corresponds to the first one, the seer reports seeing four chariots ( ‫ארבע‬ ‫)מרכבות‬, drawn by horses. Zechariah asks the Interpreting Angel what they are (v. 4b), and receives the reply that they are the ‘four winds of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole earth’ (v. 5b). 4.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 6.1–8 Zechariah’s last vision account offers a tantalizing and complex web of images denoting ‘horses’, ‘winds’, and ‘cherubim’ which together suggest that the ‘horses’ in Zech 6.1–8 are a kind of non-anthropomorphic divine being. First, the horses in Zech 6.5 are identified as the ‘four winds’. This imagery brings to mind Ps 104.4 which speaks of God’s angels as ‘winds’ (‫ )עשה מלאכיו רוחות‬and as ‘flaming fire’ (‫)משרתיו אש להט‬. The imagery of ‘flaming fire’, in turn, is reminiscent of Gen 3.24 and its description of the cherubim with their revolving, ‘flaming sword’ ( ‫את הכרבים ואת להט החרב‬ ‫)המתהפכת‬. The later vision report in Daniel 7 further connects the four winds of heaven with non-earthly beings (vv. 2–3). Secondly, 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11 depicts how God rides a cherub, flies, and is seen upon the wings of the wind (‫)וירכב על כרוב ויעף וירא על כנפי רוח‬. Again, there is a connection between the cherubim and the winds. In addition, the idea that God ‘rides’ upon the cherub brings to mind the scene in Zechariah’s first vision report where the Angel rides on one of the horses (‫)רכב על סוס אדם‬, using the same verb ‫רכב‬. The imagery in 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11 is further connected to Ezekiel’s vision reports. Mettinger, for instance, compares the notion of a mobile God in Ps 18.10–11 with the image of God in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11.19 Finally, and also related to the imagery in Gen 3.24, intriguing evidence suggests that the horses drawing the ‘chariots’ in Zechariah 6 are somehow connected with the cherubim in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11. In Ezekiel’s vision reports, the singular form ‫ מרכבה‬denotes the chariot, carried by the cherubim, upon which God’s throne is situated. In a similar manner, Zechariah’s final vision account presents four chariots (‫ )ארבע מרכבות‬associated with horses. Three aspects suggest a link between Zechariah’s horses and Ezekiel’s cherubim: First, the cherubim are identified with the wind (Ezek 19

METTINGER, Cherubim, 191. He argues that the verb ‫ רכב‬in Ps 18.11 should not be translated as ‘ride’ but as ‘dahinfahren’, i.e. God is depicted as descending in his cherubim chariot.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

81

1.12) and so are the horses (Zech 6.5). Secondly, the cherubim are associated with chariot (Ezek 10. 2, 4, 7, 18a, 19bα; 11.23, cf. 2 Sam 22.11) and Zech 6.1–8 contains chariot imagery. Thirdly, the wheels of the cherubim have ‘eyes’ (Ezek 1.18) and God’s patrol are likened to ‘eyes’ (Zech 4.10).20 I do not suggest that the links between the aforementioned passages in Zechariah 1 and 6; Ezekiel 1 and 8–11; 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.11; and Gen 3.24 are the result of direct textual allusion, where the seer responsible for the vision report in Zechariah 1–6 would purposefully have picked up the notion of the winds and the cherubim in order to enhance his own message.21 Instead, the textual relationship is better understood as taking place on a more subconscious level, where the seer responsible for Zechariah 1– 6, familiar with the earlier material, transformed those descriptions into something new in order to illustrate his own visionary experience of divine beings in equine form.22 A different aspect of the description of the horses in Zech 6.1–8 suggest that the ‘horses’ constitute some kind of divine beings with anthropomorphic characteristics. First, the preposition -‫ ב‬in 6.2–3 hints at the curious fact that the horses are somehow in the chariots. Verse 2 specifies that in the first chariot (‫ )במרכבה‬are red horses and that in the second chariot are black horses. Verse 3 continues in the same vein and states that in the third chariot are white horses and in the fourth chariot are ‫( ברדים אמצים‬maybe ‘spotted, strong horses’). The preposition -‫ ב‬corresponds to a wide range of prepositions in English. It the present context, the preposition has traditionally been understood to indicate that the chariots are drawn ‘by’ the horses, a natural enough assumption. Yet, in other places where the same preposition is used in conjunction with the term ‫מרכבה‬, it implies ‘inside’ the chariot. In Gen 41.43, Pharaoh let Joseph ride in the second chariot (‫)במרכבת המשנה‬, in 1 Kings 12.18//2 Chron 10.18, Rehoboam hastened to get up into the chariot in order to flee to Jerusalem ( ‫רחבעם התאמץ לעלות במרכבה לנוס‬ ‫)ירושלם‬, and in 1 Kings 22.35 (cf. 2 Chron 18.34), the king remained standing in his chariot (‫)והמלך היה מעמד במרכבה‬. 1 Samuel 8.11 uses the preposition -‫ ב‬differently to state that the king will take the audience’s sons ‘for’ himself and ‘for’ his chariots etc. (‫)את בניכם יקח ושם לו במרכבתו‬. In Zech 6.2–3, the normative meaning of the preposition -‫ ב‬as denoting the English preposition ‘in’ creates the bizarre reading that the horses are, 20

See further T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 104–127. Cf. J EREMIAS, Nachtgesichte, 119, who assumes an indirect link between the creatures in Ezek 1 and the heavenly beings drawing the chariots in Zech 6.1 as well as with the angelic beings, among them the Adversary, in Job 1.6; 2.1. 22 Cf. T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 127. 21

82

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

in some way, inside the chariots. As already noted, the horses in the first vision are unusual in that they are able to talk. Here, they are unusual in that they apparently are in the chariots. What this all suggests is that the horses, although they may look like animals, are a different kind of creatures. The notion that the horses are in the chariots is likewise attested in 6.5aα which reads ‫אשר בה הסוסים השחרים יצאים אל ארץ צפון‬. Secondly, the identification in Zech 6.5 of the horses with the ‘four winds of heaven’, going out from having been ‘standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ (‫)מהתיצב על אדון כל הארץ‬, brings to mind the ‘the two sons of oil’ in 4.14 who are ‘standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ (‫)העמדים על אדון כל הארץ‬. As I hope to demonstrate below, these two ‘sons of oil’ are likely to be two members of the divine assembly who ‘stand by’, i.e. ‘attend to’ God. Thus, the horses, the two divine ‘sons of oil’, and the ‘four winds’ are described by the same kind of imagery. This, in turn, suggests that the author of Zechariah’s vision report understood the horses as divine beings. To sum up, the eighth vision account features some sort of divine beings who set out to execute God’s will. 4.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 6.9–15 do with the divine beings in the vision account? It is, on the whole, unclear whether the oracular material in Zech 6.9–15 aims to comment on the eighth vision account. A few scholars attempt to find relevance in the combined text of 6.1–15. Seybold, for example, argues that 6.9–15 reflects on the result of the activity in the Neo-Babylonian Empire of the chariots from the immediately preceding vision account.23 Along different lines, Sellin24 and Baldwin25 propose that v. 15 is the original continuation of v. 8. God’s spirit will come upon the exiles in the North Country (v. 8) and stimulate them to return and rebuild the temple (v. 15).26 In contrast, the intermediate verses, vv. 10–14, are unrelated to the eighth vision account. They are merely an example for the Babylonian Jewry of the happenings under the new spirit.27 In my view, we should assume that the editor of the final text had some reason for placing the material in Zech 6.9–15 where he did. Thus, I agree with Seybold insofar as vv. 9–15 explore a possible application of the eighth vision, and in particular of the statement in v. 8. What is pertinent in the present context is the fact 23

SEYBOLD, Bilder zum Tempelbau, 16. SELLIN, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 515–519. 25 B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 132. 26 ROTHSTEIN, Nachtgesichte, 214–215; CHARY, Aggée-Zacharie, 108–109; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 126. 27 RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 126. 24

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

83

that v. 15 ‘historicizes’ the content of the vision account (vv. 1–8). It moves from the mythological description of divine beings and their actions, to the earthly circumstances of the return of the exiles and the building of YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem. Stronger indications suggest that the oracular material in Zech 6.9–15 is connected with the oracular material in 3.8b. Notably, 6.12 and 3.8b share the noun ‘branch’ (‫)צמח‬. The chronological relationship between these two texts is, however, uncertain: does 6.12 comment on 3.8b or vice versa, or do both passages stem from the same author? A plethora of different theories abound. Wöhrle, for example, argues that an early form of 6.9–13* was written by the same author as the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a, as evident from its shared focus on Zerubabbel. Subsequently, another author wrote 3.1–8, reworked 6.9–13*, and added 6.14 in order to shift the focus from Zerubbabel to Joshua. Wöhrle thus sees 6.12 as primary and 3.8b as secondary. In the first edition of 6.9–13*, Zerubbabel is the ‘branch’ (v. 12). In the later context of 3.1–8; 6.9–14, however, the ‘branch’ has been transformed into a future priestly figure.28 I agree with Wöhrle insofar as regarding 3.8b as a later addition to Zechariah 3.29 With this in mind, Wöhrle’s suggested redaction history of 6.9–15 appears to be the best alternative when trying to make sense of the complicated final text. As to the specific relationship between 3.8b and 6.12, the two texts use the term ‘branch’ differently. In 3.8b, the ‘branch’ is an anonymous person who is called ‘God’s servant’. It is unlikely that the ‘branch’ in 3.8b should be identified with Zerubbabel, as the use of the participle ‘behold, I am bringing the Branch’ implies that the Branch is not yet present in Judah.30 In contrast, in 6.12 the ‘branch’ in all likelihood symbolizes Zerubbabel, due to the repeated emphasis in 6.12–15 on the building of the temple. The divine statement in 6.12 that ‘behold a man, his name is “Branch”…and he will build the temple of YHWH’ ( ‫ובנה את היכל‬ '‫ )ה‬makes the most sense when understood as referring to the building activity around 520 BCE. Thus, Rose’s attempt to explain the term ‘branch’ in both texts as a future figure fails to convince,31 as do Jauhiainen’s efforts to regard Joshua as ‘standing in’ for the ‘branch’.32 To conclude, the material in 6.9–15 does not interact with any of the vision accounts to any major extent. Instead, it strengthens the point made in the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a which identifies Zerubbabel as the builder of the temple. The material in 6.9–15 is furthermore in line with 28

W ÖHRLE, Die Frühen Sammlungen, 359–361, 366. See further T IEMEYER, The Guilty Priesthood, 1–2. 30 T IEMEYER, The Guilty Priesthood, 1–2. 31 ROSE, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 130–141, 173–176, 248–251. 32 J AUHIAINEN, Turban and Crown, 501–511. 29

84

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

the rest of the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 insofar as it does not contain any references to divine beings. On the contrary, it offers a historically anchored reading and implementation of the vision accounts and the accompanying oracular material.

5. Zechariah 2.5–9 Moving to the third vision account in Zech 2.5–9, the text can be divided into an account of a visual impression (vv. 5–8a) and two oracular sayings (vv. 8b, 9). 5.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 2.5–8a The vision account in 2.5–8a contains several interacting anthropomorphic characters who are all potentially divine. Verses 5 and 6 feature a ‘man’ with a measuring line in his hand (‫)איש ובידו חבל מדה‬. It is unclear as to whether the seer understood this anthropomorphic figure to be human or divine.33 The term ‫ איש‬describes an angel in quite a few texts in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen 18.2; 32.24). A few exegetes identify this man with a specific Angel, such as the Interpreting Angel,34 or the Angel of YHWH,35 yet without firm textual support.36 Other exegetes argue that the man is human, in part owing to his behaviour which is deemed to be ‘too uninformed’ to fit a divine being: an angel would have known about God’s future plans for Jerusalem and thus would not have attempted to measure the city.37 I tend towards understanding the ‘man with the measuring stick’ as an angel, given the overall non-earthly setting of the scenery. Verses 7–8 introduce two new characters, namely the Interpreting Angel and another angel. Although it is hypothetically possible that the ‘other angel’ is identical with the ‘man with a measuring stick’, this is on the 33 Some scholars identify this man with an angel. See, e.g., R IGNELL, Nachtgesichte, 72, REDDITT, Zechariah, 58. See also SULLIVAN, Wrestling with Angels, 60. 34 E.g. RASHI, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.7. 35 Contra KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 546, who objects to the notion that the man may simply be a dramatic persona within the vision ‘weil sämtliche in diesen Visionen auftretended Personen bedeutsam sind’. 36 As pointed out by, e.g., RADAK, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.5; MITCHELL, Zechariah, 136; REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 47. 37 Others object to that identification, claiming instead that the word ‘man’ indicates that he is not an angel (see, e.g. DEISSLER, Zwölf Propheten, 275). See also B Ič, Nachtgesichte, 21–22, who argues that the man with the measuring stick is unlikely to be an angel because of his ‘childish’ behaviour. Instead, the importance which he accredits to his measuring activity is typically human.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

85

whole improbable, given the structure of the passage.38 Verse 8a further speaks of a ‘young man’ who is either to be identified with the previously mentioned ‘man with a measuring stick’39 or with Zechariah himself.40 Both options are possible, yet overall the former is more likely, given that the man with the measuring stick belongs more firmly to the scene than Zechariah. All in all, the visionary world contains four characters: two angels, the man with the measuring stick who may or may not be an angel, and Zechariah.41 5.2 What does the oracular material in Zechariah 2.9 do with the divine beings in the vision account? In the final form of the text, v. 8b does not constitute a divine oracle.42 Instead it forms the direct speech of the ‘other’ angel to the young man. In contrast, v. 9aα forms a new beginning, as suggested by the phrase '‫נאם ה‬ and as emphasized by the first person divine speech: '‫ואני אהיה לה נאם ה‬. This opening phrase sets the oracular material apart from the preceding vision account, as well as from v. 8b. Structurally, we can thus speak of two different sections. As to the chronological development of the text, my view is in part informed by Hallaschka who postulates a three stage development of 2.5–9. He regards the vision account to be primary and argues that the task of the later oracular material is to expand and explain the former. Hallaschka detects an early core of the vision account in 2.5–6, whilst seeing vv. 7–8 as constituting a later layer. Verse 9 is an even later addition which develops the imagery of v. 8: while v. 8b mentions the people living in Jerusalem, v. 9 speaks of God living there.43 I agree with Hallaschka to the extent that I 38 The exact identify of the latter angel is left unspecified, yet a few scholars equate him with the Angel of YHWH elsewhere in Zechariah’s vision report. 39 See, e.g., MITCHELL, Zechariah, 138; B Ič, Nachtgesichte, 22; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 85; REDDITT, Zechariah, 58; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 169; REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 47; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 153–154; HANHART, Sacharja, 139; W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 75; B ODA, Haggai, Zechariah, 223. 40 See, e.g., RASHI, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; RADAK, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; IBN EZRA, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 2.8; KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 548; MERRILL, Zechariah, 104– 105; REDDITT, Zechariah, 40; SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 585. 41 It can be argued that four characters, three of which are potentially angels, are definitely too many. HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 186, for example, argues that the original vision account in vv. 5–6 only featured Zechariah and the man with the measuring stick. He regards both the Angel of YHWH and the Interpreting Angel appearing in vv. 7–8 to be later additions. 42 Contra REDDITT, Zechariah, 58, and PETERSEN, Zechariah, 169–172, who read vv. 8b–9 as a divine oracle. 43 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 177–186.

86

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

see v. 9 as a later addition. In contrast, I view vv. 7–8 as part of the original vision account, with the oracular statement in v. 8b as the original ending. Verse 8b does not interact with the characters in vv. 5–8a. Instead, it provides the purpose behind the measuring. If we read vv. 5–8a on their own, we are given no information as to why the ‘man’ is measuring Jerusalem. Verse 8b accordingly serves two purposes. First, it provides the reason for, but also the rejection of, the measuring activity. Jerusalem will be an open region (i.e. without walls). Its population, consisting of both humans and animals, will be so numerous so that no wall will suffice to surround its immense size.44 The divine oracle in v. 9 continues with the same interpretative trend as in v. 8b. Verse 9 expands on the statement in v. 8b and adds a new dimension to it. The issue is no longer population growth (v. 8b) but military security (v. 9). Jerusalem will not need a wall as fortification because God himself will be like a wall of fire around her (v. 9a). He will also be its glory in her midst (v. 9b).45 In a sense, the chronologically later oracular material in v. 9 offers a kind of sermon on v. 8b. As to the divine beings, the oracle in v. 9 changes the scenery. In vv. 5– 8, the angels are in control of the situation and they are responsible for Jerusalem. In contrast, v. 9 places God in the middle and declares emphatically that God himself (‫ )ואני אהיה‬will be a wall of fire around the city and its glory inside of it. The later oracular material in v. 9 thus emphasizes that God, rather than other divine beings, will take care of Jerusalem.

6. Zechariah 3.1–10 Turning to Zechariah 3, the material in this account has a different literary form than the other vision accounts in Zechariah 1–6. In the present context, my interest lies in the structure and chronological development of Zechariah 3, not in its relationship with the other vision accounts. Zechariah 3 can be, and has been, divided in various ways. From the perspective of literary genre, the chapter falls into two parts. The material in 3.1–5 describes the happenings in the divine assembly.46 In contrast, vv. 6–10 consist of divine oracles, transmitted in the final form of the text by the Angel

44

See further the discussion in MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 155. See, e.g., REDDITT, Zechariah, 58–59. 46 E.g. T IDWELL, Wāʾōmar, 347; VANDERKAM, Joshua the High Priest, 554; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 190–191. 45

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

87

of YHWH (vv. 7–9, 10).47 Alternatively, it is possible to distinguish between vv. 1–7 and vv. 8–10, based on the change of scenery: vv. 1–7 take place in the divide assembly while vv. 8–10 take place in the temple.48 From a chronological perspective, much favours accepting vv. 6–7 as the earliest continuation of the vision account, as well as vv. 8a and 9, while treating vv. 8b and 10 as a later addition.49 6.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 3.1–5 The vision account contains some new and some already familiar divine beings: the Angel of YHWH ('‫)מלאך ה‬, the Adversary (‫( )השטן‬v. 2), and presumably also other, yet unspecified, angels (v. 5). The phrase ‘those standing before him’ (‫ )העמדים לפניו‬is likely to denote other members of the divine assembly. 50 It is furthermore possible that the Interpreting Angel appears as the speaker in v. 1 (‫)ויראני‬.51 6.2 What is the oracular material in Zechariah 3.6–10 doing with the divine beings in the vision account? In contrast to the plethora of divine beings in the vision account in vv. 1–5, the oracular material in vv. 6–10 features only God and the Angel of YHWH, and only as speakers, not as actors. In many ways, the oracular material in vv. 6–10 interprets the visual impression in vv. 1–5. In the present context, I wish to highlight four ways in which the oracular material brings the issues of vv. 1–5 ‘down to earth’. First, v. 7a suggests to the reader that the undressing and dressing of Joshua in the divine assembly are connected with his role as High Priest in the earthly temple. As emphasized by the vocabulary, v. 7a refers to Joshua’s priestly duties in the temple.52 The terms ‫ ביתי‬and ‫ חצרי‬denote 47 See, e.g., BEUKEN, Haggai-Sacharja, 290–300; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 202, 208, 211–214. 48 AMSLER, LACOCQUE AND VUILLEUMIER, Aggée, 83; RUDOLPH, Sacharja, 99; VAN DER WOUDE , Zion as Primeval Stone, 238. See also B IČ , Nachtgesichte, 36–37, and P ARKER, Council, 206. 49 See further T IEMEYER, Guilty Priesthood, 1–3. 50 Cf. MITCHELL, Zechariah, 151; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 188. 51 See, e.g., SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 594–595. Sweeney suggests that the Interpreting Angel is the subject. He is also open to the possibility that the speaker, in this vision, is identical with the Angel of YHWH. Alternatively, some exegetes argue that the speaker is God. See, e.g., KEIL, Kleine Propheten, 552, FEINBERG, God Remembers, 42–43, because of the analogy with Zech 2.3. More recently, B ODA, Haggai, Zechariah, 250, identifies the speaker with God because he is the last person referred to in the preceding text, Zech 2.13. 52 T IEMEYER, Priestly Rites, 252–254.

88

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

(parts of) the temple complex, thus indicating that Joshua is given the highest authority there.53 In this manner, the oracular material recontextualizes the visionary impression and re-interprets it as a message concerning the earthly temple. While the vocabulary in vv. 1–5 could (but need not) be related to the temple and to Joshua’s priestly role, the oracular material in v. 7a closes the openness of the visionary impression and guides the reader firmly towards an interpretation related to the temple. Second, the material in 3.9 brings down the cleansing of Joshua from the divine assembly to earth. It interprets Joshua’s change of clothing in vv. 3–5 as a heavenly precursor to the removal of the sins of the community through the earthly celebration of the Day of Atonement in 3.9.54 Third, there is a change from ‘those standing before him’ in v. 5 to ‘those sitting before him’ in v. 8. The divine beings in vv. 1–5 are transformed into Joshua’s earthly, priestly colleagues. Finally, the adversary disappears as we move from vision account to oracular material.

7. Zechariah 4 Looking at Zechariah 4, most critical scholars distinguish between the vision account in Zech 4.1–6aα, 10b–11, 13–14 (v. 12 is often considered to be secondary) on the one hand, and the oracular material in vv. 6aβ–10a on the other hand. 7.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 4.1–6aα, 10b–11, 13–14 The only obvious divine being in the vision account in Zechariah 4 is the Interpreting Angel. However, there are compelling arguments to suggest that the lamp-stand represents God, the seven eyes represent his heavenly host, and the two olive-trees in attendance represent two members of the divine assembly. The lamp-stand and the eyes together form one overarching image of God and his divine agents (vv. 2–3, 10b). As suggested by Oppenheim, the image of God’s eyes in 4.10 is probably influenced by the Persian intelligence service and network of espionage. As the Persian king’s ‘eyes’ rode across the Persian Empire gathering information about the situation in the 53

Cf. JEREMIAS, Nachtgesichte, 214–215, who argues convincingly that the term ‫בית‬ must refer to the temple and not to the people of Judah. See also VANDERKAM, Joshua the High Priest, 559. 54 For Zech 3.9 being a reference to an early form of the Day of Atonement, see T IEMEYER, Guilty Priesthood, 1–19.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

89

realm, so God’s ‘roaming eyes’ traverse the earth collecting data.55 The eyes in 4.10 are further connected with the horses in 1.8–11 and 6.1–8.56 In fact, God’s omniscience (patrolling forces/all-seeing eyes) is a Leitmotif throughout Zechariah’s vision report. In the first vision account, the horses and their riders return in order to report to God (1.10–11). In the last vision account, they set out again to execute the decision of the divine assembly (6.7). The eyes in 4.10, half-way between these two happenings, constitute God’s patrols at rest in the divine assembly. The horses and the eyes are thus symbols of the same thing, that is, God’s omnipresence.57 The image of the flying scroll in the sixth vision account complements this picture, as the scroll flies around seeking out those individuals who are impure.58 The image of God’s all-seeing eyes in Zech 4.10 in all likelihood depends on two main biblical traditions. First, it draws on Ezekiel’s inaugural vision report and the notion of eyes of God’s throne chariot.59 Ezek 1.18 describes the creatures’ wheels as having eyes (‫ )עינים‬all around their rims (‫)וגבתם מלאת עינים סביב לארבעתן‬. These eyes are best understood as symbols of the cherubim’s all-seeing character and constant watchfulness,60 although they may also have had a physical dimension as eye-shaped gem stones that gave them a sense of majesty and awesomeness ( ‫וגביהן וגבה להם‬ ‫‘ = ויראה להם‬as for their rims, they had height and they had fear’).61 As noted above, the portrayal of the horses in Zechariah 1 and 6 is influenced by the portrayal of the creatures/cherubim in the vision reports in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11.62 As in the case of the horses, the links in Zechariah 1; 4; and 6 to Ezekiel 1 and 8–11 do not fall into the category of textual allusions. Rather, Ezekiel’s descriptions of the creatures/cherubim are better viewed as part of the pre-history (in terms of ideas and images) of Zechariah’s vision report.63 Zechariah reused but also altered parts of Ezekiel’s descriptions as he strove to put into words his own visionary experience. Secondly, the image of God’s all-seeing eyes draws on Job 1–2. In many respects, the seven eyes have a corresponding function to that of the Adver55 OPPENHEIM, Eyes of the Lord, 173–180. See further my discussion in T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 187–207. See also REVENTLOW, Sacharja, 59, and W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 95. 56 See also MITCHELL, Zechariah, 163, and NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 111–112. 57 See further T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 189–190, 200. 58 NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 112. 59 SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 613. 60 GREENBERG, Ezekiel’s Vision, 167, IDEM, Ezekiel 1–20, 58. 61 E.g. B LOCK, Book of Ezekiel, 100–101. For the grammatical understanding of Ezek 10.8, see W ALDMAN, Note, 614–618, who understands ‫ וגביהן‬as a casus pendens (cf. vv. 10, 11, 13). 62 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 109–116. 63 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 116.

90

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

sary, 64 as suggested by the shared vocabulary of Zech 4.10b ( ‫המה משוטטים‬ ‫ )בכל הארץ‬with the Adversary’s answer in Job 1.7 ( ‫ויאמר משוט בארץ מהתהלך‬ ‫)בה‬. As the Adversary, the ‘eyes’ in Zechariah 4 ‘roam the earth’ with the aim of gathering information. Summing up, the textual allusions to Ezekiel and Job and the occurrences of ‘eyes’ throughout Zechariah’s vision report together suggest that the ‘eyes’ in Zech 4.10 constitute a symbol of the heavenly host. Turning to the two olive trees in Zech 4.3, 11, 13–14, two key factors make it likely that they are members of the heavenly host. First, the olive trees (vv. 3, 11) are identified in v. 14 as the ‘two sons of oil’ ( ‫שני בני‬ ‫‘ )היצהר‬who are standing before the Lord of the whole earth’ ( ‫העמדים על‬ ‫)אדון כל הארץ‬. The last statement serves to link the two ‘sons of oil’ with the four horses/chariots in 6.5. Identified as the ‘four winds’ (‫)ארבע רחות‬, the horses/chariots are going out into ‘the whole world’ ( ‫מהתיצב על אדון כל‬ ‫)הארץ‬.65 Secondly, the link between the two olive trees and divine beings is further emphasized by the preposition ‫ על‬in v. 3 and the expression ‫ עמד על‬in v. 14. The verb ‫ עמד על‬is elsewhere used in conjunction with heavenly beings who stand around God’s throne (Isa 6.2; 1 Kgs 22.19; cf. Job 1.6 ['‫)]להתיצב על ה‬.66 In particular, the two trees in Zech 4.3, 14 have affinity with the seraphim in Isa 6.2. As the seraphim in Isa 6.2 ‘stand above’ the Lord (‫)שרפים עמדים ממעל לו‬, so the trees are ‘above’ the lamp-stand (v. 3, ‫ )עליה‬and the ‘sons of oil’ ‘stand above’ the Lord of the whole earth (‫)העמדים על אדון כל הארץ‬. Both the seraphim and the trees represent the allseeing power of YHWH’s divine assembly. 67 Furthermore, the expression ‫ וקרא זה אל זה‬in Isa 6.3a may imply that just as there were two trees in Zech 4.10, there were two seraphim in Isa 6.3.68 Based on the accumulated textual evidence, I follow Rose’s conclusion that the ‘sons of oil’ in Zech 4.14 are two members of the divine assembly who ‘stand above’, i.e. ‘attend to’ God.69 7.2 What is the oracular material in Zechariah 4.6aβ–10a doing with the divine beings in the vision account? In the oracular material in vv. 6aβ–10a all the divine beings have disappeared and the imagery has been brought down to a human level. This change is visible on three fronts. First, the oracular material encourages the 64

T IDWELL, Wāʾōmar, 347. Cf. T IEMEYER, Busy Night, 204. 66 JUNKER, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, 141. 67 CARROLL, What Do We Know, 42. 68 METTINGER, Seraphim, 743. 69 ROSE, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 204–207.

65

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

91

reader of the final form of Zechariah 4 to interpret the image of the two olive trees as symbols of the earthly leaders Joshua and Zerubbabel.70 As the oracle in vv. 6aβ–7 is directed towards Zerubbabel, and as the oracle in vv. 8–10a is about Zerubbabel, the reader of the final form of Zechariah 1– 6, reading the vision report and the oracular material together, is led towards identifying one of the trees with the earthly leader Zerubbabel.71 In the same way, the material in Zechariah 3 and 6.9–15 suggests identifying the other tree with Joshua.72 The oracular material thus transforms the trees from divine beings into earthly men. Secondly, and likewise, the oracular material in 4.6aβ–10a transforms the image of the lamp-stand and its eyes from being symbols of God and his heavenly host into a picture of the earthly temple. The reference to the ‘top stone’ (‫ )האבן הראשה‬in v. 7b, as well as the reference to Zerubbabel laying the foundation of ‘this house’ (‫ )ידי זרבבל יסדו הבית הזה‬in v. 9a causes the reader of the final form of Zechariah 4 to identify the lamp-stand with the temple.73 Thirdly, the oracular material in 4.6b further picks up the notion of ‘wind/spirit’ from the eighth vision account (6.5). In 6.5, the image of the ‘wind’ is intertwined with the images of the horses, the chariots, and the eyes. The oracular material in 4.6b, however, emphasizes that it is God’s wind/spirit (‫ )כי אם ברוחי‬who will act directly through the human Zerubbabel.

8. Zechariah 2.1–4 The final two vision accounts to be discussed – Zech 2.1–4 and 5.5–9 – differ from the pattern that we have seen so far in that they lack an oracular component. Beginning with the vision account in Zech 2.1–4, its structure falls easily into two parts; vv. 1–2 and vv. 3–4. The situation is more complicated from an exegetical perspective. It is possible to view v. 4b as a concluding divine oracle, as it culminates the vision account and as it potentially constitutes a divine oracle, depending on how one understands 70

Many scholars read Zech 4 as a unity and allow their interpretation of the oracular material to influence their understanding of the surrounding vision account. See, e.g. B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 119, 125; STEAD, Intertextuality of Zechariah, 172–173, 176; F INITSIS, Visions, 132–133. 71 Cf. W ILLI-P LEIN, Sacharja, 95–96; W ÖHRLE, Die Frühen Sammlungen, 338. 72 The strength of this interpretation is evidenced by the majority of commentaries who identify the two olive trees in Zech 4.14 as Zerubbabel and Joshua. 73 As do a number of scholars. See especially VAN DER W OUDE, Zion as Primeval Stone, 239–240, and O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 192–196.

92

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

the subject of the verb ‫( ויאמר‬which follows the ethnachta). Yet, this reading of the text fails to take into account the special features of the second vision account and thus ultimately does the text an injustice. It is therefore preferable to view Zechariah’s second vision account as unaccompanied by an oracle and thus on a par with the seventh vision account. 8.1 Divine Beings in Zechariah 2.1–4 It is difficult to determine the number of divine beings in the second vision account in Zech 2.1–4. The Interpreting Angel reappears (v. 2). We also, somewhat surprisingly, meet YHWH. The vision account in 2.1–4 stands out from the other vision accounts in that YHWH is an actor within the vision account (v. 3), something which elsewhere occurs only in 3.2. Zechariah 2.3 assigns to YHWH acts which in 1.9 are attributed to the Interpreting Angel. It is furthermore unclear as to whether the speaker in v. 4a (‫ )ויאמר‬is YHWH or the Interpreting Angel.74 Turning to the horns and the artisans, they may qualify as or at least symbolize divine beings. The reference to ‘craftsmen’ (‫ )חרשים‬in Zech 2.3 brings to mind Kothar wa-Hasis, the Ugaritic deity who is smith, craftsman, engineer, architect, and inventor. In Ugarit cosmology, he is part of the four-tiered divine council. As discussed by Smith, the top level contains El and his consort Athirat, the second level contains the rest of the major figures of the pantheon (e.g. Yamm, Anat, Mot, Baal). The third tier is poorly represented in the Ugaritic texts. According to Smith, it is likely that Kothar wa-Hasis belongs there. He serves the upper two tiers of the council, as builder of palaces and maker of weapons. The fourth tier contains minor deities, including the messenger-gods.75 It is, in my view, possible that the imagery of the ‫‘( חרשים‬craftsmen’), the destroyers of nations (v. 3), is influenced by the notion of a craftsman deity whose speciality was to make weapons.

74 The fact that YHWH is the last person mentioned (v. 3) favours seeing God as Zechariah’s interlocutor in v. 4. According to this reading, God would show Zechariah the four ‫( חרשים‬v. 3), Zechariah would ask [God] what they are (v. 4a), and [God] would tell him. In addition, the fact that God has usurped the task of the Interpreting Angel in v. 3 opens the possibility that he is doing the same in v. 4 (Cf. SCHÖTTLER, Gott inmitten seines Volkes, 60; O’BRIEN, Zechariah, 178). The alternative reading, namely that the Interpreting Angel is Zechariah’s interlocutor, is supported by the fact that nothing in v. 4b implies that it is a divine oracle. (In comparison, Zech 5.4 states explicitly that God is taking over from the interpreting angel [v. 3] as the speaker.) Instead, v. 4 continues the train of thought of v. 2. Furthermore, as the task of explaining the visionary impression to Zechariah elsewhere in Zech 1–6 falls on the Interpreting Angel, it is natural to assume that it does so here as well (Cf. PETERSEN, Zechariah, 164). 75 SMITH, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 45–46.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

93

Tigchelaar’s interpretation of Zech 2.1–4 points in the same direction. He sees the vision account as steeped in the language of myth and magical language, and argues that the verb ‫ לידות‬in v. 4 provides the solution to its imagery. On the basis of comparative Semitics, he derives the infinitive ‫ לידות‬from the root ‫ ידי‬which he identified as a cognate of the Ugaritic root ydy, meaning ‘to cast out’ or ‘to expel’. The ‫ חרשים‬in vv. 3–4 are thus given the task of expelling the ‘horns’. This action suggests that the horns are a kind of demons, in the same way as the horns in Dan 7.7–8, 11, 20– 21, 24 are hybrid characters with evil intent which can be likened to demons. The horns in 2.1–2 are thus not nations, or even leaders of nations; rather, they signify demons in charge of and representing the nations.76 Tigchelaar further proposes that the ‫ חרשים‬are skilled workers in the sense that they are experts in uttering spells (analogous to the people in Ezek 21.36 who are ‘skilled in destruction’ [‫)]חרשי משחית‬.77 The combination of the terms ‫ חרש‬and ‫ משחית‬in Isa 54.16 conveys the same nuances of destruction.78 As these ‘craftsmen’ expel the ‘horns’, i.e. the demons, Tigchelaar maintains that the ‘craftsmen’ accordingly must represent heavenly actors who determine the course of history. Zechariah 2.1–4 is steeped in the language of myth and magical language.79 I am not fully convinced by Tigchelaar’s identification of the horns with demons. It is unlikely that Zechariah would have seen demons and then used the term ‘horn’ to describe what he saw. Tigchelaar begins with the divine word and works ‘backwards’ towards the image, thus allowing his interpretation of the images to be influenced by the interpretation in v. 4. Instead, I suggest that Zechariah saw a picture of something akin to four animal horns (v. 1). This image is primary and leads only subsequently to the interpretation of the horns as symbols of earthly powers (v. 2). In contrast, I find Tigchelaar’s interpretation of the craftsmen as symbols of heavenly actors convincing. It gains additional credence when one reads Zech 2.1–4 as the direct continuation of Zech 1.8–11(13). As the account of the horses and the rider standing among the myrtle belongs in a mythological realm, so would the account of the horns and the craftsmen. It therefore cannot be excluded that the horns and the craftsmen in Zech 2.1– 4 represent more than what meets the eye and may in fact denote divine beings. 76

T IGCHELAAR, Prophets of Old, 47–55. The link between Zech 2.3 and Ezek 21.36 is noted by several scholars, among them MERRILL, Zechariah, 101; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 139; ROKAY, Nachtgesichte, 72; DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 93–96, 101. 78 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 174. Cf. also STEAD, Intertextuality of Zechariah, 107, and DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 93–96, 101. 79 T IGCHELAAR, Prophets of Old, 47–55. 77

94

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

8.2 Is there oracular material in Zechariah 2.1–4? As noted above, Zechariah’s second vision report is unaccompanied by any oracular material and it is unlikely that any part of the text is a later interpretation of an earlier stratum. As a result, Zech 2.1–4 stays within the realm of the visionary world and there is no transformation of divine beings into any earthly equivalence. The lack of a clearly defined divine oracle may in part stem from the existence of a degree of explanatory material embedded in the vision account in itself. The horns are identified indirectly in v. 2 as ‘the nations’ and directly in v. 4 as ‘the horns of the nations’. The craftsmen are described as those able to destroy the horns. Beyond that, the vision report does not interpret itself and the function and the identity of the characters involved are never fully elucidated. The extant characters could be other nations, divine beings, or still something else. Furthermore, the horns and the craftsmen are never substituted for something else in the accompanying explanation but remain symbols throughout the vision account.80 Thus, the text never spells out the earthly repercussions of the characters’ actions. Recently Hallaschka has suggested, on the basis of the slight discrepancy in the use of the horn-motif between vv. 1–2 (four specific nations) and 3–4 (nations in general), that the original text only consisted of vv. 3– 4. In that text, God was the sole actor (v. 3) and speaker (v. 4). Verses 1–2 and thus the persona of the Interpreting Angel were added later to the text.81 If Hallaschka’s claim were correct, it would challenge my claim that the later textual layers of Zechariah 1–6 contain fewer divine beings than the earlier ones. However, the problem lies within v. 4 alone: 4bα echoes v. 2 while v. 4bβ adds a new touch to the horn motif.82 To differentiate between vv. 1–2 and vv. 3–4 therefore does not solve the aforementioned discrepancy. With this in mind, it is preferable to treat 2.1–4 as an authorial unity.

9. Zechariah 5.5–11 The seventh vision account in Zech 5.5–11 is similar to the one in 2.1–4 in two respects. First, neither account contains a divine oracle which interprets the visual imagery. Secondly, both accounts contain a relatively high level of explanatory information. In the seventh account, the Interpreting 80 NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 126. From a different perspective but making the same point, see LOVE, The Evasive Text, 136–137. 81 HALLASCHKA, Sacharja, 169. 82 See further T IEMEYER, Review.

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

95

Angel assigns symbolic quality to several of the images (e.g. the woman is wickedness), something which gives the vision account an allegorical quality. This quality is on a par with the situation in the second account wherein the horns are explained as the entities which scattered Judah etc. (2.2).83 Zechariah 5.5–11 contains a large number of divine beings. The Interpreting Angel appears throughout the entire account (vv. 5–6, 8, 10–11). In addition, there is the woman in the ephah, and the two stork-like women (vv. 9–11) who carry her to Shinar. Beginning with the stork-like women, they are most likely some kind of divine beings, akin to the cherubim. This identification is based on three factors. First, the phrase ‘wind in their wings’ (‫)ורוח בכנפיהם‬84 implies that they have wings and that they can fly. This phrase appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Sam 22.11//Ps 18.10 in the context of God riding upon a cherub.85 There, the cherub and the ‘wings of the wind’ are parallel expressions, something which may indicate that ‘wings of the wind’ is an epithet of a cherub (‫על כנפי רוח‬//‫)וירכב על כרוב‬. The same expression appears also in Hos 4.19 in an oracle that blames the Israelites (f. sg.) for idolatry and claims that a wind will bind her up with its wings (‫ )צרר רוח אותה בכנפיה‬so that she will be ashamed. These three examples together make it likely that the two winged women in Zech 5.9 are acting on God’s behalf. Secondly, the women’s task in 5.9–11 is reminiscent of the tasks of the cherubim in Ezekiel 8–11, as well as of those of other divine beings. As the cherubim in Ezek 11.22–23 remove God’s glory from Jerusalem, so the composite creatures in Zech 5.11 remove personified wickedness from the land (of Judah).86 Körting, for example, points out that the two winged women in Zechariah 5 move in the same sphere between heaven and earth as the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 8.3) and the Angel of YHWH (1 Chron 21.16). Thus they are likely to be God’s agents. By carrying the ephah to Babylon, they are doing God’s work which brings salvation to Israel. They are feminine, to set them apart from God and the angels.87 Thirdly, the impression that the women serve God is further strengthened by the double entendre of the Hebrew term ‫ רוח‬which also means ‘spirit’. The ‘wind’ is God’s agent in Gen 8.1; Exod 15.10; Jer 10.13; and 83

Cf. NIDITCH, Symbolic Vision, 168. The m. pl. pronominal suffix may attest to the dominance of the masculine grammatical forms. 85 Cf. MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 305. 86 See further also B ARKER, The Evil in Zechariah, 24–26, and MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah, 305–306. 87 KÖRTING, Sach 5,5–11, 482. See also CURTIS, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 142, who calls them ‘the Bible’s only female angels’, as does SALS, Reading Zechariah 5.5– 11, 199. 84

96

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Num 11.31.88 As Merrill points out, God’s spirit is empowering the two winged women in their current endeavour in the same way as it is strengthening Zerubbabel in Zech 4.6 (‫)כי אם ברוחי‬.89 Along similar lines, Baldwin argues that the link to Zech 4.6 indicates that the removal of ‘wickedness’ is God’s doing.90 Taken together, the comparative textual evidence suggests that the stork-like women in 5.9–11 are God’s agents who carry out his work. Their description is influenced by that of the cherubim, especially in Ezek 8–11, and they can be understood as the cherubim’s female counterpart. As mentioned earlier, there are intriguing similarities in the depiction of the creatures/cherubim in Ezekiel 1 and 8–11, the Adversary in Job 1–2, the horses in Zechariah 1 and 6, and the Adversary in Zechariah 3.91 It is possible that Zechariah understood the stork-like women to fall into the same category of divine beings. If so, then the stork-like women (7th account), the horses (1st and 8th account), the divine beings represented by the eyes of the lamp-stand (5th account), the two ‘sons of oil’ (5th account), and the Adversary (4th account) would all be members of YHWH’s host. Turning to the woman sitting in the ephah, the situation is different. For convincing reasons, she has often been interpreted either as a goddess (e.g. Asherah,92 or Ishtar93) or as a statue of a goddess. What is more uncertain, however, is whether the woman is a goddess or whether she merely represents one. Notably, she is called a woman, i.e. a human being (‫זאת אשה אחת‬, v. 7bα). This textual detail sets the woman in the ephah apart from the divine beings in Zechariah’s vision report. The horses, the olive trees etc., are divine beings in themselves: the trees are ‘the sons of oil’ (vv. 11, 14), and the horses are God’s winds (6.4–5). In contrast, the woman is not a goddess. Instead, she is ‘the wickedness’ (‫)זאת הרשעה‬. The explanation of this difference lies, in my view, in the woman’s status vis-à-vis YHWH. All the divine beings that we have encountered so far in Zechariah 1–6 have been God’s subordinate servants who have carried out his commands. This includes the Adversary who, as a member of the divine assembly, is subordinate to its leader YHWH (3.1–2). In contrast, the woman in the ephah is not affiliated with YHWH and is not part of his entourage. Thus, from the perspective of the author(s) of Zechariah 1–6, she is not a divine being. The fact that the woman in the ephah is explicitly 88

PETERSEN, Zechariah, 259, including n. 7. MERRILL, Zechariah, 156–157. 90 B ALDWIN, Zechariah, 129. 91 T IEMEYER, Zechariah’s Spies, 104–127. 92 EDELMAN, Provoking, 336–337. 93 E.g. DELCOR, La vision de la femme, esp. 143–144; SWEENEY, Twelve Prophets, 620. 89

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

97

identified as a woman (5.7) suggests that Zechariah 1–6 does not allow for divine beings outside YHWH’s host. She might represent a goddess but she is not one. (In contrast, the Adversary in Zechariah 3 is still considered one of YHWH’s associates and thus not a rival independent deity.)

Conclusion Having surveyed Zechariah 1–6, the actual vision report contains a multitude of different divine beings. This is true also for the material in 3.1–5 which may have been written subsequently to the other seven vision accounts. We meet angels as well as other kinds of divine beings (horses, the Adversary, ‘sons of oil’, winged birdlike women) who are members of the divine assembly and parts of YHWH’s host. In contrast, the oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 persistently focuses on YHWH alone. For instance, the vision accounts depict the action as being carried out by divine beings (e.g. 1.8–11; 2.5–8), while the oracular material maintains that YHWH is the principal actor (e.g. 1.13–17; 2.9). In several case the oracular material also transforms the visionary material in order to adapt it to issues ‘down on earth’. For example, scenes from the divine assembly are translated to reflect the earthly temple (Zechariah 3) and divine beings are transformed to be understood as representing earthly persons (Zechariah 4). Reflecting on these differences raises the question as to whether they point to a change of historical circumstances94 or a change of literary genre, or both. I tend towards the last interpretation for two reasons. First, from the perspective of the text of Zechariah 1–6, it is likely that many, if not all, of the verses containing divine oracles stem from chronologically later redactions. As we have seen, the oracular material expands on and interprets the vision accounts (e.g. 1.14–15 interprets 11b; 2.9 interprets 2.8b). At the same time, I do not detect any wider chronological gap between the vision accounts and most of the oracular material. On the contrary, the latter is firmly anchored within the sixth century BCE, as indicated by the focus on the historical characters Zerubbabel and Joshua. Secondly, from the perspective of the rest of the Hebrew Bible as well as the inter-testamental literature and the New Testament, a decrease in terms of references to divine beings in chronologically later texts makes little sense. 94 In this context, I find it unhelpful to speak about authorship. Given our lack of information about Zechariah as a person, it is impossible to distinguish between a situation where Zechariah reinterpreted his earlier vision report and a situation where someone else reinterpreted Zechariah’s vision report. What matters is the chronological aspect, i.e. that one set of texts was written in different social and historical circumstances than another set of texts.

98

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

On the contrary, later Jewish literature testifies to an increased number of references to divine beings, especially to angels. Taken together, these two factors suggest that we should look primarily to the genre of the material. This, in a sense, is self-evident, yet it nevertheless needs to be spelled out. The oracular material in Zechariah 1–6 brings the visionary impression down to earth, making it applicable to the events in Yehud around 520 BCE and thus relevant to the people living at that time. The happenings in the divine assembly had relevance for the audience of the vision report only insofar as it touched their present lives on earth. We may also conclude that the divine imagery throughout all of Zechariah 1–6 is strictly monotheistic. In an even more conspicuous manner than in Pss 82.1–7; 89.6–8 or Exod 15.11, texts which declare YHWH’s supremacy over all other divine beings, no inkling in Zechariah’s vision report hints at a situation where the divine beings would be on a par with YHWH. Instead, they are all subordinate to YHWH and carry out his will. The one exception is the woman in the ephah, yet, as we have seen, her appearance actually confirms the rule. In contrast to both the angels and the nonanthropomorphic divine beings, she is not described as a goddess, even though she may symbolize one. On the contrary, she is a ‘woman’ (v. 7b), i.e. a human being, thus set apart from the divine beings, and she is ‘the wickedness’ (v. 8a), i.e. a personification of and symbol for ethical and religious crime.

Bibliography AMSLER, S. et al., Aggée, Zacharie 1–8; Zacharie 9–14, Malachie (Commentaier de l’ancient Testament XIc), Paris 1981 B ALDWIN, J. G., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TOTC), Leicester 1972 B ARKER, M., The Evil in Zechariah, HeyJ 19 (1978) 12–27 B EHRENS, A., Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung (AOAT 292), Münster 2002 B EUKEN, W. A. M., Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien aur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Frühnachexillischen Prophetie (SSN), Assen 1967 B Ič, M., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (BSt 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964 B LOCK, D. I., The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, Michigan 1997 B ODA, M. J., Haggai, Zechariah (The NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids, Michigan 2004 CARROLL, R. P., So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets’, in: Second Temple Studies. 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period (JSOT.S 175), eds. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, Sheffield 1994, 34–51 CHARY, T., Aggée-Zacharie Malachie (Sources Bibliques) Paris 1969 CURTIS, B. G., Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis (SBLAB 25), Atlanta 2006

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

99

DEISSLER, A., Zwölf Propheten III: Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, Würzburg 1988 DELCOR, M., La vision de la femme dans l’épha de Zach. 5,5–11 à la lumière de la litérature hittite, RHR 187 (1975), 137–145 DELKURT, H., Sacharjas Nachtgesichte: Zur Aufnahme Und Abwandlung Prophetischer Traditionen (BZAW 302), Berlin 2000 EDELMAN, D., Provoking Yahweh Killed His Wife (Zechariah 5.5–11), BibInt 11 (2003) 335–344 FEINBERG, C. L., God Remembers: A Study of Zechariah, Eugene, Oregon 1965 F INITSIS, A., Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historial Analysis of Zechariah 1–6 (LSTS 79), New York 2011 GREENBERG, M., Ezekiel’s Vision: Literary and Iconographic Aspects, in: History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, eds. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, Jerusalem 1984, 159–168 – Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22), Garden City/New York 1983 HALLASCHKA, M., Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW 411), Berlin 2011 HANHART, R., Sacharja (BKAT XIV/7), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19912 J AUHIAINEN, M., Turban and Crown Lost and Regained: Ezekiel 21.29–32 and Zechariah’s Zemah, JBL 127 (2008) 501–511 JEREMIAS, C., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117), Göttingen 1977 J UNKER, H., Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, II (HSAT 8), Bonn 1938 KEEL, O. and C. UEHLINGER, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. T. H. Trapp) Minneapolis 1998 KEIL, C. F., Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (BKAT), Leipzig 1888 KÖRTING, C., Sach 5,5–11 – die Unrechtmässigkeit wird an ihern Ort verwiesen, Biblica 87 (2006), 477–492 KRATZ, R. G., Serubbabel und Joschua, in: IDEM, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004, 79–92 LOVE, M. C., The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1–8 and the Frustrated Reader (JSOT.S 296), Sheffield 1999 MERRILL, E. H., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary, Chicago 1994 METTINGER, T. N. D., Cherubim ‫כרובים‬, DDD, 189–192 – Seraphim ‫שרפים‬, DDD, 742–744 MEYERS, C. L. AND E. M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25b), New York 1987 M ITCHELL, H. G., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah (ICC), Edinburgh 1912 N IDITCH, S., The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30), Chico, California 1980 O’B RIEN, J. M., Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville 2004 OLLENBURGER, B. C., The Book of Zechariah, NIB 7, Nashville 1996, 733–840 OPPENHEIM, A. L., The Eyes of the Lord, JAOS 88 (1968) 173–180 P ARKER, S. B., Council ‫סוד‬, DDD, 204–208 PETERSEN, D. L., Haggai & Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1984 P ONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B., Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (SAAS X), Helsinki 1999

100

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

RANKIN, M., An Introduction to Religious and Spiritual Experience, London/New York 2008 REDDITT, P. L., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC), London 1995 REVENTLOW, H. G., Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD 25,2), Göttingen 1993 R IGNELL, L. G., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja, Lund 1950 ROKAY, Z., Die Nachtgesichte des Propheten Sacharja: Eine einzelexegetische Untersuchung zur Bestimmung ihrer Eigenart, Frankfurt am Main 2011 ROSE, W. H., Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOT.S 304), Sheffield 2000 ROTHSTEIN, J. W., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Studien zur Sacharjaprophetie und zur Jüdischen Geschichte im Ersten Nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWAT 8), Leipzig 1910 RUDOLPH, W., Haggai - Sacharja 1–8 - Sacharja 9–14 - Maleachi (KAT XIII/4), Gütersloh 1976 SALS, U., Reading Zechariah 5.5–11: Prophecy, Gender and (Ap)Perception, in: Prophets and Daniel: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series), ed. A. Brenner, London 2001, 186–205 SCHÖTTLER, H.-G., Gott inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja 1–6 (Trierer theologische Studien 43), Trier 1987 SELLIN, E., Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT 12), Leipzig 1922 SEYBOLD, K., Bilder zum Tempelbau: Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 70), Stuttgart 1974 SMITH, M. S., The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford 2001 STEAD, M. R., The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 506), London 2009 SULLIVAN, K. P., Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 55), Leiden 2004 SWEENEY, M. A., The Twelve Prophets, 2 (Berit Olam), Collegeville, Minnesota 2000 T IDWELL, N. L. A., Wāʾōmar (Zech 3.5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision, JBL 94 (1975), 343–355 T IEMEYER, L.-S., A Busy Night at the Heavenly Court, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 71 (2006), 187–207 – The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3), in: The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C.M. Tuckett, Aldershot 2003, 1–19. – Zechariah’s Spies and Ezekiel’s Cherubim, in: Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah: Tradition in Transition (LHBOTS 475), eds. M.J. Boda and M. Floyd, London/New York 2008, 95–119 – Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT II/19), Tübingen 2006 – Review of Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–8, 2011, Review of Biblical Literature (2012) www.bookreviews.org T IGCHELAAR, E. J. C., Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic (OtS 35), Leiden 1995 UEHLINGER, C., ‘Riding Horseman’, DDD, 705–707. VANDERKAM, J. C., Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3, CBQ 53 (1991) 553–570 W ALDMAN, N. W., A Note on Ezekiel 1.18, JBL 103 (1984) 614–618 W ILLI-P LEIN, I., Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ZBAT 24.4), Zurich 2007

YHWH, the Divine Beings, and Zechariah 1–6

101

W ÖHRLE, J., Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches (BZAW 360), Berlin 2006 W OOD, A., Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim (BZAW 385), Berlin 2008 W OUDE, A. S. VAN DER, Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4, in: Text and Context, ed. W. Claassen, Sheffield 1988, 237–248 ZGOLL, A., Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien (AOAT 333), Münster 2006

The Beginnings of Oneness Theology in Late Israelite Prophetic Literature NATHAN MACDONALD When copying Deut 6.4, the Masoretes enlarged the letter ʿayin in the word ‫ שמע‬at the beginning of the verse, and the letter dāleth in ‫ אחד‬at its end. By this practice, known to scholars as littera majuscula, they not only emphasized the statement that ‘YHWH is one’, but also marked it off as something different. They were right to do so. The rhythmic prose of Deuteronomy appears designed to remove any uncertainty about its meaning. It constantly repeats its main themes with only minor variations. The book’s authors intended to leave their intended readers with no doubt as to their appropriate response to the Deuteronomic parenesis. In contrast 6.4 is succinct and ambiguous. As a result it has generated a scholarly literature out of proportion to its modest size. One of the areas about which there is continued disagreement is the significance of the word ‫אחד‬, ‘one’. What does it mean to affirm of Israel’s deity YHWH that he is ‘one’? The import of this statement in the context of Deuteronomy and its historical origins is far from clear and remains a matter of considerable debate, though we can say with certainty that Israel’s wholehearted devotion to YHWH is presented as the primary consequence in the book as we have it now (6.5). Ambiguity is the midwife of exegesis, and the history of interpretation amply demonstrates that many have sought to correct Deuteronomy’s reticence and explicate the significance of ‫אחד‬. In this essay I want to examine some of the earliest explorations of what I am going to call oneness theology, by which I mean theological reflection on the predication of God as ‘one’, and particularly the correlation of God’s singularity with the singularity of other things. The earliest evidence for this kind of reasoning outside of Deuteronomy 6 is to be found in the Hebrew Bible, and more specifically in Zechariah 14 and Malachi 2. In the following paper I want to examine those late prophetic texts, but before I do so I want to sketch the broader context of reflection on Deut 6.4 in the Second Temple period.

104

Nathan MacDonald

1. ‫ יהוה אחד‬in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism Although it is widely assumed that Deut 6.4 was a programmatic statement for both the earliest version of Deuteronomy and for the Deuteronomic reform movement, the evidence is far less compelling when examined closely. Summaries of Deuteronomy’s theology along the lines of ‘one God for one people in one land observing one cult’1 too easily elide the fact that Deuteronomy does not use ‫ אחד‬as a Leitwort. The sanctuary and the people are frequently described as ‘chosen’ (‫ ;)בחר‬they are not said to be ‘one’.2 Similar problems confront us if we raise our eyes from Deuteronomy to examine Israelite history. Albertz confidently asserts that ‘“Hear, Israel, Yahweh, our God, Yahweh is one” (Deut 6.4) was the reform slogan which was hammered home to the population time and again in public pronouncement (cf. 20.2).’3 Such a claim is belied by the absence of the expression ‘YHWH is one’ in the history that runs from Joshua to 2 Kings. Surely we would expect a constantly repeated reform slogan to have made more of an impact on a consciously deuteronomistic history. The preferred form of monotheistic affirmation, however, is ‘YHWH is God (‫’)האלהים‬, or something similar.4 It might be argued that we only find ‘YHWH is God’ because it was a more adequate statement of monotheism than Deut 6.4, which is usually judged to be no more than a monolatrous affirmation. Not only does this credit the ancient writers with the subtlety of our modern distinctions, but it hardly explains the absence of a statement that could have been judged at worse inadequate, certainly not heterodox so as to warrant its suppression. Thus, although Deut 6.4 has a prominent position in the book of Deuteronomy as we now have it, appearing immediately after the Decalogue, this does not appear to have influenced the literature preserved from ancient Israel and the early Second Temple period. An intriguing echo of Deut 6.4 is found in 2 Sam 7.22–23.5 In a prayer David lauds YHWH as incomparable and unique. ‘There is no one like you, and there is no God besides you (‫( ’)כי־אין כמוך ואין אלהים יולתך‬7.22). This is followed by a state1

GOTTWALD, Hebrew Bible, 390. Römer’s attempt to associate Deut 6.4 with ‘in one (‫ )באחד‬of your tribes’ (Deut 12.14) is far from convincing (RÖMER, Cult Centralization, 170). The use of ‫ אחד‬in 12.14 is not in a rhetorically prominent position, and Deuteronomy makes no special appeal to Judah as the ‘one’ tribe. 3 ALBERTZ, History of Israelite Religion, 206. 4 Deut 4.35, 39; 7.9; 2 Sam 7.28; 1 Kgs 8.60; 18.37, 39; 2 Kgs 19.15, 19 (cf. Josh 2.11; 2 Kgs 5.15). For a discussion of the monotheistic statements in the deuteronomistic history see P AKKALA, Intolerant Monolatry; P AKKALA, Monotheism. 5 For the distinctions between citation, allusion and echo see T OOMAN, Gog of Magog, 4–10, and the literature cited by him. 2

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

105

ment about the incomparability and uniqueness of Israel. ‘Who is like your people Israel? One nation in the earth whose gods went to redeem it as a people for himself ( ‫ומי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ אשר הלכו־אלהים לפדות־לו‬ ‫( ’)לעם‬7.23).6 A connection was certainly made between these texts by the time of the Babylonian Talmud for according to b. Ber. 6a YHWH wears a phylactery containing the words of 2 Sam 7.23. Thus, this verse from David’s prayer was understood as a counterpart to the Shema. It is more natural, though, to take ‫ גוי אחד בארץ‬as a generic description. ‘One of the indistinguishable nations (gôy ʾeḥād) becomes a people (leʿām)’.7 A stronger case can be made for Sennacherib’s speech before the walls of Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Chronicles. Sennacherib mocks Hezekiah’s call to cultic reform: ‘You shall worship before one altar and burn incense upon it (‫( ’)לפני מזבח אחד תשתחוו ועליו תקטירו‬2 Chron 32.12). This appears to be quite a late revision as Chronicles in the LXX and the parallels in Isaiah 36 and 2 Kings 18 read ‘before this alter’ ( ‫לפני המזבח‬ ‫)הזה‬.8 The taunt from the Sennacherib of Chronicles could be viewed as a description of the cult centralization of Deuteronomy 12 with the language of the Shema. This is by no means certain. The word ‫ אחד‬is common enough, and there are no other obvious echoes of the Shema in Sennacherib’s speech. Still more compelling are the cases of Zech 14.9 and Mal 2.10–16 which I will examine in more detail shortly. For our present purposes it is worth noting that the intertwined redactional history of Deutero-Zechariah and Malachi means that we may not be dealing with two independent allusions to Deut 6.4.9 For earlier scholarship the scant evidence of Deut 6.4’s influence within the Hebrew Bible would not have been too disconcerting. Israel’s scriptures contained a variety of traditions whose preservation were the result of the vicissitudes of history. Even so, the absence of 6.4 in the vast swathes 6

1 Chron 17.21, removing the syntactical problems, reads ‫ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ‬ ‫אשר הלך האלהים לפדות־לו עם‬. The LXX translator read, or had a text before him that read, ‫אחר‬: καὶ τίς ὡς ὁ λαός σου Ισραηλ ἔθνος ἄλλο ἐν τῇ γῇ. Wellhausen emended the Hebrew text according to the LXX (WELLHAUSEN, Bücher Samuelis, 173.). 7 ESLINGER, House of God, 78. Contra B AUCKHAM, Jesus and the God of Israel, 105. For similar use, see also 1 Chron 29.1. 8 The textual witnesses evidence considerable variety. Isa 36.7 in MT reads ‫לפני המזבח‬ ‫הזה תשתחוו‬, but is lacking in LXX; as the shortest form it has good claim to being the earliest. 2 Chron 32.12 and 2 Kgs 18.22 witness two different expansions that specify the location of the altar more precisely. The Septuagint translator of 2 Chron 32.12 appears to have had a manuscript which read as 1 Kings 18.22, for LXX translates κατέναντι τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τούτου προσκυνήσετε καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ θυµιάσετε. 9 Steck attributes Zech 14 and Mal 2.13–16 to the same redactional layer, his Fortschreibung III, with vv. 10-12 a later addition (STECK, Der Abschluß, 42–60).

106

Nathan MacDonald

of literature influenced by Deuteronomy should certainly have caused pause for thought.10 As Lohfink and Bergmann note, ‘there are many keywords in the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic vocabulary which are often repeated in this material, but yhvh ’elohenu yhvh ’echadh, “Yahweh our God, Yahweh is unique”, is not one of these’. The absence of the Shema is more telling in the context of recent scholarship which continues to uncover extensive evidence of inner-biblical interpretation. In addition, the picture is consistent with evidence from later in the Second Temple period. If we turn to the finds from Qumran, the evidence for reflection upon 6.4 is equally lacking. Sprungmann and Schlenke’s recent article for the Theologisches Wörterbuch zu Qumran summarizes the evidence: ‘Die Durchsicht des überlieferten Materials zeigt deutlich das Fehlen einer monotheistischen Formel (vgl. Dtn 6,4). Es gibt in den Belegstellen keine Wendung der Art ‫יהוה אחד‬. Gleichsam bemerkenswert ist, dass keine besondere Betonung der qumranischen Gemeinde als von Gott auserwählter (‫ )אחד‬Gemeinschaft ausfindig gemacht werden kann’.11 This is despite the fact that 6.4 frequently appears amongst the roster of text found in the tefellin and mezuzot from Qumran. Its preservation there, though, is due not so much to its perceived theological importance, but rather the instruction in Deuteronomy 6 to fix ‘these words’ on the forehead and write them on the doorposts and gates (vv. 8–9). Where oneness theology does play an important role is in late second temple Jewish literature which shows the influence of Hellenistic literature or addresses a Gentile audience: the Sibylline Oracles, Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament. As Guerra observes, oneness theology provided ‘a bridge between their religion and the growing theological consensus of the contemporary educated gentile of the Hellenistic period’.12 The resonance of the Shema with some philosophical thinking meant that the words of some Greek writers could be appropriated with ease, as when Philo cites Philolaus in De Opificio Mundi. ‘There is…a supreme ruler of all things, God, ever one, abiding, without motion, himself (alone) like unto himself, different from all others’.13 Similarly Josephus presents Moses teaching the Israelites that God was ‘single and uncreated and immutable through all eternity, more beautiful than any mortal form, known to us by his power, 10

LOHFINK AND B ERGMANN, ‫’ ֶא חָד‬echādh, 196. SPRUNGMANN AND SCHLENKE, ‫’ ֶא חָד‬æḥād, 141. 12 GUERRA, Romans, 94. 13 Ἔστι γάρ, φησίν, ἡγεµὼν καὶ ἄρχων ἁπάντων θεὸς εἷς ἀεὶ ὤν, µόνιµος, ἀκίνητος, αὐτὸς αὑτῷ ὅµοιος, ἕτερος τῶν ἄλλων (§100; translation according to COLSON AND W HITTAKER, Philo I). We may compare Aristobalus’ appropriation of the poems of Orpheus and Aratus, in which he replaced Zeus with the word God (GUERRA, Romans, 97– 99). 11

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

107

but as to what he is like in essence, unknown.’14 The affinity with Greek philosophical reflection on the divine is readily apparent, but Josephus claims priority for Moses, and suggests that he can prove Greek philosophy’s dependence on the Hebrew lawgiver. Theological reflection on the oneness of Israel’s god within this literature is highly developed. In the Sibylline Oracles and Philo, God as one relates particularly to God’s creation of the world15 and his universal rule.16 For Philo, one ruler is better than many, and there is ‘one creator, and one father, and one master of the universe’.17 In Philo and Josephus we find associations made between the divine singularity and the singularity of the temple and God’s people. Thus, Philo writes that ‘as God is one, his temple also should be one’, and attributes the Israelite’s unity to their belief in one God.18 Josephus similarly claims that there should be ‘One temple of the one God (Εἷς ναὸς ἑνὸς θεοῦ) – for like is always attracted to like’.19 In the Antiquities Josephus rephrases the beginning of the Deuteronomic law in the following manner: Let there be, in the fairest part of the land of the Chananaians, one holy city (ἱερὰ πόλις ἔστω µία) that is renowned for its excellence, whichever God selects for Himself through prophecy; and let there be one Temple (νεὼς εἷς) in it and one altar of stones (βωµὸς εἷς ἐκ λίθων) that are not hewn but chosen and joined together, which, smeared with whitewash, will be appealing and clean to view. Let the access to this be not by steps but by a sloping ramp. In another city let there be neither an altar nor a temple, for God is one and the stock of the Hebrews one (θεὸς γὰρ εἷς καὶ τὸ Ἑβραίων γένος ἕν).20

14

ἕνα αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνε καὶ ἀγένητον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀίδιον χρόνον ἀναλλοίωτον πάσης ἰδέας θνητῆς κάλλει διαφέροντα καὶ δυνάµει µὲν ἡµῖν γνώριµον (Against Apion 2.167; translation according to B ARCLAY, Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 263–264). For the possibility that ἕνα was a scribal addition, see the discussion in Ibid, 263 n. 643. We might also compare Josephus’ statement about God’s attributes with Sib. Or. 2.219–220; 3.11–12; frag 1.7–11. 15 Sib. Or. frag 3.3–5; Plant 31, 137; Conf 170; Fug 71; Decal 155; Spec 1.30. 16 Sib. Or. 2.219; 3.11; frag 1.7, 32; Op 171; Cher 83, 119; Conf 170; Decal 155; Spec 1.14; Deus 159. 17 Conf. 170; cf. Decal 155. 18 Spec 1.67; Virtue 35. 19 Εἷς ναὸς ἑνὸς θεοῦ, φίλον γὰρ ἀεὶ παντὶ τὸ ὅµοιον (Against Apion 2.193; translation according to B ARCLAY, Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 279). 20 ἱερὰ πόλις ἔστω µία τῆς Χαναναίων γῆς ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ δι᾽ ἀρετὴν ἐπιφανεῖ, ἣν ἂν ὁ θεὸς ἑαυτῷ διὰ προφητείας ἕληται, καὶ νεὼς εἷς ἐν ταύτῃ ἔστω, καὶ βωµὸς εἷς ἐκ λίθων µὴ κατειργασµένων, ἀλλὰ λογάδην συγκειµένων, οἳ κονιάµατι χρισθέντες εὐπρεπεῖς τε εἶεν καὶ καθάριοι πρὸς τὴν θέαν. ἡ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦτον πρόσβασις ἔστω µὴ διὰ βαθµίδων, ἀλλὰ προσχώσεως αὐτῷ καταπρανοῦς γενοµένης. ἐν ἑτέρᾳ δὲ πόλει µήτε βωµὸς µήτε νεὼς ἔστω: θεὸς γὰρ εἷς καὶ τὸ Ἑβραίων γένος ἕν (Antiquities 4.200–201; translation according to FELDMAN, Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 398–400).

108

Nathan MacDonald

In both citations Josephus employs a terse, verbless phrase (Εἷς ναὸς ἑνὸς θεοῦ and θεὸς γὰρ εἷς καὶ τὸ Ἑβραίων γένος ἕν) which is reminiscent of the lapidary style of Deut 6.4. Expressions of oneness theology are also to be found in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians Paul insists that ‘for us there is one God, the father…and one Lord, Jesus Christ’ (8.6),21 as well as ‘for in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…and we were all made to drink of one Spirit’ (12.13).22 In Ephesians we find yet another mostly verbless affirmation, ‘one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all’ (Eph 4.4–6).23 As with Philo and Josephus the unity of God’s people is compared to the divine singularity. In concluding our review of late Israelite and Second Temple texts, it is apparent that Deut 6.4 plays a far less prominent role within them than it does in the subsequent Wirkungsgeschichte in both Judaism and Christianity. Undoubtedly, at some point during the Second Temple period worship of only one God became one of the defining features of Judaism, but the affirmation ‘YHWH is one’ only slowly become the basis of significant theological reflection. This only changes in literature that engaged Greek and later Roman culture in a marked manner. Here, Jewish and Christian writers recognized a point of agreement which could be developed for apologetic purposes.

2. ‫ אב אחד‬and ‫ אל אחד‬in Mal 2.10–16 The reflections of Philo, Josephus and the New Testament writers did not spring from virgin soil. Rare though they be, there are a few places in the Old Testament where reflection upon the oneness of YHWH is to be found: Zech 14.9 and Mal 2.10-16. I shall consider both passages in turn, beginning with Malachi 2. All interpreters agree that Mal 2.10–16 is an extremely difficult passage to interpret, and as a result a significant body of literature has grown up which attempts to resolve the difficulties. As Zehnder observes, the problems are concentrated in vv. 15–16: ‘in the insecurities about the textual transmission of verse 15 on the one hand and the linguistic obscurity of

21

ἀλλ’ ἡµῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ…καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι ἡµεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶµα ἐβαπτίσθηµεν…καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν. 23 Ἐν σῶµα καὶ ἐν πνεῦµα, καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν µίᾳ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑµῶν· εἷς κύριος, µία πίστις ἑν βάπτισµα, εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων. 22

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

109

verse 16 on the other’.24 One important feature that is apparent on even the most cursory of readings is that the passage deals with two issues. Verse 11 condemns Judah for marrying ‘the daughter of a foreign god’, whilst vv. 14–16 criticizes those who have been faithless to the wife of their youth. For those who understand marriage to ‘the daughter of a foreign god’ as worship of a female deity, the difference between the two offences is especially clear. But this is also true if ‘the daughter of a foreign god’ is understood to be a human.25 Judeans marrying foreign wives and divorcing their first (Jewish) wives are not two sides of the same coin. A causal connection between the two only holds in a society where marriage is monogamous, which does not seem to have been the case in Persian period Yehud. One proposal that has received much support within scholarship is that all or part of vv. 11–13 is secondary. As well as the different issues – divorce and foreign wives – we may note the following other indicators of redactional activity. First, there is a move from the first person plural in v. 10 to third person singular in v. 11. It should be observed, however, that there is considerable movement in the addressees in this disputation, however we assess its literary integrity. In vv. 13–16, for example, we find both the second person singular and plural. Secondly, elsewhere in Malachi the disputation form consists of a statement followed by a question from the people and then YHWH’s reply. In Malachi 2 the people’s question is delayed until v. 14. The postponement seems to be a result of the presence of vv. 11–13. Thirdly, vv. 14–16 are tightly linked to v. 11 through the words ‘covenant’ (‫)ברית‬, ‘faithless’ (‫)בגד‬, and ‘one’ (‫)אחד‬. Of these only ‫ בגד‬appears in vv. 11–13. Fourthly, as we shall see, vv. 11–13 show considerable evidence of inner-biblical allusion. This phenomenon is not as prominent in vv. 14–16, and the texts to which allusion is made are different. The Original Disputation in Malachi 2.10, 14–16 The prophet’s disputation with the people begins with two rhetorical questions that frame the accusation. By means of these questions the prophet insists that the people have a single father and a single God. The two questions are parallel: YHWH is father and God.26 The reference to the covenant 24

ZEHNDER, Fresh Look, 224. Zehnder is not alone in describing these alternatives as ‘figurative’ and ‘literal’ interpretations (IBID, 225). Both descriptions are rather ill-chosen. 26 The Septuagint represents a different, subsequent interpretative tradition that reversed the terms, οὐχὶ θεὸς εἷς ἔκτισεν ὑµᾶς οὐχὶ πατὴρ εἷς πάντων ὑµῶν, and probably understood the reference to ‘one father’ to be the patriarch Abraham. The elevation of God before father is clearly an instance of lectio facilior. Nevertheless, this is itself an 25

110

Nathan MacDonald

of our fathers makes it clear that the ‘us’ of v. 10 is Israel, and not the whole world. Consequently, what is in view is not a universal fatherhood or the creation of the earth, but the creation of Israel. There are a number of notable similarities with Deuteronomy 32 and the second half of Isaiah. In Deut 32.6 God is the father who created Israel, and YHWH is identified as El (vv. 4, 18). In the book of Isaiah, YHWH is referred to as the creator (‫ )ברא‬of Israel (Isa 43.1, 7, 15), there are frequent uses of the divine name El and the communal lament in Isa 63.7–64.11 refers to YHWH as father and creator.27 Both Deuteronomy 32 and the second half of Isaiah exhibit what we might call a monotheistic rhetoric. Though neither text identifies God as ‘one’, Malachi 2 makes that association, apparently blending various texts that tell of YHWH’s uniqueness together. The prophet accuses the people of acting faithlessly with one another, by violating the covenant.28 The verb ‫ בגד‬is repeated five times in Mal 2.10–16 and is the prophet’s principal criticism of the people. ‫ בגד‬is a particularly suitable term for Malachi’s message, since it can be used of marital infidelity – of human relationships,29 but also metaphorically of the divine-human relationship30 – and of unfaithfulness in other interpersonal relationships.31 A particularly close parallel to Malachi 2 is to be found in Ps 73.15 where the Psalmist corrects his speech, reasoning, ‘If I had said, ‘I will speak thus’, I would have betrayed the circle of your children ( ‫הנה‬ ‫’)דור בניך בגדתי‬. Similarly, in Mal 2.10 the prophet complains about behavior that is a betrayal of a family that consists of brothers (‫)איש באחיו‬ and has ‘one father’ (‫ )אב אחד‬and shared ancestors (‫)אבתינו‬. Although the prophet’s accusation will focus on divorce and unfaithfulness to a wife, the betrayal is primarily conceived of as communal disloyalty. Malachi’s imagined audience cannot understand how they have violated the covenant, and ask ‘on what basis?’ (‫ ;על־מה‬v. 14). The prophet points to marital unfaithfulness claiming that YHWH is a witness between ‘you and the wife of your youth’ (v. 14). Although the Hebrew is clear enough, the verse has provoked a great deal of discussion about whether marriage was considered a covenant in early Judaism. The prior mention of a covenant with the fathers in v. 10, together with the rather thin evidence for marinteresting piece of inner-biblical exegesis and an example of oneness theology that interprets Mal 2.10 in light of references to Abraham as ‘one’ in Isa 51.2 and Ezek 33.24. It also understands the creation account in Genesis 1 as the activity of the ‘one God’, though Genesis 1 speaks only of ‘God’ (‫)אלהים‬, not ‘one God’. 27 WEYDE, Prophecy and Teaching, 221–222; KESSLER, Maleachi, 191. 28 For the use of ‫ חלל‬with ‫ ברית‬see Pss 55.20; 89.34. In such instances it might be better translated into English as ‘violate’ (so already BDB, 320). 29 See esp. Exod 21.8; Jer 3.20 30 See esp. Jer 3.8, 20; 5.11; 9.2; Hos 5.7 31 See esp. Judg 9.23; 12.6; Ps 59.5; Job 6.15; Prov 25.29; Lam 1.2.

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

111

riage as a covenant elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, speaks against this understanding.32 What, then, was this ‘covenant of our ancestors’? Although the expression ‫ ברית אבתינו‬is only otherwise found in Deut 4.31, there are striking parallels with Gen 31.43–54. Laban and Jacob make a covenant with one another, and God is called as a witness between the two (‫;אלהים עד ביני בינך‬ v. 51). Since Jacob has chosen to leave Laban’s household and return home to Canaan, Laban requires Jacob’s oath as surety that the status and inheritance of his daughters and grandchildren are not endangered. From Laban’s perspective his actions secure the property he adjudges to be his, whilst from the perspective of the reader who has the entire narrative of Genesis in view they also ensure that the ancestry of the twelve tribes is kept pristine. Jacob, unlike his brother Esau, will not marry into the surrounding Canaanite groups. Since Mal 1.2 shows familiarity with the story of Jacob from Genesis, it is conceivable that this is also true of 2.14.33 If this is the case, Malachi insists that Jacob’s covenant with Laban has enduring implications. Jacob’s descendants must remain faithful to the marital relationships within the covenant. It is not just the wives who are victims of betrayal, but also the fathers of these daughters, the brother Israelites of which v. 10 speaks. Unfortunately the following verse is extremely difficult to interpret, and it is possible that the text was corrupted at an early stage in its transmission. Particularly difficult is the opening expression ‫ולא אחד‬. The issues are summarized by Meinhold: ‘es ist alles andere als eindeutig, was dieser Ausdruck darstellt und meint, ob er Subjekt oder Objekt des Satzes ist, den er beginnt, ob es um Gott oder einen Menschen als Subjekt geht und ob es sich um einen Aussage- oder um einen Fragesatz handelt. Entsprechend uferlos sind die Deutungsversuche’.34 The different lines of interpretation can be distinguished by their understanding of the two uses of ‫אחד‬. First, both instances of ‫ אחד‬can be understood as the ideal Jewish husband. Thus Meinhold and Kessler offer similar translations, which could be rendered 32 Hugenberger’s detailed monograph is still the most comprehensive defence of this position (HUGENBERGER, Marriage). The difficulties are apparent in Hugenberger’s attempt to demonstrate that other biblical texts identify marriage as a covenant. There are relatively few texts to which Hugenberger can appeal. In two cases (Hos 2 and Ezek 16) Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant is described in terms of adultery, and the analogy drawn between David’s covenant with Jonathan, and his relationship to Michal is far from convincing. This leaves Prov 2.17 which has a number of similarities to Mal 2 and should probably be understood in a similar manner. 33 Note also that Mal 3.6 probably presupposes the story of Jacob, since ‫ בני יעקב‬only otherwise occurs in the book of Genesis and texts that refer to some part of the Jacob story (1 Kgs 18.31; 2 Kgs 17.34; Mal 3.6; Pss 77.15; 105.16; 1 Chron 16.13). 34 MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 179.

112

Nathan MacDonald

in English as: ‘No one does this, if he has a remnant of reason. What is the one? A seeker of godly seed’.35 The verse is a rhetorical appeal that sees bearing godly seed for the people, the ancestors and YHWH as the true end of Jewish marital unions. The advantage of this translation is that it follows MT, including the punctuation, without alteration. A second line of interpretation understands both instances of ‫ אחד‬to refer to YHWH. ‘Did not one make (her), and the remnant of spirit is his. What is the one seeking? Godly seed.’ Some interpreters understand ‫ שאר‬as ‘flesh’ and translate the second clause as ‘and flesh and spirit are his’. Although there are other ways of understanding the verse when translated this way, it is often understood as an allusion to the creation of woman in Genesis 2. The verse presses the logic of ‘one God created us’ (v. 10), where us includes both sexes. If an allusion to Genesis 2 is to be found, we have the earliest evidence of Genesis 1–2 being related to one-ness theology. The problem with such proposals, though, is that they must emend the text. First of all, ‫ ולא‬must be emended to ‫הלא‬, and the translation ‘flesh and spirit’ demands an additional waw before ‫רוח‬. A third line of interpretation understands the first ‫ אחד‬as a man, and the second as YHWH. Thus Hugenberger offers the translation, ‘Did he not make one, with a remnant of the spirit belonging to it? And what was the One seeking? A godly seed!’36 Such a translation suggests a play on ‘one’ such that the ‘one God’ produces ‘one’ married couple for the purpose of creating godly seed. The difficulty with Hugenberger’s translation is that in the first clause ‫ לא‬modifies ‫אחד‬, rather than ‫עשה‬. The diversity of opinion indicates the difficult nature of the problem. My own instinct is to follow the third line of interpretation – ‫ אחד‬has different referents – but avoid the problems with Hugenberger’s rendering of the verse by following the translation of Meinhold and Kessler in the first two clauses. ‘No one does this, if he has a remnant of spirit. What is the One seeking? Godly seed’. The most significant objection to such a translation is that it does not maintain a consistent referent for ‫אחד‬. It does, however, require no emendations of the consonantal text, and keeps the play between various words. First, as we have already seen, there is a play between ‘one’ and ‘the One’, which has already been highlighted as a keyword in v. 10. The human one has to align himself with the ‘One God’ who has created the people and seeks their continued flourishing through marriage alliances within the covenant. The man who behaves otherwise is a ‘not one’, negating what the ‘One God’ desires. Secondly, there appears to be an additional word play between ‘remnant of spirit’ (‫ )שאר רוח‬and ‘take heed concerning your spirit’ (‫)נשמרתם ברוחכם‬, the exhortation that 35 36

See Ibid, 174, 181; KESSLER, Maleachi, 185. HUGENBERGER, Marriage, 133.

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

113

occurs twice in vv. 15–16. Since the exhortation ‘to take heed concerning your spirit’ is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, I think it a distinct possibility that it was coined to provide a link. In texts from the Second Temple period the spirit is the vital force that is breathed into humans and animals at creation and departs at death. The implied threat may be that the one God who has created and fathered the people can also take back the life he has bestowed. The passage emphasizes the integral relationship between YHWH and his people. First, the reference to ‘godly seed’ (‫ )זרע אלהים‬stresses the familial understanding of this relationship. As the one father, YHWH is portrayed as intimately concerned with the propagation of his family. The children are to share the characteristics of the father; they are to be godly (‫)אלהים‬. Second, the Israelites partake of the ‘spirit’ (‫)רוח‬. As the one God, YHWH has imparted the ‘spirit’ upon his creation, Israel. The concluding verse of the disputation is also difficult. Should ‫ כי‬be translated as a causal, a conditional, or as an asseverative? Should the words ‫ שנא‬and ‫ שלח‬be emended, and how should they be understood? On the first issue, Tångberg has draw attention to parallels in the Deuteronomistic History where an exhortation is followed by an admonition (Deut 2.4–5; 4.15; Josh 23.11). The following clause beginning with ‫ כי‬has a motivating function, and thus ‫ כי‬should be translated as a causal, ‘for’.37 Since YHWH is the speaker many interpreters have wanted to emend ‫ שנא‬to ‫‘ שנאתי‬I hate divorce’, a position that accords to the traditional Christian interpretation that finds here a categorical rejection of divorce. Evidence from Elephantine and elsewhere, however, shows that ‫ שנא‬was used in divorce, and, thus, the Israelite male should be identified as the person ‘hating’. Such an individual is said to have covered his garment with ‫חמס‬. This clause has also generated much discussion. Does it refer to ‘spreading a cloak’ over a wife, is it a cultic expression (cf. v. 13), or a metaphorical expression for a person’s character? The metaphorical uses of ‫ חמס‬in Ps 104.6, Job 38.9 and Prov 31.25 suggest that we should favour the latter option. What exactly is ‫ ?חמס‬Petersen rightly observes that the usual translation ‘violence’ is inappropriate for it implies physical abuse and nothing else in the passage implies that abuse is in view.38 It is particularly striking that ‫ חמס‬can be used in the Hebrew Bible in relation to speech that

37

T ÅNGBERG, Die Prophetische Mahnrede, 137. PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14, 195. Haag rightly observes that the Septugaint translators prefer to render ‫ חמס‬with terms that suggest ‘injustice and disobedience to the law’, more than violence (HAAG, ‫ חמס‬Hamas). 38

114

Nathan MacDonald

results in wrongdoing or oppression.39 Especially close to Mal 2.16 is Prov 13.2 which in relation to speech associates ‘unfaithfulness’, ‫בגד‬, and ‫חמס‬. Malachi 2.10–16 is often interpreted as an absolute rejection of divorce, which is thought to come into conflict with Deut 24.1–4, a ruling that permits divorce without cause. I would suggest that the concern in Malachi 2 is somewhat different to that in Deuteronomy 24. The Jewish bills of marriage from Elephantine, which are roughly contemporary with Malachi’s composition, show a concern to protect the property rights of the spouse and children should either husband or wife end the marriage.40 This is the same concern that we find expressed in Gen 31.43–54, a text that appears to be alluded to in Mal 2.14. Thus, the problem that the disputation confronts is the use of divorce to disinherit those within the covenant people. Malachi 2.16 condemns the words of divorce uttered by a husband and father who seeks to dispossess his wife and children, presumably in favour of another wife and her children. The one father-one God theology of v. 10 grounds the inviolable rights of those who are born into the covenant community. The Canonical Re-interpretation of Malachi 2.11–12 (13) One of the characteristic features of vv. 11–12 is its deployment of lexemes, phrases, and ideas derived from elsewhere in the Old Testament. The interpretative insertion assimilates the pericope to the canonical rejection of intermarriage and idolatry. Particularly important in this process of reinterpretation is the Pentateuch, which is known in a version that includes both deuteronomistic and H texts. For this reason I have chosen to speak of these verses as a canonical reinterpretation and their composer as the canonical interpreter. The canonical interpreter takes his cue from the words ‫ בגד‬and ‫חלל‬. In the original oracle ‫ בגד‬refers to the act of unfaithfulness by the Israelite husbands to their wives, whilst ‫ חלל‬relates to the violation of the covenant. Both terms have been re-orientated in vv. 11–12. First, the subject of ‫בגד‬ becomes female Judah. This alludes to Jeremiah’s prophecies where Israel and Judah are portrayed as unfaithful sisters. Clearly, the familiar marital metaphor of the prophets is being drawn upon, though Mal 2.11 never explicitly identifies YHWH as the injured party.41 This is implied with the phrase ‘commit abomination’ (‫)עשה תועבה‬, which is also used in Deut 39

E.g. Exod 23.1; Deut 19.16; Isa 53.9; Ezek 22.26; Mic 6.12; Zeph 1.9; Ps 27.12; 35.11; 55.10; 58.3; 140.2, 12; Job 16.17; 21.27; Prov 10.11; 13.2; 16.28. 40 See TAD B2.6, B3.3, B3.5 (P ORTEN AND YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents). 41 KESSLER, Maleachi, 193.

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

115

13.15 and 17.4.42 In Deuteronomy ‫ תועבה‬is that which causes an affront to 43 YHWH. Second, ‫ חלל‬now bears the sense of cultic infringement, ‘to profane’, a use familiar from the Holiness Code. It is not entirely clear what has been profaned. ‫ קדש יהוה‬could refer to the temple, the holy things in general, or the people.44 The sacrilegious action is done by a male Judah: he has married the daughter of a foreign god. Exactly what this means is disputed. Some scholars think that worship of a foreign goddess is in view, whilst others find a reference to intermarriage.45 The strongest argument for interpreting ‫ בת־אל נכר‬as a goddess is the unparalleled expression. If a foreign wife was in view, we might have expected ‫( נשים נכריות‬e.g. 1 Kgs 11.1, 8; Ezra 10.2; Neh 13.26). The case for interpreting ‫ בת־אל נכר‬as a reference to intermarriage is much more compelling. The identification of a nation as the children of the national deity is not unknown: Moabites are called the sons and daughters of Chemosh in Num 21.29, and the Israelites are called the ‘sons of YHWH’ on a number of occasions in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Deut 14.1). In addition, the prophetic disputation begins by affirming that the Judeans have ‘one father’ (‫)אב אחד‬, that is, the ‘one God’ (‫)אל אחד‬. If the Judeans alone share this common paternity, then anyone else must be the child of an ‫אל נכר‬. Thus, ‫ אל נכר‬is being used here by the canonical interpreter as a contrast term to ‫אל אחד‬.46 The application of impurity language to illicit marriages appears in other Persian-period texts. Ezra 9, which is concerned with intermarriage, is particularly anxious about the danger of ‘abomination’ (‫ ;תועבה‬vv. 1, 11, 14) and ‘uncleanness’ (‫ ;טמא‬v. 11). In Leviticus 21 the priests are forbidden certain marital relationships because they will result in defilement (vv. 7, 13–15). Thus, the immediate significance of ‫ קדש יהוה‬is probably the people, though their defilement would result in the defilement of other sacred objects. Those who allow themselves to be defiled in this manner will find their descendants cut off from the cultic community. Although the Holiness Code employs the formula ‫ וחכרתי אתו מקרב עמו‬for those who defile the sanctuary and profane the divine name,47 it is the Deuteronomistic History’s phrase, ‫הכרת ל‬, that is used.48 The parallels mean that the enigmatic ‫ ער וענה‬is not

42

WEYDE, Prophecy and Teaching, 225–226. PREUSS, ‫תּוֹ ֵע בָה‬. 44 MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 206. 45 For discussion see SHIELDS, Syncretism. 46 GLAZIER-MCDONALD, Malachi, 92. 47 Lev 20.3; cf. 17.10; 20.5, 6. 48 1 Kgs 14.10; 21.21; 2 Kgs 9.8; also Isa 14.22; Jer 44.7. Consequently there is no need to appeal to Aramaic for the introduction of the object with the preposition ‫ל‬. 43

116

Nathan MacDonald

ultimately in doubt, even if its exact meaning is lost to us: it is a merism for all the descendents of the offender.49 After naming the offence and the punishment, the canonical interpreter picks up a trope from the prophets: the offering of cultic worship and expecting signs of divine pleasure, despite behaving contrary to YHWH’s torah. The theme is introduced in the final clause of v. 12. It is sometimes suggested that the one presenting an offering forms a set with ‫ער וענה‬. Understanding ‫ ער וענה‬as a merism, together with the presence of the intervening prepositional clause ‫מאהלי יעקב‬, excludes this interpretation. The waw should probably be interpreted as emphatic: ‘even the one bringing an offering to YHWH of hosts’. The introduction of the offering has a double purpose. First, in v. 13 it will provide an occasion for the people’s question ‘for what reason’ (‫)על־מה‬. Second, it links the accusation against the people with the accusation against the priests in 1.6–2.9. The priests offered unacceptable sacrifices though this profaned YHWH’s table (1.12), so also the people offered sacrifices despite profaning YHWH’s covenant. Our examination of the original disputation and its canonical interpretation allows us to see how the two issues of intermarriage and divorce came to be related to one another. As we have seen the original disputation poses a number of interpretative problems, and even the earliest textual witnesses presuppose this difficult text and do not allow us to reconstruct a more straightforward original. This problem may already have confronted the canonical interpreter. The original disputation seeks to protect the rights of wives and children where a husband and father seeks divorce. YHWH’s concern for his ‘children’ and the covenant with the patriarchs does not allow the rights of those wives and children to be neglected. Even if a husband no longer has concerns for familial rights, these are protected by the divine father. The original disputation does not suggest that it was nonIsraelite spouses that precipitated the situation, though it is certainly possible to read in this way the allusion to Genesis 31 and the repeated portrayal of the Jews as a single family. The canonical interpreter removes any ambiguity. Although he appears to utilize a number of textual precursors, the basic perspective for his reinterpretation is Deuteronomy 7. It is there that we find the concern with the religious consequences of marriage with nonYahwists. The combination of the references to ‘one God’ and the breaking of marital ties with fellow subscribers to the covenant in vv. 14–16 appears to have suggested Deuteronomy 7 as the appropriate canonical perspective. This is hardly surprising since chapter 7 follows shortly after Deut 6.4. The canonical interpreter provides a meaningful inner-biblical 49

For the various options see W EYDE, Prophecy and Teaching, 241–246; MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 176–177.

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

117

perspective on the original disputation, but in doing so he does noticeably shift the perspective of the pericope.

3. ‫ יהוה אחד‬and ‫ שמו אחד‬in Zech 14.9 Zechariah 14 offers the readers of the book of the Twelve a climactic eschatological vision. It describes what will happen on ‘the day of YHWH that is coming’ (‫ ;יום־בא ליהוה‬14.1), and the phrase ‘on that day’ (‫ )ביום־ההוא‬is the leitmotif of the chapter, occurring no less than seven times.50 Recent scholarship agrees that this chapter is made up of a variety of different elements, many of which allude to other parts of the prophetic corpus. Three intertextual relationships stand out as particularly important. First, Zechariah 14 shares with Zech 12.1–13.6 the theme of the day of YHWH. However, Zechariah 14 concentrates on Jerusalem alone, and does not present the nations prevailing over Jerusalem.51 Secondly, this idea of the nations defeating Jerusalem before they are themselves defeated by YHWH is reminiscent of the Gog oracle in Ezekiel 38–39. Also reminiscent of the end of the book of Ezekiel is the alteration of the land’s topography. Thirdly, the homage of the nations in Zechariah 14 is comparable to Zech 2.10–13 and 8.20–23. In recent scholarship there are different ways to account for these interrelationships and the related question of how the chapter came to be formed. Gärtner, for instance, follows Steck and understands Zechariah 14 as the sum of the book of the Twelve. It has a comparable role to that which Isaiah 65–66 has within the book of Isaiah. She assumes that the chapter is the work of a single redactor.52 Wöhrle, on the other hand, sees a more complex development, with four layers that correspond to redactional processes across the book of the Twelve.53 The competing claims of innerbiblical interpretation and redactional history prevent an easy resolution of these divergent proposals. In other words, how do we assess the relationships between Zechariah 14 and other prophetic texts? Should these texts be attributed to different redactional layers, or is their appearance in Zechariah 14 evidence of an intertextual pastiche? This problem is apparent in the statement of oneness theology that occurs in the middle of Zechariah 14: ‘YHWH will be king over the whole earth. On that day YHWH will be one and his name one ( ‫יהיה יהוה אחד ושמו‬ ‫( ’)אחד‬v. 9). The statement is rather isolated, and appears to interrupt an account of the land’s rearrangement. There is also some tension between 50

14.4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21. For the relationship of Zech 12 and 14 see particularly LUTZ, Jahwe. 52 GÄRTNER, Jesaja 66. See STECK, Der Abschluß. 53 W ÖHRLE, Der Abschluss, 112–138. 51

118

Nathan MacDonald

the meaning of ‫ כל הארץ‬in vv. 9 and 10. In v. 9 ‫ כל הארץ‬appears to have a universal significance, whilst in v. 10 it refers to the land of Israel.54 Finally, v. 9 introduces the new theme of the oneness of YHWH and his kingship. The latter theme appears prematurely and will not be taken up again in detail until vv. 16–17.55 One solution to the tensions is to view them as the result of redactional activity.56 On the other hand, v. 9 can be adjudged to be drawing upon a different set of texts than the surrounding verses. The close association of YHWH’s kingship and his name is also found in Mal 1.11–14, and, as we have seen, YHWH’s oneness is a theme in Deut 6.4 and Mal 2.10–16.57 The surrounding verses, on the other hand, are indebted to Ezekiel 40–48, and perhaps Joel 4 and Jer 31.38–40.58 For either proposal, the unusual placement could, perhaps, be explained by its central position in a roughly symmetric chapter: The nations gather against Jerusalem (v. 2) and YHWH goes out to fight (v. 3) Alteration of nature (vv. 6–8, 10), including statement about YHWH’s kingship (v. 9); YHWH fights (v. 12) and the nations go up to Jerusalem for worship (vv. 16–19).59

Whether viewed diachronically or synchronically Zech 14.9 would appear to have an important role in expressing a theological vision for the chapter. The statement of oneness in Zech 14.9 alludes to Deut 6.4, but transforms it by projecting it into the future: ‘YHWH will be one’. In addition, this is no longer a confession about Israel’s covenant devotion to its one 54

Although Hausmann appears to suggest that ‫ כל הארץ‬is limited to the land of Palestine on both occasions (HAUSMANN, Jerusalem, 392–393). 55 Sæbø draws attention to the new theme (SÆBØ, Sacharja 9–14, 302). 56 Willi-Plein regards vv. 1–2, 5, 9 as the original core of the chapter. She also observes the common theme between v. 8 and v. 10, describing v. 10 as a Resümee (W ILLIP LEIN, Prophetie am Ende, 89; see also SÆBØ, Sacharja 9–14, 301–302). It is perhaps somewhat easier to regard v. 9 as secondary; Willi-Plein leaves unexplained why vv. 8, 10 were built around v. 9. 57 REDDITT, Zechariah 9–14, 317. 58 The appearance of YHWH on the Mount of Olives (14.4) may be compared to the YHWH’s glory returning from the mountain to the east of Jerusalem (Ezek 43.1; cf. 11.23). The water flowing from the Temple (Zech 14.8) is similar to Ezek 47 and Joel 4, though the exilic prophet envisages water flowing only eastwards to the Dead Sea. On the intertextual links see, inter alia, W ILLI-P LEIN, Prophetie am Ende, 88–90; T AI, End; TERBLANCHE, Abundance; SCHAEFER, Zechariah 14. 59 Both Lamarche and Butterworth discern a chiastic arrangement in Zech 14.1-15 (LAMARCHE, Zacharie IX–XIV; B UTTERWORTH, Structure). Chiasms are notorious for being in the eye of the beholder, and I hesitate to employ the term for this reason. Instead, we have a passage that employs inclusio to balance the original gathering of the nations to war and YHWH’s fighting against those same nations and bringing them into submission. This account is interrupted by a passage that describes the rearrangement of physical geography so as to exalt Jerusalem.

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

119

God, but a statement about the universal recognition of YHWH’s sovereignty in the future. This hope is expressed through the phrase ‫והיה יהוה‬ ‫למלך‬, which alludes to the enthronement Psalm’s acclamation ‫יהוה מלך‬.60 Zechariah 14.9, like other late biblical texts, reflects a shifting focus of the metaphor of kingship from YHWH’s rulership over Israel to that over the world.61 It is perhaps not insignificant that the Persian emperors describe their universal rule with the language of ‘one’ in numerous monumental inscriptions. Thus, an inscription from Darius I reads, ‘A great king (is) Ahuramazdā, who created this earth, who created yonder heaven, who created man, who created blissful happiness for man, who made Darius king, the one king of many, the one master of many (ai̯ vam parūnām xšayaθiyam, ai̯ vam parūnām framātāram)’.62 The significance of YHWH as ‘one’ for Zechariah 14 is apparent in the concluding verses. Those who survive amongst the nations will be forced to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship YHWH as king. Thus, Zechariah 14 with many late biblical texts traverses a path towards universalism through an ever deepening particularism.63 In Zechariah 14 we appear to have the first certain moves to a theology which plays on the word ‘one’. This occurs in two ways. First, it is possible that a relationship exists with ‫ והיה יום אחד‬in v. 7.64 This unique day is a day that does not oscillate between day and night. The language appears to evoke Gen 1.3–5, and it is notable that the first day of creation is described with a cardinal number, ‫יום אחד‬, rather than an ordinal number, ‫יום ראשון‬. The expression ‫ יום אחד‬in Genesis is unproblematic, but it is easy to see how it might have given rise to exegetical speculation as it certainly did much later (cf. m. Hul 5.5). It is possible that the uniqueness of the first day was already perceived by those who composed Zechariah 14, and that a theology was developed in order to explain its significance. It was ‘one day’ that corresponded to ‘one YHWH’. Fittingly, it could only be comprehended by the one God, who alone was present at the beginning of creation and whose day it would also be at the very end. Secondly, not only will 60 Pss 10.16; 29.10; 93.1; 96.10; 97.1; 99.1; cf. Exod 15.18; 1 Chron 16.31. The phrase ‫ והיה יהוה למלך‬is unique to Zechariah 14 (TERBLANCHE, Abundance, 125). 61 See MACDONALD, ‘Eyes of All’. 62 DNa 1–8; see also DEa, DSf, XEa, XPa, XPb, XPc, XPd, XPf, XPh, XVa, D2Ha, 2 A Hc, A3Pa. For a convenient collection with translations see SCHMITT, Die Altpersischen Inschriften. 63 For this memorable description of the relationship between universalism and particularism see KAMINSKY, Yet I Loved Jacob. 64 SÆBØ, Sacharja 9–14, 303; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah 9–14, 433. In Sæbø’s view, vv. 7a, 9, 10aβb are a single redactional level. Petersen sees the use of ‫ אחד‬in both verses as no more than a Stichwort, but with a quite different sense (P ETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14, 148).

120

Nathan MacDonald

YHWH be one on that final day, but his name will be ‘one’. This is a rather enigmatic assertion and it is difficult to tell exactly what it means. Some have argued that ‘one’ is a divine name,65 whilst others have suggested a link to Jerusalem as the abode of the name.66 The most compelling suggestion is that there will be only one name in the world that will receive honour on YHWH’s day. 67 It will be the only name. This would accord with Zech 13.2 where the names of the idols are banished from the land, and Mal 1.11, 14, where it is said that YHWH’s name will be great amongst the nations.

Conclusion Our examination of one-ness theology has shown that reflection on the statement ‘YHWH is one’ blossomed far later than we might have expected given the importance of Deut 6.4 for later Judaism and Christianity. There is no evidence that ‫ אחד‬had a programmatic role in deuteronomic or deuteronomistic thinking. The flourishing of one-ness theology occurs only during the encounter with Hellenism. The developed theologies of one-ness in Philo, Josephus and the New Testament were not entirely without precedent. In particular, the late prophetic writings of Deutero-Zechariah and Malachi witness to the initial steps towards a one-ness theology. One of the notable characteristics of such attempts is the integration of textual materials from across diverse writings. Thus, textual traditions which scholarly examination has shown to be in tension, or even conflict, are brought together as coherent witnesses to the one God. The unity of the emerging scriptures is assumed and forged at the same time. The lexemes ‘one God’ and ‘YHWH is one’, which had their origin in the deuteronomistic corpus, are applied to the priestly creation story, Ezekiel’s eschatological visions, and the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah. The late prophetic texts we have examined evidence the earliest steps towards theological reflection in which ‘one’ is applied to things other than YHWH. Nevertheless, we should observe that some of the associations made later in the Second Temple period and in contemporary scholarship are not yet being made. There is, then, no direct association of the sanctuary’s oneness with YHWH’s, no ‘one God, one cultic place’ and there is no direct association of the people’s oneness with YHWH’s, no ‘one God, one 65

GORDON, His Name Is ‘One’. MEYERS AND MEYERS, Zechariah 9–14, 440. 67 ‘Die Folge davon wird sein, daß er allein in der Welt Geltung hat und neben ihm kein anderer Gott mehr genannt wird’ (RUDOLPH, Haggai, 236). 66

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

121

people’. Nor is the association common in modern scholarship between YHWH’s oneness and the created order’s, no ‘one God, one world’. In Zechariah 14, in contrast, we have ‘one’ predicated of objects that, we might say, belong in the divine sphere: the day of YHWH and the divine name. The ‘day of YHWH’ is described as ‘one day’. It is possible that the distinctive ‫ יום אחד‬of Gen 1.5 has already sparked exegetical attention. In Zechariah 14 it neatly links the first day of creation (Urzeit) and the eschatological day of YHWH (Endzeit). It is no ordinary day. Since YHWH alone was present at the beginning of creation, the day is comprehensible to YHWH alone. Similarly, the one name belongs firmly in the world of the divine. For Zechariah 14, then, YHWH does not appear to share his singularity. Nevertheless, this has consequences, for one name means that YHWH is the only one who can receive the world’s worship. What we find in Zechariah 14, therefore, is a reluctance to encroach on YHWH’s singularity by comparing it with a mundane object. A similar concern may be found in Deuteronomy’s use of the language of election (‫)בחר‬. Deuteronomy does not describe Israel, the sanctuary, or its priests ‘one’, though they are ‘chosen’. It does not seem likely that this would be a concern in Mal 2.10, 14-16, which can speak of the one God and his people in familial terms. Indeed, it is possible that the use of ‫ לא אחד‬points to a way that the descendents of Jacob do not accord with the one God, and implies, perhaps, that they can.

Bibliography ALBERTZ, R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (OTL), Louisville 1994 B ARCLAY, J. M. G., Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (Flavius Josephus 10), Leiden 2007 B AUCKHAM, R., Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity, Grand Rapids 2009 B UTTERWORTH, M., Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOT.S 130), Sheffield 1992 COLSON, F.H., AND W HITTAKER, G.H., Philo I (LCL), London 1962 ESLINGER, L. M., House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOT.S 164), Sheffield 1994 FELDMAN, L. H., Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Flavius Josephus 3), Leiden 2000 GÄRTNER, J., Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches (WMANT 114), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 GLAZIER-MCDONALD, B., Malachi: The Divine Messenger (SBL.DS 98), Atlanta 1987 GORDON, C. H., His Name Is ‘One’, JNES 29 (1970) 198–199 GOTTWALD, N. K., The Hebrew Bible – A Socio-literary Introduction, Philadelphia 1985

122

Nathan MacDonald

GUERRA, A. J., Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre, and Audience of Paul’s Letter (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 81), Cambridge 1995 HAAG, H., ‫ חמס‬Hamas, TDOT 6 (1980) 478–487 HAUSMANN, J., Jerusalem und die Völker: Beobachtungen zu Sacharja 14, in: Unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (FS Arndt Meinhold), eds. R. Lux and E.-J. Waschke, Leipzig 2006, 389–399 HUGENBERGER, G. P., Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VT.S 52), Leiden 1994 KAMINSKY, J. S. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election, Nashville 2007 KESSLER, R., Maleachi (HThK), Freiburg-im-Breisgau 2011 LAMARCHE, P., Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure Littéraire et Messianisme, Paris 1961 LOHFINK, N, AND B ERGMANN, J., ‫’ ֶא חָד‬echādh, TDOT 1 (1974) 193–201 LUTZ, H.-M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker: zur Vorgeschichte von Sach 12,1-8 und 14,1-5 (WMANT 27), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968 MACDONALD, N., ‘The Eyes of All Look to You’: The Generosity of the Divine King, in: Decisive Meals: Table Politics in Biblical Literature (LNTS 449), eds. N. MacDonald, L. Sutter Rehmann, and K. Ehrensperger, London 2012, 1–14 MEINHOLD, A., Maleachi (BK 14), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 MEYERS, C. L., AND MEYERS, E. M., Zechariah 9–14 – A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB), New York 1993 P AKKALA, J., Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76), Göttingen/Helsinki 1999 – The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History, SJOT 21 (2007) 159–178 PETERSEN, D. L., Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL), London 1995 P ORTEN, B., AND YARDENI, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 2, Jerusalem 1986 PREUSS, H. D., ‫תּוֹ ֵע בָה‬, TDOT 15 (2006) 591–604 REDDITT, P. L., Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve, in: Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (JSOT.S 370), eds. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd, London 2003, 333–343 RÖMER, T., Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206), eds. E. Otto and R. Achenbach, Göttingen 2004, 168–180 RUDOLPH, W., Haggai, Sacharja 1–8 – Sacharja 9–14 – Maleachi (KAT), Gütersloh 1976 SÆBØ, M., Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969 SCHAEFER, K. R., Zechariah 14 : A Study in Allusion, CBQ 57 (1995) 66–91 SCHMITT, R., Die Altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden: Editio Minor mit Deutscher Übersetzung, Wiesbaden 2009 SHIELDS, M. A., Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10–16, ZAW 111 (1999) 68–86 SPRUNGMANN, M., AND SCHLENKE, B., ‫’ ֶא חָד‬æḥād, Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, Stuttgart 2011 STECK, O. H., Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. BThSt 17, NeukirchenVluyn 1991 T AI, N. H., The End of the Book of the Twelve: Reading Zechariah 12–14 with Joel, in: Schriftprophetie (FS J. Jeremias), ed. F. Hartenstein. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, 341– 350

Beginnings of Oneness Theology

123

T ÅNGBERG, K. A., Die Prophetische Mahnrede: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zum prophetischen Umkehrruf (FRLANT 143), Göttingen 1987 TERBLANCHE, M. D., An Abundance of Living Waters: The Intertextual Relationship between Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1–12, OTE 17 (2004) 120–129 TOOMAN, W. A., Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39 (FAT II/52), Tübingen 2011 W ELLHAUSEN, J., Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, Göttingen 1871 W EYDE, K. W., Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (BZAW 288), Berlin 2000 W ILLI-P LEIN, I., Prophetie am Ende: Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9–14 (BBB 42), Cologne 1974 W ÖHRLE, J., Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches (BZAW 389), Berlin 2008 ZEHNDER, M., A Fresh Look at Malachi II 13–16, VT 53 (2003) 224–259

Monotheistischer Universalismus und frühe Formen eines Völkerrechts in prophetischen Texten Israels aus achämenidischer Zeit REINHARD ACHENBACH

1. Die Entfaltung eines monotheistischen Universalismusgedankens Die markante Formulierung eines radikalen monotheistischen Bekenntnisses in Gestalt der Selbstproklamation J HWHs mit den Worten „Ich bin JHWH und keiner mehr ist außer mir, keiner ist Gott“ – ‫אני יהוה ואין עוד זולתי‬ ‫ – אלהים‬hat ihren Ursprung im Kontext der Entstehung der deuterojesajanischen Orakelsammlung in Abgrenzung von Marduk-Theologie und Ahura-mazda-Glaube in Jes 45,4–7.1 Ihre Vorgeschichte ist in einem komplexen Prozess der Amalgamierung jahwistischer Konzepte mit mesopotamischen und wohl auch ägyptischen Vorstellungen zu suchen,2 die zu einer Universalisierung des israelitischen Gottesbegriffes geführt haben. 1

Vgl. Jes 45,5.6.14.18.21.22; 46,9; 48,2.7; Dtn 4,35.39; 1 Kön 8,60; Joel 2,27; Neh 9,6. Zur Sache vgl. KEEL, Geschichte Jerusalems, 854–880 („Deuterojesaja – JHWH als einziger Gott und die Rückkehr nach Zion“); ALBANI, Deuterojesajas Monotheismus, 171–202; ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 155–194. Die Entwicklung der Aussagen reicht vom ausgehenden 6. Jh. in das 5. Jh. hinein; vgl. zur Datierung des Kyros-Orakels KRATZ, Kyros. Über die Diskussion zur Entstehungsgeschichte des monotheistisch genannter Religionssysteme ist hier nicht zu handeln, sondern es soll im Folgenden lediglich ein Aspekt in der Entwicklung des jüdischen Denkens näher beleuchtet werden, nämlich der Konnex zwischen monotheistischem Gottesbild und Recht. Zum transitorischen Charakter der Entwicklung monotheistischer Konzepte vgl. die Beiträge in P ONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Revolutionary Monotheism; LEVIN, Integrativer Monotheismus, 153–175. 2 Der ägyptische Einfluss auf religiöse Vorstellungswelten in Israel, wie er aus der Glyptik und der Weisheitstradition ersichtlich wird, kann hier nicht näher behandelt werden; vgl. hierzu die detailreiche Darstellung von KEEL, Geschichte Jerusalems, 101– 132.147–369. Über das spannungsvolle Verhältnis zwischen Einheit und Vielheit des Göttlichen in der ägyptischen Religion vgl. HORNUNG, Der Eine. Überlegungen zur Korrelation der Religionsreformversuche Echnathons und einem „mosaischen“ Monotheismus gehören in den Bereich historischer Spekulation bzw. eines kulturhistorischen Konstruktivismus. Die Legende von der machtvollen Konfrontation Pharaos mit der Voll-

126

Reinhard Achenbach

In der assyrischen Reichs-Ideologie galt der Herrscher als Vollstrecker göttlichen Willens der assyrischen Hauptgötter Aššur, Mulissu, Sîn, Šamaš, Nabu und Ištar.3 Zu diesen gesellte sich der babylonische Hauptgott Marduk.4 Zugleich konnte ein assyrischer Herrscher die Unterstützung durch die Götter der unterworfenen Völker für sich beanspruchen.5 Berühmt ist die Behauptung Asarhaddons zur Legitimation des eigenen Herrschaftshandelns, die Eroberung Babylons durch die Assyrer sei Folge des Zornes Marduks über seine eigene Stadt, der beschlossen habe, diese für 70 Jahre lang zu verwerfen,6 um sich dann allerdings nach kürzerer Zeit erweichen zu lassen und wiederum den Assyrerkönig dazu zu erwählen, die Stadt zu erneuern.7 2 Kön 18,25/Jes 36,10 tradieren die Behauptung, dass der Rab-Schake ganz analog hierzu auch gegenüber Juda argumentiert habe: „Nun, bin ich etwa gegen den Willen JHWHs hinaufgezogen gegen diesen Ort, um ihn zu verderben?“ In der Sammlung jesajanischer Prophetenworte fand dieses Bild eine Bestätigung, an sie heftete sich aber auch eine Serie assurkritischer Fortschreibungen.8 An die jesajanische Botschaft lagerte sich der Gedanke an, dass das Gericht JHWHs sich auch gegen As-

macht JHWHs als des alleinigen Gottes, deren Erweis das gesamte heilsgeschichtliche Wirken dienen soll (Ex 7,3.5*), ist das Ergebnis einer nachexilischen redaktionellen Reécriture älterer Formen der Exoduserzählung, vgl. B ERNER, Exoduserzählung, 161– 167.439. 3 Nin A/Esarhaddon 1 i,1–7 (hier und im Folgenden zit. nach der Ausgabe von LEICHTY, Inscriptions, 11; ältere Ausgabe: B ORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons). 4 Esarhaddon 1 ii,17. 5 Esarhaddon 1 ii,25–29; vgl. B ORGER, Inschriften, Nin.A-F, Episode 3, 45f.23–29. 6 Der Gedanke des Zornes einer Gottheit auf ihr eigenes Volk, wie er in den Unheilsprophetien des Alten Testaments vielfältigen Ausdruck gefunden hat, ist auch in den anderen altorientalischen Kulturkreisen belegt; vgl. hierzu B ERGES, Zorn Gottes, 305–330. 7 (Bab.A Prisma) Esarhaddon 104 i 34–ii 9a; ii 23–49. Vgl. hierzu SPIECKERMANN, Juda, 346–348, unter Verweis auf 2 Kön 18,25; Jes 36,10; ALBANI, Die 70-Jahr-Dauer, 4–20. HARTENSTEIN, JHWH, 96–97, hat gezeigt, wie gar Motive der assyrischen Propaganda, die den König mit einem alles überschattenden Raubvogel und sein Heer mit einem alles vernichtenden Strom vergleichen, sich in der jesajanischen Prophetie wiederspiegelt. Weiterführend hierzu KREUCH, Unheil und Heil, 200–202. 8 B ARTH, Jesaja-Worte; SCHMID, Literaturgeschichte, 97–101. Die neuere Arbeit von KREUCH, Unheil, untersucht vor allem Jes 28–31, und ermittelt eine Kernüberlieferung aus der Zeit kurz nach Jesaja, sodann Fortschreibungen aus spät-vorexilischer, exilischer, früh- und spät-nachexilischer Zeit. Er ordnet Jes 10,5–7 der Frühzeit zu (KREUCH, Unheil, 202), was man mit Hinsicht auf den anti-assyrischen Aspekt von v. 7 wohl dahingehend relativieren muss, dass es sich in Jes 10 um Texte handelt, die aus einer Phase in der 2. Hälfte des 7. Jh.s stammen, in der ein Untergang Assurs schon erkennbar war und in der die jesajanische Prophetie entsprechende Neudeutung bedurfte (vgl. HARTENSTEIN, „Wehe“).

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

127

sur richte, und zwar aufgrund seiner Hybris und seiner tyrannischen Herrschaftsausübung, vgl. Jes 10,12–15: 12 b Abrechnen will ich wider die Frucht der Großmannssucht 9 aus dem Herzen des Königs von Assur (‫)על פרי גדל לבב מלך אשור‬, und mit dem Glanz der Überheblichkeit in seinen Augen (‫!)על תפארת רום עיניו‬ 13 Denn er spricht: ‘Durch die Kraft meiner eigenen Hand habe ich alles vollbracht, und durch meine eigene Weisheit, denn ich bin ja so klug!’ 15 Rühmt sich denn etwa auch die Axt gegen den, der damit schlägt?

Die Vorwürfe gipfeln in der Anklage des Genozids, vgl. Jes 10,5–7: 5 Wehe (dir), Assur, dem Stecken meines Zorns und ein Stab – er ist in ihrer Hand! – (der Stab) meines Grimms! 6 Auf ein ruchloses Volk lasse ich ihn herniederfahren, und gegen Leute, wider die mein Zorn gerichtet ist, (vorzugehen) gebiete ich ihm, Beute zu erbeuten und Raub zu rauben, es zu zertreten wie Dreck in den Gassen. 7 Er aber ist nicht dementsprechend gesonnen, und sein Herz plant nicht so: sondern in seinem Herzen sinnt er, zu vernichten (‫)להשמיד‬, und auszurotten (‫ )להכרית‬eine nicht geringe Zahl 10 von Völkern (‫)גוים‬.

Damit wird dem imperialen Anspruch auf Weltherrschaft seitens der Assyrer der Gedanke einer universalen politischen Kontrolle durch den Gott Israels entgegengestellt, die nicht allein für die Interessen Israels eintritt, sondern einen die Völkerwelt insgesamt betreffenden Rechtsanspruch erhebt. Die Form des Wehe-Rufes, und somit die Einkleidung in eine prophetische Redegattung ergibt sich aus der Tradition, dass die Divination im alten Israel wie überhaupt vielfach den Charakter einer Gerichtsverhandlung vor der Gottheit angenommen hat. Die Weise der Ausformung theologischer Gedanken, welche die schriftgelehrten Tradenten der Prophetenrollen wählen, knüpft an diese Form an, um so an der Autorität der 9

Die Nominalbildung hebr. ‫ גּ ֹ ֶדל‬bezeichnet im Alten Testament die Größe Gottes, insbesondere in der dtr Theologie (Dtn 3,24; 5,24; 11,2; 32,3; s.a. Num 14,19; Ps 78,11; 150,2). Wird die Attributierung durch das Nomen auf Menschen bzw. Völker angewandt, so bezeichnet es die Größe eines Volkes in ihrer Bedrohung (vgl. die Rede des Pharao von der Größe Ägyptens, Ez 31,2.7.18), oder es ist sogleich negativ konnotiert und bezeichnet eine hybride Haltung (Übermut, Stolz, Hoffart etc.), so den Übermut Efraims und der Bürger Samarias (Jes 9,8) oder des Königs von Assur (Jes 10,12). Zum Thema der Hybris s. weiter im Folgenden. 10 Zu den genozidalen Aspekten der assyrischen Kriegsführung vgl. die Zinçirli-Stele, Essarhaddon 98 obv. 20–33 rev. 7–14.18–30.37–44; zur Sache vgl. OTTO, Krieg und Frieden, 53–54; ACHENBACH, Vertilgen, 287–289.

128

Reinhard Achenbach

Schriftprophetie zu partizipieren. Im Ergebnis entwickelt sich so eine sukzessiv anwachsende Darstellung der Propheten als Toramittler und Toralehrer. Deren Botschaft bleibt somit im Kern theologisch und wandert nicht in eine generelle Weisheitslehre aus. Dies hat bewirkt, dass der Universalitätsanspruch zwar formuliert und gedacht, nicht aber über den Horizont Israels hinausgetragen werden konnte. Ein weiterer Schritt im Prozess der Amalgamierung mesopotamischer Systematiken stellt die Auseinandersetzung der deutero-jesajanischen Texte mit der neu-babylonischen Ausprägung der Marduk-Theologie dar. Je mehr der Stadt-Gott von Babel im Zuge der Ausweitung der politischen Herrschaft Babylons die Gottheiten subalterner Städte und Regionen beherrscht, desto stärker absorbiert er auch deren Eigenschaften,11 mehr noch: die Götter selbst können als manifeste, doch gleichwohl sekundäre Ausprägungen eines letztlich in Marduk beruhenden göttlichen Wesens verstanden werden.12 Das Motiv der Verleihung der 50 Namen an Marduk am Ende des babylonischen Schöpfungsmythos Enūma Eliš (vi 121 – vii 144) markiert seine Erhebung zum „Herrn aller Götter von Himmel und Unterwelt“ (vi 141), der Göttersohn wird so gleichsam zum glanzvollen „Sonnengott der Götter“ (vi 127),13 der auch die astralen Ordnungen beherrscht und so zu einem Status der Unvergleichlichkeit gelangt (vi 102.106), in dessen Schatten Gestirne und Götter in äußerster Weise depotenziert werden.14 Ihr gegenüber stellt sich in den deutero-jesajanischen Texten die J HWHReligion radikal anikonisch dar, ja, wohl auch im Gefälle deuteronomistischer Strömungen erscheint sie geradezu als ikonoklastisch (vgl. Jes 44,9– 20; 46,1–7). Der Tendenz, die Manifestation alles Göttlichen in einer Zentralgestalt zu konzentrieren und so deren Unvergleichlichkeit zu akzentuieren, setzt die deutero-jesajanische Botschaft den Gedanken der Un11

VAN DER TOORN, God, 357. CT 24 50, BM 47406 obv.: „Uraš (is) Marduk of planting. Lugalidda (is) Marduk of the abyss. Ninurta (is) Marduk of the pickaxe. Nergal (is) Marduk of battle. Zababa (is) Marduk of warfare. Enlil (is) Marduk of lordship and consultations. Nabû (is) Marduk of accounting. Sîn (is) Marduk of justice. Adad (is) Marduk of rain. Tišpak (is) Marduk of troops. Great Anu (is) Marduk of … Šuqamuna (is) Marduk of the container. [ (is)] Marduk of everything.“ (Übersetzung von LAMBERT, Historical Development, 197–198). VAN DER T OORN, God, 357, hat dieses Phänomen als „inclusive monotheism“ bezeichnet. Vgl. zur weiteren Diskussion des Textes ALBANI, Deuterojesajas Monotheismus, 182– 184 (Lit.). 13 lu-ú ma-ru dUTU-ši šá DINGIR.DINGIR né-bu-ú šu-ma – (vgl. T ALON, Babylonian Creation Myth, 67: „Er ist der Sohn, der Sonnengott der Götter, der blendende“, anders P. T ALON, aaO., 102: „Qu’il soit Mār-Šamši (Fils du Soleil), c’est lui le plus éclatant des dieux“. 14 ALBANI, Deuterojesajas Monotheismus, 183–185. 12

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

129

vergleichlichkeit J HWHs entgegen (44,6–7). Sie gipfelt in der Abrogation der anderen Götter, indem sie diesen ihre wesensmäßige Gotthaftigkeit abspricht und diese exklusiv für J HWH allein in Anspruch nimmt.15 Der Beherrschung der astralen Welt und der Lenkung der Geschichte durch Marduk stehen die Aussagen der Geschichtslenkung durch JHWH und der Beherrschung des Heeres der Gestirne und seiner Ordnungen gegenüber (Jes 40,12–31),16 der Mantik und Astronomie der Gedanke der Beherrschung einer universalen Weisheit durch den Gott Israels (47,12–15; 48). Galten Assyrer und Babylonier als göttliche Strafwerkzeuge, so ist hinsichtlich der Achämeniden geradezu von einem Paradigmenwechsel zu reden: sie werden als Werkzeug göttlichen Heilshandelns charakterisiert. In den Kyros-Orakeln der deutero-jesajanischen Sammlung gilt Kyros als vom „Aufgang der Sonne her“ erweckt, um mit dem Perserreich eine Gerechtigkeitsordnung herbeizuführen,17 die von JHWHs Wohlwollen für Israel bestimmt und so für die Judenheit legitimiert wird (Jes 41,2.25; 42,6; 45,1–5; 48,15). Der Herrschaftsanspruch der Achämeniden selbst gründet in der schöpfungstheologisch orientierten Kosmologie des Ahura-mazdaGlaubens, den sie in ihren Inschriften propagieren.18 Die in ihnen erkennbaren religiösen Anschauungen haben ihre Wurzeln wohl in den frühavestischen Gesängen der Gathas des Zarathustra selbst, stellen aber ihrerseits eine Politisierung derselben dar, wie M. Stausberg herausgearbeitet hat:19 „Die Konzeption Ahura-mazdās als eines ‘politischen’ Gottes, der Herrschaft verleiht und erhält, ist z.B. durchaus als religionsgeschichtliche Innovation gegenüber dem avestischen Befund zu beschreiben. Nicht minder innovativ ist die ‘Politisierung’ des Dualismus: Die Explikation der drauga- als potentielle Destabilisierung gottgewollter politischer Herrschaft findet sich in dieser Form nicht in den avestischen Texten.“ Steht in den Gathas der Gedanke an eine Durchdringung der Welt mit Licht und Wahrheit und dem Geist der Erkenntnis in einer Auseinandersetzung mit Finsternis und Trug im Vordergrund (Yasna 30,4.7.9; 31,4.7– 8.18.19–20; 32,2.11 u.ö.), so stellen die Inschriften die Eroberungszüge der Perser als Durchführung eines Auftrages Ahura-mazdas dar (DB 1.11– 26). Die Durchsetzung der Herrschaft gilt als Sieg über die Macht des Truges (DB 1.34; 4.34; DPd 20). In den Gathas gilt das Feuer als Symbol der Herrschaft Ahura-mazdas (Yasna 31,3.19; 43,7), durch das der Gläubige 15

Vgl. hierzu LEUENBERGER, „Ich bin JHWH und keiner sonst“, 44–46. ALBANI, Der eine Gott, 123–255. 17 KOCH, Kyros, 352–356. 18 Grundlegend hierzu AHN, Herrscherlegitimation; STAUSBERG, Religion Zarathushtras, 163–170; ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 183–190. 19 STAUSBERG, Religion Zarathushtras, 170. Einen Überblick über charakteristische Grundzüge der altpersischen Religion gibt KOCH, Religion, 80–144. 16

130

Reinhard Achenbach

gestärkt wird (Yasna 34,4) und dem seine Verehrung gilt (Yasna 43,9).20 Auf dem prominenten Grabrelief von Naqš-ı-Rustam wird im Zentrum der Darstellung der König vor einem Feueraltar dargestellt, sein Dienst dient also offensichtlich diesem Symbol. Die Feuersymbolik hat sich dem Gedächtnis der Völker als markant für die persische Religion eingeprägt. Noch Jahrhunderte später schilderte der Alexander-Historiker Curtius Rufus die Mitführung eines heiligen Feuers im Perserheer (Curtius Rufus IV 13,12; IV 14,24).21 Mit der Festigung der politischen Satrapienstruktur unter Darius I. verband sich der Anspruch, eine von Ahura-mazda intendierte Rechtsordnung geschaffen zu haben, die die vielfältigen Völkerschaften des Reiches in einer stabilen Einheit zu verbinden imstande war. So formuliert Darius in der Inschrift A von Naqš-ı-Rustam (DNa §3.15– 30):22 Es sagt Darius, der König: Durch die Gunst Ahura-mazdas sind dies die Länder, die ich außerhalb der Pars erobert habe; Ich herrschte über sie; Sie brachten mir Tribut; was ihnen durch mich gesagt wurde, das taten sie; mein Gesetz, es hielt sie beständig (dātam tya manā avadiš): Medien, Elam, Parthien, Arien, Baktrien, Sogdien, Chorasmien, Dangiana, Arachosien, Sattagydien, Gandara, Sind, Amyrgianisch Skythen, Skythen mit spitzen Kappen, Babylonien, Assyrien, Arabien, Ägypten, Armenien, Kappadozien, Sardes, Ionien, Skythen, die jenseits des Meeres sind, Skudra, Petasos-Hüte tragende Ionier, Libyier, Äthiopier, Leute von Maka, Karer.

Spuren einer Konterkarierung des Ahura-mazda-Glaubens scheint der Abschluss des fiktiven an Kyros gerichteten Legitimationsorakels der Achämenidenherrschaft über Israel in Jes 45,6b.7 zu enthalten: Ich bin J HWH und außer mir ist keiner (Gott), der da formt Licht und der da erschaffet Finsternis, der bewirkt Frieden und erschafft Unheil: Ich bin J HWH, der all dieses wirkt!

Mit der expliziten Aussage einer Erschaffung von Finsternis und Licht wird nicht nur die aus der spät-babylonischen Epoche stammende priesterschriftliche Schöpfungserzählung weitergeführt (vgl. Gen 1,1–2), sondern auch der für die Ahura-mazda-Verehrung charakteristische Dualismus integriert.23 Das Legitimationsorakel für die Achämeniden in Jes 45,1–7, das 20

In den Kontext gehört auch die besondere Bedeutung des Lan-Opfers, vgl. KOCH, Religion, 113–115. 21 STAUSBERG, Religion Zarathushtras, 180–182. 22 KENT, Old Persian, 137–138. 23 Vgl. Yasna 44,4–5: „Das frage ich dich, sage es mir recht, Ahura: Wer festigte die Erde unten und den Wolkenhimmel, dass er nicht herabfalle? Wer die Wasser und die Pflanzen? Wer schirrte dem Wind und den Wolken die beiden Renner? Welcher Mann ist, o Mazdah, der Schöpfer des Guten Denkens? Das frage ich dich, sage es mir recht, Ahura: Welcher Werkmeister hat Licht(er) und Finsternis(se) erschaffen? Welcher Meister hat den Schlaf geschaffen und das Wachen? Wer ist es, durch den Morgen, Mittag und Nacht sind, welche den Verständigen an sein Tagewerk mahnen?“ Zum Text vgl.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

131

zahlreiche Anlehnungen an motivische Vorgaben aus der babylonischen Propaganda zur Herrschaftslegitimation enthält,24 aber eben auch in Grundzügen die persische Reichsideologie zu kennen scheint, formuliert daher eine subversive Aneignung vorgegebener Muster und zugleich eine Überbietung der religiösen Grundlagen in Gestalt einer monotheistischen Formulierung des traditionellen Ausschließlichkeitsanspruches JHWHs. Ziel des göttlichen Werkes, das vom Großkönig selbst nicht erkannt werden kann (Jes 45,5: „Ich gürte dich, auch wenn du mich nicht erkannt hast!“), ist die Wirkung einer neuen Form der Gottes-Erkenntnis seitens der Herrscher (45,3: „damit du erkennst, dass ich es bin, J HWH, der dich bei deinem Namen ruft, der Gott Israels“), aber auch seitens der Völker, Jes 45,6: „damit sie erkennen vom Aufgang der Sonne und von ihrem Untergang her, dass es keinen gibt außer mir: Ich bin JHWH und keiner sonst!“ (vgl. Jes 49,7; 52,10.15). Diese Erkenntnis soll offenbar vermittelt werden über die Herausstellung der Erwählung und Berufung Israels als Knecht Gottes (Jes 45,4). So korrespondiert dem monotheistischen Bekenntnis von Jes 45,5 („Ich bin J HWH und keiner sonst, außer mir gibt es keinen Gott!“) die exemplarische Existenz des erwählten Volkes. Diesem Gedanken gegenüber wird die Rolle der Völker relativiert (Jes 40,15: „die Völker sind wie ein Tropfen am Eimer“; 40,17: „alle Völker sind vor ihm wie nichts“; 41,2: „vor ihm (Kyros) gibt er Völker und Könige dahin“; vgl. 45,1). Die Divination der Völker hat versagt (Jes 43,9), ihr Götterglaube und ihre Idole erweisen sich als nichtig (Jes 45,20). Worin besteht aber eigentlich die Substanz dessen, was Israel gegenüber den Völkern darstellen und verkörpern soll? Nach Jes 42,1–3 dient die charismatische Begabung des Gottesknechts dazu, eine Rechtsordnung unter den Völkern zu etablieren,25 vgl. Jes 42,1.3: 1 Siehe, das ist mein Knecht (‫)עבדי‬, an dem ich festhalte, mein Erwählter (‫)בחירי‬, an dem meine Seele ein Wohlgefallen hat. Hiermit habe ich meinen Geist auf ihn übertragen (‫)נתתי רוחי עליו‬, dass er ein(e) Recht(sordnung) für die Völker hervorbringe ( ‫משפט לגוים‬ ‫ ]…[ !)יוציא‬3 Ein geknicktes Rohr wird er nicht zerbrechen, und einen glimmenden Docht wird er nicht auslöschen: im Dienste der Wahrheit wird er Recht hervorbringen ( ‫לאמת‬ ‫)יוציא משפט‬.

Der Gottesknecht soll das „Licht der Völker“ (‫ )אור גוים‬verkörpern, an dem JHWHs Heilshandeln universal sichtbar wird (Jes 49,6–7). Das in seiner KELLENS / P IRART, Les textes viel-avestiques, 149; zur Diskussion des Verhältnisses zu Jes 45 vgl. ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 173–183. 24 BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, zu Jes 44,24–45,25 und den historischen Hintergründen, B ERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 363–441; zu Parallelen im Kyrus-Zylinder vgl. BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 395; ACHENBACH, Kyros–Orakel, 171–173. 25 Überlegungen zum Einfluss achämenidischer Rechtsvorstellungen auf den Rechtsbegriff an dieser Stelle vgl. GRAETZ, Rechtsordnung, 264–277.

132

Reinhard Achenbach

Leistung beeinträchtigte, und in seiner Gültigkeit angefochtene Messrohr, das der Zumessung von Ansprüchen dient, ist Kennzeichen seiner Tätigkeit, desgleichen der Schutz des Lichts und der Feuerflamme einer vom Verlöschen bedrohten Öllampe als Symbol der Wahrheit, welcher eben das Recht zur Geltung verhelfen soll. Der Anspruch des Eintretens für ein Prinzip der Wahrheit (‫ )אמת‬wird in der jahwistischen Ausformung einer neuen Herrschaftskonzeption für Israel an das Prinzip der Rechtsförmigkeit von Herrschaftshandeln gebunden. U. Berges hält es „für denkbar, dass die Verfasser hier die politische Propaganda Darius’ I. aufnehmen und der Präsentation des Gottesknechts dienstbar machen. Dieser kann seine Aufgabe in und an der Völkerwelt nur dann erfüllen, wenn und insofern der Perserkönig seiner Beauftragung durch J HWH nachkommt und für die Rückführung der deportierten Judäer in ihre Heimat sorgt.“26 Kern der vor der Völkerwelt zur Geltung zu bringenden Wahrheit ist die monotheistische Formulierung des Ausschließlichkeitsanspruches J HWHs (vgl. Jes 43,9–12), an dem Israel künftig zu messen sein wird (vgl. Jes 48,1; 59,15). Dementsprechend gilt der Bereich der Idololatrie als derjenige, in welchem sich die Sphäre des Truges (‫ )שקר‬manifestiert (Jes 44,20; vgl. Jes 28,15)! Das Recht, das hier zur Geltung zu bringen ist, bedeutet zunächst wohl die Gewährleistung des Wohn- und Lebensrechts des Gottesknechts-Volkes Israel im Lande der Verheißung und des Zionsberges. Mit der Gewährleistung der Einwohnung Gottes und des Wohnrechts seines erwählten Volkes inmitten der Völkerwelt wird eine Rechtsauffassung von universaler Reichweite etabliert, weil allein das erwählte Volk, das nach dem Recht des allein wahren Gotte lebt, allein Zugang zu einem ewigen Recht, das allen Völkern dient, für sich beansprucht. Im Anschluss an das KyrosOrakel (Jes 45,1–7) wird Israel verheißen, dass die durch Kambyses unterworfenen Völkerschaften aus Ägypten, Kusch und Saba die Wahrheit der Orakel des Gottes Israels anerkennen müssen (Jes 45,14b.15),27 dessen Name und Wesen sich ihnen noch nicht erschließt: Nur bei dir ist Gott (‫)אל‬, und es gibt keinen Gott (‫ )אלהים‬sonst außer ihm. Ach, du bist ein verborgener Gott (‫)אל מסתתר‬, du Gott Israels, ein Heiland.

Die umfängliche Komposition Jes 44,24–45,25 mündet in die Einladung an die Völker, gleichfalls zu dem Gott Israels umzukehren, vgl. Jes 45,22–25: Wendet euch zu mir, so werdet ihr errettet, ihr von allen Enden der Erde! Denn ich bin Gott und es gibt keinen sonst! 23 Ich habe bei mir selbst geschworen, es ist aus meinem 26

BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 213; B LENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40–55, 210–211, verweist auf den politischen Kontext der Sprache des – in sich literarisch geschichteten – sog. „Gottesknechtsliedes“ in der Perserzeit, verweist aber auf die begrenzten Möglichkeiten der historischen Entschlüsselung des Textes. 27 BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 418–425.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

133

Munde hervorgegangen Gerechtigkeit (‫ – )צדקה‬ein Wort, das unumkehrbar ist ( ‫דבר ולא‬ ‫)ישוב‬: Mir sollen sich beugen aller Menschen Knie, es soll jede Zunge schwören, 24 und sagen: Nur bei J HWH habe ich – sagt man – Gerechtigkeit und Kraft (‫!)ועז צדקה‬

Der Gedanke eines die Völkerwelt umspannenden Gerechtigkeitsprinzips und damit der Notwendigkeit der Formulierung von universalen Rechtsgrundsätzen,28 die unter den Völkern zur Geltung zu bringen sind, ist hiermit in seiner Notwendigkeit gefasst und harrt fortan der Ausführung. Der Vorstellung einer Etablierung eines neuen Wertesystems (und damit implizit die Bloßstellung der Hybris) entspricht der Gedanke einer Beschämung all derer, die sich der neuen, anikonischen monotheistischen Gottesverehrung innerhalb wie außerhalb der „Nachkommenschaft Israels“ entgegenstellen (Jes 44,24b.25). Die Vorstellung, dass etwa ein judäischer Gouverneur als Gottesknecht solche Funktionen ausüben könnte, scheitert. Sowohl der sacharjanische „Ölsohn“ Serubbabel (Sach 4,6) als auch der Gottesknecht der deuterojesajanischen Sammlung scheitert politisch, nicht aber die Erinnerung an sein Werk (Jes 52,13–53,12), auch wenn sein Name und seine Gestalt verblassen und hinter der kollektiven Interpretation der Gottesknechtstexte zurückstehen. Ein neuer Davidide besteigt nicht den Thron und Gouverneur werden nach Serubbabel bis Nehemia zunächst Perser. In Samaria hingegen, das Führungsansprüche oder Autoritätsansprüche über heilige Schriften und heiliges Land nicht erhebt, sondern sich der persischen Führung gänzlich unterwirft und wohl erst im 5. Jh. zum (Wieder-) Aufbau eines eigenen Heiligtums schreitet, behalten Männer israelitischen Ursprungs die Provinzialführung.

2. Die exemplarische Existenz Israels als erwähltes Volk im Kreis der Völker und die Stilisierung der Propheten zu Kündern des Völkerrechts Der Gedanke der Erwählung Israels findet in der dtr Rahmenparänese des Deuteronomiums seinen programmatischen Ausdruck (Dtn 7,6).29 Der An28

Hierin unterscheidet sich das Denken der neuen Epoche von dem durch die alte, vertragsrechtlich geprägte Epoche des neuassyrischen Reiches: was an intergentilen Rechtsnormen Gültigkeit zu beanspruchen hat, kann nicht mehr allein auf dem Weg von Verträgen formuliert werden, deren Inhalt durch das Recht des Stärkeren beeinflusst wird. 29 Der Text setzt die dtr Fiktion einer Landnahme unter einem göttlichen Banngebot schon voraus, vgl. ACHENBACH, Israel, 298ff.; OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11, 837– 857.865–867, hebt es literarhistorisch noch einmal davon ab. Als Ergebnis eines diachronen Prozesses liest er den Text auf einer „Höhenlinie Ex 19,3–6; Dtn 7,6; 14,2.21; 26,18–

134

Reinhard Achenbach

spruch auf den Besitz des verheißenen Landes, wie er dereinst nach der dtr Legende in der Landnahme Gestalt gewonnen hat, verlagert sich in späterer dtr Rahmung der Bundesformel (Dtn 26,16–19)30 auf die Vorstellung, dass die Sonderstellung Israels unter den Völkern aus der Gottesbeziehung Israels selbst heraus erkennbar werden soll (26,19: „…er wolle dich einsetzen zum Höchsten über alle Völker, die er erschaffen hat, zum Preis und zum Ruhm und zur Pracht, kurzum: dass du ein heiliges Volk für JHWH, deinen Gott, sein sollst, wie er verheißen hat.“). In der sakralen Interpretation von Dtn 14,1–2.21 bedeutet dies, dass die Einhaltung von Speisegeboten und die Enthaltung von Totenritualen und Blutritualen als Markierung der besonderen Identität gegenüber den anderen Völkern gilt. Dieser sakrale Aspekt wird auch in der priesterschriftlichen Vorstellung und im Heiligkeitsgesetz weiter entfaltet.31 Auch die Rituale der Divination sollen in Israel in markant eigener Weise Gestalt finden, indem sämtliche Formen der Magie abhorresziert werden (Dtn 18,9–13). Stattdessen entwickelt sich im Licht der spät-dtr Theologie in nachexilischer Zeit das Bild eines „mosaischen Prophetismus“ (Dtn 18,15–22), dessen Orakel an ihrer Kontinuität zum monotheistisch interpretierten mosaischen Gesetz gemessen werden und an ihrer Bewährung in der Geschichte.32 Hauptprotagonist dieses idealistischen Bildes, in welches Einflüsse aus den Vorstellungen der Verfasser der deuterojesajanischen Sammlung erkennbar sind, wird im Gefälle dieser wortorientierten Prophetentheologie der Prophet Jeremia. Ihm wird nach Jer 1,9 das göttliche Wort nach der Verheißung von Dtn 18,15ff in den Mund gelegt.33 In gleichem Atemzug wird die Rolle des Propheten neu definiert. Seine Sendung gilt keineswegs allein Israel, sondern er wird gerade dadurch, dass er an Israel das Gotteswort ausrichtet, das Geschick Israels zum Exempel machen, aus dem für die Völker der Gotteswille exemplarisch erkennbar werden soll, vgl. Jer 1,10: Siehe, hiermit setze ich dich heute ein als Beauftragten über die Völker und über die Königreiche, auszureißen und einzureißen, zu zerstreuen und zu verderben, aber auch um wieder aufzubauen und wieder neu zu pflanzen! 19“, die „auf nachexilische Fortschreibungen im Pentateuch zurückzuführen ist, die damit das Deuteronomium an die Sinaiperikope des Tetrateuchs einbinden.“ (OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11, 850). Während Dtn 7,6 noch als reine Zusage formuliert ist, wird im Lichte von Dtn 28,9 die „Aufrichtung Israels als ‘am qādôš an seinen Gesetzesgehorsam“ gebunden (OTTO, Deuteronomium 1–11, 850). 30 Hierzu sowie zur inneren Schichtung vgl. immer noch SMEND, Bundesformel. 31 Hierzu NIHAN, Laws, 401–432; ACHENBACH, Systematik, 161–209. 32 ACHENBACH, „A Prophet like Moses“, 435–458. 33 Vgl. FISCHER, Prophet; die hiermit zusammenhängenden redaktionsgeschichtlichen Linien zeigt OTTO, Jeremia und die Tora, 134–182, auf; weitergehende Studien hierzu: KNOBLOCH, Prophetentheorie; FISCHER, Einfluss, 247–269.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

135

Es ist schon verschiedentlich aufgefallen, dass das hier vorfindliche Wortfeld (‫ נטע‬,‫ בנה‬,‫ הרס‬,‫ אבד‬,‫ )נתץ‬im Jeremiabuch eine zentrale Rolle spielt.34 Ausgangspunkt der mit ihm verbundenen Geschichtsdeutung ist die Erfahrung des Untergangs Judas, vgl. Jer 39,8, vor allem die Zerstörung (‫)נתץ‬ zahlreicher Gebäude Jerusalems: „Und die Kasdäer brannten den Palast des Königs und die Häuser des Volkes nieder im Feuer und rissen die Mauern Jerusalems ein (‫)נתצו‬.” Hinzu kam der Abriss der Mauern der Stadt (vgl. Jer 50,15: ‫הרס ;חמותיה נהרסו‬, vgl. 2 Sam 11,25; 2 Kön 3,25). Als weiteres Motiv wird auf die Deportationen und den Verlust der Herrschaft über das Land verwiesen, das „Herausgerissenwerden“ aus dem Land (‫)נתש‬, vgl. Dtn 29,27: „Und JHWH hat sie aus ihrem Lande herausgerissen in Zorn und Grimm und großem Groll, und sie in ein anderes Land geworfen…“ (vgl. 1 Kön 14,15; Jer 31,28). Die Zerstreuung und Entwurzelung (‫אבד‬, hif.) der Bevölkerung Judas gilt als Teil des göttlichen Strafgerichts (vgl. Dtn 28,63; 2 Kön 24,2; Jer 18,7; 31,28). Der Akt des Strafgerichts gilt als souveräner Herrschaftsakt Gottes, vgl. Jer 45,4: „Siehe, was ich gebaut habe (‫)אשר בניתי‬, reiße ich wieder ein ( ‫אני‬ ‫)הרס‬, und was ich gepflanzt habe (‫)אשר נטעתי‬, reiße ich aus (‫)אני נתש‬.“ Die Erzählung von dem Wort Jeremias an Baruch dürfte, was die literarhistorische Wachstumsgeschichte angeht, ein Schlüsseltext auch für die hier vorfindliche Motivkette sein: sie hat in der nach-dtr Geschichtsdeutung der in den Prosatexten manifesten Buchredaktion und -gestalt ihren Ort. Die weitere Fortschreibungsgeschichte ist von hierher zu verstehen. Im Umkehrschluss wird gegen dieses Bild von Jer 45,5 die Hoffnung auf Wiederaufbau (‫ )בנות‬und dauerhafte Ansiedelung (Einpflanzung) im Land (‫)נתוע‬, wie sie die Propheten dauerhaft für die Zeit nach dem Exil ankündigen, gestellt, vgl. Jer 24,6: „Ich will sie gnädig ansehen und sie wieder in dies Land bringen und will sie bauen (‫ )בנה‬und nicht verderben (‫)הרס‬, ich will sie pflanzen (‫ )נטע‬und nicht ausreißen (‫)נתש‬.“ (vgl. Jer 31,28.40b; 42,10). Diese Vorstellung eines göttlichen Aktes von Gericht und Gnade wird in einem ersten Schritt gegen Babel gerichtet, vgl. Jer 50,15: wie die Babylonier die Mauern Jerusalems abgerissen haben, so sollen dereinst die Mauern Babylons abgerissen werden (‫הרס ;נהרסי חמותיה‬, 2 Sam 11,25; 2 Kön 3,25). Im Anschluss an das Töpfergleichnis (Jer 18*) wird von dem Gottesgericht an Israel ausgehend perspektivisch erweitert auf die gesamte Völkerwelt einbezogen, vgl. Jer 18,7–10: 7 Eine Weile rede ich wider ein Volk oder wider ein Königreich, dass ich es ausreißen, einreißen und zerstören wolle; 8 bekehrt es sich aber von seinen bösen Taten, gegen die ich mit meiner Rede eintrete, so reut mich das Unheil, das ich ihm anzutun geplant habe. 34

B ACH, Bauen, 7–11; STIPP, Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz, 96; OLYAN, „To Uproot“, 63–72.

136

Reinhard Achenbach

9 Und eine Weile rede ich wider ein Volk oder wider ein Königreich, dass ich es aufbauen und einpflanzen wolle, 10 und es begeht Untaten in meinen Augen, indem es meiner Stimme nicht gehorcht, so reut es mich des Guten, das ich ihm anzutun versprochen habe.

Somit ist der nächste Schritt naheliegend: wenn das Geschick von Gericht und Erbarmen auch die Nicht-Israeliten treffen kann, dann sind sie in den Grundprinzipien des Gesetzes Israels zu unterweisen und angehalten, sich bei Eidesleistungen auf JHWH zu berufen (vgl. Jer 12,14–17). Mit der Einschreibung einer solchen Lehre in das Jeremiabuch wird Jeremia zum Verkünder Gottes unter den Völkern. Gerichtsandrohung und Heilsverheißung, wie sie Israel zuteil wurden, sind von seiner Verkündigung her auch für die Völker geltend zu machen. Schließlich ist in einer Rückprojektion die Motivkette in die Berufungserzählung geraten: vgl. Jer 1,10 (s.o.). Indem der Gedanke, dass Gott selbst dem Propheten sein Wort in den Mund gelegt hat, dabei aufgenommen wird, entsteht eine Identität zwischen der Botschaft der göttlichen Gerichtsankündigung aus dem Munde Gottes selbst und dem Akt der prophetischen Rede: es ist der Prophet selbst, der durch das Wort „ausreißt und einreißt…baut und pflanzt“; das Wort der göttlichen Wahrheit wirkt aus ihm heraus wie brennendes Feuer und wie ein Hammer, der Felsen zerschmeißt (Jer 23,28–29).35 Der Akt der Gerichtsverkündigung und der Verheißung der Erneuerung, wie ihn der Prophet an Israel vollziehen soll, wird für die Königreiche und Völker zum Exempel, vgl. Jer 1,15–16: Denn siehe, hiermit rufe ich alle Sippen der Königreiche des Nordens – Spruch JHWH – dass sie kommen sollen und jeder seinen Thron aufstellen soll an den Toreingängen Jerusalems, und an all ihren Mauern ringsum und an allen Festungsstädten Judas. 16Und ich will mein Rechtsurteil über sie sprechen über all ihre Missetaten, mit denen sie mich

35

SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 336: „Die königliche Zeichnung des Propheten, die in 1,4– 10 den Text von vornherein prägt, weist darauf hin, daß zumindest dieser Abschnitt in Jer 1 auf eine lange traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung zurückblickt, die zu diesem Prophetenbild geführt hat, so daß man vor erheblichen konzeptionsgeschichtlichen Erklärungsschwierigkeiten stünde, wollte man die Berufungsszene zur ältesten Textsubstanz des Buches zählen.“ Geht man davon aus, dass Jer 1,9 an die Prophetentheorie von Dtn 18,15.18 anknüpft, dann ist die hieran anschließende Erweiterung der Aufgabenperspektive der Jeremiagestalt in Jer 1,10 in Auseinandersetzung mit dem Mosebild der nach-dtr Hexateuchkomposition verpflichtet, in welchem Mose mit seinem Auftritt gegenüber Pharao den Herrschaftsanspruch J HWHs über die Völkerwelt zur Geltung bringt; Jeremia erscheint so von Dtn 18,15–18 her als Prophet in mosaischer Sukzession. Auf diese Schicht der Gestaltung des Prophetenbildes reagieren die priesterlichen Bearbeiter des Pentateuch wiederum, indem sie dem Priesterprätendenten Aaron einen Vorzug in der Mittlerschaft der mosaischen Offenbarung einräumen (Ex 4,15.17; Num 17,23; vgl. OTTO, Jeremia und die Tora, 142–144). Jer 1,10 ist literarhistorisch also vermutlich im Rahmen von Bearbeitungsprozessen der zweiten Hälfte des 5. Jh.s v.Chr. entstanden.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

137

verlassen haben, indem sie anderen Göttern Räucheropfer dargebracht haben und das Werk ihrer Hände angebetet haben.

Die Botschaft des Jeremiabuches wird nun in der Fiktion eines gewaltigen Spektakels beschrieben, wonach das Gottesgericht als Lehrstück für die Völker und Königreiche der Region („Norden“) dient, aus dem diese über Willen und Wirkmacht des Gottes Israels unterrichtet werden sollen. Die Orakel, Zeichenhandlungen und Deuteworte Jeremias erhalten somit eine Funktion, die weit über den Rahmen der Botschaft an Israel hinaus reichen sollen. Ihm wird zugeschrieben, aus der Botschaft des Töpfergleichnisses aufgrund des göttlichen Wortes, das er empfangen hat, eine Lehre über Gericht und Gnade über die Völker entwickelt zu haben, i.e. Jer 18,7–10, (s.o.)! Die prophetische Deutung des Geschicks Israels wird auf die Völker übertragen und damit auch die Vorstellung eines Rechts und eines Ethos’, an welchem die Völker gemessen werden. JHWH, der Gott Israels, wird zum Weltenlenker. Dabei ist bemerkenswert, dass die schriftgelehrte Ausdeutung der jeremianischen Botschaft den Gedanken einer „Umkehr vom Bösen“ (‫שוב רעתי‬, vgl. Jer 23,14; 44,5) und also eine positive, dem Frieden dienende Grundorientierung in Ausrichtung auf den Gott Israels hin auch für die nicht-israelitischen Ethnien zur Sprache bringt. Grundsätzlich gilt hiernach also den Völkern ein analoger Gnadenwille Gottes, wie seinem eigenen Volke!36 Der Abschluss des Zyklus von Gerichtsankündigungen über Israel in Jer 1,1–25,11 mündet in die Ankündigung der Verwüstung des Landes und einer 70-jährigen Dauer des Frondienstes für Juda und Jerusalem (v. 12–15), v. 14: Denn auch sie sollen vielen Völkern dienen und großen Königen, und ich will ihnen vergelten gemäß ihren Taten und gemäß dem Tun ihrer Hände!

In einer Fortschreibung, welche die Gestalt Jeremias in ihrer Bedeutung für die Völkerwelt herausstellen will, wird in einer Vision Jeremia aufgefordert, den Becher mit dem göttlichen Zornestrunk auch an die Völker zu verteilen (Jer 25,15–38).37 Aus dem „Taumelkelch“, aus welchem Jerusa36 FISCHER, Jeremia 1–25, 579: „,Umkehren vom Bösen‘ […] gibt anderen Nationen dieselbe Chance wie Gottes eigenem Volk (3,22; 4,1), durch ein Ablassen vom bisherigen schlechten Tun eine Gesinnungsänderung in Gott auszulösen. Dieses ‚Gereuen bezüglich des Unheils‘ geht zurück auf Ex 32,12.14 (aufgenommen auch in Joel 2,13; Jona 4,2); Gott offeriert damit allen die gleiche Möglichkeit wie damals am Sinai seinem von ihm abgefallenen Volk. Die Aussagen zum Gereuen Gottes hier in vv. 8 und 10 zeigen eine „grundlegende theologische Reflexion“, die sowohl Heils- wie Unheilshandeln umgreift und allen Nationen gilt […].“ – mit Verweis auf J EREMIAS, Reue, 83–87). 37 Ausführlich hat den Text HUWYLER, Jeremia und die Völker, 350–364, untersucht. Er vermutet einen – auf Jeremia selbst zurückgehenden – Kernbestand in Jer 25,15–25* und 32–37. Die Ausweitung des Gerichtsgedankens aus dem Motiv des Gerichts über Babel auf die Perspektive eines Weltgerichts in v. 27–38 (in Anknüpfung an Jer 45,4–5

138

Reinhard Achenbach

lem und die Städte Judas trinken mussten, werden auch der Pharao und die Fürsten Ägyptens, die Völker im Osten, Westen, Norden und Süden, ja, alle Königreiche der Welt (‫כל־הממלכות הארץ אשר על־פני האדמה‬, v. 26) trinken müssen. Das Gericht wird über alle Bewohner der Erde ergehen (‫כל־ישבי הארץ‬, v. 30) und kein Individuum auslassen (‫כי ריב ליהוה בגוים נשפט‬ ‫הוא לכל־בשר‬, v. 31). Der Gedanke, dass die Einforderung von Recht durch Gott gleichsam in Gestalt eines göttlichen Rechtsstreits Israel trifft (vgl. Hos 4,1; Mi 6,2) erfährt nun eine Weitung ins Universale. Es trifft die Frevler (‫הרשעים נתנם לחרב‬, v. 31), d.h. all diejenigen, welche dem Maßstab der Gerechtigkeit, wie er nach israelitischem Vorbild gilt, nicht gerecht werden. Diese Argumentationsfigur setzt ein universales Rechtsbewusstsein voraus, das auch den Angehörigen eines fremden Volkes, welches JHWH nicht kennt, zu eigen ist und ihnen einen Rechtsverstoß bewusst werden lässt. Der Verfasser impliziert ein intersubjektives, gesetzliches Normenbewusstsein, auf der Basis einer universal erfassbaren göttlichen Weltordnung. Damit ist ein Programm entworfen, nach welchem den Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien Israels universale Geltung zugemessen wird, insofern dem Gott Israels als einzigem wesentlich die Eigenschaft des Göttlichen zuzuerkennen ist. Der Maßstab, dem die Völker unterworfen werden, ist mit Hinsicht auf das Recht der Gleiche, dem Israel unterworfen worden ist. Dem Propheten kommt in Konzeption die Rolle zu, das (mosaische) Recht in seiner Bedeutung für die internationale Rechtsgemeinschaft zur Sprache zu bringen. Während die Völkersprüche im MT einen Anhang bilden (Jer 46–51), sind sie in LXX konsequenterweise hinter Jer 25 in die Mitte des Buches gerückt (LXX Jer 25,14–32,24) und belegen so indirekt, dass die Thematik des Universalismus’ der jeremianischen Prophetie aus dem Umstand abgeleitet wurde, dass er das babylonische Reich als Werkzeug und Mittler des Gottesgerichts JHWHs interpretiert hat. Die schriftgelehrten Bearbeiter der Prophetenbücher entwickeln ihre Vorstellung von den Grundsätzen eines Völkerrechts, indem sie die Rechtsprinzipien des Schutzes der personae miserabiles aus dem Bereich des Personenrechts bzw. des Sozial- und Prozessrechts Israels in den Bereich des internationalen Rechts und des Kriegsrechts übertragen (so unten für Amos 1) und indem sie Prinzipien innerisraelitischen Wirtschaftsrechts auf intergentile Beziehungen ausdehnen (so unten für Habakuk 2). Im Prozess dieser gedanklichen Entwicklung erweist sich die Auseinandersetzung und 46–51*) wird meist einer späten redaktionellen Bearbeitung des Buches zugewiesen, vgl. MCKANE, Jeremiah, 633–658; CARROLL, Jeremiah, 497–508; SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 305–309. Eigentümlicherweise richtet sich das Interesse der Exegeten sehr auf die Frage, in wie weit der Text Jeremia zuzuweisen oder dem Propheten abzusprechen sei, wenig aber auf die positive Bedeutung der Konstruktion.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

139

mit den Bedingungen des neubabylonischen Reiches als ein wichtiger Faktor. Die Unheilsorakel und Fluchworte wider die Feinde aus den traditionellen Kriegsorakeln werden zunächst auf Babylon und sodann in den sogenannten „eschatologischen“ Texten auf die gesamte bekannte Völkerwelt ausgedehnt. So werden die Unheilsworte gegen Ägypten in Jer 46,1– 12.13–26 mit der Hybris begründet, mit der Ägypten auf seine Streitwagenmacht vertrauend eine Weltherrschaft anstrebt und die bewohnte zivilisierte Welt mit dem Untergang bedroht (v. 8–10),38 kann doch die Würde, Herr der Welt zu sein, nur einer Gottheit zukommen, nach Überzeugung der Schriftgelehrten Schreiber des Jeremiabuches also JHWH allein.39 Darum muss auch ein Angriff auf die von JHWH selbst gelenkte und beherrschte Weltordnung, mit dem Gottesgericht und der Vergeltung am Tag der Rache (‫)יום נקמה‬, d.h. zu der Zeit, da J HWH seine Widersacher und die Feinde seines Volkes zur Rechenschaft zieht, beantwortet werden (vgl. Jer 46,10). In ähnlicher Weise wenden sich auch die anderen jeremianischen Völkerorakel fiktiv an die Feinde Israels: das „Schwert JHWHs“ kann nicht zur Ruhe kommen gegen die Philister (Jer 47,6–7), er straft das moabitische Volk, das sich wider ihn erhoben hat (Jer 48,26: ‫)על־יהוה הגדיל‬, die Ammoniter, die sich mit ihrem Gott Milkom für unverletzlich halten (Jer 49,4), den Hochmut Edoms, das sich in seinen Felsgebirgen in falscher Sicherheit wähnt (Jer 49,16), den steten Widersacher Damaskus, für dessen Untaten gegen Israel der Name Ben-Hadad steht (Jer 49,27). Die auf andere Götter ausgerichteten Kulte sind unwirksam. Die Texte entwerfen das Bild eines Orakels, das nur einen Gott kennt, an welchem die Völkerwelt gemessen wird, J HWH, der Gott Israels.40 Auf ihn bezieht sich auch der gegen Babel angeführte Hybrisvorwurf, Jer 50,29: 38

Jer 46,8: „Ägypten steigt auf wie der Nil, und wie die Flüsse tosen (seine*) Wasser. Es sagt: ‚Ich will aufsteigen lassen, ich will bedecken die Erde, ich will zerstören die Städte und ihre Bewohner!‘“ – Die Übertragung des Motivs vom anschwellenden Nil in den Bereich der Kriegsmetaphorik ist für Ägypten ungebräuchlich und konterkariert die Selbstdeutung der mesopotamischen Kriegs– und Königsideologie, vgl. HUDDLESTUN, „Who Is This“, 360–363. 39 Vgl. SNAITH, Literary Criticism, 18; HÖFFKEN, Untersuchungen, 265–271; KESSLER , Ägyptenbilder, 52–53; H UWYLER , Jeremia und die Völker, 98, setzt den Akzent in der Interpretation etwas anders: „Nicht weil Ägypten nach der Weltherrschaft trachtete – dies tat auch Babylon wie im übrigen wohl jedes Großreich der Antike –, sondern weil es sich damit gegen die Pläne JHWHs stellte, der die Reiche der Welt in die Hand Nebukadnezars gegeben hat, mußte es den Babyloniern unterliegen.“ 40 Bei der großen Völkerspruchsammlung wird man zu einem nicht geringen Anteil mit einer sekundären Stilisierung der Prophetengestalt durch schriftgelehrte, pseudepigraphische Kompositionen von Prophetentexten zu rechnen haben, die die Autorität der Schrifttradenten aus der Zeit des zweiten Tempels stärken sollte, indem sie ihrer Tradition eine über Juda hinausweisende Bedeutung zumaß; HUWYLER, Jeremia und die Völker, 304–323, hingegen rechnet mit einer jeremianischen Herkunft eines großen Teils des

140

Reinhard Achenbach

Denn es hat stolz gehandelt (‫ )זדה‬wider JHWH, den Heiligen Israels…!

Er ist es, dessen Vergeltung in dem Unheil, das über die Stadt hereinbricht, wirksam ist (‫אל גמלות יהוה שלם ישלם‬, Jer 51,56). Es lohnt sich an dieser Stelle, dem hebräischen Begriff und seinem griechischen Äquivalent etwas näher nachzugehen.

3. ‫ –זדון‬Der Vorwurf der Hybris gegenüber Gottheit und Menschheit Das Wortfeld ‫ זיד‬1) „heiß werden“, kausativ: „erhitzen“ –> übertragen 2) „hybride handeln“, adj. ‫„ זד‬hochmütig, vermessen, frech“, ‫זדון‬ „Vermessenheit, Hybris“, beschreibt im Bereich der zweiten, metaphorischen Verwendung im verbalen Modus Handlungen, die aus einer vermessenen Grundhaltung resultieren, etwa Ex 21,14: Wenn ein Bürger vermessen handelt (‫ )כי יזיד איש‬wider seinen Nächsten, indem er ihn aus einem Hinterhalt heraus umbringt, so sollst du ihn von meinem Altar wegreißen, dass man ihn töte!

Der Kontext der Verwendung zeigt an, dass die Verletzung fundamentalen Lebensrechts im Akt der heimtückischen Tötung zugleich eine religiöse Dimension hat, indem der Nachweis eines Mordes den definitiven Ausschlussgrund von der Asylie bildet.41 In der deuteronomistischen Paränese gilt der Ungehorsam gegen den göttlichen Befehl als vermessene Handlung (Dtn 1,43), insbesondere wenn es sich dabei um eine letztinstanzliche Entscheidung des priesterlichen oder auch richterlichen Zentralgerichts in Jerusalem handelt (Dtn 17,12– Textbestandes, die auf öffentliche Rezitationen zurückgehen könnten. Auch SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 330–331, vermutet, dass Jer 46–49 schon einer der frühesten „Textgestalten“ gegeben war. Entsprechend der o.a. literarhistorischen Zuordnung von Jer 1,10 wird man die vorfindliche Gestalt der Komposition der Kapitel aber frühestens im 5. Jh. v. Chr. annehmen. 41 In der griechischen Rechtskultur nimmt der Begriff seit Solon im Kontext des Schutzes der fundamentalen Persönlichkeitsrechte eine zentrale Stellung ein, vgl. B ARTA, Graeca, 146–181: „Hybrisklage und Persönlichkeitsschutz“, S. 146: „Hybris stellte politisch wie rechtlich eine Friedensstörung dar. Hybris hatte auch eine religiöse Wurzel, denn die Götter – Zeus wie Apollon – bestraften das „übergewichtige Ausgreifen, die hybris, die den Gott herausfordert und darum Vergeltung gemäß dem ‘Recht’, dike, geschehen läßt.“ (B URKERT, ‘Vergeltung’, 35). B ARTA, Graeca, 155: „Die Sensibilität für ein mit Hybris bezeichnetes und mißbilligtes Verhalten, bildete noch vor Drakons strafrechtlicher Unterscheidung zwischen vorsätzlicher und unvorsätzlicher Tötung eine Wurzel der Differenzierung für unterschiedlich gefärbte Schuldformen…Als ‚Hybris‘ wurde nämlich nur ein Verhalten verstanden, das mit verwerflicher Gesinnung begangen wurde.“

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

141

13, v. 12 ‫האיש אשר יעשה בזדין‬/ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ). Nahezu standardmäßig findet das Motiv in die nach-dtr Geschichtsdeutung zur Erklärung des Niedergangs Israels Eingang, so in dem paradigmatischen Reflexions- und Bekenntnistext des „Gebets Nehemias“, Neh 9,16: „unsere Väter wurden vermessen (‫ )הזידו‬und halsstarrig (‫)ויקשו את־ערפם‬, so dass sie deinen Geboten nicht gehorchten“.42 Es ist durch Neh 9,10 zugleich als ein Verhalten markiert, das schon die auf einen Genozid ausgerichteten Unterdrückungsmaßnahmen des Pharao und der Ägypter gegen das Gottesvolk charakterisiert.43 Ezra 7,10–11 diagnostiziert das Anwachsen von Kriminalität in Jerusalem, durch welche das göttliche Gericht provoziert worden sei, als eine Folge der Hybris (Ez 7,10: ‫ – פרח הזדון‬LXX: ἡ ὕβρις ἐξανέστηκεν – „es blüht die Hybris“)! Erst recht musste es als Hybris angesehen werden, wenn ein Prophet ein eigenes Wort als Gotteswort ausgab (Dtn 18,20.22; vgl. Jer 43,2 LXX 50,2; vgl. TR 11 Q 19 60,20–21; 61,1ff)!44 In der hexateuchredaktionellen Zusammenstellung dtr und vor-dtr Materialien wird umgekehrt als Erkenntnis Jitros, des Priesters von Midian, der sich zu J HWH als dem Gott bekennt, „der größer ist als alle Götter“, formuliert (Ex 18,11): Nun weiß ich, dass J HWH größer ist als alle Götter, denn er hat das Volk aus der Hand der Ägypter errettet, weil sie vermessen (‫ )זדו‬an Israel gehandelt haben! (vgl. Neh 9,10)

Im schriftgelehrten Prophetenbild spielt der Gedanke der Hybris eine wichtige Rolle. Die Tempelzerstörung durch die Babylonier scheint Jer 50,29 im Blick zu haben, wenn davon die Rede ist, dass Babel vermessen gegen den Heiligen Israels gehandelt habe (‫)זדה אל־קדש ישראל‬, wegen seiner Hybris trifft die Stadt die göttliche Heimsuchung (Jer 50,31: ‫הנני אליך‬ ‫זדון‬, vgl. 50,32).45 In Jer 50,31.32 wird das Strafhandeln Gottes gegen Babel als Auslöschung der Hybris (hebr. ‫זדון‬, LXX ὑβρίστρια, ὕβρις) charakterisiert, vgl. Jer 50,31: ‫הנני אליך זדון נאם יהוה‬ Siehe, ich gehe gegen dich vor, Hybris! Spruch J HWHs!

42

Vgl. auch Neh 9,29. Neh 9,10: „Und du hast Zeichen und Wunder getan am Pharao und all seinen Dienern und am ganzen Volk seines Landes, weil du wusstest, dass sie vermessen/hybride an ihnen gehandelt hatten ( ‫)הזידו עליהם‬.“ 44 Zur Textrekonstruktion vgl. YADIN, The Temple Scroll, 277; P AGANINI, „Nicht darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen“, 164. 45 Vgl. die weitere Verwendung des Nomens in den Proverbien (Prv 11,2, LXX: ὕβρις; 13,10 LXX: ὕβρις; 21,24), in Kritik an Israel (Ez 7,10), aber auch an Edom (Ob 3; Jer 49,16). 43

142

Reinhard Achenbach

Der Glaube der Edomiter an die eigene Unverletzlichkeit und Unbesiegbarkeit wird in Ob 3 und Jer 49,16 als ‫ זדון‬bezeichnet (LXX Jer 27,31: ὑβρίστρια; Ob 3: ὑπερφανία). Auch die große Dichtung des Jesajabuches über das Gericht an Babel interpretiert dieses als Vollzug eines göttlichen Gerichts über die Hybris, Jes 13,11b: ‫ופקדתי על־תבל רעה ועל־רשעים עונם‬ ‫והשבתי גאון זדים וגאות עריצים אשפיל‬ Und ich werde heimsuchen am Erdkreis die Bosheit und an den Frevlern ihre Schuld! 46 47 Dann werde ich zerbrechen den Hochmut der Vermessenen (‫ )ואון זדים‬und die Überheblichkeit der Tyrannen werde ich demütigen.

Inhaltlich wird das Urteil der Hybris mit dem Gedanken der Verletzung von grundlegenden Persönlichkeitsrechten und der Überhebung gegen das göttliche Gesetz assoziiert. Im Jesajabuch ist zu beobachten, dass sowohl den Assyrern als auch den Babyloniern genozidales Handeln vorgeworfen wird, vgl. Jes 10,7:48 Denn in seinem Herzen trägt er den Wunsch zu vernichten (‫ )בלבבו להשמיד‬und nicht wenige Völker auszurotten (‫!)ולהכרית לא מעט‬

Sodann kommen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit im Kriege in den Blick. So heißt es im Spottlied gegen den König von Babel, Jes 14,5–6: 5 J HWH hat zerbrochen den Stab (das Herrschaftsinsignium) der Frevler (‫ )מטה רשעים‬und den Stecken der Befehlshaber (‫)שבט משלים‬, 6 dessen, der da schlägt die Völkerschaften in Wut und dessen, der das schlägt ohne aufzuhören, der da herumtrampelt im Zorne auf den Nationen, der sie schonungslos verfolgt!

An dieser Stelle können nun weder die Gesamtkompositionen der Völkersprüche des Jesajabuches in Jes 13–27 noch des Ezechielbuches in Ez 25– 46 Synonym zu ‫זד‬, ‫ זדון‬steht im MT oft ‫ – גאון‬Hochmut, der (einschließlich seiner verwandten Lexeme) in der LXX ebenfalls des öfteren mit ὕβρις wiedergegeben wird (Prv 8,13; 16,18; vgl. a. Prv 8,13; 14,3; für ‫ זדון‬Prv. 11,2; 13,10). Lev 26,19 sieht in dem Hochmut Israels einen Hauptgrund für das göttliche Strafgericht ‫ – ושברתי את־גאון עזכם‬καὶ συντρίψω τὴν ὕβριν τῆς ὑπερηφανίας ὑµων). Der Begriff des Hochmuts, gr. ὑπερηφανία, ist vorzugsweise in der weisheitlichen Tugendlehre beheimatet (vgl. Prv 8,13; Sir 10,7.14.15.21 u.ö.), in den Völkerworten Ob 3; Jes 16,6; Jer 48,29 hat er eine politische Dimension, ebenso wie in der Kritik am Hochmut der Seleukiden (vgl. 1 Makk 1,24; 2,47.49; 2 Makk 5,21; 7,36; 9,7.11). 47 Abgesehen von Jer 43,2, wo Asarja Ben Hoschaja und Johanan Ben Kareach als zedîm bezeichnet werden, da sie Jeremias prophetische Warnung vor einer Flucht nach Ägypten als lügnerische Prophetie bestreiten, wird die Bezeichnung in der spät-nachexilischen Frömmigkeitskultur zum Allgemeinbegriff für solche, die sich vom Gott Israels in hybrider Weise abwenden (vgl. Mal 3,15.19; Ps 19,14; 86,14; 119,21.51.69.78.85.122; Prv 21,24). 48 Die Stelle wurde schon von M. W EBER im Anschluss an O. Procksch als Kritik an der assyrischen Hybris interpretiert; vgl. hierzu im Folgenden Anm. 87 und 89.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

143

32 analysiert werden. Sie setzen jeweils unterschiedliche Akzente. Aber auch in den Dichtungen des Ezechielbuches ist jedenfalls der Gedanke einer göttlichen Bestrafung der Hybris erkennbar. So heißt es etwa in der Dichtung über den Sturz des Königs von Tyrus, dass dieser behauptet haben soll (Ez 27,2): „Ich bin von vollkommener Schönheit!“ In Ez 28,2 wird die Selbstproklamation des Königs mit blasphemischen Zügen versehen, indem dieser von sich behauptet: „Ich bin ein Gott! Auf einem Göttersitz wohne ich im Herzen der Meere!“49 – Als Ausdruck von Hybris gilt bei Ezechiel auch die Genugtuung der Völker über die Zerstörung des Heiligtums in Jerusalem (vgl. Ez 25,3.6; 26,2). Schließlich hat der Gedanke auch im jüdischen Schrifttum der hellenistischen Zeit in den Makkabäerbüchern Ausdruck gefunden, wobei nun explizit die Verletzung von Menschenrechten im Kriegsfalle in den Blick kommt. In 1 Makk 3,20–21 (LXX) heißt es in der Rede des Judas Makkabäus angesichts der Übermacht des Seleukidenheeres unter dem Heerführer (ἄρχων) Seron über das schonungslose Vorgehen der Seleukiden: Sie ziehen gegen uns voller Hybris (πλήθει ὕβρεως) und Gesetzlosigkeit (ἀνοµία), um uns, unsere Frauen und unsere Kinder zu vernichten und uns zu berauben, wir aber kämpfen um unser Leben und für unsere Gesetze (τῶν νοµίµων ἡµῶν)!

In dem propagandistisch weitergehenden 2. Makkabäerbuch wird in 2 Makk 8,17 der Angriff auf die heilige Stätte von Jerusalem als Hybris bezeichnet, ebenso die Zerstörung der althergebrachten Rechtsordnung der Stadt. Gott erscheint im jüdisch-hellenistischen Schrifttum der Zeit als Richter über die menschliche Hybris (vgl. 3 Makk 2,3.21.25; Est LXX 4,17δ).

4. Menschenrecht und Kriegsrecht: Frühe Perspektiven internationalen Rechts im Amosbuch Die Orakelsprüche wider die fremden Völker in Amos 1,3–2,3 sind Teil einer Komposition, deren Klimax in dem Wort gegen Israel Am 2,6–8 besteht.50 Der Form nach kleiden sie die prophetischen Unheilsandrohungen 49

Die Polemik bezieht sich möglicherweise auf Elemente einer mythisch aufgeladenen Königsideologie, vgl. MORGENSTERN, King-God, 152–153; SAUR, Tyroszyklus, 238– 241. 50 In der einschlägigen Fachliteratur zum Amosbuch wird oft angenommen, dass die Komposition zum Grundbestand des Amosbuches hinzugehört (so z.B. W OLFF, Amos, 130–131; J EREMIAS, Völkersprüche, 170; SCHART, Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 98). Jedoch haben MELUGIN, Formation of Amos, 383–384; FRITZ, Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos, 26–38; KRATZ, Worte des Amos, 69–70 (ND in: DERS., Prophetenstudien, 310–343), und W ÖHRLE, Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 90–102, mit

144

Reinhard Achenbach

in weisheitliche Zahlensprüche, was ihnen den Charakter exemplarischer Lehren gibt.51 Ein Beispiel mit einem 3 + 4 Muster bietet Prv 30,18–19: Drei Dinge sind es, die mir zu wunderbar erscheinen, gar vier Dinge sind es, die unfasslich sind: (1) der Weg des Adlers am Himmel, (2) der Weg der Schlange auf dem Felsen, (3) der Weg des Schiffes auf hoher See, (4) und der Weg des jungen Mannes zur jungen Frau.

Weitere Beispiele bieten Prv. 30,15b–16.21–23.24–28 und 29–31. Zuweilen erscheint jeweils das vierte Glied in der Serie als das verwunderlichste und auffälligste,52 mitunter gelten aber alle vier Teile als gleichwertig, weil über sie eine gemeinsame, analoge Aussage getroffen wird.53 Gemessen hieran eröffnen die Völkersprüche lediglich das Schema, führen es aber nicht durch; allein im Israelspruch Am 2,6–8 finden sich vier Elemente, die sich in das Zahlenspruchmuster fügen, die aber zudem noch durch Parallelismen verdoppelt werden. Aufgezählt werden vier Frevel (hebr. ‫)פשע‬, fundamentale Verstöße, die ius humanum und ius divinum gleichermaßen verletzen.54 Die aus der Botschaft des Amos entnommenen Inhalte55 wer-

überzeugenden Gründen zeigen können, dass der in sich nicht einheitliche Text (Tyrus-, Edom- und Juda-Strophe werden generell als sekundär angesehen, ebenso Am 2,4–5.9ff.) einer späten, nach-exilischen Bearbeitungsphase des Buches entstammt. 51 Zur Form des Zahlenspruches vgl. immer noch ROTH, Numerical Sayings; SAUER, Sprüche Augurs. 52 Prv 30,29–31: „Drei sind es, die stolz einherschreiten, vier haben einen stolzen Gang: (1) der Löwe, der Held unter den Tieren, der vor niemandem zurückschreckt, (2) der Hahn, der einherstolziert, (3) oder der Leitbock, (4) und schließlich der König, beim Auftritt vor seinem Volk.“ Zu den Schwierigkeiten der Textrekonstruktion vgl. P LÖGER, Sprüche Salomos, 353.355; SAEBØ, Sprüche, 369. 53 Prv 30,15b–16: „Drei sind es, die nie satt werden, vier, die nie sagen ,genug!‘: (1) die Unterwelt und (2) der unfruchtbare Mutterschoß, (3) die Erde, die nicht gesättigt wird vom Wasser und (4) das Feuer, das nie sagt ‚genug!‘“ 54 Die folgenden Überlegungen habe ich erstmals in einem Vortrag bei der Konferenz der Society of Biblical Literature im November 2011 in San Francisco vorgetragen. Sie sind teilweise und in modifizierter Form in meine Studie über „Rechtliche und Religiöse Aspekte der Integration Fremder in die Israelitische Kultusgemeinde“ in: ARTUS, Loi et Justice (in Vorbereitung) eingegangen. Der Gedanke, dass in Amos 1,3–2,5 Grundlagen des internationalen Rechts und des Völkerrechts reflektiert werden, ist nicht neu, sondern schon von B ARTON, Amos’s Oracles, 51–61, vorgetragen worden. Allerdings hat Barton den Konnex zu Am 2,6–8 nicht behandelt. 55 Das wird an Parallelüberlieferungen erkennbar. So scheint Am 2,6 von einem Wort wie Am 8,5b–6 beeinflusst zu sein, v. 7a.8 von Am 4,1 und 5,11; 8,4. V. 7b hingegen fügt der Reihe der Frevel den Aspekt des sexuellen Frevels hinzu. S. hierzu im Folgenden.

145

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

den durch die Form des Zahlenspruches ihrer ursprünglichen Orakelgestalt entkleidet und erhalten den Charakter einer Belehrung: aus der unmittelbaren prophetischen Konfrontation wird die Botschaft in eine weisheitliche Schriftgattung überführt und für künftige Hörer oder Leser in den Dienst genommen,56 Am 2,6–8: 6 So spricht J HWH: Wegen der drei Frevel Israels, wegen der vier werde ich es (das angedrohte künftige Unheil) nicht abwenden: (I) weil sie für Silbergeld einen Gerechten verkaufen und einen Armen um eines Paars Sandalen willen, (II) 7 weil sie noch den im Staub auf der Erde liegenden Hilflosen 57 gegen den Kopf treten und den Gedemütigten den Rechtsweg verwehren, (III) weil ein Bürger und sein Vater zu dem selben Mädchen gehen, und so meinen heiligen Namen entweihen, (IV) 8 weil sie sich auf gepfändeten Kleidern räkeln neben jedem Altar und den Wein der mit Bußzahlungen Belasteten trinken im Hause ihres Gottes.

Durch die Feststellung, dass es sich bei den hier inkriminierten Taten58 um Frevel (hebr. ‫ )פשע‬handelt, werden die aufgeführten Vergehen als fundamentale Rechtsverletzungen gegen Menschen charakterisiert. Zugleich Amos 4,1; 5,11; 8,4.6 ‫ שמע זאת‬8,4 ‫השאפים אביון‬ ‫ולשבית ענוי־ארץ׃‬ ‫ לקנות בכסף דלים‬8,6 …‫ואביון בעבור נעלים‬ ‫…העשקות דלים‬4,1 …‫הרצצות אביונים‬ ‫…יען בושסכם על־דל ומשאת־בר תקחו ממנו‬5,11 ‫…ולא תשתו את־יינם׃‬

Amos 2 …‫ כה אמר יהוה‬6 ‫ השאפים על־עפר־ארץ בראש דלים‬7 ‫ודרך ענוים יטו‬ ‫…על־מכרם בכסף צדיק‬6 ‫ואביון בעבור נעלים׃‬

‫ ועל־בגדים הבלים יטו אצל כל־מזבח‬8 ‫ויין ענושים ישתו בית אלהיהם׃‬

56 Die Form der Gestaltung ist also gegenüber dem Material wahrscheinlich auf die Hand eines Bearbeiters der prophetischen Botschaft zurückzuführen, für den die Rolle der Orakelsammlung der prophetisch stilisierten Belehrung dient. Diese Weise der schriftgelehrten Behandlung von Prophetentexten dürfte im Raum der Überlieferungskultur des zweiten Tempels ihren Ort gehabt haben. Was im Folgenden beschrieben wird, ist also m.E. Ergebnis von Gestaltungsvorgängen der nachexilischen Epoche. 57 Die Wurzel ist von ‫ שׁוף‬I (Nebenform ‫„ = )שׁאף‬treten“ abzuleiten, nicht aber von ‫שׁאף‬ = „schnappen“; ein Wortspiel mit dieser Wurzel enthält bekanntlich Gen 3,15; vgl. HALAT 1280–1281; JEREMIAS, Amos, 18. 58 Die zahlreichen philologischen und historischen Einzelprobleme, die mit der Deutung dieses Textes verbunden sind, können hier nicht ausführlich diskutiert werden. Hier muss auf die Kommentarliteratur verwiesen werden; vgl. auch F LEISCHER, Von Menschenverkäufern, 47–79.

146

Reinhard Achenbach

verletzen die Täter jedoch die Sphäre göttlichen Rechts, insofern es die Gottheit ist, die über die Unversehrtheit des Menschen wacht und Vergehen mit Sanktion bedroht und zwar insbesondere dann, wenn erkennbar ein ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren zur Klärung der Verschuldensfragen nicht stattgefunden hat oder die Entscheidungsträger manipuliert oder gar korrumpiert wurden und ein Rechtsfindungsprozess im Sinne der Gerechtigkeitsordnung (‫צדק‬, ‫ )צדקה‬nicht stattgefunden hat. Im vorliegenden Fall wird ein schuldloser Bürger, dem kein Verschulden nachgewiesen werden konnte und der deshalb als „Gerechter“ zu gelten hat (‫)צדיק‬, in die Schuldsklaverei verkauft, d.h. ihm wird fälschlich eine Schuld unterstellt. In dem Spruch geht es dabei weniger um die Modalitäten des Verfahrens als um das Ergebnis. Wird aber ein Gerechter in die Sklaverei verkauft, so handelt es sich nicht nur um einen Rechtsverstoß in dem Sinne, dass hier ein illegaler Verkauf in die Schuldsklaverei konstatiert werden muss, sondern allgemein um das Vergehen des Menschenhandels. Dabei spielen niedere Beweggründe wie Habgier eine Rolle, wie die Quantifizierung des Handelswertes „für Silber“ andeutet, es handelt sich also nicht nur um den Vorgang der Freiheitsberaubung und Entrechtung, sondern auch um eine Entwürdigung und Entwertung der Person. Diese Argumentationsfigur wird noch verschärft durch die parallele Aussage, die den Verkauf eines Menschen für den Gegenwert eines Paars Sandalen anprangert. Die Sandale ist nicht allein als Fußbekleidung und Schutz gegen steinigen Boden Symbol für den Schutzbedarf eines Menschen, sondern zugleich Ausdruck seines Personenrechts (vgl. Ruth 4,7–8). Am 2,6 verurteilt also Menschenhandel als Frevel, durch den ein Mensch seiner Menschenwürde und seines Personen- und Selbstbestimmungsrechts beraubt wird. Der Akt, sich einer unterlegenen Person noch dadurch zu bemächtigen, dass man sie in den Staub niederwirft und gegen ihren Kopf tritt, ist in seiner Brutalität Ausdruck einer öffentlichen Entwürdigung und Misshandlung. Das Verbum ‫שאף‬, das hier für „treten“ steht, ist nicht mit einer bedächtigen Symbolhandlung zu assoziieren, sondern vielmehr mit dem schnellen Treten, mit dem man eine Tier zertritt (vgl. Gen 3,15), es ist also ein Akt der physischen Misshandlung gemeint. Zugleich wird dem solchermaßen Gedemütigten (‫ )עני‬der Rechtsweg verwehrt.59 Der Frevel besteht demnach einerseits in der körperlichen Misshandlung, die in Verbindung mit der Verwehrung des Rechtsweges auch als Folter gewertet werden kann. Zudem ist hier ein Grundsatz der Rechtsgleichheit verletzt. Dass der Sohn eines Hausherrn sich an einer minderjährigen jungen Frau, die im Dienste seines Vaters bzw. des Hauses stand, sexuell verging, ist vermutlich ein Vorgang, der sich unter den patriarchalischen Verhält59

Zur dieser Interpretation von ‫ נטה דרך‬an der Stelle vgl. Prv 17,23; ‫ נטה משפט‬Dtn 27,19; J EREMIAS, Amos, 18 (Lit.).

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

147

nissen des öfteren ereignete. Das Deuteronomium kennt entsprechende Regelungen zum Schutz der Integrität einer jungen Frau (Dtn 22,28–29) und verbindet diese zugleich mit Regeln gegen inzestuöses Verhalten eines Sohnes (Dtn 23,1). Als Frevel wird die Verletzung der sexuellen Integrität der minderjährigen Abhängigen markiert, wenn sich auch der Vater an dem Übergriff beteiligt und so die Unschuldige zu inzestuösem Verhalten zwingt. Der Kontext der rechtlichen Übervorteilung durch Gläubiger, die Unschuldige in die Sklaverei zwingen, legt die Annahme nahe, dass der Verfasser des Spruches hier in Abhängigkeit geratene junge Frauen besonders in den Blick nehmen und die Straftat des sexuellen Missbrauchs in besonderer Weise als Frevel benennen will. V. 7b benennt die religiöse Dimension dieses Vorgangs. Von einer Entweihung des göttlichen Namens ist im Falle des Götzendienstes (Lev 20,3) und des Meineids zu reden (Lev 19,12). Durch die Erzwingung des Sexualaktes wird die Minderjährige gleichsam zur Prostituierten erniedrigt, Lev 19,29 verwendet das gleiche Verbum (‫ חלל‬pi.) im Zusammenhang der Erzwingung sexueller Handlungen von abhängigen Töchtern: „Du sollst deine Tochter nicht entweihen, indem du sie zur Prostitution zwingst.“ Der heilige Gottesname, der über dem ganzen Volk Israel genannt ist, und der im priesterlichen Segen auf dieses Volk gelegt wird (Num 6,27) ist somit durch den Gewaltakt des sexuellen Übergriffs auf die junge Frau selbst tangiert. Damit ist das Menschenrecht der Frau auf Integrität gegenüber sexuellen Übergriffen generell konstatiert.60 Als Blasphemie gilt schließlich die Nutzung von gepfändeten Gütern, die durch Rechtsbeugung und Betrug erworben worden sind, im Raum des Kultes. Das Ärgernis wird noch erhöht, wenn es sich dabei um die Pfändung der Bekleidung handelt, dem Schuldner also die Möglichkeit des Schutzes seiner körperlichen Unversehrtheit genommen wird. Dies gilt als schändlich (Hi 22,6) und darum wird das Verbot der Kleiderpfändung in Ex 22,25–26; Dtn 24,12–13 rechtsverbindlich festgeschrieben und wird somit einklagbar (vgl. Ez 18,7; 33,15; MHas 7,1). Der Genuss von Wein aus rechtlich fragwürdigen Pfändungen im Kultus ist gleichermaßen problematisch, denn wenn es sich um widerrechtlich ergaunerten Wein handelt, dann muss man ihn imgrunde dem Diebesgut gleichstellen. Das Kulturgut, dessen Darbringung im Zuge des Opfermahls als Libation Recht des Weinbergbesitzers wäre, wird von den diebischen Gläubigern als ihr eigenes Gut ausgegeben und möglicherweise sogar libiert. Die distanzierte Formulierung „in ihrem Gotteshaus“ mag an lokale oder regionale Kulte anspielen, die seit der Zeit der Deuteronomisten eo ipso als obsolet gal60

In der Regel wird Am 2,7b als sekundärer, vom Heiligkeitsgesetz her beeinflusster Zusatz angesehen (vgl. J EREMIAS, Amos, 19.22).

148

Reinhard Achenbach

ten.61 Liest man den Text in einer älteren Perspektive, so kommt auch hier der Gedanke der Blasphemie zum Ausdruck. Zudem wird durch den Akt die sakrale Stätte entweiht und verunreinigt. Fasst man die als Frevel bezeichneten Delikte zusammen, so wendet sich der Text gegen Menschenhandel, Misshandlung, sexuellen Missbrauch und Blasphemie. Die Delikte berühren alle gleichermaßen grundlegende Menschenrechte (Recht auf freie Selbstbestimmung, körperliche Unversehrtheit, Rechtsgleichheit) und göttliches Recht, benannt werden demnach fundamentale Normverletzungen. Die eigentümliche Verschränkung von göttlicher Bestandsgarantie und menschlichem Rechtsanspruch begründet nun eine strukturell analoge Anwendung der impliziten Kategorien von Ius divinum und Ius humanum auch im Kontext des Völkerrechts. Diese umfassen letztlich die Vergehen des Menschenhandels, der Verletzung der Menschenwürde durch Misshandlung und Beraubung der Persönlichkeitsrechte, die Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Rechtsgleichheit, die Verletzung der Würde der Frau durch sexuellen Missbrauch, die Verletzung des Ius divinum durch Profanierung des göttlichen Namens und blasphemischer Verletzung der Reinheit von Kultstätte und Kultmahl. Die Reihe der Völkerworte in Am 1,3–2,3 greift zwar in der Einleitung der jeweiligen Unheilsworte die Form des 3+4-er Zahlenspruches auf, benennt allerdings jeweils nur einen Frevel. Es kommt also hier nicht auf die Einhaltung der Form an, sondern auf die mit der weisheitlich belehrenden Ausgestaltung der Unheilsworte verknüpften Inhalte. Sie lassen die Verletzung der Grundrechte innerhalb Israels als Steigerung gegenüber den Freveln der Völker erscheinen und legen so das Mottowort für Am 3–6 aus Am 3,2, aus: „Nur euch habe ich erkannt aus allen Sippen der Erde, darum ahnde ich an euch all eure Verschuldungen!“ Zugleich wird demnach deutlich, dass die Maßstäbe für die Konstatierung von Rechtsverstößen im internationalen Recht aus den Vorgaben der innerisraelitischen Schutzrechte gewonnen worden sind. Und so, wie im Anschluss an Am 3,2 die Sammlung der Prophetenworte in Am 3–6 mit einer prophetentheologischen Begründung über die Unausweichlichkeit des göttlichen Anspruchs auf den Mittler eingeführt wird (Am 3,8: „Brüllt ein Löwe, wer wird sich 61 Die nach-dtr prophetentheologische Fortschreibung in v. 9–10.11–12 führt den Text in anderer Richtung weiter. V. 9 legt die Handlung als Lästerung J HWHs aus, der das Land gegeben hat und es auch wieder nehmen kann und fokussiert die prinzipiellen Aspekte des Unheilswortes auf J HWH als den Gott Israels, wie ihn die dtr Geschichtsdarstellung gezeichnet hatte. V. 11–12 geht einen Schritt weiter und nimmt die Vorstellung auf, dass nach Mose Israel durch die Propheten verwarnt und belehrt worden sei, diesen aber nicht gehorcht habe (2 Kön 17,13–18), rechnet allerdings noch solche Tradenten hinzu, die sich freiwillig dem Dienst für Gott geweiht haben, die Naziräer. Die Verunreinigung des Kultes habe darin bestanden – so Am 2,12 – den Wein den Naziräern zu geben – sicherlich eine sehr junge Interpretation.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

149

nicht fürchten? Redet JHWH, der Herr, wer wird nicht prophezeien?“), so die Gesamtkomposition durch eine zionstheologisch universalistische Sicht des göttlichen Wortes (Am 1,2: „Brüllt JHWH vom Zion und erhebt von Jerusalem seine Stimme – dann vertrocknen die Auen der Hirten und verdorrt der Gipfel des Karmelgebirges.“). Zu dieser fügt sich wohl der Judaspruch, der sich wie die vorausgehenden Worte auf einen Frevel beschränkt (Am 2,4–5), den Vorwurf, Juda habe die Tora JHWHs verworfen und seine Ordnungen nicht eingehalten. Verschiedentliche Versuche, historische Hintergründe der einzelnen Worte zu klären, haben zu keinem einheitlichen Ergebnis geführt. Während das Wort gegen Damaskus sich noch mit historischen Konflikten zwischen Israeliten und Aramäern im 8. Jh. v. Chr. in Verbindung bringen lässt,62 gilt dies schon kaum noch für den Gazaspruch,63 die Worte gegen Ammon und Moab benennen schematisch die alten Feindvölker im Osten. Allerdings wird in Am 1,13 ein Frevel an Israel kritisiert, während das Moabwort einen Frevel am Edomiterkönig anmerkt und damit die Schematik der ersten beiden Worte gegen Damaskus und Gaza sowie des Wortes gegen die Ammoniter unterbricht. Das Edomwort steht in der Tradition der Orakel gegen Edom, die seit der Zerstörung des Tempels über Edom formuliert worden und das Tyruswort reflektiert den späten, erst im 4. Jh. erfolgten Untergang der großen Handelsstadt. So kann man vielleicht eine ältere, nur drei Völker umfassende Version in Verbindung mit dem alle überbietenden Israelwort als Spiegel des 3+4erSchema annehmen (Am 1,3–5.6–8.13–15 + 2,6–8), zu welcher dann zunächst das Moabwort hinzugewachsen ist, sodann Tyrus- und Edomwort, schließlich der zionstheologische Rahmen unter Einbeziehung des Judawortes (Am 1,2; 2,4–5). Entscheidend ist dabei die Benennung von Verstößen gegen grundlegende Menschenrechte im Kriege. Diese Frevel stehen in gewisser Analogie zueinander, so dass in den Schuldaufweisen die aus den sozialen Schutzrechten hergeleiteten Prinzipien auf die Ebene des Umgangs der Völker miteinander gehoben werden können.64 Die Kritik an den Aramäern lautet, „sie haben mit eisernen Dreschschlitten den Gilead zerdroschen“ (Am 1,4). Die Metapher, die in assyrischen Texten belegt ist,65 bezieht sich generell auf die Grausamkeit der 62

HARPER, Amos and Hosea, 16–21; B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 19–20. Vgl. hierzu die Überlegungen bei J EREMIAS, Amos, 14–15. 64 So schon B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 51–61. 65 Sie findet sich schon in einer Inschrift Tiglat-Pilesers III (BM 118936) 39, Z. 11b– 14a: KUR.É-a-muk-a-ni GIM da-a-a-áš-ti a-di-ìš puḫhur UN.MEŠ-šú NÍG.ŠU. šú 12 ana KUR aš-šur ú-ra-a ša LÚ.pu-qu-du.LÚ.ru-ʾu-ú-a LÚ. li-iʾ-ta-ú BAD5BAD5-šú-nu SÌG-ma 13 ul-tu áš-ri-šú as-su-ḫa-šú-nu-ti LÚ.a-ru-u ma-la ba-šu-ú a-na GÌR.II.MEŠ-ia ú-šék-niš-ma 14 LÚ.ERI.MEŠ.LUGAL-šú-nu aṣ-bat – „I trampled down the land Bīt Amukāni like a threshing sledge. I brought all of its people (and) its property to Assyria. I defeated the (tribes) Puqudu, Ruʾuʾa, (and) Liʾaʾu, and I forcibly removed (them) from 63

150

Reinhard Achenbach

Kriegsführung in einem Vernichtungskrieg. Der Text knüpft dabei an Überlieferungen über aramäische Kriegspraxis an (vgl. 2 Kön 8,12; 10,32– 33) und 2 Kön 13,7: „Der König von Aram hatte sie (die Israeliten) vernichtet und er hatte sie gemacht wie Staub beim Dreschen“. Dabei ist einerseits die Misshandlung von Menschen, also auch der Zivilbevölkerung, im Blick (vgl. Ri 8,7.16), andererseits aber auch die Zerstörung der Kulturlandschaft (vgl. Jes 41,1566) und damit der Lebensgrundlagen der Bevölkerung des Gilead.67 Die Metapher erfasst also ein breites Spektrum von Grausamkeiten der Kriegsführung, einschließlich der Gewalt gegen die Zivilbevölkerung. Dabei gilt vor allem als verwerflich, dass bei dieser Form kein Unterschied zwischen Kampfhandlung und Vernichtungshandeln gegen die Zivilbevölkerung mehr erkennbar ist. Im Umkehrschluss ist also zu konstatieren, dass der Text letztlich die unterschiedslose Ausübung von kriegerischer Gewalt ablehnt und also die Misshandlung und Tötung am Kampf Unbeteiligter. Positiv wird hier das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit und der Schutz Unschuldiger gegen physische Gewalt im Kriege konstatiert. In Am 1,6 werden die Bürger von Gaza beschuldigt, sie hätten „die Bevölkerungen der Region geschlossen verschleppt, um sie an Edom auszuliefern“.68 Die Verschleppung von Teilen einer nach dem Kampf verbliebenen Zivilbevölkerung in den Sklaven- bzw. Frondienst war eine in der Antike übliche Praxis (vgl. 2 Sam 12,31); bemerkenswert ist gleichwohl, dass sich im deuteronomischen Kriegsgesetz besondere Schutzregeln für den Umgang mit Frauen in diesem Kontext finden (vgl. Dtn 21,10–11). Hier their places. I made as many Arameans as there were bow down at my feet and I seized the troops of their king.“ (Text und Übersetzung cf. T ADMOR, H. / YAMADA, S., Royal Inscriptions, 97), cf. also VTE 7.545–546: dUTU ina GIŠ.APIN šá AN.BAR URU-ku[nuna-gi-ku-nu] lu-[q]u-ki[t?] – „May Shamash with an iron plough cut up your cities (and your districts)!“ (Text und Übersetzung cf. W ISEMAN, Vassal-Treaties, 69–70). 66 Während der Verfasser von Jes 41,15 sich dazu hinreißen lässt, eine göttliche Unheilsdrohung zu formulieren, nach der Israel selbst zum „Dreschschlitten“ wird, und auch Ri 8,7.16 sich an dem Bild des Dreschens durch einen Israeliten nicht stört, repräsentiert der Vf. von Am 1,3 einen Wechsel in der Grundeinstellung zu der Metapher und dem, was sie meint. 67 Das Verbot, Fruchtbäume im Umfeld einer belagerten Stadt zu fällen (Dtn 20,19), weist in eine vergleichbare Richtung. Der Verlust des Landes und die Deportation der Aramäer erscheint so als eine talionische Strafe (Am 1,5). 68 Zu den Problemen der Textübersetzung vgl. W OLFF, Amos, 161. Das Verb ‫ סגר‬hif., v. 7 und v. 9, „(jmdn.) ausliefern“ (cf. Dtn 23,15; Ob 14), ist in einer aramäischen Variante der Wurzel als ‫ סכר‬hif. in den Vertragstexten von Sefire belegt (vgl. KAI 224,2–3: „jedermann, der Asyl erbittet und böse Worte über meine Taten sagt, und du nimmst die Worte aus seiner Hand – ausliefern sollst du sie mir (‫)הסכר תהסכרהם‬, und dein Sohn soll sie meinem Sohne ausliefern…!“). Ein bleibendes Heimatrecht von Sklaven kennt CH § 280–281.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

151

geht es allerdings um die Überführung von ganzen ethnischen Gruppen aus dem Status der kriegsgefangenen Zivilpersonen in den internationalen Sklavenhandel. Konnten die Angehörigen einer Schar von Deportierten (‫ – )גלות‬zumal in der Achämenidenzeit, da die Perser den Gedanken einer Rückführung von Exulanten in ihre angestammten Wohngebiete verfolgten – die Hoffnung auf Restituierung ihrer ursprünglichen Lebensbedingungen und die Wahrung ihrer ethnischen Identität noch bewahren, so wurde mit dem Übergang des Verfügungsrechts an Dritte, am Kriegsgeschehen Unbeteiligte den Kriegsopfern durch den Menschenhandel ihre letzte Würde auch noch genommen, indem sie zur reinen Handelsware entwertet wurden. So kann man nicht mehr von Kriegsrecht reden, sondern muss von massenhaftem Menschenhandel reden, der das faktische Verschwinden einer ganzen Ethnie zur Folge hat.69 Der Umgang mit Kriegsgefangenen, die sich dem Heer als kämpfende Gegner entgegenstellten, war mitunter besonders grausam, insbesondere im assyrischen Heer.70 Im Gefolge der deuteronomistischen Kriegserzählungen hat sich hingegen anscheinend eine die assyrische und babylonische Praxis alternierende Haltung entwickelt, die der prophetischen Lehre des Elia an seinen Schüler Elisa zugeschrieben wird, nach welcher dieser über eine Reihe von gefangenen Aramäern in Samaria verfügt, 2 Kön 6,22: Du sollst sie nicht töten! Erschlägst du denn solche, die du mit Schwert und Bogen gefangen hast? Setze ihnen Brot und Wasser vor, dass sie essen und trinken, und lass sie zu ihrem Herrn zurückziehen!

Man kann darüber streiten, ob es hier um reguläre Kriegsgefangene geht, da die Gegner, von denen die Rede ist, sich nicht einmal ergeben haben, sondern Opfer einer Täuschung und einer Kriegslist geworden sind,71 jedenfalls wird angesichts offensichtlich hilfloser Feindgruppen für eine Verschonung im Rahmen eines Gnadenaktes und gegen eine Fortsetzung regulärer kriegerischer Tötungen plädiert. Auch im Zuge der Auseinandersetzung innerhalb der dtr Überlieferungen scheint an dieser Stelle also eine Tendenz zur Regulierung und Humanisierung des Kriegswesens erkennbar zu werden.72 Während von Josua erzählt wird, er habe im Zuge der Landnahme anhand unterworfener Könige deren Dekapitation als Hoheitsakt

69

Das Drohwort entspricht dem in gewisser Weise talionisch, wenn angesagt wird, dass selbst der „Rest der Philister“ verschwinden wird (Am 1,8b). 70 Zur assyrischen Kriegsideologie vgl. ODED, War; zum Umgang mit Kriegsgefangenen vgl. SCHOTTROFF, / B EYERLE, Art. Kriegsgefangene, 555–556; KLENGEL, Art. Krieg, Kriegsgefangene. 71 B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 57–58. 72 Vgl. hierzu B ARTON, ebd.

152

Reinhard Achenbach

vollzogen (Jos 10,24–26.27), heißt es im Kontext der Erzählungen von Ahabs Kriegen gegen die Aramäer 1 Kön 20,30b–31: Und auch Benhadad floh in die Stadt und verkroch sich von einer Kammer in die andere. Da sprachen seine Bediensteten zu ihm: „Siehe, wir haben gehört, dass die Könige des Hauses Israel barmherzige Könige sind. So lasst uns Säcke um unsere Lenden gürten, und Stricke um unsere Köpfe und zum König von Israel hinausgehen; vielleicht lässt er dich am Leben!“

J. Barton hat im übrigen darauf hingewiesen, dass schon in hethitischen Texten die Kenntnis von Regeln der Kriegsführung galten,73 die angesichts der weitreichenden Herrschaft der Hethiter über ihre Anwendung im Eroberungsfall wie in den vertraglich geregelten Beziehungen auch an die anderen Völkerschaften Kleinasiens und Syriens vermittelt worden sein dürften. Der gleiche Vorwurf wie an Gaza wird auch gegen Tyrus gerichtet (Am 1,9: „weil sie Bevölkerungen geschlossen an Edom auslieferten“), allerdings in Verbindung mit der zusätzlichen Anschuldigung, dabei bestehende Beistandsverträge gebrochen zu haben („und sie gedachten nicht des Bruderbundes“ – ‫)ולא זכרו ברית אחים‬.74 Der Vorwurf der Verletzung von Kriegsrecht und des Menschenhandels wird somit noch durch den des Vertragsbruches belastet,75 was infolge der Ahndung des damit verbundenen Eidbruches eine verschärfende Aktualisierung der Vertragsflüche zur Folge hat und somit durch die Verletzung des Ius humanum auch das Ius divinum tangiert ist. Im Fall des anschließenden Edom-Spruches wird hieran angeknüpft. Dabei wird der Vorwurf erweitert, Am 1,11: „weil es seinen Bruder mit dem Schwert verfolgte (‫)רדף בחרב‬,76 und sein Erbarmen unterdrückt hat“ (‫שחת רחמיו‬, LXX liest ‫„ – שחת רחמו‬und seinen eigenen Mutterleib geschändet hat“). Dem Verhältnis zwischen Edom und Israel liegt hiernach nicht allein eine vertragliche Bindung zugrunde,77 sondern eine gentile 73

B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 60–61, 71–72 (Anm. 44–51) unter Verweis auf GÖTZE, Annalen. 74 Es handelt sich hierbei um einen zwischenstaatlichen Vertrag, „regardless of actual blood relationship“ (B ARTON, Amos’ Oracles, 20), vgl. zur Brudertitulatur 1 Kön 20,32; zur Sache vgl. ANET 199–202. 75 Der Vorgang ist religiös aufgeladen aufgrund der Beeidung der Zusage gegenseitigen militärischen Beistands, die hierbei gebräuchliche Formel „N.N.s Feind ist auch mein Feind – N.N.s Bundesgenosse ist auch mein Bundesgenosse!“ ist sehr alt und erstmals in dem Vertrag Naramsins mit dem König Hita (?) von Awan (um 2325 v. Chr.) belegt, vgl. VEENHOF, Geschichte des Alten Orients, 80. 76 Zur Formulierung vgl. Jer 29,18; Jes 47,6; Sach 7,9 (W EIPPERT, Edom, 295; FISCHER , Fremdvölkersprüche, 52). 77 Hierzu FISHBANE, Background of Amos 1.1, 313–318; PRIEST, Covenant of Brothers, 400–406.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

153

Verwandtschaft, die Gewalttat gegen das Brudervolk ist somit eine Verletzung familiarer Beistandspflicht. Die Aufkündigung jeglichen Erbarmens entspricht demnach dem Austritt aus einem familiaren Bindungsverhältnis.78 In seiner rechtlichen Dimension wird dieser Zusammenhang in Lev 19,17–18 reflektiert.79 Hier wird er in einen völkerrechtlichen Kontext gestellt, wobei zwischen einer aufgrund natürlicher Verwandtschaft bestehenden Beistandsverpflichtung und einer rein vertraglichen zwar unterschieden wird, das Grundprinzip beider allerdings in der Metapher der „Bruderschaft“ zusammengefasst erscheint: Beistandsverpflichtungen sind in letzthinniger Weise verbindlich. Das Orakel gegen Ammon benennt ein weiteres Vergehen als Kriegsverbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, nämlich dass „sie die Schwangeren des Gilead aufgeschlitzt haben, um ihr eigenes Gebiet zu erweitern“ (Am 1,13). Das Tabu der Tötung unschuldiger Frauen samt der Tötung der Leibesfrucht nimmt de facto schon genozidale Handlungen in den Blick und ächtet sie und damit Gewalt gegen Frauen generell. Diese spezifische Form kriegerischer Grausamkeit ist seit alters bis in die Gegenwart belegt, so für das assyrische Heer in der Inschrift Tiglat-Pilesers I.: „Er zerfetzte der Schwangeren Bäuche, durchbohrte der Schwachen Leib“.80 In Homers Ilias stachelt Agamemnon Menelaus zur Grausamkeit gegen die Trojaner an (Ilias VI,57–58): „Keiner davon entfliehe nun grausem Verderben, keiner nun unserem Arm! Auch nicht im Schoße das Knäblein, welches die Schwangere trägt, auch das nicht! Alles zugleich nun sterbe, was Ilias nährt, hinweggerafft und vernichtet!“81 Im Alten Testament erwähnt 2 Kön 8,12 das Massaker an Schwangeren als Praxis der Aramäer, aber auch als Tat des Putschisten Menahem in Samaria, 2 Kön 15,16. In Hos 14,1 wird gar das Niedermetzeln der samaritanischen Schwangeren und der Kinder durch die Assyrer als Strafe Gottes konnotiert. Diese Deutung korrigiert Am 1,13 im Grundsatz, wenn hier durch göttlichen Urteilsspruch das Auf78

Der Fall ist demnach vergleichbar mit der als schändlich und todeswürdig angesehenen Aufkündigung von Sohnesverpflichtungen gegenüber den Eltern (vgl. Ex 21,15.17; Dtn 21,18–21; 27,16; Lev 19,3; Prv 19,26; 20,20). 79 Lev 19: „17 Du sollst in deinem Bewusstsein (Herzen) keine Feindschaft pflegen (nicht hassen) gegen deinen Stammesverwandten (wörtl.: Bruder)! Du sollst für Rechtsbelehrung sorgen bei deinen Volkszugehörigen, und du sollst dich nicht ihm gegenüber der Verfehlung schuldig machen! 18 Du sollst dich nicht rächen! Und du sollst nicht dem Sohn deines Volkes auflauern! Sondern du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben (d.h. ihm die gleichen Rechtsgrundlagen zuerkennen) wie dich selbst (wie du sie dir zuerkennst). Ich bin J HWH (= Ich, J HWH, bin Wächter und Garant von Recht und Gerechtigkeit)!“ 80 ANET 275, vgl. SCHMÖKEL, Ur, Assur und Babylon, 114; vgl. W OLFF, Amos, 195. 81 HOMER, Ilias. B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 57. Barton verweist darauf, dass Folter und härteste Körperstrafen gegenüber Feinden, die der Rebellion beschuldigt wurden, zur Praxis der Assyrer gehörten (B ARTON, Amos's Oracles, 71 Anm. 38).

154

Reinhard Achenbach

schlitzen Schwangerer verurteilt wird. Damit wird gegen die Enthemmung und den Gewaltrausch im Massaker im Rahmen des altorientalischen Denkens nun vielleicht erstmals eine wichtige Grenzziehung vollzogen. Das Ansinnen der Erweiterung des eigenen Gebietes gilt in diesem Zusammenhang als verschärfende Handlung, weil in Verbindung mit der Verletzung der Integrität der Unschuldigen und der Leibesfrucht nun der Eroberungskrieg nicht mehr als anerkanntes Kriegsziel gewertet wird, sondern gleichfalls als Vergehen, nämlich der Grenzverletzung (vgl. Dtn 19,14; 27,17), somit als weiterer Tabubruch, der die Schutzgarantie der Gottheit des angegriffenen Landes tangiert und diese zur Ahndung herausfordert. Ein weiterer fundamentaler Verstoß gegen die Würde des Menschen ist schließlich dessen Missachtung im Tode. Hiergegen richtet sich das letzte Urteil in Am 2,1, nach dem Moab vorgeworfen wird, dass es „die Gebeine des Königs von Edom zu Kalk verbrannt“ habe.82 Die Verweigerung der Bestattung gilt als Frevel. Sie ist nicht einmal dem schändlich hingerichteten Verbrecher zu verweigern (Dtn 21,22–23) und auch nicht dem Feinde (vgl. Jos 10,26.27; 2 Sam 21,1–14; 2 Kön 9,34)! Eine Steigerung des Frevels besteht in der Nutzung der menschlichen Knochen zur Herstellung 82 Schon Max WEBER hat in diesem Zusammenhang den Übergang von der binnenisraelitischen in eine völkerrechtliche Perspektive gesehen, vgl. DERS., Das antike Judentum, 650–651: „Es gibt nämlich schon nach Amos Unrecht, welches Jahwe als Weltmonarch auch an anderen, namentlich den Israel benachbarten, Völkern ahndet. Dazu gehört (Amos 1,3ff.) die Verletzung einer Art von religiösen Völkerrechts, dessen Geltung unter den palästinischen Völkern vorausgesetzt wird. Natürlich vor allem Verletzungen gegenüber Israel: die barbarische Verwüstung Gileads durch die Damaskener, der Raub und Verkauf von Gefangenen an die Edomiter durch Gaza und Tyros, die Mitleidlosigkeit der Edomiter im Kriege, Aufschlitzen schwangerer Frauen durch die Ammoniter. Darin liegt nichts Besonderes. Aber Jahwe ahndet auch Unrecht dritter Völker gegenüber Dritten: so die Verbrennung einer edomitischen Königsleiche durch Moabiter. Darin äußert sich wohl die als Stammesverwandtschaft gedeutete Kulturgemeinschaft der palästinischen Völker. Vielleicht auch: völkerrechtliche Verbindungen. Den Edomitern wird ihr Unrecht als Verletzung der „Bruder“-Beziehung zu Israel, Tyros geradezu als Mißachtung eines „Bruderbundes“, vermutlich also einer beschworenen kriegsvölkerrechtlichen Abmachung über die Gefangenenbehandlung vorgehalten; es scheint möglich, daß auch mit anderen Nachbarvölkern ähnliche Abkommen bestanden, welche die Rache Jahwes motivierten. Die rein ethische Wendung vollzog sich mit der universalistischen Steigerung der Gotteskonzeption.“ Hinsichtlich der literarhistorischen Zuweisung der Worte zu Amos folgt Weber exegetischen Positionen seiner Zeit. Auch ihm ist schon bewusst gewesen, dass ein entscheidender Impuls in Richtung auf religiöse Erwägungen über fundamentale Menschenrechte im Kriege durch die Assurkrise ausgelöst worden sein müssen. Darum setzt er seine Überlegungen fort, ebd.: „Gegenüber den mesopotamischen Großkönigen gilt bei Jesaja deren maßlos grausame Kriegführung an sich als Grund für Jahwes Zorn. Dann aber die Hybris dieser Weltmonarchen, die Jahwes Eifersucht erregen mußte.“

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

155

von Kalk (hebr. ‫)שיד‬, den man wiederum zur Übertünchung von Stein nutzte (vgl. Dtn 27,2.4). Hierbei wird nicht allein die endgültige Vernichtung und Auslöschung einer Existenz auch mit Hinsicht auf die Totenwelt angestrebt,83 sondern dadurch, dass „der Mensch Material wird“, was an sich schon „Grund genug zur Anklage“ ist,84 wird zusätzlich in Kauf genommen, dass die Gegenstände, die mit dem so gewonnenen Kalk in Berührung kommen, auf Dauer verunreinigt sind.85 Die Komposition der Völkersprüche bei Amos, die wahrscheinlich eine längere Wachstumsgeschichte gehabt hat und im Endergebnis ein Ausdruck einer im 5./4.Jh. v. Chr. heranreifenden Zionstheologie ist (vgl. Am 1,2), führt in der Konsequenz zu der Vision einer notwendigerweise einheitlichen Orientierung der Völker an höchsten Werten und Normen, wie sie in den Visionen der Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion zum Ausdruck gekommen sind (vgl. Mi 4,1–5; Jes 2,1–4). Die Frage, wie angesichts unterschiedlicher religiöser Loyalitäten der Völker überhaupt ein einheitliches Rechtsbewusstsein entstehen kann, wurde nicht von Israel, sondern von Hellas beantwortet, wobei beide Gedankenwelten sich an dem Weltherrschaftsanspruch des Achämenidenreiches abgearbeitet haben.

5. Menschenrecht und Ökonomie: Die Weherufe wider die Babylonier im Habakuk-Buch86 Die Komposition des Buches wird nach der Überschrift eingeleitet durch ein Klagegebet, worin der Beter JHWH die Frage vorhält, warum er es zulässt, dass Gesetzlose Verbrecher (Frevler) die Gerechten bedrängen und das Recht außer Kraft setzen (Hab 1,2–4). Sodann wird nach einem kurzen Satz der Hinführung, der den Redenden als Lehrer der Völker stilisiert, welcher diese auffordert, das historische Geschehen als Ausdruck göttli83

In diesem Sinne muss man wohl das erschreckende eschatologische Drohwort Jes 33,12 verstehen („Und die Völker werden zu Kalk verbrannt werden!“), das von einem endgültigen Vernichtungsgericht an den dem Friedensreich vom Zion entgegenstehenden Mächten spricht, die zu vollziehen göttliches Privileg ist, das nicht menschlicher Vollmacht untersteht. Hätten die schriftgelehrten Verfasser beider prophetischen Texte einander gekannt, wäre an dieser Stelle möglicherweise doch ein Disput erkennbar. 84 W OLFF, Amos, 198. 85 Zur Verbreitung der Ansicht, dass Berührung mit Totem verunreinigt, vgl. ACHENBACH, Verunreinigung, 347–369. 86 Die im folgenden Abschnitt vorgetragenen Überlegungen wurden entwickelt im Kontext der Arbeitsgruppe „Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law“ der SBL-Tagung in Amsterdam, Juli 2012; der dort gehaltene Vortrag wurde veröffentlicht unter dem Titel „The Transformation of Measures for Social Justice into Measures for International Law in the Book of Habakkuk“ (ACHENBACH, Transformation).

156

Reinhard Achenbach

chen Wirkens zu verstehen (v. 5), in einer Gottesrede bestätigt, dass es JHWH selbst ist, der den Siegeszug der Babylonier ermöglicht (v. 6). Diese zwingen vielen Königreichen ihr Recht auf (v. 7) und erobern „mit Rossen, schneller als Panther“ eine Festungsstadt nach der anderen (v. 8.9aβ.b.10–11a). In Hab 1,9aα.11b wird freilich das Verfahren der Babylonier als „Gewaltverbrechen“ verurteilt (v. 9aα: ‫ )!חמס‬und somit kriminalisiert.87 Wie in Jes 10,5–19 wird auch hier die Hybris verworfen, mit der Babylon sich selbst über den Status, im Dienste eines höheren göttlichen Handelns zu stehen, erhebt und verselbständigt.88 Die als blasphemisch inkriminierte Selbstdeutung wird in Hab 1,11b formuliert: So macht* es seine (eigene) Kraft zu seinem Gott.

Das Rätsel, dass JHWH den Frevel benennt, provoziert wiederum den Beter zu der Frage, wie lange wohl sich das Gericht an den Frevlern verzögert (Hab 1,12–13). Der Beter sieht seine Vertrauensaussage in v. 12a, durch die konstatierte Perversion von Strafe und Hybris des Strafwerkzeugs infrage gestellt und richtet darum an Gott die Frage, ob er wirklich das Verbrechen mit ansehen kann (v. 12b–13). Diese Frage verschärft v. 14–17: Gottes Strafhandeln wird hineingezogen in seine eigene Verkehrung, indem sich das Strafwerkzeug Babylon verselbständigt und Menschenmassen einfängt um „Völker schonungslos abzuschlachten“ (1,17b),89 als wären es Fischschwärme, die man in großen Schleppnetzen aus dem Meer zieht und tötet, um sie zu verzehren. Der Völkermord (‫ )להרג גוים‬ist also auch hier der Kernvorwurf an das neubabylonische Reich. Zugleich liegt es dem Volk der Täter vollkommen fern, sich vor der höheren Macht (des Gottes Israels) zu beugen, die ihm die machtvollen und erfolgreichen Heereszüge zulässt. Vielmehr, so Hab 1,16, erhebt es die Waffen, mit denen es seine Eroberungen erfolgreich durchführt, in den Status kultischer Verehrung.90 Damit wird aus der Perspektive der Endkomposition von Hab 1–2 heraus die Frage nach einer universalen Gültigkeit göttlichen Rechts gestellt (Hab 1,12b): 87

Vgl. s.v. ‫חמס‬, HALAT 316. Vgl. hierzu schon PROCKSCH, Geschichtsbetrachtung, 45–46; WEBER, Das antike Judentum, 650–651 (s.o. Anm. 82). 89 Übersetzung PERLITT, Die Propheten Nahum, 59. 90 Die mythische Aufladung der Kriegswaffen und eine quasi-kultische Verehrung derselben ist in ägyptischer wie mesopotamischer Tradition besonders für Streitwagen bekannt, vgl. Ps 20,8; vgl. 33,16–18; 44,4.7–8; 147,10. KEEL, Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik, 214–218, verweist u.a. auf ägyptische Hymnen über den Streitwagen des Königs (P OSENER, Lexikon, 198) oder auf assyrische Reliefs, die zeigen, wie vor den Standartenwagen Opfer dargebracht werden (vgl. Ninive, Reliefs aus dem Palast Sanheribs, Abb. 322, 323, ebd. S. 214–215, nach LAYARD, Monuments, II Tafel 24 und S. 469. 88

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

157

JHWH, hast Du ihn (den Frevler Babylon) zum Gericht bestellt? Fels, hast du ihn zum Strafen eingesetzt?

Hab 2,1 stilisiert nun den Propheten und Beter zum Wächter, der Ausschau hält wie ein Späh–Posten (vgl. hierzu Jes 21,1–10). Ihm wird von JHWH eine Antwort zuteil in Gestalt einer Vision, die er für eine künftige Zeit auf Tafeln festhalten soll (Hab 2,2–3), auch dies ein Motiv, das man aus dem Jesajabuch kennt (vgl. Jes 8). Zugleich wird damit ein Trost gegeben, dass der Gerechte, der – wie man es aus Jes 7,9 lernen konnte – an seinem Glauben an JHWHs vollmächtiges Geschichtshandeln festhält, am Leben bleiben91 und das Gericht nicht erleiden wird. Demgegenüber wird der unersättliche Eroberer niemals letzte Befriedigung erlangen, selbst wenn es ihm gelänge, alle Völker, die es gibt, sich in seiner Gier einzuverleiben (2,5). Das Bild der in ihrer Gier alles verschlingenden Unterwelt wird hier zur Metapher für die Unersättlichkeit des babylonischen Reiches. Hab 2,4– 5 verbinden wie Am 1,3–2,8 die Form des göttlichen Orakels mit Motiven und Sentenzenformen weisheitlicher Belehrung und Dichtung (vgl. Prv 28,25; Cant 8,6). Die Komposition fährt fort mit einer Serie von vier Weherufen, die den Untergang Babylons ankündigen. Diese werden allerdings nicht – wie etwa bei Amos oder Jesaja – in ihrer unmittelbaren Form als Weherufe tradiert, sondern ihnen ist eine rhetorische Frage als Sentenz vorangestellt, welche die Weherufe aus dem prophetischen Kontext herauslösen und sie als Teilgattung von Spottdichtungen und Rätselversdichtungen (‫)משל ומליצה חידות‬ wider die Feinde stilisieren (v. 6a). Damit ist deutlich, dass durch die rahmende Gebetskomposition das Habakukbuch nicht mehr als ursprüngliche Prophetenbuchrolle fungiert, sondern vielmehr als Lehrschrift über den Propheten, seine Botschaft und sein Leiden. Sie hat somit einen vergleichbaren Status wie das zionstheologisch gerahmte Amosbuch. Es soll also nicht einfach nur ein Völkerorakel tradiert werden, sondern der Leser soll aus der Lektüre eine neue Einsicht gewinnen, denn er weiß ja vom Untergang des babylonischen Reiches und davon, dass die prophetischen Unheilsansagen in die Spottdichtung der Völker über den Untergang des großen Reiches Eingang gefunden haben. Daraus soll er seine Lehren über die Gerechtigkeit und die Tora Gottes ziehen (vgl. Hab 1,4), sodass aus seinem Glauben (Hab 2,4) auch die Völker zum Glauben gelangen (vgl. Hab 1,5). Alle Nationen (‫ )גוים‬und Völkerschaften (‫)עמים‬, welche die Babylonier in ihrem Reich versammelt haben, werden – so die Vorstellung – sich in ihren Spottversen die Weherufe J HWHs, die Habakuk auf den Tafeln festhalten soll, zu eigen machen (Hab 2,6a). Damit ist der Vers auf der Ebene einer 91

Das Motiv des „am Leben bleibens“ aufgrund des „Gebotsgehorsams und der Glaubenstreue“ ist auch in Ez 18,21ff; 20,10ff reflektiert, PERLITT, Habakuk, 66.

158

Reinhard Achenbach

Endkomposition anzusiedeln, deren schriftgelehrte Tradenten der Überzeugung sind, dass die Schriftpropheten Israels zu Völkerpropheten bestimmt sind. Indem sie sich aber die Verurteilung Babylons zu eigen machen, machen sie sich auch die Tora zueigen, die dieser zugrunde liegt. Die Endkomposition des Habakukbuches verfolgt demnach wie etwa die Endredaktion der Tritojesajanischen Sammlung im Kontext des Jesajabuches den Gedanken einer Universalisierung des ius divinum Israelitarum. Die Endredaktion knüpft an die Tradition weisheitlicher Rechtsbelehrung in den Schreiberausbildungen Israels an, aus der auch das den Weherufen zugrundeliegende Normenbewusstsein sich gespeist hat.92 Was sind nun die in den Weherufen inkriminierten Vergehen gegen das universale und damit internationale Recht, dessen sich die Babylonier schuldig gemacht haben? Die auf Vergehen des Individuums ausgerichteten Kernaussagen93 finden sich in Hab 2,6b.9.15aα.b, ihre Erweiterung auf eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Perspektive findet sich in Hab 2,12; Hab 2: 2,6b Wehe dem, der da anhäuft, was ihm nicht gehört!… Dem, der sich selbst bereichert durch Pfandgeschäfte! 9 Wehe dem, der unrechten Gewinn anhäuft zum Unglück für sein (eigenes) Haus – um sein „Nest“ in der (unerreichbaren) Höhe einzurichten und sich so zu retten versucht vor dem Zugriff des Unglücks! 12 Weh dem, der eine Stadt unter Blutvergießen baut, und gründet eine Siedlung auf Schandtat. 15 Wehe dem, der seinen Nächsten tränkt aus dem Becher deines (sic?) Zornes, und ihn gar betrunken macht, damit man seine Schamblöße sehen kann.

Die Weheworte sind singularisch formuliert und richten sich gegen Vergehen einzelner Mitglieder der Elite.94 Die Aussagen von Hab 2,6b.9.15 lassen dabei den Schluss zu, dass hier Maßstäbe aus dem weisheitlich tradierten Normen des Zivilrechts übernommen werden.95 Als verächtlich gilt 92 Den Nachweis, dass der Kern der Weherufe auf weisheitliche Sentenzen zurückgeführt werden kann, hat schon J EREMIAS, Kultprophetie, 57–75, geführt; vgl. Hab 2,6//Prv 28,8; Dtn 24,10; Hab 2,9–10*//Prv 15,27; 20,2; (6,32; 8,36); Hab 2,12//Prv 24,3; Mi 3,10 (Jes 33,15; Jer 22,13!); Hab 2,15–16//Prv 22,1; 23,20–22.29–35; 31,4–5; Koh 10,16–17; Sir 19,1–2; 31,25–31 (Jes 5,11–12.22; Am 6,5–6). 93 Diese sind Teil einer Komposition von Weherufen in v. 6b*.7, v. 9.10a.bβ, v. 12, v. 15*.16a; vgl. ACHENBACH, Transformation; mit etwas anderer Abgrenzung W ÖHRLE, Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 304–311: Grundschicht Hab 2,6b.7.9.10abβ.11– 12.15–16.19–20. 94 PERLITT, Habakuk, 69; ELLIGER, Habakuk-Kommentar. 95 JEREMIAS, Kultprophetie, 55–110. Die alte These Rothsteins (ROTHSTEIN, Über Habakuk, 51–85), dass sich die Weherufe im Kern an (die) Judäer richten, wurde von Jeremias neu und zwingend begründet. Er zeigt, „dass sämtliche Weheworte Habakuks

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

159

die Überziehung des Pfändungsrechts zu Lasten der Menschenwürde des Schuldners. Parallel dazu wird die Übervorteilung eines Schuldners durch Gläubiger in ökonomischen Krisensituationen geächtet, ein origineller Vorgang, der weniger in der kanonischen Rechtssatzüberlieferung als in der prophetischen Verkündigung wie z.B. Jes 5,8 ihre Vorläufer haben. Dazu passt auch die Ausdehnung der Ächtung von Manipulationen in Hab 2,15. Das Motiv des Städtebaus in v. 12 ist traditionell mit den Maßnahmen von Königen verbunden,96 das Wort hat Parallelen in der prophetischen Kritik an ausbeuterischen Methoden eines Bauherrn (vgl. Jer 22,1397: ‫ ;הוי בנה ביתו בלא־צדק‬Mi 3,9–10). Die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen beziehen sich also auf das Phänomen einer keine rechtlichen Schranken scheuenden Bereicherung auf Kosten anderer unter Verwendung unlauterer Mittel und unter Einsatz von Gewalt. Die Einbeziehung eines gegen einen Tyrannen gerichteten Wortes in Hab 2,12 lässt erkennen, dass die Komposition auf Schriftgelehrte zurückgeht, die unterschiedliche Quellen und Perspektiven komplementär zueinander in Beziehung setzen. Diese Reihe ist im Zuge einer späteren Überarbeitung in Hab 2,5b6a.8.10ba.11.13b.16b.17 zu einer Rede gegen die ökonomische Ausbeutung der Völker durch das neubabylonische Regime ausgestaltet worden,98 die (später) in v. 18–19 (20) durch eine abschließende Kritik des Bilderkults im Stile der deutero-jesajanischen Polemik abgerundet wurde. So wurde aus der Zusammenstellung einer Reihe von Vergehen Einzelner gegen Prinzipien der Wirtschaftsethik und des Wirtschaftsrechts, eine Rede in Gestalt einer Reihe von Weherufen gegen das Agieren des neubabylonischen Reiches, wobei Maßstäbe, deren Begründungscharakter auf religiösen Überzeugungen beruht, aus dem Bereich zivilrechtlicher Normen auf die Ebene international gültiger Rechtsnormen gehoben wurden. Dabei wird das Bild einer gegen Babylon einberufenen Versammlung der eine einschneidende Nachinterpretation in spätexilischer Zeit erfahren haben, die die Weheworte als gegen die Israel bedrückenden Babylonier gerichtet verstand“ (a.a.O., 67). 96 KELLER, Michée, vermutet als Hintergrund eine „elégie sur la chute du tyran“ z.St. (P ERLITT, Habakuk, 69). 97 Jer 22,13: „Weh dem, der sein Haus nicht mit Gerechtigkeit baut …, der seinen Nächsten ohne Entgelt arbeiten lässt und ihm seinen Lohn nicht gibt!“ 98 Die grundlegende Beobachtung geht zurück auf ROTHSTEIN, Über Habakuk, 60–85; vgl. mit Varianten auch JEREMIAS, Kultprophetie, 73–74; OTTO, Die Stellung der WeheWorte, 106; OTTO, Habakuk, 302; KOENEN, Heil den Gerechten, 146; W ÖHRLE, Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 291–323, der drei Schichten bei der Entstehung des Buches herausarbeitet: eine „Fromme-Frevler-Schicht“ (1,1–4.12a.13–14; 2,1– 5ba.6b.7.9.10abβ.11–12.15–16.19–20; 3,2.3*.4–8.9*.10–12.13*.14–16a.18–19a), eine „Babylonier-Schicht” (1,5–11.12b.15–17; 2,5bβ.6a.8.10ba.13b.17; 3,16b.17) und eine abschließende „Liturgische Bearbeitung“ (3,1.3*.9*.13*.19b) mit Zusätzen in Hab 2,13a.14.18.

160

Reinhard Achenbach

Völker entworfen (v. 5b: ‫)ויאסף אליו כל־הגוים‬, die die Aufgabe haben, zu einem Urteilsspruch (‫משל‬, v. 6a) über das Regime zu kommen. Der Verfasser kommt zu einer Neufassung von Begriffen, die völkerrechtliche Vergehen beschreiben, nämlich einerseits von Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit (‫)דמי אדם‬99 und andererseits von Gewalttaten gegen die Zivilbevölkerung eines Landes, ihren Lebensraum und ihre Lebensgrundlagen (‫חמס ארץ קריה‬ ‫)וכל־ישבי בה‬,100 vgl. Hab 2,8: Weil du selbst viele Nationen ausgebeutet hast, so werden dich nun alle verbliebenen Völkerschaften ausbeuten, wegen der Bluttaten an den Menschen (‫)דמי אדם‬ und der Gewaltverbrechen wider Land, Siedlung und all ihre Bewohner (‫!)חמס ארץ קריה וכל־ישבי בה‬

Schon Bundesbuch und Deuteronomium entwickelten im Rahmen der Schutzrechte für die personae miserabiles die Einschränkung von Pfändungsrechten und das Zinsverbot (vgl. Ex 22,24–26; Dtn 23,21; 24,10– 13.17). Die in Hab 2,6b.7 formulierte Kritik an Pfandgeschäften und die Androhung einer talionischen Bestrafung durch Verschuldung und die überhöhten Zinsanforderungen der Gläubiger haben ökonomische Verhältnisse der neubabylonischen Zeit im Blick.101 Mit der Erweiterung der Perspektive auf die internationale Ebene wird das Orakel auch gegen die Praxis einer uneingeschränkten Enteignung der ökonomischen Ressourcen unterworfener Völkerschaften durch die babylonischen Eroberer ausgeweitet. Sie wird als Plünderung bezeichnet und demnach als unrechtmäßig. Der Ausplünderung soll durch ein göttlich verfügtes Strafgericht talionisch begegnet werden. V. 8b erweitert die Begründung für die Härte der Strafe mit dem Hinweis auf das gewaltsame Vorgehen der Babylonier im Erobe99

‫ –דמים‬Blutvergießen, Kapitalverbrechen: Ex 22,1.2; Dtn 19,10; 22,8; 1 Sam 25,26.33; 2 Sam 3,28; 16,7.8; 21,1; 1 Kön 2,31; 2 Kön 9,7; Jes 1,15; 4,4; 9,5; (26,21); 33,15; Ez 7,23 (‫ ;)כי הארץ מלאה משפט דמים והעיר מלאה חמס‬16,36; 18,13; 22,2 (‫– עיר הדמים‬ cf. also 24,6.9); Hos 4,2; Mi 3,10; 7,2; Nah 3,1 (‫עיר דמים‬, for Ninive); Hab 2,12.17; (Sach 9,7.11); Ps 5,7; 9,13; 26,9; 51,16; 106,38; 139,19; Prv 29,10; 2 Chr 24,25. Zu den rechtlichen Implikationen des Begriffes vgl. CHRIST, Blutvergiessen, 119–126; B OVATI, Re-Establishing Justice, 210–211.243.357–360. 100 Zur rechtlichen Bestimmung des Begriffes ‫ חמס‬vgl. STOEBE, Art. ‫ ָח ָמ ס‬ḥāmās Gewalttat, 583–587; B OVATI, Re-Establishing Justice, 315–317; MARROW, Ḥamas, 253: „invasionem in iura proximi, quae sponte provocat appellationem ad altiorem auctoritatem, ad arbitrum, vindicem, iudicem”; ebd., 255: „Exclamatione ‘violentia!’ accusator laesus invocat iustitiam, iura eius violata sunt. Extrema brevitate exhibetur et querela et appellatio.” 101 DANDAMAEV, Neo-Babylonian Society, 252–275; W UNSCH, Neubabylonische Urkunden, 343–364; MÖLLENBECK, Darlehensgeschäfte. Unter anderem scheint sich die Kritik auf die in neubabylonischer Zeit übliche Praxis der Akquirierung antichretischer Pfänder zu richten, die den Schuldnern die Grundlagen für eine Abarbeitung ihrer Schuldverhältnisse letztlich entzog.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

161

rungsfall und konstatiert eine besondere Verschärfung des Urteils aufgrund der besonderen Grausamkeiten im Zuge der Enteignungsverfahren. Die Inschriften Nebukadnezars II im Wâdi Brîsa und am Nahr el-Kelb illustrieren das Gemeinte anschaulich. Aus Dank über das Wohlwollen der Götter, die ihm die Herrschaft über den Libanon verschafft haben, erklärt der König (Col. III 21–34*): Ich erhebe meine Hände. 22 Auf dass angenommen werde die Erhebung meiner Hände, 23 erhört werde mein Flehen: 24 die Erzeugnisse der Berge, die Fülle der Meere, die Erträgnisse der Länder, Gold, Silber, Edelsteine, 28 kostbarer Art 29* stolze Cedern, 30 eine schwere Last 31* einen riesigen Tribut, 32* sammle ich, häufe ich auf, 33 jährlich 102 34 bringe ich sie ein.

Die umfänglichen Baumaßnahmen Nebukadnezars II an den Heiligtümern des Landes und vor allem der Hauptstadt Babylon wie deren Ausbau als Residenzstadt erforderten erhebliche logistische Maßnahmen zur Materialbeschaffung in einem bis dahin in der Antike kaum gekannten Ausmaß.103 Hab 2,9 lässt sich auf die umfänglichen Arbeiten am Palast Nebukadnezars beziehen, und v. 10–11 scheint dies auch zu tun: 2,9 Wehe dem, der Schnitt schneidet / Gewinn abschöpft zum Unglück für sein (eigenes) Haus – um sein „Nest“ in der (unerreichbaren) Höhe einzurichten und sich so zu retten versucht vor dem Zugriff des Unglücks! 10 Du hast Schande beschlossen über dein Haus, da du viele Völker ausgemerzt hast, und hast dich so wider dich selbst versündigt! 11 Ja, es wird sogar der Stein aus der Mauer ein Klagegeschrei erheben, und der Sparren wird ihm aus dem Gebälk antworten!

Der Palastbau Nebukadnezars wird in Col VIII 45–63 der Wâdī BrîsāInschrift beschrieben:104 45 Außer der Erneuerung der Städte der Götter und Göttinnen, 47 lege ich Hand an 46 einen Palast als Wohnung meiner Herrschaft 47 in Babylon zu bauen. 48 Auf Befehl Marduks, des großen Herrn, meines Herrn, 50 einen Palast….53…baute ich. 54 Was kein früherer König getan hatte(, tat ich, nämlich): 55 In der ersten Unterwelt, 56 an der Brust der weiten Erde, 57 angesichts des Wassers, 58 legte ich 57 sein Fundament, 59 wie ein Gebirge…60 aus Asphalt [und Backsteinen] machte ich hoch…62 [mächtige] Zedern 63 zur Bedachung. IX 1…2…3 vom oberen Meere bis zum unteren Meere 5…die Marduk, der Herr, mir anvertraut hat: 7 unter allen Ländern, der Gesamtheit der Wohnstätten 8 102

WEISSBACH, Inschriften, 14–15. Hierzu vgl. die Inschrift vom Wâdī Brîsā, W EISSBACH, Inschriften, Col. VIII, 45– 63; IX 7–10.33–37; zur Unterwerfung der Völker WEISSBACH, Inschriften, Col. IX,13– 31. Zur Sache vgl. B ERGER, Königsinschriften, 104–108; W ISEMAN, Nebuchadrezzer, 51–75; B OIY, Babylon, 55–65. 104 WEISSBACH, Inschriften, 31–32. 103

162

Reinhard Achenbach

[erhob] ich Babylon an die Spitze, 9 unter den Städten…10 [machte ich] seinen Namen gepriesen.

Die Unterwerfung der Völker des Libanon wird propagandistisch als deren „Befreiung von fremden Feinden“ legitimiert (Col IX,13–31), die massiven Sprengungen von Felsgestein, um den massenhaften Abtransport des Cedernholzes aus dem Gebirge zu ermöglichen, und derer sich der König sogleich danach rühmt (Col. IX 33–46),105 weisen auf die wahren Absichten: die Ausbeutung der natürlichen Ressourcen des Landes zur Erhöhung der Pracht des religiösen und imperialen Reichszentrums. Während die Königsinschrift die Perspektive des Machthabers zur Darstellung bringt, wird hinter der babylonkritischen Bearbeitung von Hab 2,8.9–11 die Perspektive der unterlegenen Völkerschaften auf das Geschehen sichtbar. Der Weheruf kritisiert die Rücksichtslosigkeit, mit der das babylonische Reich seine eigene Existenz zu sichern suchte, in dem es aus den unterworfenen Völkern permanent Gewinne aus deren Wirtschaftskreisläufen abschöpfte. Die Abschöpfung (‫ )בצע‬führt nur vordergründig zu einer Sicherung der eigenen Position, am Ende schädigt sie das herrschende babylonische Reich selbst. Kritisiert wird also der unrechtmäßige Kapitalerwerb, der durch die Ausnutzung der eigenen Machtposition durchgesetzt wurde. Das unrechtmäßig erworbene Gut stellt eo ipso durch seine Existenz die Rechtmäßigkeit des Handelns der Okkupatoren vor der höheren Macht Gottes infrage. Zur Bewerkstelligung der immensen Aufgaben wurden nicht allein Babylonier zur Fron herangezogen, sondern Kriegsgefangene und Handwerker aus Tyrus, Byblos, Arvad und Ägypten.106 Wie viele unter den Anstrengungen des Lastentransportes zugrunde gegangen sind, lässt sich nicht mehr ermessen. Die Klagen der Ausgebeuteten (vgl. Ex 22,26b), der Aufschrei ihres Blutes zu Gott, (vgl. Gen 4,10; Ez 24,7–8; Hi 16,18; Dtn 21,1–9) – er wird nach der Vorstellung des Vf. von den Steinen und Balken der unter Plagen erstellten Gebäude hervorgebracht (v. 11, vgl. Jer 23,13–15). Der Text bestreitet also im Falle kriegerischer Okkupation und Besatzung das Recht zur grenzenlosen Wertschöpfung und fordert einen Schutz von Eigentumsrechten für besetzte Völker! Der dritte Wehruf verwirft die Gewaltanwendung gegen Personen, die im Zuge der Durchsetzung von Frondiensten mit dem „rücksichtslosen Schinden der Bauarbeiter“ verbunden gewesen sein wird,107 Hab 2,12–14: 12 Weh dem, der eine Stadt unter Blutvergießen baut, und gründet eine Siedlung auf Schandtat. 13 Wird es nicht so sein (und siehe, von JHWH Zebaot her), 105 WEISSBACH, Inschriften, 32–33. Vgl. die Schilderung der Baumaßnahmen bei W ISEMAN, Babylonia, 236–239. 106 W ISEMAN, Babylonia, 239. 107 PERLITT, Habakuk, 74; vgl. Jer 22,13.17; Mi 3,10!

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

163

das sich Völkerschaften mühen für das, was einem Feuer anheimfallen wird, und Nationen ermüdet sein werden für etwas, das vernichtet werden wird? 14 Denn es wird erfüllt sein die Erde mit der Erkenntnis der Herrlichkeit JHWHs so wie Wasser das Meer bedeckt!

Die sprachliche Form des Wortes ist gegenüber den vorausgehenden Worten verkürzt, was nicht unbedingt für eine sekundäre Abfassung sprechen muss (vgl. oben Prv 30,29–31). Die wörtliche Nähe von v. 13b zu Jer 51,58b zeigt, dass hier konventionelle Redeformen Verwendung gefunden haben. Das Gleiche kann man für v. 14 sagen, vgl. Mi 3,10; Jer 51,58; Jes 6,3; 11,9. Den Kompositcharakter der gesamten Einheit hat schon J. Wellhausen beobachtet.108 Die völkerrechtliche Perspektive lautet: die Gründung der babylonischen Städte auf das Blut der ausgebeuteten Fronarbeiter und Exulanten wird von Gott selbst geahndet werden, das Urteil des höchsten Gottes wird sich darin erweisen, dass die ausgebeuteten Völkerschaften sich für „Nichtiges“ abgemüht haben werden, wenn die Städte in Feuer aufgehen werden. Für die Vorstellung eines Feuergerichts gibt es möglicherweise einen historischen Anhaltspunkt in der durch Kyrus verfügten extinctio memoriae über Nabonid, die in dem sog. „Strophengedicht“ erwähnt wird:109 18 (seine) Taten löschte er völlig aus, [was Nabûn]a’id geschaffen in allen Heiligtümern, 19 (auch die nur) mündliche [Nennung] seines [Kön]igtums riss er aus. 20 […] seine [Ta]ten, er zerschmeißt das Nichtige, 21 […] seinen Grundriß rissen sie aus, 22 [in allen Heilig]tümern wurde sein Name getilgt, 23 [was immer er ge]macht, ließ er Girra verbrennen, 24 [… was er gema]cht, ließ er das Feuer verzehren.

Durch diesen Vorgang werden die Mühen der Völker, die die Ausbeuter ihnen auferlegt haben, zunichte gemacht (Hab 2,13). Der Vorgang hat sich auch andernorts tief im Gedächtnis Israels niedergeschlagen, wie die fast wörtliche Parallele in Jer 51,58 erkennen lässt. Im Gericht über Babel erweist sich die „Ehre Gottes über der ganzen Erde“ in ihrer universalen Bedeutung (vgl. Jes 6,3; 11,9.10!). So wird die Ächtung der Ausbeutung von unterworfenen Völkern und Exulanten durch Zwangsarbeit als Maßstab eines im ius divinum verankerten Völkerrechts formuliert. Die weisheitliche Perspektive entspricht der Argumentationsstruktur der Endkomposi108 PERLITT, Habakuk, 75: Wellhausen bestritt die Authentizität von v. 12–14, „sie sind nämlich zusammengesetzt aus“ Mi 3,10; Jer 51,58; Jes 11,9. Perlitt hält v. 14 für eine „Nachinterpretation“: „Der eschatologische Ton von 14 harmoniert auch nicht mit 13 und schon gar nicht mit 12.“ Vgl. auch WELLHAUSEN, Propheten, z. St. 109 BM 38299 (SMITH, Babylonian Historical Texts, 27–97), hier zit. nach der Bearbeitung und Übersetzung von SCHAUDIG, Inschriften Nabonids, 572 und 578.

164

Reinhard Achenbach

tion: auch Habakuk wird – wie Jeremia oder Jesaja – zum Völkerpropheten stilisiert! Auch im nächsten Weheruf wird aus der individuellen Verurteilung eines frevelhaften Aktes eine überindividuelle Bedeutung konstruiert, Hab 2,15–17: 15 „Wehe dem, der seinen Nächsten tränkt aus dem Becher deines (conj. –> seines*) Zornes, und ihn gar betrunken macht, damit man seine Schamblöße sehen kann. 16 Du hast dich gesättigt an Schmähung mehr als an Ehre: Trinke auch du nun und taumle! Die Runde des Bechers ist an dir, (empfange ihn) von der Rechten JHWHs, ein Haufen von Mist (werde ausgekippt*) über deine Ehre! 17 Denn das Verbrechen am Libanon wird dich bedecken, und die Brutalität gegen die Tiere (soll sich in) Schrecken für dich (wandeln*), wegen der Bluttaten gegen Menschen und der Gewaltverbrechen gegen Land, Siedlungen und alle die darin wohnen!

Das Motiv des heimtückischen Einsatzes von berauschenden Getränken, das aus der Davidsgeschichte bekannt ist (vgl. 2 Sam 11,13: David macht Uria betrunken), wird hier mit dem Vorwurf verbunden, jemand habe es bewusst eingesetzt, um ökonomische Konkurrenten auszuschalten und sie öffentlich zu desavouieren. Durch Entblößung gab man auch Ehebrecher(innen) der gesellschaftlichen Ächtung preis (vgl. Jes 51,7; gegen Assur/Ninive vgl. Nah 3,5). Als Gerichtsakt (v. 16) ist das Motiv auch in Jer 25,15–28; 51,39.57 belegt.110 Metaphorisch wird der Akt der mutwilligen Betäubung, Entblößung und Entehrung auf die Ausbeutung des Libanon übertragen. Damit wird eine andere Dimension des Vorgangs offengelegt, denn die Exploitierung des Erdbodens und die Beraubung der Bevölkerung durch die Massenrodungen111 waren aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nur 110 GAMBERONI, Art. ‫שׁתה‬, 507–535; SCHUNCK, Der Becher Jahwes, 323–330; SEIDL, „Der Becher“, 108–130; P ERLITT, Habakuk, 77. 111 Um Holz für den Marduk-Tempel nach Babylon zu schaffen, heißt es (WEISSBACH, Col. IX,33–46: „33 Was kein früherer König getan hatte (, tat ich, nämlich): 34 Schroffe Berge spaltete ich, 35 Steinblöcke sprengte ich ab vom Gebirge, 36 öffnete die Zugänge, 37 ließ eine Gleitbahn herrichten für die Cedern. 38 Vor Marduk, den König, (brachte ich) 39 mächtige, hohe, starke Cedern, 40 deren Güte ausgezeichnet, 41 deren dunkles Aussehen hervorragend war, 42 das reichlich gedeihende Erträgnis des Libanon. 43 Wie Rohr…44 ließ ich sie den Kana Araḫtu…45 in Babylon 46 Balken…“ Die Ruhe der Natur wird in dem Spottlied über den König von Babel, Jes 14,8, besungen: „Selbst die Wacholderbäume freuen sich über dich, die Zedern des Libanon: Seit du dich niedergelegt hast, steigt niemand herauf, um uns zu fällen!“

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

165

durch Korrumpierung von Teilen der Bevölkerung oder durch Erpressung durchsetzbar. Dass die Vorwürfe gegen Babylon reale Hintergründe haben, wird neben v. 11 in Hab 2,17 erkennbar. In v. 17b wird noch einmal ein Fazit gezogen, das v. 8b wiederholt und so aus dem ersten und vierten Weheruf einen Rahmen für den zweiten und dritten bildet. Der Aspekt der Zerstörung der Natur, die die Lebensgrundlage der Menschen bietet, wird besonders markant als „Gewalttat gegen die Erde“ hervorgehoben, in der Schilderung von der Zerstörung des Libanon (v. 17aα) und der Gewalt auch gegen die beim Transport beteiligten Lastentiere (v. 17aβ) illustriert unmittelbar, was gemeint ist. Der Ankündigung des Klagegeschreis aus den Steinen und Hölzern, das wie ein Echo die Klagen der Fronarbeiter aufnimmt, entspricht indes das Gegenbild einer Opfer und Täter übergreifenden Erkenntnis und Anerkenntnis der Herrlichkeit Gottes, die sich im Vollzug des Gerichts bewährt (v. 14). Vers 14 bildet das Zentrum der Endkomposition. Sind die ersten drei Weherufe durch die Verurteilung des Unrechts gegen ‫ גוים‬und ‫ עמים‬und ‫ לאמים‬verbunden (v. 8a; 10b; 13b), tritt also im vierten Weheruf die Verurteilung der Zerstörung einer Landschaft (v. 17aα: ‫ )חמס לבנון‬und ihrer Fauna (v. 17aβ: ‫ )שד בהמות‬hinzu. Neben der ökonomischen Ausbeutung (v. 8a; 9a) und der physischen Misshandlung und der „Vernichtung durch Arbeit“ (v. 12a) wird so die ökologische Zerstörung (v. 17a), deren Durchführung die Korrumpierung und Täuschung der hierzu missbrauchten Menschen voraussetzt (v. 15–16a), in den Horizont einer internationalen ethischen Verantwortung gestellt. Mit v. 8b und 17b ist nun in der Kultur des hebräischen Denkens erstmals ein völkerrechtlicher Gedanke auf den Begriff gebracht: ‫– דמי אדם‬ Bluttaten am Menschen – und ‫ – חמס ארץ‬Gewalt gegen die Erde/das Land, seine Siedlungsbereiche und deren Bewohner (‫ )קריה וכל־ישבי בה‬unterliegt einer universal gültigen Ächtung. Dabei ist die prophetische Wächterperspektive getragen von der Überzeugung, dass es die Macht Gottes selbst ist, die über die Werte von Menschenrecht und Völkerrecht wacht. Der eingangs gestellten Frage nach Unterdrückung und Gewalt (Hab 1,3a: ‫שד‬ ‫ )וחמס‬wird durch das göttliche Gericht über dieselbe die Antwort erteilt. In der Stilisierung der Weherufe als Teil einer alle Völkerschaften umfassenden Epik (v. 6a!) wird diese prophetische Perspektive in ihrer universalen Geltung zum Ausdruck gebracht. Dadurch, dass der J HWH-Name in v. 6b– 13.15–17 nicht erwähnt wird, erhält der Text sogar eine über den Raum der israelitischen Religion hinausweisende Perspektive, der erst durch den letzten Zusatz in v. 14 wiederum auf die monotheistische Überzeugung hin fokussiert wird. Dieser Überzeugung entspricht auch der Abschluss der Dichtung in v. 18–19 und 20. In Anbetracht der Babylon angedrohten Strafen blickt der

166

Reinhard Achenbach

Verfasser abschließend in den Bereich der Religion selbst und konstatiert in Anknüpfung an vorhandene Muster der antibabylonischen Religionsund Bilderkultkritik (vgl. Jes 9,14; 42,17; 44,9–10; Jer 2,8.11.27–28; 1 Sam 12,21; Ps 44,24), dass das „Wehe“ letztlich all diejenigen trifft, die stumme Götzenbilder verehren anstelle des lebendigen Gottes. So wird die Kundgabe der Worte des in seinem heiligen Tempel anwesenden Gottes JHWH, dessen Herrlichkeit alle Welt erfüllt und regiert (vgl. v. 14.20; Jes 6,3) zur Verkündigung an die mit dem Propheten ausharrende und betende Schar der Gerechten. Ihre Frage geht weiter als die nach Unterdrückung und Gewalttat (Hab 1,3) hin auf die Frage der universalen Gültigkeit der göttlichen Tora und des göttlichen Rechts (Hab 1,4a: ‫תפוג תורה ולא־יצא לנצח‬ ‫ )משפט‬und der Bedrängnis, in die generell die Frommen Gerechten unter den Bedingungen der Fremdherrschaft geraten (Hab 1,4b). So nimmt Hab 1,4; 2,4–5.6a.14.18–20 den Beter, Hörer oder Leser der Schriftrolle mit in die Reflexion der Dichtung hinein.112 Ein Späterer hat schließlich das hymnische Gebet Hab 3 solchen Betern zur Hand gegeben. Die Kernaussage des Habakukbuches setzt die in der neuassyrischen Epoche einsetzenden Reflexionen über eine göttliche Garantie einer Gerechtigkeitsordnung unter den Völkern fort und gelangt im Nachdenken über die destruktiven Wirkungen des neubabylonischen Regimes auf die Ethik der Eliten in Juda und – in einer späteren Bearbeitung – über die Ursachen für den Untergang des neubabylonischen Imperiums zu fundamentalen, religiös am ius divinum orientierten Einsichten über Maßstäbe des Völkerrechts unter den Bedingungen der Fremdherrschaft. Zu den Grundsätzen für die Formulierung eines internationalen Kriegsrechts durch die Ächtung von Kriegsverbrechen in Am 1,3–2,3 werden hier nun Maßstäbe für internationales Menschenrecht und für den Schutz der Natur entworfen. Und wie in Hab 2,14.20 so wird auch in Amos 1,2 die Systematik der Dichtung (abschließend) in einen zionstheologischen Rahmen gestellt.

112 Für eine Umkehrung des redaktionsgeschichtlichen Werdegangs plädiert W ÖHRLE, Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 291–323, indem er die „Frevler-Gerechten“Problematik zum Ausgangspunkt der Dichtung macht. Die Gegenprobe zeigt indes, dass der Text auf dieses Gerüst keineswegs angewiesen ist, um seine Bedeutung zu entfalten: die Frevler-Gerechten-Texte sind nicht das Fachwerk, in das die übrigen Dichtungen eingefügt worden sind, sondern reflektieren den liturgischen oder lehrhaften Rahmen, in welchem die Schrift rezipiert und fortgeschrieben werden konnte, bis hin zu einer an sie anknüpfenden Kommentierung in Qumran.

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

167

6. Ausblick: Fiktionen internationaler Völkerversammlungen Die Völkersprüche der Zefanjarolle113 sind anscheinend vollkommen unter den Gedanken eines Weltgerichts gestellt, das diluviale Ausmaße annimmt, vgl. Zef 1,2–3. Unter diesem wird aller Götzendienst aus Juda und Jerusalem hinweggefegt (1,4–6). Das Motiv des Verstummens aller Welt angesichts der Erscheinung JHWHs in seinem Heiligtum (Hab 2,20) wird aufgenommen und fortgeführt in dem Motiv der Stille vor dem „Tag J HWHs“, an dem sich das Gericht vollzieht an allen, die sich mit den fremden Mächten und Religionen eingelassen haben und den Tempel durch ihre Gaben oder gar durch synkretistische Praktiken entweihen (Zef 1,8–9). Angesichts der drohenden Vernichtung Jerusalems und Judas (1,10–18) wird zur Sammlung der Bekehrungswilligen aufgerufen, die bereit sind, sich der Gerechtigkeit Gottes demütig zu beugen (2,1–3). Sie werden Zeugen eines Völkergerichts über Gaza, Aschkalon, Aschdod, Ekron, Kreta, Kanaan, Philistäa, Moab, Ammon, Kusch, Assur – kurzum: alle Völkerschaften, die jemals Juda bedrängt haben. Nach Maßstäben für ein Völkerrecht sucht man in diesem Text vergebens. Es ist vielmehr Jerusalem, an dessen Könige, Beamte, Priester und Propheten die Frage nach der Rechtskultur ergeht. Das Gericht, das über dieser Stadt vollzogen wird, gilt gleichzeitig als exemplarische Beglaubigung einer göttlichen Gerichtsautorität, die sich auch auf die Völker der Erde erstreckt (Zef 3,6–8,8b): Denn es ist mein Recht, Völker zu sammeln und Königreiche zu versammeln, um über ihnen meinen Grimm auszugießen, alle Glut meines Zorns, dass im Feuer meines Eifers das ganze Land verzehrt wird.

Damit stellt sich das Problem der Gewährleistung einer internationalen Gerechtigkeitsordnung. Es sind weder die Königreiche noch Imperien bis dato in der Lage, sich aus freier Selbstbestimmung heraus zu versammeln und internationale Abkommen über Möglichkeiten der Befriedung zu 113 Die komplexen Fragen der literarhistorischen Formierung seien an dieser Stelle hintangestellt; W ÖHRLE, Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 198–228, unterscheidet eine aus achämenidischer Zeit stammende Schicht der Fremdvölkerworte („Fremdvölkerschicht“, Zef 2,7.9b–10.13–15; 3,8b.18–19), über die sich eine jüngere Schichte mit einer Perspektive des „Heils für die Völker“ lagert (Zef 3,9.10). Im Blick auf das Gesamtkorpus des Dodekaprophetons lässt sich – orientiert an der Fremdvölkerthematik – ein sukzessives Anwachsen beobachten, das schließlich in ein Korpus mündet, das auch durch eine explizite Heilsperspektive für die Völker zusammengebunden wird (vgl. W ÖHRLE, Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 23–171 („Das Fremdvölker-Korpus I“), 191–288 („Das Fremdvölker-Korpus II“), 335–362 („Das Heil-für-dieVölker-Korpus“). Bezeichnenderweise siedelt auch er die Behandlung des für die Entwicklung des Völkerrechtsgedankens nicht unwichtigen Habakukbuches literarhistorisch wie ideengeschichtlich zwischen den beiden letzteren an.

168

Reinhard Achenbach

schließen. Im Gewand der Religion indes wird hier einer Hoffnung Ausdruck verliehen über die Geltung einer internationalen Sanktionsdrohung, die auf einer universalen göttlichen Autorität beruht. Dieser Gedanke musste wohl erst gedacht werden, damit sich der andere entfalten konnte. Welch ungeheure Kraft dies die Menschheit gekostet hat, zeigt die lange, mehr als zweitausendjährige Geschichte, die zwischen der Formulierung dieses Gedankens und der Einrichtung eines internationalen Gerichtshofes zur Verfolgung von Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit steht. Der Zefanjatext bleibt allerdings nicht bei der Perspektive der Notwendigkeit einer internationalen Gerichtsdrohung stehen, sondern entwirft in Gestalt der göttlichen Heilsorakel Grundlinien für die Bedingungen einer internationalen Friedensordnung, Zef 3,9: Doch danach will ich einen Wandel bei den Völkern bewirken, in Form einer geläuterten Sprache (‫)אהפך אל־עמים שפה ברורה‬, dass sie allesamt den Namen J HWHs anrufen und ihm so dienen mit ‘einem Rücken’ (d.h.: in Eintracht die Lasten auf sich nehmen).

Dem Schriftgelehrten Prophetenrollen-Schreiber ist klar, dass eine Befriedung der Völker eine Verständigung in vielfacher Hinsicht voraussetzt: die Läuterung der Sprache und also die Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen klaren Ausrichtung des Denkens und der Begriffe. Die Idee der gemeinsamen Anrufung des einen Namens fußt auf dem Gedanken, dass Eide durch den für Israel als einzig existent erkannten Gott gewährleistet wurden, m.a.W. es muss eine einheitliche Anerkenntnis einer gemeinsamen Rechtsordnung erfolgen, die grenzübergreifend und unabhängig von Interessen einzelner Völker, Herrscher oder Menschen Gültigkeit besitzt. Dies impliziert die Überwindung auch der Grenzen, die durch die Vielfalt der Religionen gegeben sind. Darum ist für Israel die erste Aufgabe, den monotheistisch gereinigten Glauben bei sich selbst durchzusetzen. Dass die Idee einer universalen Rechtsordnung auch die Überwindung der exemplarischen Gestalt des Monotheismus implizieren könnte, ist für die Alten ein noch nicht möglicher Gedanke, ist doch allein schon die Vorstellung einer die Grenzen von Völkern und Kulturen überschreitenden Einheit recht verwegen, (vgl. Zef 3,10: „von jenseits der Ströme Kuschs werden meine Verehrer…mir Huldigungsgaben bringen.“) und sprengt die Grenzen dessen, was man sich bis dahin jemals geschichtlich vorzustellen gewagt hatte. Es ist die Unerschütterlichkeit des Glaubens der „Demütigen“, der „Anawîm“, die sich solcher Wahrheit verschreiben (Zef 3,11–13), welcher diese Hoffnung trägt und ihr in eschatologischer Vorausschau Hymnen widmet (Zef 3,14–17). Ein abschließendes Heilsorakel bekräftigt die Hoffnung auf eine Restitution von Ehre und Ansehen vor „allen Völkern der Erde“ (v. 20b) für die Gedemütigten. Die großen Visionen der ptolemäischen Zeit, in welchen man sich gar die Wallfahrt aus vielen Völkerschaften vorstellen konnte, die in der Jeru-

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

169

salemer Tora Orientierung für eine Befriedung der Welt suchten und sogar selbst Anteil am Gottesvolk erhalten (Jes 2,1–5; 19,18–25; 66,20–23; Mi 4,1–5.6–8; Sach 8,20–23) markieren Höhepunkte der innerisraelitischen Reflexion über Perspektiven eines Völkerrechts.114 Sie in Korrelation zu den gänzlich anders gelagerten Debatten der Achämenidenzeit in den Poleis Griechenlands zu setzen, in denen sich noch einmal unter eigenen Bedingungen ein Völkerrechtsdiskurs entwickelt hat,115 stellt eine reizvolle Aufgabe dar, die allerdings den hier gegebenen Rahmen sprengt. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass eine Untersuchung der Völkerworte der Prophetenbuchkompositionen dahingehend, welche rechtsförmigen Gedanken in ihnen expliziert werden, zu einer spezifisch jüdischen Form der religiösen Begründung internationalen Rechts führt. Dabei wird nicht allein der Gedanke eines Völkergerichts formuliert (Zef 2,8; Hab 2,6a), sondern ebenso die Idee einer aus der gemeinsamen Orientierung der Völker auf den Gott Israels hin sich ergebenden gemeinsamen Ausrichtung auf eine gemeinsame Völkerrechtskultur (Zef 2,9). Am weitestgehenden sind hier sicherlich die Visionen der Zionswallfahrt im Micha- und im Jesajabuch oder gar der in die Form weisheitlicher Parabeln und Legenden gefasste Gedanke der Bekehrung der Stadt Ninive und der Tyrannen (Jona; Daniel 1–6; Esther). Dass es darüber hinaus auch ein gleichsam religions- und kulturübergreifendes internationales Recht geben muss, war den Schriftgelehrten des zweiten Tempels ansatzweise deutlich, wie an der Formulierung der sogenannten „noachitischen Gebote“ in Gen 9 erkennbar wird. Letztlich hat allerdings gerade die jüdischmonotheistische Ausformung des Völkerrechts-Gedankens allein noch nicht ausgereicht, um zu einer universalen Rechtsordnung zu gelangen. Die historischen Gründe hierfür sind vielfältig, im Kern aber evident: dass die Völkerwelt sich dereinst zum Gott des erwählten Volkes bekehren würde, ist eine Vision geblieben.

114

Prägend in der Vorgeschichte der Visionen einer Völkerversammlung dürften die jährlichen Zusammenkünfte anlässlich des symbolischen Tributabgabenzeremoniells in Persepolis gewesen sein. Politisch-theologische Erwägungen zu der Entwicklung eines religiös begründeten Völkerversammlungsgedankens hat ALBERTZ, Eine himmlische UNO, 37–56, vorgetragen. 115 Man denke nur an den berühmten „Melier-Dialog“, THUKYDIDES, Geschichte, V,84–116. B ARTA, Graeca, 442–510, ist im Grundsatz zuzustimmen, dass die Wurzeln des Völkerrechtsgedankens zu einem wesentlichen Teil im griechischen Denken liegen. Gleichwohl wird man auch die jenseits davon liegenden altorientalischen und hebräischen Ursprünge nicht gering schätzen dürfen, vgl. hierzu auch B EDERMAN, International Law; LANG, Staatsverträge.

170

Reinhard Achenbach

Bibliographie ACHENBACH, R., Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11 (EHS XXIII/422), Frankfurt-am-Main 1991 – Das Kyros-Orakel in Jesaja 44,24–45,7 im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen, ZAR 11 (2005) 155–194 – Vertilgen – Töten – Vernichten (Ester 3,13). Die Genozid-Thematik im Estherbuch, ZAR 15 (2009) 282–315 – Verunreinigung durch die Berührung Toter. Zum Ursprung einer altisraelitischen Vorstellung, in: Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (FAT 64), Hgg. v. A. Berlejung und B. Janowski, Tübingen 2009, 347–369 – Zur Systematik der Speisegebote in Leviticus 11 und in Deuteronomium 14, ZAR 17 (2011) 161–209 – „A Prophet like Moses“ (Deuteronomy 18:15) – „No Prophet like Moses“ (Deuteronomy 34:10): Some Observations on the Relation between the Pentateuch and the Latter Prophets, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT 78), Hgg. v. T. B. Dozeman et al., Tübingen 2011, 435–458 – The Transformation of Measures for Social Justice into Measures for International Law in the Book of Habakkuk, ZAR 18 (2012) 263–278 AHN, G., Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran. Die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation (Acta Iranica 31), Leiden 1992 ALBANI, M., Die 70-Jahr-Dauer des babylonischen Exils (Jer 25,11f.; 29,10) und die Babylon-Inschrift Asarhaddons (MuB d. Forschungsstelle Judentum an der Theologischen Fakultät Leipzig 17), Leipzig 1999 – Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen. Zur Begründung des Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient (ABG 1), Leipzig 2000 – Deuterojesajas Monotheismus und der babylonische Religionskonflikt unter Nabonid, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), Hgg. v. M. Oeming und K. Schmid, Zürich 2003, 171–202 ALBERTZ, R., Eine himmlische UNO. Religiös fundierte Friedensvermittlung, in: Frieden Stiften. Vermittlung und Konfliktlösung vom Mittelalter bis heute, Hg. v. G. Althoff, Darmstadt 2011, 37–56 ARTUS, O. (Hg.), Loi et Justice dans l’Orient Ancien. Colloque de l’Ecole des Langues et Civilisations de l’Orient Ancien, Paris, Mai 2011 (BZAR 20), Wiesbaden 2013 B ACH, R., Bauen und Pflanzen, in: Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen (FS G. v. Rad), Hgg. v. R. Rendtorff und K. Koch, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1961, 7–32 B ARTA, H., „Graeca non leguntur“? Zu den Ursprüngen des europäischen Rechts im antiken Griechenland, Band II/2 – Archaische Grundlagen, Wiesbaden 2011 B ARTH, H., Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977 B ARTON, J., Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5 (SOTS 6), Cambridge 1980, 51–61 B EDERMAN, D. J., International Law in Antiquity, Cambridge 2001 B ERGER, P.-R., Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a.Chr.) (AOAT 4), Kevelaer 1973

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

171

B ERGES, U., Der Zorn Gottes in der Prophetie und Poesie Israels auf dem Hintergrund altorientalischer Vorstellungen, Biblica 85 (2004) 305–330 – Jesaja 40–48. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (HThK), Freiburg 2008 B ERNER, C., Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73), Tübingen 2010 B LENKINSOPP, J., Isaiah 40–55. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB), New York 2002 B OIY, T., Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon (OLA 136), Leuven 2004 B ORGER, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien (AfO 9), Graz 1956 B OVATI, P., Re-Establishing Justice. Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT.S 105), Sheffield 1994 B URKERT, W., ‘Vergeltung’ zwischen Ethologie und Ethik, München 1994 CARROLL, R. P., Jeremiah (OTL), London 1986 CHRIST, H., Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament: Der gewaltsame Tod des Menschen untersucht am hebräischen Wort dām, Basel 1977 DANDAMAEV, M.A., Neo-Babylonian Society and Economy, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Second Edition Volume III Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., Hgg. v. J. Bordman et al., Cambridge 1991, 252–275 ELLIGER, K., Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (BhTh 15), Tübingen 1953 F ISCHER, C., Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja. Studien zur Eigenart und Intention in Am 1,3–2,3.4f. und Jes 13,1–16,14, (BBB 136), Berlin 2002 F ISCHER, G., Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch, in: Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation. Innsbrucker Deuteronomium–Tagung 2010 im Gedenken an Volkmar Premstaller SJ (BZAR 17), Hgg. v. Fischer et al., Wiesbaden 2011, 247–269 – Der Prophet wie Mose. Studien zum Jeremiabuch (BZAR 15), Wiesbaden 2011 – Jeremia 1–25 (HThK), Freiburg 2005 F ISHBANE, M., The Treaty Background of Amos 1.1, JBL 89 (1970) 313–318 FLEISCHER, G., Von Menschenverkäufern, Baschankühen und Rechtsverdrehern. Die Sozialkritik des Amosbuches in historisch-kritischer und archäologischer Perspektive (BBB 74), Frankfurt a.M. 1989 FRITZ, V., Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos, VT 37 (1987) 26–38 GAMBERONI, J., Art. ‫שׁתה‬, ThWAT VIII (1995) 507–535 GÖTZE, A., Die Annalen des Murshilish (MVAG 38/6), Leipzig 1933 GRAETZ, S., Die universelle Rechtsordnung des Gottesknechts. Zum Verständnis von ‫שׁ פַט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬im ersten Lied vom Gottesknecht (Jes 42,1–4), ZAR 10 (2004) 264–277 HARPER, W.R., Amos and Hosea (ICC), Edinburgh 1936 HARTENSTEIN, F., JHWH und der „Schreckensglanz“ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8). Traditionsund religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur „Denkschrift“ Jesaja 6–8*, in: Schriftprophetie (FS J. Jeremias), Hgg. v. J. Krispenz und A. Schart, NeukirchenVluyn 2004, 83–102 – „Wehe, ein Tosen der Völker…“ (Jes 17,12). Beobachtungen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition vor dem Hintergrund des judäisch-assyrischen Kulturkontakts, in: DERS., Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes. Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit (BThSt 74), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011, 127–174 HÖFFKEN, P., Untersuchungen zu den Begründungselementen der Völkerorakel des Alten Testaments (Diss. theol.), Bonn 1977

172

Reinhard Achenbach

HOMER, Ilias, Übers. H. RUPÉ, München 1994 HORNUNG, E., Der Eine und die Vielen. Altägyptische Götterwelt, Darmstadt 20056 HUDDLESTUN, J. R., „Who Is This That Rises Like the Nile?“ Some Egyptian Texts on the Inundation and a Prophetic Trope, in: Fortunate the Eyes that See (FS D. N. Freedman), Hgg. v. A. B. Beck et al., Grand Rapids 1995, 338–363 HUWYLER, B., Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT 20), Tübingen 1997 JEREMIAS, J., Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970 – Die Reue Gottes. Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975 – Der Prophet Amos (ATD 24,2), Göttingen 1995 – Völkersprüche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch, in: D ERS., Hosea und Amos. Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton (FAT 13), Tübingen 1996, 157–171 KEEL, O., Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, Zürich 1977 2 – Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (OLB IV,1), Göttingen 2007 KELLENS, J. UND E. P IRART, Les textes viel-avestiques. Volume I: Introduction, texte et traduction, Wiesbaden 1988 KELLER, C.-A., Michée, Nahoum, Habaccuc, Sophonie (CAT XIb), Neuchatel 19902 KENT, R. G., Old Persian. Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, New Haven 1950 KESSLER, R., Die Ägyptenbilder der Hebräischen Bibel. Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte (SBS 197), Stuttgart 2002 KLENGEL, H., Krieg, Kriegsgefangene, RlA VI (1982) 241–246 KNOBLOCH, H., Die nachexilische Prophetentheorie des Jeremiabuches (BZAR 12), Wiesbaden 2009 KOCH, H., Die Religion der Iraner, in: Religionen des Alten Orients Teil 1: Hethiter und Iran (GAT 1,1), Hgg. v. V. Haas und H. Koch, Göttingen 2011, 80–144 KOCH, K., Die Stellung des Kyros im Geschichtsbild Deuterojesajas und ihre überlieferungsgeschichtliche Verankerung, ZAW 84 (1972) 352–356 KOENEN, K., Heil den Gerechten – Unheil den Sündern! Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Prophetenbücher (BZAW 229), Berlin 1994 KRATZ, R. G., Kyros im Deutero-Jesajabuch (FAT 1), Tübingen 1991 – Die Worte des Amos aus Tekoa, in: Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT 201), Hgg. v. M. Köckert und M. Nissinen, Göttingen 2003, 54–89 (ND in: DERS., Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II [FAT 78], Tübingen 2011, 310–343) KREUCH, J., Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja. Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31 (WMANT 130), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2011 LAMBERT, W.G., The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon. A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism, in: Unity and Diversity, Hg. v. H. Goedicke, Baltimore 1975, 191–200 LANG, M. et al. (Hgg.), Staatsverträge, Völkerrecht und Diplomatie im Alten Orient und in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Philippika 40), Wiesbaden 2010 LAYARD, A.H., The Monuments of Niniveh from Drawings Made on the Spot, 2 Bände, London 1849–1853 LEICHTY, E., The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (RINAP 4), Winona Lake 2011 LEUENBERGER, M., „Ich bin J HWH und keiner sonst“. Der exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1–7 (SBS 224), Stuttgart 2010

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

173

LEVIN, C., Integrativer Monotheismus im Alten Testament, ZThK 109 (2012) 153–175 MARROW, S., Ḥamas („violentia“) in Jer. 20.8, VD 43 (1965) 241–255 MCKANE, W., Jeremiah Volume I. Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV (ICC), Edinburgh 1986 MELUGIN, R.F. The Formation of Amos: An Analysis of Exegetical Method, in:, Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers, Bd. 1 (SBL.SP 13), Hg. v. P. J. Achtemeier, Missoula 1978, 369–391 MÖLLENBECK, C., Darlehensgeschäfte in Babylon in altbabylonischer Zeit. Soziale Zusammenhänge und juristische Bedeutung, Masterarbeit, Münster 2012 MORGENSTERN, J., The King-God among the Western Semites and the Meaning of Epiphanes, VT 10 (1960) 138–197 N IHAN, C., The Laws about Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Their Place in the Formation of the Pentateuch, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, (FAT 78), Hgg. v. T. B. Dozeman et al., Tübingen 2011, 401–432 ODED, B., War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Wiesbaden 1992 OLYAN, S., „To Uproot and to Pull Down, to Build and to Plant“: Jer 1:10 and Its Earliest Interpreters, in: Hesed ve-Emet (FS E.S. Frerichs), Hgg. v. J. Magness und S. Gitin, Atlanta 1998, 63–72 OTTO, E., Die Stellung der Wehe-Worte in der Verkündigung des Propheten Habakuk, ZAW 89 (1977), 73–107 – Habakuk, TRE 14 (1985) 300–306 – Krieg und Frieden in der Hebräischen Bibel und im Alten Orient. Aspekte für eine Friedensordnung in der Moderne, Theologie und Frieden 18, Stuttgart 1998 – Jeremia und die Tora. Ein nachexilischer Diskurs, in: Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen, (BZAR 7), Hgg. v. R. Achenbach et al., Wiesbaden 2007, 134–182 – Deuteronomium 1–11. Zweiter Teilband: 4,44–11,32 (HThK), Freiburg 2012 P AGANINI, S., „Nicht darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen“. Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren, Hermeneutik (BZAR 11), Wiesbaden 2009 PERLITT, L., Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (ATD 25/1), Göttingen 2004 P LÖGER, O., Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia) (BK XVII), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984 P ONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B. (Hg.), Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, Winona Lake 2011 P OSENER, G. et al., Lexikon der ägyptischen Kultur, München 1960 PRIEST, J., The Covenant of Brothers, JBL 84 (1965) 400–406 PROCKSCH, O., Die Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Amos, Hosea und Jesaja, Dissertation, Leipzig 1901 ROTH, W. M. W., Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament. A Form-Critical Study (VT.S 13), Leiden 1965 ROTHSTEIN, J. W., Über Habakuk Kapitel 1 und 2 (ThStKr 67), 1894 SAEBØ, M., Sprüche (ATD 16,1), Göttingen 2012 SAUER, G., Die Sprüche Augurs. Untersuchungen zur Herkunft, Verbreitung und Bedeutung einer biblischen Stilform unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Proverbia c. 30 (BWANT 84), Stuttgart 1963 SAUR, M., Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches (BZAW 386), Berlin 2008 SCHART, A., Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse (BZAW 260), Berlin 1998

174

Reinhard Achenbach

SCHAUDIG, H., Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik (AOAT 256), Münster 2001 SCHMID, K., Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches. Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996 – Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 2008 SCHMÖKEL, H., Ur, Assur und Babylon, Stuttgart 1955 SCHOTTROFF, W. UND S. BEYERLE, Kriegsgefangene, NBL II (1995) 555–556 SCHUNCK, K.-D., Der Becher Jahwes: Weinbecher – Taumelbecher – Zornesbecher, in: Verbindungslinien (FS W.H. Schmidt), Hg. v. A. Graupner, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 323–330 SEIDL, T., „Der Becher in der Hand des Herrn“. Studie zu den prophetischen „Taumelbecher“-Texten (ATSAT 70), St. Ottilien 2001 SMEND, R., Die Bundesformel (ThSt 68), Zürich 1963 (= DERS., Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien 1, München 1986, 11–39) SMITH, S., Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon, London 1924 SNAITH, J.G., Literary Criticism and Historical Investigation in Jeremiah Chapter XLVI, JSS 16 (1971) 15–32 SPIECKERMANN, H., Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129), Göttingen 1982 STAUSBERG, M., Die Religion Zarathushtras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale, Band 1, Stuttgart 2002 STIPP, H.-J., Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz (ATSAT 63), St. Ottilien 1998 STOEBE, H. J., ‫ ָח ָמ ס‬ḥāmās Gewalttat, THAT I (1978), 583–587 T ADMOR, H. und S. YAMADA, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC), and Shalmaneser V (726 – 722 BC), Kings of Assyria (RINAP 1), Winona Lake 2011 T ALON, P., The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš. Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Transliteration, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in French (SAA IV), Helsinki 2005 THUKYDIDES, Geschichte des Peloponnesischen Krieges, Hg. v. G.P. Landmann, München 1993 2 VAN DER T OORN, K., God (I) ‫אלהים‬, DDD (1999 ), 353–365 VEENHOF, K.R. Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen (ATD.E 11), Göttingen 2001 W EBER, M., Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Das antike Judentum. Schriften und Reden 1911–1920 (Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe: Band I/21,2), hg. v. E. OTTO, Tübingen 2005 W EIPPERT, M., Edom. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Edomiter auf Grund schriftlicher und archäologischer Quellen, Dissertation, Tübingen 1971 W EISSBACH, F. H., Die Inschriften Nebukadnezars II im Wâdī Brîsā und am Nahr elKelb, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschft 5, Leipzig 1906 W ELLHAUSEN, J., Die kleinen Propheten, Berlin 1892 (19634) W ISEMAN, D. J., The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, London 1958 – Nebuchadrezzer and Babylon, Schweich Lectures 1983, London 1985 – Babylonia 605–539 B.C., in: JThe Cambridge Ancient History Second Edition Volume III Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East,

Monotheismus und Völkerrecht

175

from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., Hgg. v. Bordman et al., Cambridge 1991, 229–251 W ÖHRLE, J., Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Entstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360), Berlin 2006 – Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Buchübergreifende Redaktions-prozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW 389), Berlin 2008 W OLFF, H.W., Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos (BK XIV,2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975 2 W UNSCH, C., Neubabylonische Urkunden: Die Geschäftsurkunden der Familie Egibi, in: Babylon. Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne. 2. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24.–26. März 1998 in Berlin, Hg. v. J. Renger, Saarbrücken 1999, 343–364 YADIN, Y., The Temple Scroll. Volume Two. Text and Commentary, Jerusalem 1983

The God(s) of the Nations in Late Prophecy JAKOB WÖHRLE

Introduction In recent decades, the perspective on biblical monotheism has radically changed.1 Prior to that monotheism was seen as one of the foundations of Old Testament belief. In recent research, however, archaeological findings as well as new insights into the formation of the Old Testament have led to the conclusion that the concept of monotheism does not stand at the beginning of Israel’s religious history. It is rather the result of a lengthy development. It is a latter-day product of Israel’s religious history. How this development occurred in detail is highly disputed at the moment. Rather undisputed is, however, when this process reached completion. Monotheism – in the strict sense of the belief in one god denying the existence of other gods – is commonly held to be a product of the exilic period, which was from then on an integral part of Israel’s religious tradition.2 This view is mainly based upon the message of Deutero-Isaiah. The text called Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40–55), in its kernel, stems from a prophetic group, probably from the environment of the Jerusalem Temple, which appeared at the end of the exilic period.3 In this text several passages assert that Yhwh is the only God. He is the first and the last, besides him is no god (Isa 44.6; cf. 43.10; 45.5–6; 46.9 et al.). The gods of the nations are presented as ‘nothings’ (41.24). 1

Cf. especially the collected volumes KEEL (ed.), Monotheismus; LANG (ed.), Gott; HAAG (ed.), Gott; DIETRICH AND KLOPFENSTEIN (eds.), Gott; P ORTER (ed.), God; KREBERNIK AND VAN OORSCHOT (eds.), Polytheismus; OEMING and SCHMID (eds.), Gott; KRATZ AND SPIECKERMANN (eds.), Götterbilder. An overview of the new debate is given by KÖCKERT, Gott; SCHMID, Differenzierungen, or MACDONALD, Deuteronomy, 5–58. 2 Cf. among many others STOLZ, Monotheismus, 179–182; IDEM, Einführung, 184– 185; LANG, Jahwe-allein-Bewegung, 73–78; W EIPPERT, Synkretismus, 23–24; GÖRG, Monotheismus, 70; GNUSE, Gods, 207–209; VAN OORSCHOT, ‘Höre Israel’, 130–135; ALBERTZ, Jahwe, 372–373; KNAUF, Heidentum, 113–114; B AUKS, Art. Monotheismus. 3 Concerning the formation and intention of Isa 40–55 cf. for example ALBERTZ, Exilszeit, 283–323; SCHMID, Hintere Propheten, 330–335.

178

Jakob Wöhrle

With this presentation of Yhwh as the only God, Deutero-Isaiah corroborates his message of salvation. As the only God, Yhwh alone is powerful. Thus, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, he is able to alter the situation of his people and to create for them a new and salvific future. This message found in the book of Deutero-Isaiah is often seen to be the crucial step towards biblical monotheism.4 Or, more strongly, scholars often speak of a ‘breakthrough to monotheism’ that happened with DeuteroIsaiah.5 For the postexilic period then, the monotheistic confession is regarded as ‘established’6 or ‘widely taken for granted’.7 The common view of an exilic ‘breakthrough to monotheism’ has not really been questioned until the most recent research.8 The following essay will further investigate this issue in one certain respect. It will focus upon late prophetic texts dealing with the gods of the nations. I will investigate whether Deutero-Isaiah’s message presenting the gods of the nations as nothings finds expression in these texts or whether these texts show different theological concepts.

1. The Persian Period Our consideration of the gods of the nations will begin with two texts, which undoubtedly stem from the Persian period: the night vision about the removal of the woman in the ephah in Zech 5.5–11, and the word against mixed-marriages and divorce in Mal 2.10–16. 1.1 The Removal of the Woman in the Ephah in Zechariah 5.5–11 The book of Zechariah is one of the first prophetic witnesses of the postexilic period. This book – or rather the primary layer of the book – was written during the time of the rebuilding of the Second Temple and stems

4

LANG, Jahwe-allein-Bewegung, 73–78; IDEM, Art. Monotheismus, 162–163; STOLZ, Einführung, 184–187; GNUSE, Gods, 207–209; ALBERTZ, History II, 417–425; MÜLLER, Art. Monotheismus, 1461; VAN OORSCHOT, ‘Höre Israel’, 132–135; KOCH, Mythos, 338– 350, et al. 5 Cf. for example LANG, Jahwe-allein-Bewegung, 73; STOLZ, Einführung, 184; GNUSE, Gods, 207; ALBERTZ, History II, 425. 6 GNUSE, Gods, 209. 7 STOLZ, Einführung, 187: ‘Tatsächlich ist für die nachexilische Zeit Israels die Einheit und Einzigkeit Gottes weitgehend selbstverständlich.’ 8 Cf. for example MACDONALD, Deuteronomy, esp. 209–221; IDEM, Origin; MOBERLY, Monotheism; BECKER, Staatsreligion; LEVIN, Monotheismus.

The God(s) of the Nations

179

from priestly circles. Its literary core originally comprises a collection of seven night visions.9 These night visions anticipate Yhwh intervening in the course of history and changing the current situation of his people. He will put an end to the rule of the Persians (1.8–17*; 6.1–8); he will punish the nations (2.1–4); he will make his people rest in peace (2.5–9); purify them from social and cultic wrongs (5.1–4, 5–11); and give them a new leadership under a secular and a priestly ruler (4.1–14*). Among the night visions the following vision in Zech 5.5–11, describing the removal of the woman in the ephah, is remarkable: 5 The angel who talked with me came forward and said to me, ‘Raise your eyes and see what this is that is coming out.’ 6 I said, ‘What is it?’ He said (‫)ויאמר‬, ‘This is the ephah coming out.’ He said (‫)ויאמר‬, ‘This is their guilt (‫)עונם‬10 in all the land.’ 7 Then a leaden cover lifted up, and there was a woman sitting in the ephah. 8 He said, ‘This is the wickedness (‫)הרשעה‬.’ And he threw her down into the ephah and laid the leaden stone on its opening. 9 I raised my eyes and saw, and there were two women coming out, wind was in their wings, and they had wings like the wings of a stork. They lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven. 10 I said to the angel who talked with me, ‘Where are they taking the ephah?’ 11 He said to me, ‘To build a temple for her in the land of Shinar, and when it is prepared, she will be set there at her place (‫)על־מכנתה‬.’

An explanation of the night vision in Zech 5.5–11 confronts the problem that within this vision two elements are introduced and interpreted by the angel. At first, Zech 5.6 presents the ephah, which is interpreted as ‘their guilt in all the land’ (‫)עונם בכל־הארץ‬.11 In the subsequent verses, vv. 7–8, a woman sitting in this ephah appears, who is introduced as ‘the wickedness’ (‫)הרשעה‬. The juxtaposition of the ephah and the woman, both provided with comparable interpretations, has frequently led to the assumption that this night vision underwent a secondary re-working. In such approaches, scholars consistently presume that the presentation of the woman in Zech 5.7–8 is an addition.12 Thus, only the ephah would have been the focus of the original night vision. For such an assumption, however, no literary critical arguments – besides the mere juxtaposition of the ephah and the woman – have been pro9

Zech 1.8–14aα, 17aβb; 2.1–9; 4.1–6aα, 10a*(from ‫)שׁבעה־אלה‬, b, 11, 13–14; 5.1–11; 6.1–8. For a detailed analysis of the book’s formation cf. W ÖHRLE, Sammlungen, 323– 366. 10 Emending MT’s ‫ עינם‬to read ‫עונם‬, cf. LXX ἀδικία αὐτῶν. 11 For the proposed emendation to MT, see n. 10 above. 12 Cf. with differences regarding the details, SCHÖTTLER, Gott, 136–138; KRATZ, Judentum, 86; KÖRTING, Unrechtmäßigkeit, 477–479; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 245–249.

180

Jakob Wöhrle

vided. Therefore, another solution seems to be desirable. Not the presentation of the woman in Zech 5.7–8, but the interpretation of the ephah in Zech 5.6bβ, in which the angel explains the ephah as being ‘their guilt in all the land’, is the secondary addition. Two arguments speak for this solution. First, although the angel’s interpretation of the ephah in 5.6bβ follows directly on his hint to the ephah in 5.6bα, it is again introduced with a speech formula (‫)ויאמר‬. Such a sequence of two direct speeches, both introduced with a speech formula, is documented nowhere else within the night visions of the book of Zechariah. Second, and more importantly, the term ‘their guilt’ (‫)עונם‬13 contains a 3rd person plural suffix. This suffix has no counterpart in the previous text of the night vision. Rather, the suffix harks back to the foregoing night vision in Zech 5.1–4 and refers to the thieves and perjurers mentioned in 5.4.14 Such a reference back to a foregoing night vision, however, is found nowhere else within the book of Zechariah. The other night visions are self-contained units. Thus, the interpretation of the ephah as ‘their guilt in all the land’ in Zech 5.6bβ is a secondary addition to this night vision. By this addition, the night vision about the removal of the woman in the ephah has been connected with the foregoing vision and in this way it has been secondarily interpreted as a vision about the removal of the social wrongs mentioned there. If this argument is correct, it leads to an important consequence: the main focus of Zech 5.5–11* is not the ephah, but the woman. In the original version of the night vision, only the woman is interpreted by the angel and is thus of special importance for the understanding of this vision. The ephah, in contrast, is just a container for transportation. In current research, however, there is considerable debate about the meaning of the woman in the ephah. Frequently the woman is understood as personified wickedness and thus especially as a symbolization of social misdeeds.15 However, a growing number of scholars presume that the woman in the ephah is a goddess so that the wickedness mentioned here would consist in the veneration of such a goddess.16 13

For the proposed emendation to MT see n. 10 above. B IČ, Nachtgesichte, 56; SCHÖTTLER, Gott, 134–135; HANHART, Sacharja, 354; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 243. 15 RUDOLPH, Haggai, 119–121; REVENTLOW, Haggai, 66; HANHART, Sacharja, 376; DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 259; FREVEL, YHWH, 66–70; W ILLI-P LEIN, Haggai, 106–108; SCHNOCKS, Ephah, 268. 16 GALLING, Exilswende, 30; MEYERS AND MEYERS, Haggai, 302–303; UEHLINGER, Frau, 101; FREVEL, Aschera, 523–524 (but see FREVEL, YHWH, 66–70); FLOYD, Evil, 62; LUX, Prophetie, 218–219; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 247. 14

The God(s) of the Nations

181

The common interpretation of the woman as personified wickedness and thus as a symbolisation of social misdeeds mainly depends upon the interpretation of the ephah in Zech 5.6. Many scholars understand the ephah as an allusion to manipulated scales.17 Additionally, they point to the explanation of the ephah in Zech 5.6bβ with its reference back to the foregoing night vision and the thieves and perjurers mentioned there.18 Based upon such an understanding of the ephah, the woman in the ephah is also interpreted as a symbol for social wrongs. As demonstrated above, however, the ephah is of special importance only after the night vision had been re-worked and supplemented by Zech 5.6bβ. Only on this literary level can the removal of the ephah be interpreted as the removal of social wrongs. And thus, only on this literary level, can the woman in the ephah be related to such misdeeds. For the original version of the night vision, for which the main focus is not the ephah but the woman, it appears to be much more probable that this woman symbolizes a goddess and is as such a manifestation of wickedness. This view is mainly supported by the fact that according to Zech 5.11 a house in the land of Shinar should be built for her. This house, in which the woman is to be set, can hardly be understood as anything other than a temple.19 For those scholars who understand the woman to represent a goddess, the identity of this goddess is a puzzle. Proposed identifications include Ištar, Ashera or the Queen of Heaven.20 However, since the woman in 5.5– 11 is not identified as a specific goddess, all speculations are idle. Presumably, the woman in the ephah does not symbolize a concrete goddess at all, but foreign deities in general.21 More can be said, however, about the deity symbolized by the woman in the ephah. Zechariah 5.11 says not only that the woman shall be brought to Shinar, to Babylonia,22 where a house shall be built for her, but also that 17

RUDOLPH, Haggai, 119; DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 259; W ILLI-P LEIN, Haggai, 106– 108; SCHNOCKS, Ephah, 268. This assumption is based upon the prophetic critique of the ‘false ephah’ in Amos 8.5; Mic 6.10. 18 HANHART, Sacharja, 364–365. 19 GALLING, Exilswende, 30; RUDOLPH, Haggai, 121; REVENTLOW, Haggai, 66; UEHLINGER, Frau, 97; LUX, Prophetie, 218; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 244, et al. 20 GALLING, Exilswende, 30 (Ištar); MEYERS AND MEYERS, Haggai, 303 (Ashera); UEHLINGER, Frau, 101 (Queen of Heaven). 21 Also FREVEL, Aschera, 523–524, FLOYD, Evil, 62, and HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 247, leave open the question of which specific deity the woman in the ephah may have symbolized. 22 Some scholars presume that in Zech 5.11 ‘Shinar’ is to be understood not as a mere geographic designation but as a distinct allusion to the place mentioned in Gen 11.2 within the story about the tower of Babel. In their view, the name ‘Shinar’ defines the

182

Jakob Wöhrle

she shall be set there ‫על־מכנתה‬. Typically, the term ‫ מכונה‬is understood as a designation for a stand or a trestle, on which the woman or rather the ephah with the woman is to be installed.23 This is because the term ‫מכונה‬ often refers to the mobile trestles of the bronze vats in the Jerusalem Temple.24 The problem with this assumption is, however, that the term ‫ מכונה‬is not used for a variety of cultic stands or trestles, but only for this specific trestle of the Temple. It thus seems to be a technical term for this specific item. A different use of the term ‫ מכונה‬can be found in Ezra 3.3. This verse describes how the returnees from exile set up the altar of the temple ‘at its place’ (‫ )על־מכונתיו‬and that means ‘at its previous position’.25 It then seems to be probable that Zech 5.11 also envisages the woman in the ephah being set ‘at her place’. Thus, like the altar in Ezra 3.3 the woman shall be set at her previous, her original position. She will be brought to the place where she belongs and set up there. That means Zech 5.5–11 with its description of the woman’s removal describes nothing other than the removal of a foreign, or more specifically a Babylonian, deity. The night vision thus demonstrates the purification of the postexilic community from foreign religious elements, which were – allegedly or actually – imported from Babylonia, and their repatriation to the land of their origins. It is possible to make a further observation. Among those approaches that understand the woman in the ephah to symbolize a goddess, it is commonly assumed that the woman has to be imagined as an idol.26 However, this assumption overlooks one important fact: the woman in the ephah lives! This can be shown in several ways. The portrayal of the cover of the ephah being lifted up seems to presuppose that the woman lifts up place where the ephah is brought as a wicked and ungodly place (cf. RUDOLPH, Haggai, 120; DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 265–267; KÖRTING, Unrechtmäßigkeit, 481, 485; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 249). However, it is far from certain that the name Shinar alludes to Gen 11.2. All other documentations of ‘Shinar’ within the Old Testament use this term in a rather neutral, merely geographic sense (Gen 10.10; 14.1, 9; Josh 7.21; Isa 11.11; Dan 1.2). Additionally, the primary layer of the book of Zechariah (the original collection of seven night visions in 1.8–17*; 2.1–9; 4.1–14*; 5.1–11; 6.1–8) does not mention the name ‘Babel’ so that ‘Shinar’ in Zech 5.11 could be interpreted as a negative counterterm for ‘Babel’. Thus, in this passage the name ‘Shinar’ is most likely nothing more than a place name designating the land of Babylon. 23 GALLING, Exilswende, 30; REVENTLOW, Haggai, 66–67; LUX, Prophetie, 218; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 244. 24 1 Kgs 7.27–28, 30, 32, 34–35, 37–39, 43; 2 Kgs 16.17; 25.13, 16; 2 Chr 4.14; Jer 27.19; 52.17, 20. 25 Thus already DELKURT, Nachtgesichte, 263. 26 UEHLINGER, Frau, 96; FREVEL, Aschera, 524 n. 1758; F LOYD, Evil, 62; LUX, Prophetie, 218–219; HALLASCHKA, Haggai, 247.

The God(s) of the Nations

183

this cover from within the ephah (Zech 5.7). Even more clear is the fact that according to Zech 5.8 the angel pushes the woman back into the ephah. Hence, the woman would appear to be trying to escape. Finally, the mere fact that the angel locks the ephah with a leaden cover clearly shows that it is not a lifeless idol but a living being that sits in the ephah.27 It is all the more astonishing, then, that a temple is to be built at the place in the land of Shinar at the original home of this living deity. A temple is a place of worship. Consequently, according to this night vision, the foreign deity can and will be worshipped in Babylonia. The night vision in Zech 5.5–11 is thus remarkable in several respects. The vision awaits the removal of a foreign deity. It does not, however, call into question the existence of such a deity. On the contrary, the vision clearly presupposes that this foreign god exists. Additionally, the night vision does not oppose the worship of such a foreign deity per se, but only the worship of this god within the Judean community. At the place of its origins the deity may be worshipped. The circles responsible for the night visions – which, notably enough, belong to the personnel of the Jerusalem temple and thus to the same milieu as the circles behind Deutero-Isaiah – present a theological concept, which can be characterised as particularistic monolatrism. They demand the exclusive worship of Yhwh without denying the existence of other gods and without refusing the worship of these gods to foreign nations. 1.2 The Criticism of Mixed-Marriages in Mal 2.10–16 Within the prophetic scriptures of the Persian period another reference to a foreign deity is documented in the book of Malachi. The book of Malachi stems from the later Persian period, probably from the fifth century BCE, and like the book of Zechariah it also originated within priestly circles. The primary layer of this book comprises six disputation speeches making accusations of both cultic and social misdeeds.28 The third disputation speech in Mal 2.10–16 deals with matrimonial matters: 10 Have we not all one father (‫ ?)אב אחד‬Has not one god (‫ )אל אחד‬created us? Why are we faithless (‫ )בגד‬to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

27 UEHLINGER, Frau, 96, however, points out that the ephah is too small for a real woman and thus also for a real goddess. It has to be recognized, however, that the ephah depicted in this vision is not a real ephah, since a real ephah does not have a leaden stone on it. Thus, it is far from certain that the night vision presents an ephah of normal size. We might also wonder how big an ephah ought to be to accommodate a goddess. 28 For the formation of the book of Malachi, cf. W ÖHRLE, Abschluss, 219–263.

184

Jakob Wöhrle 11 Judah has been faithless (‫)בגד‬, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of Yhwh, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god (‫)בת־אל נכר‬. 12 May Yhwh cut off for the man who does this the one who awakes and the one who answers,29 even if he brings an offering to Yhwh Sabaoth. 13 And this second thing you do: You cover Yhwh’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning, because he no longer regards the offering and accepts it with favor at your hand.

14 But you say, ‘Why?’ Because Yhwh has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. 15 But not one has done so, if he has a remnant of spirit. What does the one seek? Godly offspring? Take heed to your spirit. Let no one be faithless to the wife of your youth.30 16 If someone, who hates, divorces, says Yhwh, the god of Israel, he covers his garment with violence, says Yhwh Sabaoth. So take heed to your spirit and do not be faithless.

The disputation in Mal 2.10–16 begins in 2.10 with the accusation that the addressees are being faithless to one another. The subsequent speech gives three reasons for this accusation. According to Mal 2.11–12 members of the people have married women who worship a foreign god;31 Mal 2.13 criticizes the weeping and groaning at the altar; and, Mal 2.14–16 opposes divorce. In Mal 2.10–16 the juxtaposition of the accusation against mixedmarriages in 2.11–12 and the accusation against divorce in 2.14–16 is noteworthy. This juxtaposition is often explained by the assumption that men sent away their first wife and married a foreign wife in order to im-

29 For the difficult term ‫ער וענה‬, cf. especially the comprehensive explanation of MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 176–177. ‫ ער וענה‬is probably best understood as a merism describing the whole range of the addressee’s family, from the one who awakes – the little ones – to those who are able to answer – the adults. That the addressee himself is not included in this group and thus not subject of the predicted judgement, as Meinhold and many others presume, is rather unlikely. Mal 2.12 says rather that everyone of the addressee’s family, including he himself, will be judged. 30 Mal 2.15 has many textual problems and is hardly understandable. For the translation presented here, cf. especially MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 174, 179–182. 31 Several scholars presume, however, that the phrase ‫ בת־אל נכר‬does not refer to the venerator of a foreign god but to a foreign goddess; cf. OʼBRIEN, Priest, 67–69; PETERSEN, Zechariah 9–14, 195–201; SHIELDS, Syncretism, 71–76. In their view Mal 2.11 and thus the whole oracle Mal 2.10–16 criticizes the people for leaving Yhwh and turning to other gods. This is, however, hardly possible. For example, the proponents of this view have to relate the phrase ‘the wife of your youth’ mentioned in Mal 2.14, 15 to Yhwh. But all other texts using marital metaphors for the relationship between Yhwh and his people describe Yhwh as the husband and not as the wife (Jer 3; Ezek 16; 23; Hos 1– 3). Thus, Mal 2.10–16 does not accuse the people of separation from Yhwh, but of infractions in human affairs, i.e. mixed-marriages in 2.11–12 and divorce in 2.14–16.

The God(s) of the Nations

185

prove their social status.32 However, this assumption is problematic, since the text at no point establishes such a direct cause-and-effect relationship between divorce and entrance into a mixed-marriage.33 In addition, for such a cause-and-effect relationship the accusations against divorce and mixed-marriages stand in the wrong order. For at first Mal 2.11–12 opposes mixed-marriages, and then Mal 2.14–16 criticizes divorce. If Mal 2.10–16 was really meant to accuse men who divorce in order to enter into a mixed-marriage, we should expect these two issues to be given in exactly this order. If the accusations mentioned in Mal 2.11–12 and 2.14–16 cannot be explained by such a cause-and-effect relationship, we must question whether this disputation speech contained both accusations from the beginning. And indeed, several arguments speak for the assumption that an original version of this disputation was only directed against divorce, while the criticism of mixed-marriages and cultic misdeeds in Mal 2.11–13 is a later addition.34 First, it is remarkable that the initial statement in 2.10 states that the addressees are faithless to one another. Malachi 2.11–12 with its accusation of mixed-marriages does not, however, accuse the addressees of a faithless act that they commit against each other. Rather it mentions a faithless act committed against Yhwh. On the other hand, Mal 2.14–16 with its accusation against divorce is indeed directed against a social misdeed. Already this observation speaks for the assumption that the original continuation of Mal 2.10 is found in 2.14–16, so that 2.11–13 has to be taken as a secondary addition. Secondly, in all the other disputation speeches of the book of Malachi the initial statement is directly followed by a counter question on the part of the addressees. In Mal 2.10–16, however, after the initial statement in 2.10 the counter question is not put forward until 2.14. This, again, speaks for the assumption that Mal 2.10 was followed by 2.14–16 and that Mal 2.11–13 is a later addition. Thus, Mal 2.10–16 consists of a primary layer in 2.10, 14–16 which condemns divorce. The accusation about mixed-marriages and cultic misdeeds in 2.11–13 is a secondary addition. The primary layer of the disputation starts in Mal 2.10 with a reference to the one God. It declares that the addressees have one father (‫ )אב אחד‬and 32 Thus already DRIVER, Einleitung, 381, and in recent times G LAZIER-MCDONALD, Intermarriage, 607; REVENTLOW, Haggai, 147; ZEHNDER, Look, 230, et al. 33 Thus, RUDOLPH, Haggai, 271, MASON, Haggai, 149, and REDDITT, Haggai, 174, are correct to oppose this view. 34 Thus already MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 184–190. Others like HORST, Propheten, 269, and MASON, Haggai, 149, suppose that at least Mal 2.11–12 is a secondary addition.

186

Jakob Wöhrle

that one God (‫ )אל אחד‬has created them. This reference to the one God then leads to the conclusion that the addressees should not be faithless with each other. And as an example of such faithlessness, the subsequent words of the original disputation in 2.14–16 criticize divorce. Thus, the reference to the one God made in Mal 2.10 is not directed against the existence of other gods. It refers solely to the people’s relationship to each other.35 Mal 2.10 does not claim that only one God exists. It rather states that the people have only one – and that means: one and the same – God. The oneness of God mentioned in Mal 2.10 is a oneness in relation to his people.36 Remarkably, the addition in Mal 2.11–13 criticizing the marriage with the ‘daughter of a foreign god’ does not take up this reference to the one God. Although it would have been obvious after Mal 2.10, it does not argue that adhering to the one God contradicts any intercourse with a venerator of a foreign god. And least of all does it argue that such intercourse leads from the one true God to false gods. Instead, Mal 2.11–13 takes up the term ‘being faithless’ (‫ )בגד‬from the initial statement and it relates this term, which has been used as a term for social misbehaviour in the original disputation, to the behaviour of the people against their God. In this way, the current form of the disputation presents a rather cumbersome argumentation. It begins in Mal 2.10a with a theological confession about the one God. In Mal 2.10b this confession leads to the accusation of faithlessness amongst the people and thus to human affairs. In Mal 2.11–12 this accusation of faithlessness is – in a sort of re-theologization – applied to the people’s relationship to God.37 That the redactors of Mal 2.11–13 did not start from the reference to the one God, but from the accusation of faithfulness, is best explained by the assumption that they did not question the existence of other gods. This is the reason they did not use the potential that is at least implicit in the reference to the one God. They understood the marriage with a venerator of a foreign god as a turning away from God. They did not understand it, however, as a turning towards a false god, but rather as a turning towards a very real god. One further consideration is noteworthy: Mal 2.11–12 targets solely the members of God’s people who marry a venerator of a foreign god. Their 35

KESSLER, Maleachi, 191: ʻDer Vorspruch zu Maleachis III. Strophe in 2,10a betont die Einheit der im “wir/uns” zusammengefassten Größe.ʼ 36 HILL, Malachi, 225: ‘More than a monotheistic credo, however, the prophet’s statement underscores the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Yahweh as Creator and his exclusiveness as Israel’s Father.’ Cf. MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 199. 37 For the (re-)theologization of the term ‫ בגד‬in Mal 2.11, cf. MEINHOLD, Maleachi, 204.

The God(s) of the Nations

187

behaviour is presented as faithlessness and an abomination. But the behaviour of the foreign wife in venerating a foreign god is not criticized in this oracle. That members of foreign nations worship their own gods is not regarded as illegitimate. Malachi 2.10–16 – another text, which like Deutero-Isaiah goes back to the environment of the Jerusalem Temple – shows striking similarities with Zech 5.5–11. Malachi 2.10–16 demands the exclusive veneration of Yhwh within his people. But it does not question the existence of foreign gods – neither on the level of the primary layer with its reference to the one God nor on the level of the secondary layer with its criticism of marriage with the ‘daughter of a foreign god’. Additionally, it does not criticize the veneration of foreign gods outside the borders of God’s people. Thus, Mal 2.10–16 likewise shows the concept of a particularistic monolatrism discerned in Zech 5.5–11.

2. The Hellenistic Period Having considered two prophetic witnesses from Persian times, I now turn to three texts from the Hellenistic period: the promises of a pilgrimage of the nations in the Book of the Twelve, the book of Jonah, and a short addition to the book of Micah in Mic 4.5. 2.1 The Pilgrimage of the Nations in the Book of the Twelve The Book of the Twelve comprises several words predicting salvation for the nations. For example, Joel 3.1–5* announces that Yhwh will pour out his spirit ‘on all flesh’ and that everyone who calls on his name on Mount Zion will be saved. Mic 4.1–4 anticipates the nations coming to Zion where they will receive instruction and not carry on war anymore. Zeph 3.9–10* holds out that Yhwh will give the nations purified lips, that the nations will call on his name and that they will bring him gifts. According to Zech 8.20–23 the nations will come to Zion, they will pray to Yhwh and join his people. Finally, Zech 14.16–19 predicts that the peoples will come to Jerusalem every year in order to worship Yhwh and to celebrate the feast of booths. What cannot be shown in detail here is that these and similar texts were added to the growing Book of the Twelve in one and the same redaction, which took up given materials and integrated them into this corpus.38 This redaction, which can be called the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction, gave the Book of the Twelve a new shape with a new overall intention. 38

Cf. WÖHRLE, Abschluss, 335–361.

188

Jakob Wöhrle

While the previous version of this corpus was mainly determined by announcements of universal judgement against the nations, the Book of the Twelve now anticipates salvation for the nations beyond this judgement. The Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction can be dated to the beginning of the Hellenistic period, probably in the first half of the third century BCE. In this time the first signs of an openness towards the culture of Hellenism are detectable.39 For example, parts of the Judean upper class learned the Greek language, they gave their children Greek names, the importance of the own religious rites decreased, and to some degree they became open to the Greek pantheon. The Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction can be understood as a conservative reaction to these developments.40 The circles responsible for this redaction follow the new openness towards the nations. Nevertheless, they adhere to their own culture and religious traditions and present them as the universal guiding culture and religion. The main focus of the texts added by the Salvation-for-the-NationsRedaction is the nations’ pilgrimage to Zion. According to these words, the nations will come to Zion (Joel 3.5*; Mic 4.1; Zeph 3.10; Zech 8.22; 14.16–19), join God’s people (Zech 8.23), worship Yhwh (Joel 3.5; Zeph 3.9–10*; Zech 8.21–22; 14.16–19) and receive instruction (Mic 4.2). It is remarkable that the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction does not present this expectation as merely an opportunity. It does not describe a sort of openness towards the nations to which the nations can agree or not. Rather it puts forward the clear and definite demand that the nations turn to Yhwh.41 The salvation for the nations predicted in these words is bound by the condition that the nations come to Zion and worship Yhwh. Only if the nations on Mount Zion call on the name of Yhwh (Joel 3.5*), if they bring him gifts (Zeph 3.9), and if they pray to him (Zech 8.20–23), will they be blessed with salvation. In addition, the last oracle added by the Salvation-for-the-NationsRedaction, Zech 14.16–19, reads as follows: 16 And it shall be: all who survive of all the nations, who have come against Jerusalem, will go up year after year to worship the king, Yhwh Sabaoth, and to celebrate the feast of booths. 17 And it shall be: whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the king, Yhwh Sabaoth, there will be no rain upon them. 18 If the 39

Cf., e.g., ALBERTZ, History II, 537–538; HAAG, Zeitalter, 104–107. Regarding the historical background and the intention of the Salvation-for-theNations-Redaction, cf. the detailed explanation given in W ÖHRLE, Abschluss, 351–358. 41 Cf., e.g., ROTH, Israel, 71, who rightly points out that Joel 3.1–5 does not express a certainty of salvation. Rather, it binds the nations’ salvation to their willingness to turn to Yhwh. 40

The God(s) of the Nations

189

family of Egypt does not go up and enter ‘’,42 the plague, which Yhwh will inflict on those nations, who do not go up to celebrate the feast of booths will fall on it. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations which do not come up to celebrate the feast of booths.

Zechariah 14.16–19 not only anticipates that the nations will go up to Zion and worship Yhwh at the annual pilgrimage for the feast of booths, it also announces that those nations who refuse to do this will be judged. Yhwh will respond to their refusal with a plague. He keeps back the rain and with this he destroys the basis of their existence. Thus, according to Zech 14.16–19, Yhwh himself, in a kind of purifying judgement, will enforce veneration from all the nations.43 He destroys those nations which refuse this veneration. Zechariah 14.16–19 clearly shows that the words added by the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction not only testify a sort of openness towards the nations. These words rather put forward the unrestricted demand that all the nations shall worship Yhwh.44 With the words added by this redaction Yhwh himself is placed in the position of the sole and universally venerated God of the nations. He is the God to whom alone the worship of all mankind is due. It is remarkable, however, that within the oracles introduced by the Salvation-of-the-Nations-Redaction not one single statement about the gods currently worshipped by the nations is to be found. None of these words mentions that the nations will turn away from their gods and turn to Yhwh. Nor do any of these words say that with the nations’ worship of Yhwh the universal acceptance of Yhwh as the only true God will assert itself. Thus these oracles, which present Yhwh as the universal God of the nations, do not question the existence of foreign gods either. Admittedly, this is an argumentum e silentio. However, since a reference to foreign gods would have been more than obvious, the fact that none of these words includes such a reference is, and remains, remarkable and in need of explanation.

42

Cf. LXX which reads ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖ. This peculiarity of Zech 14.16–19 has rarely been recognized. But see the explanation of HAUSMANN, Jerusalem, 394. 44 That Zech 14.16–19 announces judgment for those nations who do not come to Jerusalem is often seen as a remarkable difference between this oracle and other oracles predicting a pilgrimage of the nations like Mic 4.1–4 or Zech 8.20–23; cf. for example RUDOLPH, Haggai, 238–239, HAUSMANN, Jerusalem, 394, and GÄRTNER, Jesaja 66, 151. However, both Zech 8.20–23 and Mic 4.1–4 bind salvation for the nations to their willingness to come to Jerusalem and worship Yhwh. Thus, the explicit expectation of judgement against unwilling nations in Zech 14.16–19 is implicit in Mic 4.1–4 or Zech 8.20–23. 43

190

Jakob Wöhrle

With the oracles added by the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction, the demand to worship Yhwh that was previously only directed to his own people is now expanded beyond the borders of the people. Yhwh himself becomes the God of the nations. The existence of foreign gods, however, is not explicitly questioned in these texts. The Salvation-for-the-NationsRedaction thus presents a theological concept that can best be called universal monolatrism. 2.2 The Veneration of Foreign Gods in the Book of Jonah Like the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction, the book of Jonah stems from the early Hellenistic period. The book tells the story of the prophet Jonah, who at first refuses Yhwh’s call to go to Nineveh and flees, but then is forced to go and preach there. With regard to the book of Jonah some remarks on the formation of this book are appropriate. Though it cannot be shown in detail here, the book of Jonah is the product of a two-stage redactional development.45 The book has been reworked by a redaction which mainly added the remark about the sailor’s conversion in 1.14, 16, the psalm of Jonah in 2.2–10, the speech of the king in 3.6–9 with the following hint that Yhwh relented from the planned judgement in 3.10, as well as the controversy between the prophet and Yhwh in 4.1–4 and the concluding interpretation of the episode about the bush in 4.10–11. In the primary layer of the book of Jonah, the description of Jonah’s flight in Jonah 1 is remarkable. After Yhwh’s call to go to Nineveh, the prophet takes a ship in order to flee to Tarshish. But Yhwh sends a storm and the ship gets in distress. In this context Jonah 1.5a presents the following note about the events on board during the storm: ‘The sailors were afraid, and they cried, each to his god...’. Confronted with their current distress, the sailors thus turn to their individual gods. Notably, within the primary layer of the book of Jo45 As shown in W ÖHRLE, Sammlungen, 363–399, the book of Jonah can be divided into a primary layer (1.1–5a, 7, 8aαb, 9, 11–13, 15; 2.1, 11; 3:1–5; 4.5, 6*[without ‫יהוה‬ and without ‫ להציל‬to ‫]גדולה‬, 7–9), a secondary layer (1.5b, 6, 8aβ, 10abα, 14, 16; 2:2–10; 3:6–10; 4:1–4, 6*, 10–11), and the small addition in 1,10bβ. Comparable models for the book’s formation – though arguing for a three-stage development – were presented by SCHMIDT, De Deo, KRÜGER, Wachstum, and WEIMAR, Geschichte, 107–158. Recently, however, SCHART, Jonah-Narrative, 112–115, argued strongly against dividing the book into different literary layers. But remarkably, he does not respond in detail to the many inconsistencies upon which such models are based. For example, he does not address the notable fact that the speech of the king in Jon 3.6–9, in which he summons the people of Nineveh to repent, comes too late, since Jon 3.5 has already stated that the people believed in God and did penance. Thus, Schart fails to refute the literary-critical division of the book.

The God(s) of the Nations

191

nah, this behaviour is not criticized.46 Rather, it is presented as the natural and obvious reaction to the distress. Further, the behaviour of the sailors can be understood as a positive counter-image to the behaviour of the prophet.47 While Jonah opposes his God and turns away from him, the sailors turn to their gods and expect assistance and salvation from them. The sailors’ veneration of their individual gods is thus not only presented as an obvious, but also as an appreciative, reaction. Against this background, the description of Jonah’s appearance in Nineveh, documented in Jon 3.1–5, is noteworthy: 1 The word of Yhwh came to Jonah a second time: 2 Get up, go to Nineveh, the great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you. 3 So Jonah set out and went to Nineveh according to the word of Yhwh. Nineveh was a large city for God, a three days’ walk. 4 Jonah began to go into the city one day’s walk. Then he cried out and said: Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown. 5 And the people of Nineveh believed in God, they proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least.

Jonah 3.1–5 is remarkable for showing a change of the term used for God. Jonah 3.1–3a uses God’s name Yhwh. But Jon 3.3b–5 uses the general designation Elohim. Within the book of Jonah, such a juxtaposition of these two terms for God is found not only in 3.1–5, but throughout the whole book. The whole book of Jonah uses God’s name Yhwh side-byside with the general designation Elohim. This peculiarity of the book of Jonah is well known. However, no really convincing solution for this peculiarity has been found until now.48 Based upon our insights into the formation of the book of Jonah, it is possible to explain the usage of the different terms for God. For on the level of the primary layer, this usage is orientated to geographical aspects.49 46

Thus already HAUSMANN, Gottesfürchtig, 107. That the sailors’ behaviour leads to a ‘cacophony of prayers’, as EYNIKEL, Buch, 41, states, is an unfounded assumption. 47 Cf. for example LUX, Jona, 121–126. 48 Regarding the terms used for God within the final form of the book scholars often differentiate between Jon 1–3 and Jon 4; cf. MAGONET, Form, 33–38; LIMBURG, Jonah, 45–46; GERHARDS, Studien, 26–32, or JEREMIAS, Joel, 104–105. According to this view, the first three chapters designate the God of Israel with his name Yhwh (Jon 1.1, 3–4, 9– 10, 14, 16; 2.1–3, 7–8, 10–11; 3.1, 3) and use Elohim for deities in general (Jon 1.5–6, 9; 2.2, 7; 3.3, 5, 8–10). The last chapter, however, uses Yhwh when the gracious side of God is mentioned (4.2–4, 6, 10), while the general term Elohim points to the hidden God (4.6–9). In such a model, however, it remains unexplained why the first three chapters and the last chapter are characterized by different usage of the terms for God. Additionally, that Jonah 4 should distinguish between the revealed and the hidden God is rather far-fetched. 49 For this as well as for the usage of Yhwh and Elohim within the secondary layer of the book cf. WÖHRLE, Sammlungen, 389–392.

192

Jakob Wöhrle

The first part of the primary layer in Jonah 1–2* dealing with Jonah’s flight calls the prophet’s deity Yhwh without exception (1.1, 3, 4, 9; 2.1, 11). Only in one verse is the general term Elohim found (1.5a), but here this term does not refer to the God of the prophet but to the gods of the sailors. Within the second part of the primary layer in Jonah 3–4* the term for God changes in Jon 3.3 as shown above. The first part of 3.3 says that Jonah went to Nineveh ‘according to the word of Yhwh’. The second part of this verse, however, mentions that the city of Nineveh was a big city ‘for Elohim’. And from 3.3 on the rest of the primary layer uses the general designation Elohim (Jon 3.5, 4.6–9). Thus, within the primary layer the term for God changes exactly at that point of the story when Jonah comes to Nineveh and thus to a foreign country. This geographical distinction discernible behind the different terms for God is best explained by the assumption that for the primary layer of the book of Jonah the one god who is known and venerated as Yhwh at the place of his origin in Israel is the same god who is venerated also beyond the borders Israel where his name is not known. Yhwh is thus presented as the universal God, who is also venerated among the nations, i.e. in the individual worship of these nations to their individual gods. This consideration is supported by another observation: according to Jon 3.4 the prophet announces the downfall of Nineveh with a rather short speech, in which he does not mention Yhwh. Yhwh is neither presented as the deity responsible for this message nor as the deity responsible for the announced destruction of the city. But after this short speech, Jon 3.5 states that the people of Nineveh believe in God and do penance. The events mentioned in Jon 3.4–5 are often explained by the assumption that the Ninevites refer the rather general message of Jonah to the unknown God of Jonah.50 Their belief in God would then aim at this unknown God of Jonah and thus, in the end, directly to Yhwh. However, Jon 3.5 does not say that the Ninevites believe in the unknown God of Jonah. It just states very generally that they believe in God. Therefore, it seems to be much more likely that the Ninevites – like the sailors in Jon 1.5 – turn to their individual god or their individual gods and that for the book of Jonah this turning to their individual gods aims at no one other than Yhwh, the one God.51 This is the reason Jon 3.5 can state in general terms that the Ninevites believed in God. Thus, in the book of Jonah, the nations’ veneration of their individual gods is not only presented as obvious and appreciative. The book of Jonah 50 RUDOLPH, Joel, 358–359; W OLFF, Obadja, 124–125; SASSON, Jonah, 243–244; GERHARDS, Studien, 180; J EREMIAS, Sicht, 561, et al. 51 This assumption, though without a comprehensive explanation, has already been made by GESE, Jona, 129–130; LUX, Jona, 133, and KNAUF, Erste Bibel, 45.

The God(s) of the Nations

193

also points out that the nations’ veneration of their individual gods aims de facto at Yhwh. The book of Jonah, which like the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction stems from the early Hellenistic period, also presents Yhwh as the universal God of the nations. However, in the book of Jonah, the universal veneration of Yhwh is not realised by the nations’ direct turning to Yhwh, but by and through the nations’ veneration of their individual gods. Thus, the book of Jonah documents the concept of an inclusive monotheism.52 2.3 The Relapse into Particularism in Micah 4.5 The texts from the Hellenistic period which we have discussed show, albeit in different ways, a universalistic tendency. They present Yhwh as the universal God of the nations, who is – directly or indirectly – venerated by all humanity. Among the prophetic texts from the Hellenistic period there is, however, one further text, which opposes the expectation of such a universal veneration of Yhwh. After the promise of a pilgrimage of the nations to Mount Zion (Mic 4.1–4), the following remark has been added in Mic 4.5:53 ‘Yea, all nations will walk (‫)ילכו‬, each in the name of his god, but we will walk (‫ )נלך‬in the name of Yhwh our God forever and ever (‫’)לעולם ועד‬. This verse contrasts the worship of the nations with the worship of God’s people. While the nations venerate their individual gods, the members of God’s people venerate Yhwh. It is a rather common assumption that Mic 4.5, after the foregoing promise of the nations’ pilgrimage to Zion in 4.1–4, describes the current situation among the nations.54 According to this reading, 4.5 states that the nations still worship their individual gods, while the members of God’s people already worship Yhwh. In future, however, the nations will turn to Yhwh, as predicted in 4.1–4. This assumption is problematic, however, since Mic 4.5 in no sense indicates that the circumstances mentioned in this verse only describe the current situation in opposition to a different future. This verse neither says that the nations ‘still’ worship their gods nor that God’s people ‘already’ worships Yhwh. On the contrary, like the foregoing promise of a pilgrimage of the nations, Mic 4.5 is formulated with imperfect forms (‫)נלך ;ילכו‬. This indicates that 4.5 looks towards the future. Additionally, 4.5 ends with the temporal 52

Cf. the short remark of KNAUF, Erste Bibel, 45. For the secondary character of Mic 4.5, cf. for example RUDOLPH, Micha, 81; W OLFF, Micha, 86; HILLERS, Micah, 51; KESSLER, Micha, 178; J EREMIAS, Joel, 174. 54 W OLFF, Micha, 86; HILLERS, Micah, 51; SEDLMEIER, Universalisierung, 81; KESSLER, Micha, 187–188; SCHENKER, Entlassung, 93; JEREMIAS, Joel, 174–175, et al. 53

194

Jakob Wöhrle

expression ‘forever and ever’ (‫)לעולם ועד‬. This phrase refers not only to the worship of God’s people mentioned in 4.5b, as is often assumed, but also to the worship of the nations in 4.5a, since 4.5a does not contain its own temporal determination. Micah 4.5 thus states that the nations will forever and ever worship their individual gods, while the people of God will forever and ever worship Yhwh.55 This verse presents the nations’ current veneration of their individual gods as an enduring, even everlasting, fact. Subsequent to Mic 4.1–4 expecting a pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, 4.5 points out that such a pilgrimage does not mean that the nations will permanently and exclusively turn to Yhwh such that they will worship him and only him. According to Mic 4.5, the nations will continue to worship their individual gods.56 If this interpretation is correct, it is remarkable that in Mic 4.5 the nations’ worship of their individual gods is by no means presented as negative. Nor is the existence of their gods questioned in this verse. Rather, the nations’ worship of their individual gods seems to be a natural, undisputable fact. Thus, Mic 4.5 shows that the universalization of the Yhwh-religion, as it is documented in the words of the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction or in the book of Jonah, was not left unquestioned. Micah 4.5 clearly opposes such a universalization and advocates the concept of a particularistic monolatrism.

Conclusion The prophetic texts from the Persian and Hellenistic periods present rather different perceptions about the gods of the nations. The texts from Persian times, Zech 5.5–11 and Mal 2.10–16, oppose the veneration of foreign gods within the own community. The existence of these gods, however, is not questioned in these texts. On the contrary, these words clearly presuppose their existence. Additionally, the veneration of these gods by the nations is not criticized in these oracles. Rather, they hold to the view that these gods can and will be venerated among the nations. The texts from the Persian period thus show a concept of particularistic monolatrism. In contrast, the prophetic witnesses from the Hellenistic period are, at least in parts, determined by universalistic tendencies. The words added by the Salvation-for-the-Nations-Redaction of the Book of the Twelve present 55

Cf. RUDOLPH, Micha, 81; UTZSCHNEIDER, Micha, 93. This assumption has already been made by UTZSCHNEIDER, Micha, 93, who mentions this as one of several interpretations he considers possible. 56

The God(s) of the Nations

195

Yhwh himself as the universal God of the nations. They demand that all the nations turn to Yhwh and venerate him. But also these texts do not question the existence of foreign gods. Rather, they present a concept, which can be called universalistic monolatrism. The book of Jonah also presents Yhwh as the universal God of the nations. But this book does not expect the nations to turn directly to Yhwh. It presents the view that the nations venerate Yhwh through the veneration of their individual gods. The book of Jonah is thus determined by the concept of an inclusive monotheism. Micah 4.5, however, opposes such universalistic concepts. This text points out that the members of God’s people and the members of the nations will forever worship their individual gods. Micah 4.5 thus documents a relapse to the concept of particularistic monolatrism. The texts discussed in this article show very different concepts. But one concept could not be detected in these texts: Deutero-Isaiah’s concept of an exclusive monotheism, according to which Yhwh is the one and only god and the gods of the nations are nothings. None of the texts we have examined questions the existence of other gods. Yet, even in those texts in which Yhwh is presented as the universal God of the nations, the existence of foreign gods is not disputed. In these texts, Yhwh is the God of the nations besides or even through these foreign gods. Thus, the existence of other gods does not seem to have posed a problem for the circles responsible for the texts discussed in this essay, although at least parts of them belong to the same milieu as the group behind Deutero-Isaiah. Unlike in Deutero-Isaiah, the more theoretical question of the existence of other gods besides Yhwh and the related question of the unrestricted power of Yhwh was not their focus. Due to the new circumstances of the post-exilic period their focus was rather on the more practical question of co-existing with other nations and, thus, with the venerators of other gods.

Bibliography ALBERTZ, R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2 vols. (OTL), Louisville 1994 – Die Exilszeit. 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 7), Stuttgart et al. 2001 – Jahwe allein! Israels Weg zum Monotheismus und dessen theologische Bedeutung, in: IDEM, Geschichte und Theologie. Studien zur Exegese des Alten Testaments und zur Religionsgeschichte Israels (BZAW 326), eds. I. Kottsieper and J. Wöhrle, Berlin/ New York 2003, 359–382 B AUKS, M., Monotheismus, wibilex (2011), www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/ B ECKER, U., Von der Staatsreligion zum Monotheismus. Ein Kapitel israelitischjüdischer Religionsgeschichte, ZThK 102 (2005) 1–16

196

Jakob Wöhrle

B IČ, M., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Eine Auslegung von Sacharja 1–6 (BSt 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964 DELKURT, H., Sacharjas Nachtgesichte. Zur Aufnahme und Abwandlung prophetischer Traditionen (BZAW 302), Berlin/New York 2000 D IETRICH, W. AND M. A. KLOPFENSTEIN (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), Fribourg/Göttingen 1994 DRIVER, S. R., Einleitung in die Litteratur des alten Testaments, Berlin 1896 EYNIKEL, E., Können Fremde am YHWH-Kult teilnehmen? Antworten und offene Fragen im Buch Jona, in: Der eine Gott und die fremden Kulte. Exklusive und inklusive Tendenzen in den biblischen Gottesvorstellungen (BThSt 102), ed. E. Bons, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, 29–47 FLOYD, M. H., The Evil in the Ephah: Reading Zechariah 5.5–11 in Its Literary Context, CBQ 58 (1996) 51–68 FREVEL, C., Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, 2 vols. (BBB 94,1–2), Weinheim 1995 – YHWH und die Göttin bei den Propheten. Eine Zwischenbilanz, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), eds. M. Oeming and K. Schmid, Zurich 2003, 49–75 GALLING, K., Die Exilswende des Propheten Sacharja, VT 2 (1952) 18–36 GÄRTNER, J., Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie. Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches (WMANT 114), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 GERHARDS, M., Studien zum Jonabuch (BThSt 78), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 GESE, H., Jona ben Amittai und das Jonabuch, in: IDEM, Alttestamentliche Studien, Tübingen 1991, 122–138 GLAZIER-MCDONALD, B., Intermarriage, Divorce, and the bat-ʼēl nēkār: Insights into Mal 2:10–16, JBL 106 (1987) 603–611 GNUSE, R. K., No Other Gods. Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT.S 241), Sheffield 1997 GÖRG, M., Monotheismus in Israel. Rückschau zur Genese, in: Der eine Gott in vielen Kulturen. Inkulturation und christliche Gottesvorstellung, eds. K. Hilpert and K.-H. Ohlig, Zurich 1993, 59–70 HAAG, E. (ed.), Gott, der einzige. Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD 104), Freiburg et al. 1985 – Das hellenistische Zeitalter. Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 9), Stuttgart 2003 HALLASCHKA, M., Haggai und Sacharja 1–8. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW 411), Berlin/New York 2011 HANHART, R., Dodekapropheton 7.1. Sacharja 1–8 (BK 14,7.1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998 HAUSMANN, J., ‘Wer ist wahrhaft gottesfürchtig?’ Jona 1 und sein Beitrag zur Diskussion um das Problem Israel und die Völker, in: Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments (FS S. Wagner), eds. D. Vieweger and E.-J. Waschke, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995, 105–116 – Jerusalem und die Völker. Beobachtungen zu Sacharja 14, in: Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit. Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (FS A. Meinhold [ABG 23]), ed. R. Lux and E.-J. Waschke, Leipzig 2006, 389–399 H ILL, A. E., Malachi. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 25D), New York et al. 1998

The God(s) of the Nations

197

H ILLERS, D. R., Micah (Herm.), Philadelphia 1984 HORST, F. and T. ROBINSON, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (HAT 14), Tübingen 19643 JEREMIAS, J., Die Sicht der Völker im Jonabuch (Jona 1 und Jona 3), in: Gott und Mensch im Dialog, vol. 1 (FS O. Kaiser [BZAW 345,1]), ed. M. Witte, Berlin/New York 2004, 555–567 – Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24,3), Göttingen 2007 KEEL, O. (ed.), Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (BiBe 14), Fribourg 1980 KESSLER, R., Micha (HThKAT), Freiburg et al. 1999 – Maleachi (HThKAT), Freiburg et al. 2011 KNAUF, E. A., Ist die Erste Bibel monotheistisch?, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), eds. M. Oeming and K. Schmid, Zurich 2003, 39–48 – Vom israelitischen und judäischen Heidentum zum nachbiblischen Monotheismus – ein religionsgeschichtlicher Abriss, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie 56 (2004) 107–115 KÖCKERT, M., Von einem zum einzigen Gott. Zur Diskussion der Religionsgeschichte Israels, BThZ 15 (1998) 137–175 KOCH, K., Vom Mythos zum Monotheismus im Alten Israel, in: IDEM, Der Gott Israels und die Götter des Orients. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien II (FRLANT 216), Göttingen 2007, 321–356 KÖRTING, C., Sach 5,5–11 – Die Unrechtmäßigkeit wird an ihren Ort verwiesen, Bib. 87 (2006) 477–492 KRATZ, R. G., Das Judentum im Zeitalter des zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004 KRATZ, R. G., AND H. SPIECKERMANN (eds.), Götterbilder – Gottesbilder – Weltbilder. Polytheismus und Monotheismus in der Welt der Antike, 2 vols. (FAT II/17–18), Tübingen 2006 KREBERNIK, M. AND J. VAN OORSCHOT (eds.), Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients (AOAT 298), Münster 2002 KRÜGER, T., Literarisches Wachstum und theologische Diskussion im Jona-Buch, in: IDEM, Kritische Weisheit. Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament, Zurich 1997, 41–65 LANG, B. (ed.), Der einzige Gott. Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus, München 1981 – Die Jahwe-allein-Bewegung, in: Der einzige Gott. Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus, ed. IDEM, München 1981, 47–83 – Art. Monotheismus, Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe 4 (1998), 148–165 LEVIN, C., Integrativer Monotheismus im Alten Testament, ZThK 109 (2012) 153–175 LIMBURG, J., Jonah. A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 1993 LUX, R., Jona. Prophet zwischen ʻVerweigerungʼ und ʻGehorsamʼ. Eine erzählanalytische Studie (FRLANT 162), Göttingen 1992 – Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel. Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja (FAT 65), Tübingen 2009 MACDONALD, N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ʻMonotheismʼ (FAT II/1), Tübingen 2003 – The Origin of ʻMonotheism’, in: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT.S 263), eds. L.T. Stuckenbruck and W.E.S. North, London/New York 2004, 204–215 MAGONET, J., Form and Meaning. Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah (BET 2), Frankfurt a.M./Bern 1976

198

Jakob Wöhrle

MASON, R., The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CNEB), Cambridge 1977 MEINHOLD, A., Maleachi (BK 14,8), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 MEYERS, C. L. AND E. M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 25B), New Haven/London 1987 MÜLLER, H.-P., Art. Monotheismus. II. Altes Testament, RGG4 (2002), 1459–1462 MOBERLY, R. W., How Appropriate is ʻMonotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?, in: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT.S 263), eds. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North, London/New York 2004, 216–234 O’B RIEN, J. M., Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBL.DS 121), Atlanta 1990 OEMING, M. AND K. SCHMID (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), Zurich 2003 PETERSEN, D. L., Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 1995 P ORTER, B. N. (ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1), Chebeague 2000 REDDITT, P. L., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC), Grand Rapids 1995 REVENTLOW, H. G., Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD 25,2), Göttingen 1993 ROTH, M., Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum (FRLANT 210), Göttingen 2005 RUDOLPH, W. Joel – Amos – Obadja – Jona (KAT 13,2), Gütersloh 1971 – Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (KAT 13,3), Gütersloh 1975 – Haggai – Sacharja 1–8 – Sacharja 9–14 – Maleachi (KAT 13,4), Gütersloh 1976 SASSON, J. M., Jonah. A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (AncB 24B), New York et al. 1990 SCHART, A., The Jonah-Narrative within the Book of the Twelve, in: Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve. Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (BZAW 433), eds. R. Albertz et al., Berlin/New York 2012, 109–128 SCHENKER, A., Die Entlassung der Götter aus ihren Funktionen unter den Völkern. Zur Rolle der Religionen nach Mich IV 5, in: IDEM, Studien zu Propheten und Religionsgeschichte (SBA 36), Stuttgart 2003, 91–95 SCHMID, K., Hintere Propheten (Nebiim), in: Grundinformation Altes Testament. Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (UTB 2745), ed. J. C. Gertz, Göttingen 20072, 303–401 – Differenzierungen und Konzeptualisierungen der Einheit Gottes in der Religions- und Literaturgeschichte Israels. Methodische, religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Aspekte zur neueren Diskussion um den sogenannten ‘Monotheismus’ im antiken Israel, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), eds. M. Oeming and K. Schmid, Zurich 2003, 11–38 SCHMIDT, L., ‘De Deo’. Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gesprächs zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22ff. und von Hi 1 (BZAW 143), Berlin/New York 1976 SCHNOCKS, J., An Ephah between Earth and Heaven: Reading Zechariah 5:5–11, in: Tradition in Transition. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (LHBOTS 475), eds. M. Boda and M. Floyd, New York/London 2008, 252–270 SCHÖTTLER, H.-G., Gott inmitten seines Volkes. Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja 1–6 (TThSt 43), Trier 1987 SEDLMEIER, F., Die Universalisierung der Heilshoffnung nach Micha 4,1–5, TThZ 107 (1998) 62–81 SHIELDS, M. A., Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10–16, ZAW 111 (1999) 68–86

The God(s) of the Nations

199

STOLZ, F., Monotheismus in Israel, in: Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (BiBe 14), ed. O. Keel, Fribourg 1980, 142–189 – Einführung in den biblischen Monotheismus, Darmstadt 1996 UEHLINGER, C., Die Frau im Efa (Sach 5,5–11). Eine Programmvision von der Abschiebung der Göttin, BiKi 49 (1994) 93–103 UTZSCHNEIDER, H., Micha (ZBK.AT 24,1), Zurich 2005 VAN O ORSCHOT, J., ‘Höre Israel...!’ (Dtn 6,4f.) – der eine und einzige Gott Israels im Widerstreit, in: Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients (AOAT 298), eds. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot, Münster 2002, 113–135 W EIMAR, P., Eine Geschichte voller Überraschungen. Annäherungen an die Jonaerzählung (SBS 217), Stuttgart 2009 W EIPPERT, M., Synkretismus und Monotheismus. Religionsinterne Konfliktbewältigung im alten Israel (1990), in: IDEM, Jahwe und die anderen Götter. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palästinischen Kontext (FAT 18), Tübingen 1997, 1–24 W ILLI-P LEIN, I., Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ZBK.AT 24,4), Zürich 2007 W ÖHRLE, J., Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Entstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360), Berlin/New York 2006 – Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW 389), Berlin/New York 2008 W OLFF, H. W., Dodekapropheton 3. Obadja und Jona (BK 14,3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977 – Dodekapropheton 4. Micha (BK 14,4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982 ZEHNDER, M., A Fresh Look at Malachi II 13–16, VT 53 (2003) 224–259

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence: Fantasized Solutions to a Theological Dilemma in Second Temple Judaism JOHN J. COLLINS The possibility that there is an intrinsic link between religion, specifically monotheistic religion, and violence has haunted much of the world since the attacks on the United States by Muslim terrorists on September 11, 2001. Remarkably enough the same possibility had been raised forcefully four years earlier in two quite different books dealing with the biblical tradition, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, by the German Egyptologist Jan Assmann, and The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, by the American literary critic Regina Schwartz. Neither of these authors used the word ‘monotheism’ in a strict, ontological sense. Schwartz, in fact, declares that strictly speaking there is no such thing as monotheism in the Hebrew Bible. ‘Monotheism would make an ontological claim that only one god exists. Monolatry or henotheism would better describe the kind of exclusive allegiance to one deity (from a field of many) that we find in, say, Deuteronomy.’1 Assmann, for his part, is concerned with the antagonism between true and false religion, which he calls ‘the Mosaic distinction’: ‘Monotheistic religions structure the relationship between the old and the new in terms not of evolution but of revolution, and reject all older and other religions as “paganism” or “idolatry”…There is no natural way leading from the error of idolatry to the truth of monotheism.’2 Both are concerned with the role of monotheistic, or henotheistic, belief in identity formation. According to Schwartz, ‘as a cultural formation, monotheism is strikingly tenacious. Its tenet – one God establishes one people under God – has been translated from the sphere of the sacred to nationalism, and hence to other collective identities.’3 Both see monotheism, loosely defined, as fostering antagonism, al1

SCHWARTZ, Curse, 17. She refers specifically to the warning against following other gods in Deuteronomy 28:14. Compare MACDONALD, Deuteronomy, 209: ‘Deuteronomy does not, at any point, present a doctrine of God that may be described as monotheism.’ 2 ASSMANN, Moses, 7. 3 SCHWARTZ, Curse, 16. Compare ASSMANN, Moses, 2.

202

John J. Collins

though Schwartz insists that the relation between monotheism and the social order can be variously conceived, and is sometimes conceived in the Bible in ways that are not antagonistic.4 ‘Cultural or intellectual distinctions such as these’, writes Assmann, ‘construct a universe that is not only full of meaning, identity, and orientation, but also full of conflict, intolerance, and violence’.5 In my own view, it is probably better to reserve the word monotheism for material that is informed by philosophical reflection. Such material first appears in the Jewish tradition in the Hellenistic era, and then only rarely. 6 This is not to deny that we find material with implications for the development of monotheism at an earlier time, notably in the Priestly account of creation and in Second Isaiah. Even earlier, we find strong affirmations that the God of Israel is the supreme God to whom the whole world owes fealty. It is this belief in the supremacy of the national God of Israel that concerns me here. There can, of course, be no question of imputing the origin of violence to this belief. Violence had been endemic in the ancient Near East, and probably in all societies, long before Israel emerged at all. Moreover, the belief that various peoples could worship the same ‘God of heaven’, whether they called him Yahweh or Ahura Mazda or Zeus, is potentially a force for peace and harmony between peoples. Monolatry has certainly been implicated in violence on occasion – the examples of Akhenaten, Elijah and Josiah come to mind, not to mention the numerous cases of religious persecution in the last two millennia. My concern in this paper, however, is not with actual historical violence but with a phenomenon that is very characteristic of Second Temple Judaism – violent rhetoric, projected into the eschatological future. What bearing does this material have on the relation between monotheism and violence?

1. Cognitive Dissonance The basic problem that gave rise to this phenomenon might be described as cognitive dissonance.7 The dissonance in this case was between what was affirmed by religious belief and what was empirically the case. It is expressed most poignantly in 4 Ezra, an apocalypse from the end of the first 4

SCHWARTZ, Curse, 16. ASSMANN, Moses, 1. 6 See my earlier reflections, COLLINS, Jewish Monotheism. In contrast, SMITH, Origins, 153, argues that ‘the late monarchy and exile seem to represent the general period for the emergence of monotheistic rhetoric.’ 7 The phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ was coined by Leon FESTINGER in his book When Prophecy Fails. See also FESTINGER, Cognitive Dissonance. 5

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

203

century CE, in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Ezra complains: All this I have spoken before thee, O Lord, because thou hast said that it was for us that thou didst create this world. As for the other nations which have descended from Adam, thou has said that they are nothing, and that they are like spittle, and thou has compared their abundance to a drop from a bucket. And now, O Lord, behold, these nations, which are reputed as nothing, domineer over us and devour us. But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy first-born, only begotten, zealous for thee, and most dear, have been given into their hands. If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? How long will this be so? (4 Ezra 6.55–59).

To be sure, the problems of the Judean community in the Second Temple period were not entirely theological. Domination by foreign powers had social and economic implications that were all too real, even apart from the occasional episodes of military suppression, which reached their climax with the destruction of Jerusalem.8 But these problems are very often formulated in theological terms. As the psalmist already put it in the time of the Exile: ‘why should the nations say, where is their God?’ (Pss 79.10; 115.2). The loss of dignity and respect that came with foreign occupation was all the more acute for people who believed, and amazingly continued to believe, that their God was the master of the universe.

2. Violent Fantasy The dissonance between the belief in the supremacy of YHWH and the actual political order is most frequently relieved by appeal to eschatology. In the great majority of cases, this involves fantasies of violence. The vision of cosmic harmony in Isaiah 11 stands out as exceptional but it may well date from the monarchic period.9 There are also peaceful fantasies of the nations flocking to Mount Zion in Second and Third Isaiah: ‘nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your dawn’ (Isa 60.3), but the optimism of the early Second Temple period soon faded. Already Isaiah 63 conjures up the image of a blood-stained divine warrior: I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in wrath; their juice spattered on my garments and stained all my robes. 8 See, e.g., the discussion of Seleucid state terror by P ORTIER-YOUNG, Apocalypse, 140–175. 9 There is no consensus on the date of Isaiah 11.1–9. For the range of opinion, see W ILDBERGER, Isaiah 1–12, 465–469; B LENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39, 263–264.

204

John J. Collins

For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeeming work had come (vv. 3–4).10

More typical of the later prophetic books are passages such as Ezekiel 38– 39, where ‘Gog from the land of Magog’ is driven forward against the mountains of Israel, only to fall there, and be left for the birds of prey and the wild animals to devour (Ezek 39.4), or Zechariah 14, where the Lord gathers all the nations against Jerusalem for battle, and takes his stand against them on the Mount of Olives. The people will then be afflicted by a plague: ‘their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet; their eyes shall rot in their sockets and their tongues shall rot in their mouths’ (Zech 14.12). Many of these passages evoke the old myth of the assault of the nations on Mount Zion, familiar from Psalm 2. The psalm, which I would date to the Assyrian period, is monarchical rather than monotheistic.11 Yahweh has set his king on Zion his holy mountain. As Yahweh is to the other gods, so is the king of Judah to the kings of the earth. This psalm was no doubt counterfactual in its original setting, and lent itself to an even more counter-factual interpretation in the Second Temple period, when there was no longer a king on Mount Zion.12 The psalm is used in messianic prophecies, which envision a restoration of the house of David, although not as frequently as we might expect.13 The description of the messiah in the Psalms of Solomon (mid-first century BCE) draws heavily on Psalm 2: in wisdom and righteousness to drive out sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth; At his warning the nations will flee from his presence (Pss. Sol. 17.23–24, compare Ps 2.8–9).

In the background of the whole passage is the motif of the assault of the nations on Jerusalem, as envisioned in Psalm 2. The use of the plural ‘nations’ echoes the psalm, and their discomfiture and flight alludes to a related for10

HANSON, Dawn, 203–208. YARBRO COLLINS AND COLLINS, King and Messiah, 10–15, and especially OTTO, Psalm 2, 335–349. 12 Several German scholars date the psalm to the post-exilic period, but it is highly unlikely that such an exalted view of the Davidic monarchy would have arisen when it no longer existed. See, e.g., GERSTENBERGER, Psalms, 48. 13 STEUDEL, Psalm 2, 189–197, acknowledges only three texts among the Pseudepigrapha that make use of the psalm, Pss. Sol. 17, Sib. Or. 3.664–8 and T. Levi 4.2, but she overlooks important passages in 1 En. 48.10 and 4 Ez. 13. Psalm 2 is also cited in 4Q174, the Florilegium. The passage in Sib. Or. 3 speaks of an attack of the nations on Jerusalem and the temple but not of a messianic figure. See further COLLINS, Psalm 2. 11

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

205

mulation of the mythology of Zion in Psalm 48. Finally, the statement in Pss. Sol. 7.32: ‘and their king shall be the Lord messiah’, which should probably be emended to ‘the Lord’s messiah’,14 also echoes the reference to ‘the Lord and his anointed’ in Ps 2.2. The role of the messianic king, however, is variable in Second Temple texts. For much of this period, messianic expectation is absent.15 It reappears in the mid-first century BCE, in the Psalms of Solomon and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in reaction both to the Hasmonean kingship, which was viewed as illegitimate, and to the Roman conquest. In the first century CE, it is given an apocalyptic twist.16 4 Ezra 13 reports that ‘after seven days I had a dream in the night. I saw a wind rising from the sea that stirred up all its waves. As I kept looking, that wind brought up out of the depths of the sea something resembling a man and that man was flying with the clouds of heaven…’. The image of the man flying with the clouds of heaven is a clear allusion to Daniel 7. But the figure is filled out with allusions to Psalm 2. A great host comes to make war on the man. He carves out a mountain for himself and takes his stand upon it. Then he destroys the onrushing multitude with the breath of his lips. The onslaught of the multitude recalls Psalm 2. The mountain is Zion, the holy mountain (Ps 2.6). The breath of his lips is the weapon of the messianic king in Isa 11.4. Taken together, these allusions suggest that the man from the sea has taken on the role traditionally ascribed to the messianic king, although he is clearly a heavenly, transcendent figure. The use of the traditional myth of the assault of the Gentiles on Mount Zion asserts the universal sovereignty of the God of Israel. The myth is agonistic, and antagonistic to the other nations. While it is a reactive myth, responding to the encroachments of the nations on Israel, the antagonism is not purely reactive. It projects the offences of some nations onto the nations in general. The book of Joel complains of those who have sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks, but it summons all the nations for judgment to the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3.1–3). The figure of Gog in Ezekiel 38–39 is probably based on Gyges of Lydia,17 who had no contact whatsoever with Judah, but who is summoned to his fate on the mountains of Israel simply in virtue of being an eminent Gentile. The antagonism in these cases can reasonably be linked to monotheism, in the loose sense of belief in the supremacy of one God, that underlies these texts. This belief has ancient roots in the history of Israel, and as Schwartz and Assmann have argued, is closely bound up with the identity of the 14

See RYLE AND J AMES, Psalms, 141–143. The phrase occurs again in Pss. Sol. 18.7. COLLINS, Scepter, 21–51. 16 COLLINS, Scepter, 205–214. 17 ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 301. 15

206

John J. Collins

people of Israel. ‘Who is like thee among the Gods?’ asked the song of Moses in Exod 15.11. But not all eschatological fantasy is monotheistic even in this diluted sense. Arguably, the most distinctive development in the eschatology of Second Temple Judaism is the tendency toward dualism. Antagonism toward other people is all the greater when these people too have a representative in the supernatural realm. To be sure, dualism in the Israelite/ Judean tradition is always qualified. Yahweh remains the supreme God. But the connection between the supreme God and violence cannot be understood without an appreciation of the adversarial role attributed to other supernatural forces. The dualism of Second Temple eschatology is found especially in apocalyptic texts, and it takes two forms. One of these forms is rooted in the Chaoskampf, which plays a prominent role in the creation myths of the ancient Near East.18 The other is a more measured dualism, found primarily in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and indebted unmistakably to Persian traditions.19

3. Combat Myths Combat myths in the ancient Near East are associated especially with creation or cosmogony. The Akkadian Enuma Elish is a classic example. Even when they do not refer to the construction of the cosmos, as in the case of the Ugaritic Baal myth, they still describe the origin of cosmic order. These myths typically relate how the good god, Marduk or Baal, overcomes a chaos monster, Tiamat, Mot or Yamm. There are several allusions to such a cosmogonic myth in the Hebrew Bible, although the story is never fully narrated. ‘By his power he stilled the Sea, by his understanding he struck down Rahab’ (Job 26.12); ‘Was it not you who hacked Rahab in pieces? Who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep?’ (Isa 51.10). But the victory is not once and for all, and chaos is not obliterated. The sea is confined by bars and doors (Job 38.8–11). Leviathan still sports in the deep (Job 41). As Jon Levenson has written: The survival of the tamed agent of chaos, whether imagined as the Sea, Leviathan, or whatever, points to an essential and generally overlooked tension in the underlying theology of these passages. On the one hand, YHWH’s unique power to defeat and subjugate his adversary and to establish order is unquestioned. On the other hand, those 18 The classic study of GUNKEL, Schöpfung, was written before the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. On the latter see DAY, God’s Conflict. 19 W IDENGREN, PHILONENKO AND HULTGÅRD, Apocalyptique Iranienne; DE J ONG, Iranian Connections.

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

207

passages that concede the survival of the defeated enemy raise obliquely the possibility that his defeat may yet be reversed.20

In the Second Temple period, on several occasions it did indeed appear as if YHWH’s primordial victory was reversed, and the cosmogonic battle had to be fought all over again. As Gunkel famously observed more than a century ago, Endzeit gleicht Urzeit, ‘the things of the end time will be similar to those of the primal time’.21 One illustration of the need to reconquer chaos can be found in the socalled ‘Apocalypse of Isaiah’, in Isaiah 24–27.22 These chapters certainly date to the Persian period, although we can only guess at the exact occasion of their composition. While Baal in the Ugaritic myth had swallowed death in primeval times, the Judean prophet looks forward to the day when YHWH will swallow Death forever (Isa 25.8). Equally, although Leviathan and the Dragon had supposedly been killed in primeval times, we now read that ‘on that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea’ (Isa 27.1). The implication is that these forces of chaos are in the ascendancy in the present. This is not a world that is fully under the control of one supreme God. There are primordial forces that can be subjugated but not eradicated, and that burst forth into the world from time to time. To be sure, these forces are not ultimately on a par with the Most High, but they are not negligible, and they seriously qualify the supposed monotheism of the biblical texts. An even more celebrated instance of the eruption of chaos is found in Daniel 7, where four great beasts arise from the turbulent sea.23 In this case we know the occasion of composition, the suppression of the traditional cult in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The beasts, we are told are four Gentile kingdoms, which can be identified in the context of Daniel as the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians and the Greeks. The fourth beast, the most terrible of all, has a little horn, symbolizing Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whose attempt to suppress the traditional cult in Jerusalem is the occasion of the vision. It would be a great mistake, however, to dismiss the mythological symbolism as ‘mere’ metaphor, or to suppose that the angel’s interpretation of the vision rendered the imagery dispensable. Rather the vision expresses an understanding of the historical crisis as a struggle between supernatural powers. In Daniel 7, the crisis is resolved by 20 21

LEVENSON, Creation, 18. GUNKEL, Creation, 233, citing Barn. 6.13, ‘behold I make the last things like the

first’. 22

See MILLAR, Isaiah 24–27; J OHNSON, Chaos; POLASKI, Destruction; COLLINS, Beginning. 23 COLLINS, Daniel, 274–324; IDEM, Stirring Up, 139–155.

208

John J. Collins

a judgment rather than by a battle, but the motif of combat persists in the struggle between Michael and Gabriel, on the one hand, and the ‘princes’ of Persia and Greece in Daniel 10–12. The condemnation of the fourth beast to be burned in fire in Dan 7.11 is not less violent for the fact that it is the outcome of a judgment. The same mythological imagery of beast from the sea and chaos-dragon recur in the New Testament in the book of Revelation, the text that inspired Gunkel’s classic study of the role of chaos in creation.24 The motif of the Chaoskampf is well known and has often been studied. What has not received sufficient attention, I would suggest, is the degree to which it qualifies the supposed monotheism of the biblical tradition. The Priestly account in Genesis 1 was no doubt a reaction against this view of creation (Tiamat is reduced to inanimate Tehom), but it did not succeed in eliminating the vitality of chaos. Historical experience did not show creation to be good without qualification. Life is conflictual, and violence, on some level, remains necessary if good is to prevail. The traditional combat myth embodies a qualified dualism, in the sense that the world is perceived as an arena where opposing powers are in conflict, even if they are not evenly matched. Such dualism was often accepted as an inherent part of creation in the ancient Near East. This kind of dualism is sometimes characterized as ‘complementary’ or ‘dialectical’ dualism, to distinguish it from eschatological dualism, which envisions a struggle in which the forces of evil will be eliminated.25 In Second Temple Judaism, dualism is decidedly eschatological. It was often invoked to explain the deterioration of order on earth, and viewed as the prelude to a decisive eschatological battle.

4. Light and Darkness A more systematic form of dualism is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the Discourse on the Two Spirits in the Community Rule, God created two spirits for people to walk in, spirits of truth and deceit, light and darkness. People are guided by a Prince of Light or an Angel of Darkness, and share in the opposing spirits to different degrees. God, we are told, has sorted them into equal parts until the last time (1QS 4.16–17). But then, ‘God in the mysteries of his knowledge and in the wisdom of his glory, has determined an end to the existence of injustice and on the ap-

24 25

See YARBRO COLLINS, Combat Myth. See the discussion by MCCARTER, Dualism, 19–35.

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

209

pointed time of the visitation he will obliterate it forever’ (1QS 4.18–19).26 The final obliteration of evil is the subject of the War Scroll. This remarkable document outlines a final war between the Sons of Light, under the leadership of the archangel Michael, and the Sons of Darkness, led by Belial. On this (day), the assembly of the gods and the congregation of men shall confront each other for great destruction…In the war, the sons of light will be the strongest during three lots, in order to strike down wickedness; and in three (others) the army of Belial will gird themselves in order to force the lot of [light] to retreat (1QM 1.10, 13).

From later columns in the Scroll, it is apparent that that each side prevails in successive lots. But ‘in the seventh lot, God’s great hand will subdue [Belial and all] the angels of his dominion and all the men of [his lot]’ (1QM 1.15). Here again, the supremacy of the God of Israel is confirmed, but Belial fights Michael to a stalemate, indicating a degree of parity between the forces of good and evil that is without precedent in the biblical tradition. There can be little doubt that the dualism of the two spirits is indebted to Zoroastrianism, even though we cannot trace the channels through which it was transmitted.27 In the Gathas, which are often ascribed to Zoroaster himself, the two spirits are the twin children of Ahura Mazda, the wise Lord. 28 Later the good spirit is identified with Ahura Mazda, and the evil one is thought to be primordial. These spirits were associated with light and darkness from an early time. According to Plutarch, who cites Theopompus (c. 300 BCE) as his source, Horomazes is born from the purest light and Areimanius from darkness, and they are at war with one another…Theopompus says that, according to the Magians, for three thousand years alternately the one god will dominate the other and be dominated, and that for another three thousand years they will fight and make war, until one smashes up the domain of the other.29

Plutarch’s account is problematic in various ways, and it does not correspond in detail to the accounts of Zoroastrian thought preserved in the much later Pahlavi literature.30 But the similarity to what we find in the Scrolls is striking: supernatural forces of light and darkness are engaged in a struggle in which each prevails in turn, until the forces of light eventually prevail.31 26

Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are taken from GARCÍA M ARTÍNEZ AND T IGCHELAAR, Dead Sea Scrolls. 27 See further DE J ONG, Iranian Connections. 28 ZAEHNER, Dawn, 50–51. 29 GRIFFITHS, De Iside, 47. 30 See DE J ONG, Traditions, 200–201. 31 See further COLLINS, Apocalypticism, 102–103.

210

John J. Collins

Our present concern, however, is not so much with the provenance of this dualistic thought system as with its implications for the supposed monotheism of Judaism in the Second Temple period. We do not know how widely such a dualistic account of the world was accepted. Both the Community Rule and the War Scroll were found in Qumran Cave 1, and were among the first scrolls published. Initially, the dualism of light and darkness was thought to be the very heart of sectarian thought.32 When the full corpus came to light, however, it became apparent that this dualism was rather sparsely represented. The Discourse on the Two Spirits is not found in all copies of the Community Rule, and seems to have originated as a distinct composition. Some scholars believe it was a pre-sectarian text, although that position seems rather counter-intuitive.33 The dualism of the Discourse did, in any case, influence other parts of the Community Rule, and is also echoed in the Damascus Document, even though it plays a minor role there.34 It is easy enough to see why such a dualistic system would have been attractive to a separatist sect, such as the one described in the Scrolls. It provided an explanation for the rejection of the sect’s teachings by other Judeans, despite what seemed to the sectarians to be their manifest truth. But the appeal of such a binary view of the world was limited. Even within the sectarian writings it does not serve very often as the frame of reference. It does however shape the conception of the final war, and provides ready justification for hating the forces of darkness, especially the Kittim, or Romans, and promises their final annihilation. The thrust of my comments so far is that it is somewhat misleading to attribute the fantasies of eschatological violence in Second Temple Judaism to the influence of monotheism. To be sure, they all affirm the ultimate triumph of one God. But some of the most violent fantasies incline strongly to dualism. The need for divine intervention, and even for divine violence, is all the greater when the forces of darkness are thought to be supported by supernatural forces of their own.

5. Fantasy and Violence But are these texts, which imagine divine violence at the end of history, conducive to actual violence by human agents? There have been scattered examples through history of people, such as Thomas Müntzer and John of Leiden in the sixteenth century, who resorted to violence in pursuit of the 32

So e.g. DIMANT, Qumran Sectarian Literature, 532–533. E.g. LANGE, Weisheit, 126–132. 34 LANGE, Weisheit, 165–170; HEMPEL, Two Spirits, 102–120. 33

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

211

millennium. In the Second Temple period, the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch is generally thought to be supportive of the Maccabees, but even that is disputed.35 But these are exceptional. The violence of the Maccabees cannot be attributed to the ‘wise teachers’ of Daniel, who regarded it as at most ‘a little help’ (Dan 11.34), and more probably regarded it as counter-productive. One may argue, in fact, that Daniel’s apocalyptic vision was presented as an alternative to the Maccabees, a way to remain faithful in a time of persecution without the compromise and bloodshed that armed revolt inevitably entailed. Since the wise maskilim in Daniel hoped to be elevated to the stars after death, they could afford to lose their lives in this world.36 The logic of apocalyptic quietism is spelled out in the Testament (or Assumption) of Moses, a text close in time to the book of Daniel, where a man named Taxo takes his sons into a cave in the field to purify themselves and die, in confidence that ‘the Lord will avenge the blood of his servants’, as promised in Deut 32.43.37 Then God’s kingdom would appear before all creation, and Israel would be exalted to the stars. Equally, the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls vowed to avoid conflict with ‘the men of the Pit’ until the day of wrath, although they made provision for that day in a detailed Rule for the eschatological war, for ‘to God belongs the judgment’ (1QS 10.18). ‘“Vengeance is mine”, saith the Lord’ (Deut 32.35). It is precisely the belief that the Lord will exact vengeance with ultimate ferocity that enables such groups to refrain from violent action in the present. As the late Krister Stendahl put it: ‘With the Day of Vengeance at hand, the proper and reasonable attitude is to forego one’s own vengeance and to leave vengeance to God. Why walk around with a little shotgun if the atomic blast is imminent?’38 Similarly, the book of Revelation undeniably indulges in extremely violent fantasies, and has been accused of ‘brutality, misogyny and vengeance’, in the words of David Frankfurter.39 Yet it is explicitly a call for non-violent endurance: ‘if you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed’ (Rev 13.10).40 In this case too it is precisely the hope for violent divine vengeance, vividly imagined as the overthrow of the whore of Babylon, and as a grizzly feast for the birds of heaven, that undergirds the appeal for non-violent endurance in the present.

35

For the dissenting view, see ASSEFA, L’Apocalypse, 207–221. COLLINS, Apocalyptic Eschatology, 75–97. 37 LICHT, Taxo, 95–103. 38 STENDAHL, Hate, 344–345. 39 FRANKFURTER, Legacy, 114–128. 40 YARBRO COLLINS, Persecution, 729–749. 36

212

John J. Collins

Apocalyptic literature is often assumed to be revolutionary, but one could very well argue that it is counter-revolutionary in many cases. By enabling people to let off steam by fantasizing divine vengeance, it relieves the pressure toward action in the present and enables people to accommodate themselves to the status quo for the present. Nonetheless, the suspicion remains that violent fantasies are conducive to violent action. Mark Juergensmeyer, in his study of religion and terrorism in the contemporary world argues that many activists who have turned to terror are driven by an image of cosmic war: ‘What makes religious violence particularly savage and relentless is that its perpetrators have placed such religious images of divine struggle – cosmic war – in the service of worldly political battles. For this reason, acts of religious terror serve not only as tactics in a political strategy but also as evocations of a much larger spiritual confrontation.’41 The argument here is that even if an apocalyptic writing does not explicitly preach violence, it nonetheless foments an attitude of violent antagonism. As Scott Appleby has written about modern apocalypticism: ‘Fundamentalists, who seek to create an alternative social and political order “for the long run” are in the impossible situation of wanting to constrain apocalyptic violence after they have set loose its agents and unleashed its dynamics!’42 It is a matter of debate whether apocalyptic hopes were a factor in the Jewish revolt against Rome in the late-first century BCE. Josephus assigns a measure of responsibility to a series of figures whom we might describe as apocalyptic prophets. After describing the activities of the sicarii, or dagger-men, he goes on: Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but more impious intentions, who no less than the assassins ruined the peace of the city. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would give them tokens of deliverance. Against them, Felix, regarding them as but the preliminary insurrection, sent a body of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, and put a large number to the sword. (JW 2.259–260).

There was a succession of such sign prophets in the first century CE.43 Josephus admits that the movements they led were not violent, but were inspired by the hope of miraculous divine intervention. But he blames them nonetheless for disturbing the peace of the city and creating an atmosphere congenial to rebellion. He also claims that the rebels were inspired by an ‘ambiguous oracle, which was found in the sacred texts’, (JW 6.312–15) more than by any other one thing. We do not know which oracle 41

JUERGENSMEYER, Terror, 148–149. APPLEBY, Unholy Uses, 77. 43 HORSLEY AND HANSON, Bandits; COLLINS, Scepter, 216–219.

42

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

213

that was. Possibilities include Daniel 7 (the ‘one like a son of man’) or Balaam’s prophecy of the scepter and the star in Num 24.17. Josephus gives an unsympathetic account of the revolt, but he must be credited with insight into the workings of prophecy, ambiguous or otherwise. If people are told to expect a heavenly deliverer on a white horse, who will annihilate their enemies, it may be difficult for them to restrain themselves from giving him a helping hand. I do not mean to imply that violence is always necessarily bad. It can be justified as a means of attaining justice, and there were certainly legitimate grievances that led to the Jewish revolt against Rome. But the outcome of that revolt is a sobering reminder of the perils of violence.

6. What Do These Fantasies Achieve? Apocalyptic fantasies, in any case, contribute only indirectly to revolution and provide alternatives to violent action more often than not. What, then, can this kind of literature be said to accomplish? It seems to me that this question may be answered in two ways that go some way toward explaining the enduring popularity of the genre. On the one hand, it enables people to dissent from a culture that they find oppressive or otherwise unacceptable, when they lack the practical means to change it. The people of Judea could not bring about the destruction of Babylon or Rome, but they could imagine it, and the fantasy afforded some satisfaction. In theological terms, it also relieved the dissonance between the supremacy of their God and the subordination of his people. The violence of the destruction is an expression of power on the part of the powerless, and serves to clear a way for a new beginning, an. All this literature expresses resistance to the present order, which is deemed unsatisfactory and worthy of destruction. The potential for resistance is increased in the apocalyptic literature, which imagines an alternative universe more fully than do the late prophetic texts, and hold forth the prospect of life in another world after death. This kind of resistance does not necessarily lead to violent revolution, but it shapes minds and preserves values, and its longterm effectiveness should not be underestimated. While the violent and vengeful imagery may be distasteful to modern Christians, we should be mindful of Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s caution that those who are critical of apocalyptic violence ‘do not suffer unbearable oppression and are not driven by the quest for justice.’44 ‘Unbearable oppression’, admittedly,

44

SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Invitation, 84–85.

214

John J. Collins

may be in the eye of the oppressed, but it is deemed unbearable by those who indulge in apocalyptic fantasies. On the other hand, imagining an alternative universe can be therapeutic in times of crisis.45 Wolfgang Schivelbusch has written of a ‘culture of defeat’ that affects the victims of military conquest: ‘Defeat follows war as ashes follow fire. At the heart of both…lies the threat of extinction, a threat that resonates long past the cessation of hostilities.’46 He continues: ‘Every society experiences defeat in its own way. But the varieties of response within vanquished nations – whether psychological, cultural or political – conform to a recognizable set of patterns or archetypes that recur across time and national boundaries. A state of unreality – or dreamland – is invariably the first of these.’47 This is especially relevant to literature composed after the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and after the second destruction by the Romans. Scott Appleby, who is much less sympathetic to apocalypticism than Fiorenza, grants that ‘apocalyptic or millenarian fervor takes on a decidedly therapeutic role in the lives and imagination of the “modern anti-modernists”. The anticipated reversal of “ordinary history” is a source of great comfort for millions of true believers living in conditions of squalor, relative deprivation, or moral decadence.’48 Again, the therapeutic effect is not negated by the fact that the deprivation may be relative, and not necessarily objectively factual. Eschatological visions are a way of maintaining hope in desperate situations. The violence of destruction is never an end in itself. There is always a new beginning to follow, whether in this world or in the next. The visionary, and his sympathetic readers, can experience an ‘apocalyptic cure’ from the traumas of the present by taking refuge in fantasies of a future where things turn out quite differently from historical experience. To be sure, this may not be the ideal solution to social and economic crises. It might be better to find more practical ways of addressing material and social problems. But apocalypses are written for times when humankind cannot bear very much reality, in the phrase of T. S. Eliot.49 Even a hope that many might regard as illusory may be better than having no hope at all.

45 See especially DASCHKE, Ruins, especially his discussion of ‘the apocalyptic cure’ (187–197). 46 SCHIVELBUSCH, Culture, 5; DASCHKE, Ruins, 16. 47 SCHIVELBUSCH, Culture, 10. 48 APPLEBY, Unholy Uses, 75. 49 ELIOT, Four Quartets, in the first quartet.

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

215

Conclusion Whatever the merits of an apocalyptic solution to historical crises, these fantasies of judgment, violent though they often are, lend little substance to the charge that monotheism is conducive to violence. On the one hand, many of these fantasies are more dualistic than monotheistic, even though they inevitably affirm the ultimate triumph of one supreme God. On the other hand, they often function as a means of avoiding violence rather than of fomenting it. This is not to deny that they may be conducive to violence on occasion, in fostering an attitude of antagonism. Vengeance, even on the level of fantasy, is not the noblest of human desires. Apocalyptic visions cannot be said to provide an ethic for all seasons. Nonetheless, they have proven remarkably durable in western history and they should not be too readily dismissed as mere fanaticism. They can serve a therapeutic function in times of distress and alienation, and they provide a means of maintaining resistance to oppressive structures that they lack the ability to change.

Bibliography APPLEBY, S., The Unholy Uses of Apocalyptic Imagination: Twentieth Century Patterns, in: Apocalypse and Violence, ed. A. Amanat and J. J. Collins, New Haven 2007, 69– 87 ASSEFA, D., L’Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85–90): une propagande militaire (JSJSup 120) Leiden 2007 ASSMANN, J., Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge 1997 B LENKINSOPP, J., Isaiah 1–39 (AB 19), New York 2000 COLLINS, J. J., Daniel (Herm), Minneapolis 1993 – Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology, in: Aspects of Monotheism. How God is One, ed. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt, Washington DC 1997 – Stirring up the Great Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7, in: IDEM, Seers Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJ.S 54), Leiden 1997, 139– 155 – Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, London 1997 – Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death, in: IDEM, Seers Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJSup 54), Leiden 1997, 75–97. – The Interpretation of Psalm 2, in: Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85), ed. F. García Martínez, Leiden 2009 – The Beginning of the End of the World, in: Thus Says the Lord. Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, eds. J. J. Ahn and S. L. Cook, New York/London 2009, 137–155 – The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids 2010 2

216

John J. Collins

DASCHKE, D., City of Ruins: Mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish Apocalypse, Leiden 2010 DAY, J., God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985 D IMANT, D., Qumran Sectarian Literature, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2), ed. M. E. Stone, Philadelphia 1984, 483–550 ELIOT, T. S., Four Quartets, New York 1943 FESTINGER, L. H., R. H. RIECKEN AND S. SCHACHTER, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World, Minneapolis, 1956 FESTINGER, L. H., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford 1957 FRANKFURTER, D., The Legacy of Sectarian Rage: Vengeance Fantasies in the New Testament, in: Religion and Violence. The Biblical Heritage, eds. D. A. Bernat and J. Klawans, Sheffield 2007, 114–128 GARCIA M ARTINEZ, F., AND E. J. C. T IGCHELAAR, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Leiden 1997 GERSTENBERGER, E., Psalms: Part One, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14), Grand Rapids 1988 GRIFFITHS, J. G., Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff 1970 GUNKEL, H., Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh, Göttingen 1895; ET Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Period and in the Eschaton, (trans. W. Whitney), Grand Rapids 2006 HANSON, P. D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, Philadelphia 1975 HEMPEL, C., The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community, in: Dualism in Qumran, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, London/New York 2010 HORSLEY, R. A., AND J. S. HANSON, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, Minneapolis 1985 J OHNSON, D. G., From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27, (JSOT.S 61), Sheffield 1988 DE JONG, A., Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Leiden 1997 – Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins, Oxford 2010, 479–500 J UERGENSMEYER, M., Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Berkeley, CA 2003 LANGE, A., Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran, Leiden 1995 LEVENSON, J. D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, San Francisco 1988 LICHT, J., Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Divine Vengeance, JJS 12 (1961) 95–103 MACDONALD, N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’, Tübingen 2003 MCCARTER, P. K., Dualism in Antiquity, in: Light Against Darkness, ed. A. Lange et al., Göttingen 2011, 19–35 M ILLAR, W. R., Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic, Cambridge, MA 1976 OTTO, E., Psalm 2 in neuassyrischer Zeit. Assyrische Motive in der judäischen Königsideologie, in: Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. Festschrift für Peter Weimar (AOAT 294), ed. K. Kiesow and T. Meurer, Münster 2003

Cognitive Dissonance and Eschatological Violence

217

P OLASKI, D., Destruction, Construction, Argumentation: A Rhetorical Reading of Isaiah 24–27, in: Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse, eds. G. Carey and L. G. Bloomquist, St. Louis 1999, 19–39 P ORTIER-YOUNG, A., Apocalypse Against Empire. Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids 2011 RYLE, H. E., AND M. R. J AMES, Psalms of the Pharisees: Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon, Cambridge 1891 SCHIVELBUSCH, W. The Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning and Recovery, New York 2001 SCHUSSLER FIORENZA, E., Invitation to the Book of Revelation, New York 1981 SCHWARTZ, R., The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, Chicago 1997 SMITH, M. S., The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford 2001 STENDAHL, K., Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love: 1QS X, 17–20 and Rom 12.19–21, HTR 55 (1962) 343–355 STEUDEL, A., Psalm 2 im antiken Judentum, in: Gottessohn und Menschensohn. Exegetische Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. D. Sänger, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004 W IDENGREN, G. et al., Apocalyptique Iranienne et Dualisme Qoumrânien, Paris 1995 W ILDBERGER, H., Isaiah 1–12, Minneapolis 1991 YARBRO COLLINS, A., The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, Missoula, MT 1976 – Persecution and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation, in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm, Tübingen 1983, 729–749 YARBRO COLLINS, A., AND J. J. COLLINS, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids 2008 ZAEHNER, R. C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, London 1961 ZIMMERLI, W., Ezekiel 2 (Herm), Philadelphia 1983

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism in Ancient Jewish Apocalyptic Writings STEFAN BEYERLE

1. Ancient Texts and Modern Terminology In keeping with the title of this essay, I intend to examine religious texts from ancient times by utilizing terminology that stems from the early Modern Age, more precisely the dawn of the Enlightenment: ‘monotheism’ and ‘dualism’. While the former was coined by the Platonist Henry More (1614–1687), an English philosopher of the Cambridge Platonist school, in his essay ‘An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness’ from 1660, the latter comes from the book Historia religionis veterum Persarum by the English orientalist Thomas Hyde (1636–1703) in 1700.1 While both scholars certainly examined Jewish and Christian literature of the Bible and beyond, the central aim of their examinations was to describe ‘monotheism’ and ‘dualism’ in the light of philosophical or religious-historical hermeneutics.2 As a consequence, the use of both terms in the context of Jewish and Christian sources from the ancient world requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the usefulness of the modern terminology is limited by its meaningfulness and applicability to the discussion of the ancient sources. For example, it does not matter if ‘henotheism’ originally stems from the scholar of Sanskrit texts and historian of religions Friedrich Max Müller (1823–1900) or if ‘summodeism’ was created by the historian and political philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901–1985) so long as the idea in the background of these terms describes phenomena that coincide with constellations from ancient sources.3 Recently Ernst Axel Knauf described ‘monotheism’ from the perspective of the philosophy of religions. He finds in the ‘one God’ the common 1

See MOBERLY, ‘Monotheism’, 218–222; B ALZER, Dualism, 553. It is apparent that More used ‘monotheism’ in a philosophical sense in order to highlight its counterpart ‘materialism’. Furthermore, More equated ‘materialism’ with ‘polytheism’ and ‘atheism’. Cf. on More’s intellectual ideas MACDONALD, Deuteronomy, 5–16. 3 Cf., e.g., the use of ‘henotheism’ and ‘summodeism’ within the context of comparable phenomena of the veneration of Marduk and JHWH (SMITH, God, 163–169). 2

220

Stefan Beyerle

element that unites the diversity of deities into one. In general, Knauf comes close to what Voegelin called ‘summodeism’. In Mark S. Smith’s words, ‘“summodeism” may be used to convey the notion of one deity as the sum and summit of the reality of other deities’.4 Furthermore, Knauf distinguishes between ‘exclusive’ and ‘inclusive monotheism’, a differentiation that was already foreshadowed in Friedrich Delitzsch’s second lecture on ‘Babel and Bible’ in 1903.5 ‘Inclusive monotheism’ emphasizes that all deities or divine beings are part of the one God.6 In the words of Christoph Levin: Allerdings setzte die faktische Monolatrie voraus, dass die Rollen anderer Götter wenigstens anteilig auf Jahwe übergingen. Je mehr Jahwe die Verehrung auf sich zog, desto mehr mussten die Funktionen der anderen in das Gottesbild integriert werden. Das Ergebnis ist eine ‘Unschärfe des Gotteskonzepts’, die für das Alte Testament kennzeichnend geworden ist.7

In my view, the Hebrew Bible testifies, on the whole, to an ‘inclusive monotheism’. It is still witnessed, with a few exceptions, in later, postexilic literature like the Deuteronomistic frame of the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6.4–5) or the late formula in the first commandment of the Decalogue. In the religions of ancient Israel and in Judaism the idea of an ‘exclusive monotheism’, specified through ignoring and renouncing other gods, is only attested sporadically, as in other religions of the Ancient Near East (cf., e.g., Second Isaiah, the Egyptian era of Akhenaten).8 Compared with the theological notion ‘monotheism’, the idea of ‘dualism’ is much more ambiguous. Several dualistic concepts are, however, included in the specific apocalyptic worldview, as it is postulated in modern scholarship. Therefore, ‘dualism’ obviously appears variously shaped in apocalyptic writings and in ‘apocalyptic communities’ like that from Qumran. With regard to apocalypticism, arguments focus especially on two highly disputed questions concerning ‘dualisms’: First, how can the several forms of ‘dualism’ be classified? Second, is there a certain context in the history of religions, in which ancient Jewish and early Christian ‘du4

SMITH, God, 169. See DELITZSCH, Vortrag, 28–40; cf. also DELITZSCH, Babel, 58–60, 70–71 n. 13; SMITH, God, 165 and n. 119. 6 See KNAUF, Bibel, 39–40, who states: ‘Unter “Monotheismus” verstehe ich die (religions-)philosophische Annahme, dass die Menge aller Götter nur ein einziges Element enthalte’ (39). Cf. LORETZ, Einzigkeit, 82–83. For the Second Temple period, see HURTADO, Monotheism, 961–964. 7 LEVIN, Monotheismus, 157. 8 See also DIETRICH, Werden, 23–24. Within ancient Israelite literature especially the formulas that emphasize the exclusiveness and incomparability of JHWH are of interest when ‘exclusive monotheism’ is concerned: e.g., Isa 40.18, 25; 43.11; 44.6; 45.5–6, 18, 21; 46.5; Ps 18.32; cf. also Jer 10.6. 5

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

221

alisms’ originated? A favorite answer to the second question refers to Persian religion.9 The primary, mainly later, sources of Zoroastrianism attest a developed ‘cosmic-metaphysical dualism’ that focuses on the antagonism of Ohrmazd (Avestian Ahura Mazda) and Ahremann (Avestian Angra Mainyu) or the high God of goodness and the Evil Spirit.10 In his sound taxonomy of different ‘dualisms’, Jörg Frey rightly pointed to the fact that the Persian idea of a ‘cosmic-metaphysical dualism’, signifying opposing powers of equal rank, found no counterpart in ancient Jewish and early Christian thought.11 However, taken together with a classification of world history into certain ages and the hope for an imminent end to the world, Persian eschatology could be characterized as ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘dualistic’.12 And what is more, some scholars characterize the Zoroastrian religion in the Achaemenid Empire, i.e. as early as the fifth and fourth century BCE in terms of an ‘inclusive monotheism’. Recently, Thomas C. Römer has discussed phenomena of subliminal dualism in texts of the Hebrew Bible which date from Persian times.13 He argues for a late-exilic and postexilic emphasis on monotheism that is separated from dualistic thinking of good and evil in order to avoid the idea of God being responsible for evil deeds. The only exception, which even Römer cannot ignore, comes in Isa 45.5b–7, where one reads:

9

‫אאזרך ולא ידעתני‬

5b

‫למען ידעו‬ ‫ממזרח־שמש וממערבה‬ ‫כי־אפס בלעדי‬ ‫אני יהוה ואין עוד‬ ‫יוצר אור ובורא חשך‬

6a

6b 7a

I will gird you, though you did not know me, in order that they might know from the rising of the sun until its setting, that there is no one else beside me, I am the Lord, and there is no other: the one who formed light and created darkness,

See, e.g., P HILONENKO, Doctrine, 164–178. For different structures of dualistic thinking in older and more recent Avestian sources cf. STAUSBERG, Religion, 91–95, 129–153; IDEM, Monotheismus, 99–100, 102– 105. DE J ONG, Connections, 492–493, pointed to the fact that the dualism of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu in the later sources also included deterministic thinking. 11 See FREY, Patterns, 282–283. Most interpreters refer to B IANCHI, Category, 15–17; IDEM, Dualism, 506–512. Bianchi describes ‘dualism’ by referring to the doctrine of two opposed principles. In his typology he sub-divides ‘radical’ or ‘softened’, ‘dialectical’ or ‘eschatological’ and ‘pro-cosmic’ or ‘anti-cosmic’ dualisms. Cf. also FREY, Patterns, 280–285; DUHAIME, Reworking, 33–35; IDEM, Dualism, 215–216. With a view to ancient Jewish sources, most scholars prefer a ‘softened’, ‘eschatological’ and ‘pro-cosmic’ type of ‘dualism’. Recently, ALEXANDER, Dualism, 170, calls the dualism between heaven and earth a ‘mild dualism’. 12 See HULTGÅRD, Apocalypticism, 40–64, 79–81. 13 See RÖMER, Tendances, 45–58. 10

222

Stefan Beyerle ‫עשה שלום ובורא רע‬ ‫אני יהוה עשה כל־אלה‬

7b

the one who made welfare [1QIsaa: good] and created evil. I am the Lord who made all these things.

God’s formation of light and darkness, his creation of welfare and evil, is accompanied by the repeated emphasis on his uniqueness, expressed in sentences of incomparability through the expression ‫אני יהוה‬, a nominal sentence that includes a variety of possible understandings. In short, this text in Deutero-Isaiah14 presents one of the most specific and developed notions of ‘exclusive monotheism’. Seemingly, this passage rejects ‘Zoroaster’s fundamental dualistic teaching, that the power of God is limited in the present time by that of a mighty and evil Adversary, the source of all the wickedness and suffering in the world’,15 as Mary Boyce put it. Similarly, Thomas C. Römer speaks ‘d’une critique du dualisme mazdéen’16 in Isa 45.7. But, there is only late Persian evidence from the Avesta for the idea of an adversary of divine rank. Furthermore, the prominent ‘parallel’ in the Avesta (cf. Yasna 44.5; cf. Yasna 43.5)17 provides no clear evidence for a dualistic understanding of the creation of good and evil.18 Finally, none of the Achaemenian inscriptions refer to this ideology. And what is more, Isaiah 45 is much more influenced by Marduk veneration of the late Babylonian and early Persian period.19 Be that as it may and leaving aside the question of stable continuity from old Avestan towards late Pahlavi traditions, such as the Denkard,20 every comparison of Persian and ancient Jewish dualisms and apocalyptic motifs lacks clear criteria for the historical background of such a comparison. This is the case because most of the Persian sources stem from the late Sassanian and early Islamic periods (sixth through ninth centuries CE). Consequently, many interpreters of Jewish apocalypticsm and the Dead

14 Isa 45.5b–7 is part of the composition 44.24–45.7. The text is part of a complex literary construct that only partially originates in the times of the anonymous prophet. For the literary history and structure cf. ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 155–167. 15 B OYCE, History, 194. 16 RÖMER, Tendances, 57. 17 See the discussion in ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 174–183, and the text of Yasna 44.4–5 with German translation in IBID, 176. 18 See ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 179–180, who refers to insights of Carsten Colpe. 19 See ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 171–173, who opines that Isa 45.1–4 attests motifs that should be compared with the Cyrus Cylinder, while Isa 45.5–7 (with 44.24–27) alludes instead to Persian (Zoroastrian) texts. On the Babylonian background, see also LEUENBERGER, Jhwh, esp. 32–46, 74–75. 20 See HULTGÅRD, Apocalypticism, 64–70; W ILLIAMS, Significance, 53–66.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

223

Sea Scrolls are currently rather skeptical when it comes to comparisons of Persian and Hebrew material.21 To go back to Isaiah 45, the wording of v. 7 is to some extent exceptional: first, the combination of ‫יצר‬, ‫ ברא‬and ‫ עשה‬with God as the only possible subject, alludes to creation and signifies a ‘cosmic-metaphysical’ aspect. Second, this ‘cosmic-metaphysical’ aspect was modified by means of two strategies: in the MT, the making of ‘welfare’ hints to a historical dimension. Consequently, the pairing of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ has creation in mind, while ‘welfare’ and ‘evil’ reflects upon the divine pact and practice in time.22 On the other hand, the first copy of the book of Isaiah from Qumran reads ‫ טוב‬instead of ‫( שלום‬1QIsaa XXXVIII.13),23 so that the dualistic strategy changes from a ‘cosmic-metaphysical’ towards an ‘ethical’ dimension.24 In conclusion, Isaiah 45 mingles different patterns of dualistic thinking,25 including the emphasis on an ‘exclusive monotheism’ that is exceptional within the Hebrew Bible.

2. Does Angelology and Dualism Presuppose an ‘Exclusive Monotheism’ (Klaus Koch)? As Klaus Koch rightly states, there is a strong connection between ‘dualism’ and ‘angelology’: for angelological concepts in the Persian and Hellenistic times, one should differentiate between angels of ‘welfare’ and those of ‘harm’. Therefore, angelology and dualistic thinking are closely 21

See DIMANT, Dualism, 55–73, and the list of scholars in DUHAIME, Dualism, 219. See also the careful treatment in COLLINS, Apocalypticism, 41–51, 99–106. 22 See ACHENBACH, Kyros-Orakel, 193–194. 23 See ULRICH AND FLINT, DJD 32.1, 76–77: pl. 38; and DJD 32.2, 166. In the second copy of the book of Isaiah from Qumran, the relevant passage in Isa 45.7 is missing (cf. 1QIsab XIX.19), but a reading of ‫ שלום‬is more likely (cf. ULRICH AND FLINT, DJD 32.2, 223). 24 See LEUENBERGER, Jhwh, 68 n. 176, who also refers to Lam 3.38; Am 3.6; Job 2.10 and Sir 11.14. The Greek text from Sir 11.14 is short and obviously augmented in the Hebrew version from the Cairo Genizah with the aim to draw out ‘the implications of divine responsibility…in the secondary recensions of Ben Sira’, as COLLINS, Wisdom, 84, has emphasized. While the Greek of Sir 11.14 reads: ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακά ζωὴ καὶ θάνατος πτωχεία καὶ πλοῦτος παρὰ κυρίου ἐστίν (‘Good and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from the Lord’), the Hebrew MS A added: ‫]ח[ ֯כ ֯מ ֯ה ושכל והבין דבר מייי הוא׃‬ ‫ודרכ ים ישרים מייי הוא‬ ֗ ‫[‘( חטא‬Wi]sdom and prudence and the understanding of a matter, from the Lord are they. Error and the ways that are right, from the Lord are they’); for the Hebrew text, cf. BEENTJES, Book, 37. For ‘dualisms’ in Ben Sira, cf. STUCKENBRUCK, Interiorization, 148–152. 25 For further patterns of dualistic thinking, as ‘cosmic’, ‘eschatological’, ‘ethical’, ‘psychological’, ‘spatial’ or ‘theological’, cf. GAMMIE, Dualism, 356–359.

224

Stefan Beyerle

related, especially in the apocalyptic writings which Klaus Koch discusses (Daniel; Astronomical Book [1 Enoch 72–82]; Book of Watchers [1 Enoch 1–36]; Jubilees).26 Furthermore, Koch continues, an elaborated monotheism in Persian and Hellenistic times is a presupposition for an elaborated doctrine of angels and dualistic powers. And, vice versa, within a monotheistic system, a system of agents and mediators is necessary to establish the idea of the one and only, transcendent God. As Koch summarizes: Gerade die Vielfalt der mythologischen Theorien läßt deutlich werden, daß es in einem Zeitalter mit fortschreitendem Monotheismus für fromme Israeliten unausweichlich erschien, bestimmte negative Daseinserfahrung von der Anerkennung des einen Gottes ein Stück weit zu distanzieren. Deshalb werden Aspekte, die Israel früher unbedenklich auf Jahwä selbst zurückführte, jetzt auf ein (oder mehrere) Zwischenwesen zurückgeführt, wobei das Verhältnis zu ’ādonāj in einer gewissen Schwebe bleibt.27

It is obvious that Koch’s statement cannot explain a text like Isa 45.7. As already seen, this verse explicitly rules out what Koch calls the ‘distancing of evil deeds and negative experiences from the one and only God.’ Rather, it emphasizes that the exclusiveness of the one God goes so far as to enable him to ‘create darkness and evil’ – both acts of creation are covered by the participle of ‫ברא‬. As Koch’s statement has found broad acceptance28 and is also established by several proof texts, the question arises as to whether a text like Isaiah 45, or better say, the idea of the creation or origin of ‘good and evil’, ‘saints and sinners’ by the one God, as is also attested in Deut 30.15, Lam 3.38 or in Sir 11.14, fits with the thesis of a presupposed ‘exclusive monotheism’. At first sight, disqualifying Isaiah 45 and its parallels, as an anomalous tradition without reception, fails with a cursory look at some texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.29 Within the ‘Discourse’ or ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ (1QS III.13–IV.26) it is clearly God who ‘created the spirits of light and of darkness’ (III.25: ‫)והואה ברא רוחות אור וחושכ‬.30 Furthermore, the Hodayot observe that ‘God Most High’ created the wicked and the just (1QH XII.38: ‫)כי אתה בראתה צדיק ורשע‬, or that God ‘created the wicked’ for the purpose of his ‘wrath’ (1QH VII.20: ‫)ורשעים בראתה ל]י[צר חרונכה‬.31 The most striking parallel to Isa 45.7 is, however, 4QWorks of God, a poem of Hodayot-like terminology that praises God’s greatness in a didactic, wis26

See KOCH, Monotheismus, 219–234. KOCH, Monotheismus, 232–233 (italics original). 28 See KNAUF, Bibel, 46; STOLZ, Einführung, 195; KRÜGER, Einheit, 16. 29 See GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, ‫ברא‬, 503. 30 In transcriptions of the Dead Sea scrolls the orthography of the original manuscripts is reflected, e.g. ignoring final letters. 31 For the reconstruction, text and translation of 1QH VII and XII cf. STEGEMANN, 1QHodayota, 97–107, 157–166 and pl. V, X. 27

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

225

dom-like tone (4Q392 1.4): ‘He [the God in the heavens] is the one who created darkness[ and l]ight for himself.’32 The preserved text that follows in 4Q392 frag. 1 obviously establishes a sharp contrast between the created world and the heavenly realm: ‘with him [the God in the heavens] is unsearchable light and no one is able to know’ (4Q392 1.7). Giere has recently connected the references to creation in 4Q392 with Isa 45.7.33 But the question remains whether the merism of ‘light and darkness’ in 4Q392 goes beyond the connotation of a ‘simple’ creation formula. Against this, Isa 45.7 includes historical aspects, e.g., the keyword of the second merism, ‘darkness’, points to the divine speech to Cyrus in v. 3: ‘and I will give you treasures of darkness’ – a metaphor for the divine acts against the Babylonians.34 Whether the reader of 4Q392 could have found some allusions to historical aspects of divine impact in the Qumran text is nearly impossible to decide due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript. Beyond this, there is the question of how far, at the beginning of the fragment (l.3), the reading ‘their ‫ נפש‬adheres to his covenant’ bespeaks the ‘community of the covenant’ (cf. CD II.2; III.10; IV.9; VI.19; VIII.1; XIII.14; XX.25; 1QS I.16; III.11–12; V.3). And what is also important: while in Isa 45.7 and 4Q392 (l.4) God creates darkness and light, traditions like Genesis 1 only state that there was darkness which God had separated from light (cf. Gen 1.2–5).35 In opposition to this, 4Q392 (1.5–6) emphasizes: ‫ואין עמו להבדיל בי ׄן האור‬ ‫לחשך כי לבני] אד[ם‬ ‫הבדילם לא]ור[ יומם ובשמש‬

32

5 6

for him,36 there is no need to separate light and darkness, because (only) for sons of [me]n he separated them for lig[ht] during daytime and with the sun,37

For the text of 4Q392 1.4: ‫הוא ברא חשך] וא[ור לו‬, and of 4Q392 1.7: ‫ועמו אור לאין חקר‬ ]‫ואין לדעת‬, see FALK, 4QWorks of God, 27–32 and pl. II. 33 See GIERE, Glimpse, 156–160. 34 See also B AUMGART, JHWH, 222–234, who finds in Isa 45.7 a theological reinterpretation and augmentation of the historical concept as it is attested in the Oracle of Cyrus with the aim to provide the reader with a rather universalistic outline. For the semantics and meaning of ‫ אוצרות חשך‬in Isa 45.3 cf. BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 398. 35 See BERGES, Jesaja 40–48, 405–406, who compares Isa 45.7 with Gen 1, but also addresses the differences. 36 FALK, 4QWorks of God, 31, assumes the meaning ‘beside, except’ for ‫( עם‬2 Chron 14.10; 1QH XX.14, 22), but cf. 4QpapJubileesh [4Q223–224] 2 I.49; 2 IV.6. 37 As FALK, 4QWorks of God, 31, rightly states, the passage is incomprehensible. The translation above cannot be more than a tentative approach. FALK, 4QWorks of God, 29, 31, discusses a conjecture by John Strugnell who interprets ‫ ובשמש‬as a misreading of ‫שמש‬ and reads [‫ לא]יר‬as a Hiph‘il infinitive of ‫ אור‬that lost its ‫( ה‬on the dropping of ‫ ה‬in texts from the Dead Sea cf. QIMRON, Hebrew, 48: §310.145): ‘so that the sun should give l[ight] by day and by night the moon and the stars’. Nevertheless, Falk suggests a different reading that reconstructs [‫ לא]ור‬and divides the cola differently: ‘but he

226

Stefan Beyerle ‫לילה ירח וכוכבים‬

and (by) night, the moon and the stars.

To sum up, 4Q392 shows affinities with Isa 45.7, but also reveals some differences if compared to creation texts and traditions.38 Further evidence confirms the combination of dualistic thinking with overtones of an ‘exclusive monotheism’. And in ancient Judaism this conjunction must undoubtedly have evoked the question of theodicy. It comes as no surprise that mainly Jewish sources from Hellenistic-Roman times provide helpful data. Most of them stem from a so-called wisdom context.

3. Monotheism and Dualism in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and in 1Q/4QInstruction The most prominent example of dualistic hermeneutics in Qumran texts, besides 1QM, is found in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ (1QS III.13– IV.26), a sapiential composition that became part of the ‘Rule of the Community’. Matthew Goff recently emphasized that the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’, prominent for its dualistic motifs, includes only meager indications of sapiential influence, while 1Q/4QInstruction, prominent for its sapiential imprinting, reveals only traces of dualistic thinking.39 On the other hand, both compositions include apocalyptic eschatology. While the ‘Rule of the Community’ declares that in the two spirits are the natures of all sons of man and that God has set them apart until the end-times ( ‫קץ‬ ‫ ;אחרון‬cf. 1QS IV.15–17), including a new creation (1QS IV.25: ‫ועשות‬ ‫)חדשה‬,40 the unresolved riddle of the compositional shape of 1Q/4QInstruction provides the reader first and foremost with apocalyptic motifs like the so-called ‘mystery that is to be’ and an eschatological visitation.41 Within recent scholarly discussions, these texts still prove that a one-sided derivation of apocalypticism from prophecy or wisdom literature is misleading.

separated them for the sons of[ ma]n – the sun for li[ght] by day and by night the moon and stars.’ 38 For the aspect of creation in 4Q392, cf. NITZAN, Idea, 254–256. 39 See GOFF, Dualism, 33–38. 40 See COLLINS, Apocalypticism, 38–41; METSO, Rule of the Community (1QS + fragments), 1170. For an insightful comparison of the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ with 1Q/4QInstruction cf. HULTGREN, Covenant, 341–349. 41 See COLLINS, Eschatology, 50–63.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

227

3.1. The ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ As generally observed, the ‘Treatise’ constructs its dualism, or better dualisms, on at least two levels.42 After the creation of the spirits of truth and, at the level of humanity, the creation of the deceit of mankind, the ‘Treatise’ extends its dualistic construction towards the heavenly world. As the text says (1QS III.17–19):43 ‫והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת‬

17

‫תבל וישם לו שתי רוחות‬ ‫להתהלכ בם עד מועד פקודתו‬

18

‫הנה רוחות‬ ‫האמת והעול‬

19

And it was he who created humanity for the dominion of earth, and he set within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the appointed time of his visitation. Behold, (these are the) spirits of truth and of deceit.

In this passage opposed spirits determine the way of life in the immanent, mundane world, as indicated by the Hitpa‘el of ‫( הלך‬cf. 1QS IV.15, 23–24; V.10–11; IX.12). On the other hand, the following passage in 1QS III.20– 21 relates the immanent way of life in its dualistic shape to the heavenly powers:44 ‫ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול‬ ‫בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו‬ ‫וביד מלאך חושכ כול‬ ‫ממשלת בני עול‬ ‫ובדרכי חושכ יתהלכו‬

20

In the hand of/Under the power of the Prince of Lights is the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness, in the ways of light they walk. 20/21 In the hand of/Under the power of the Herald of Darkness is all dominion of the Sons of Deceit, and in the ways of darkness they walk.

Already this short passage, without regard to its context, indicates the differentiation between the ‘Prince of Lights’ and the ‘Herald of Darkness’ on the one side, and the ‘Sons of Righteousness’ and the ‘Sons of Deceit’ on the other. Thus, the mundane world is populated by the ‘Sons of Righteousness’ (‫ ) בני צדק‬and the ‘Sons of Deceit’ (‫) בני עול‬, both of which appear, as a combination, only in the small fragment of 4Q468b I.5. But the ‫בני צדק‬ are also attested within contexts of a dualistic character (cf. 1QM I.8; cf. also XIII.10), and the ‫ בני עול‬may refer to the ‫ בני עולה‬which are mentioned 42 If one attends to the history of scholarship on 1QS III.13–IV.26, more than two levels or types of dualism can be identified: the two most prominent ones are the ‘psychological dualism’ of the inner-self and the ‘cosmological dualism’ that determines the way of the world. Cf. the important article of LEVISON, Spirits, 169–194. 43 For the text, cf. QIMRON AND CHARLESWORTH, Rule, 14. On the different levels, see GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, Influences, esp. 234–235. 44 For the text, cf. QIMRON AND CHARLESWORTH, Rule, 14. On ‘heavenly dualism’, cf. COLLINS, Powers, esp. 16–17.

228

Stefan Beyerle

in the Hodayot (1QH XIII.10) and in 1Q/4QInstruction (4Q418 69 II.8) in order to point to a generation without continuance.45 It is beyond any doubt that these ‫ בנים‬refer to humankind. On the other hand, for both the ‘Sons of Righteousness’ and the ‘Sons of Deceit’, their ‘dominions’ (‫ ) ממשלה‬are under the sway of the ‘Prince of Lights’ and the ‘Herald of Darkness’. The Cairo Damascus Document, whose Cave 4 fragments open with an admonition to the ‘Sons of Light’ (4QDa [4Q266] 1a–b.1), is the only text from Qumran, besides the ‘Treatise’, which refers to the ‘Prince of Light’.46 Within the admonitions the ‫שר‬ ‫ האורים‬is the counterpart to ‘Belial’, both of which raised Jannes and his brother with the help of their messengers, Moses and Aaron (CD V.18–19; cf. 4QDa [4Q266] 3 II.5; 4QDb [4Q267] 2.1; 6QD [6Q15] 3.1). Furthermore, the Hebrew expression ‫ מלאך חושך‬in 1QS III.20–21 is attested in the ‘Treatise’ only. But leaving the proper terminology aside, the metaphor of ‘light’ against ‘darkness’ serves as the most prominent dualism in Qumran (cf. 1QM and wisdom texts from Qumran).47 In addition, the angel Michael, who is called the ‘great prince’ (Dan 12.1: ‫השר‬ ‫)הגדול‬, achieves authority ‘in everlasting light’ in the War Scroll (cf. 1QM XVII.6). In this regard, the angelic expressions ‫ שר אור‬and ‫ חושך מלאך‬in 1QS III.20–21 are obviously part of a broader tradition that has constructed opposing heavenly figures.48 Even though we have already reached the heavenly realm within dualistic thinking, it is not the end – or more precisely: the beginning – of the line. Therefore, after the incipit ‘for the Maśkîl to instruct and teach all the sons of light’ (1QS III.13),49 the text refers to the ‘God of knowledge’ (1QS III.15–16):50 ‫מאל הדעות כול הויה ונהייה‬

15

From the God of Knowledge [comes] all that is and that (will) happen(s).

45 See also 4QShirb [4Q511] I.8 and J OKIRANTA, Art. ‫בן‬, 467, who also refers to 2 Sam 7.10: ‘And I will set a place for my people, Israel, and I will plant it [i.e., Israel], and it will dwell in its place, and it will not palpitate anymore, and the evil-doers (‫בני‬ ‫ )עולה‬will not proceed to afflict it, as formally’. 46 See also 1QM XIII.10: ‫ ושר מאור מאז פקדתה לעוזרנו‬, ‘the prince from light, long ago, you entrusted to our rescue’. 47 See IBBA, ‫חושך‬, 925–926, who refers also to the Aramaic ‫ מלכי רשע‬, e.g., in 4QVisions of Amram (4Q544 2.13). 48 See KOBELSKI, Melchizedek, 75–83. 49 See also the headings in 1QS IX.12, 21; 4QSb [4Q256] IX.1 par 4QSd [4Q258] I.1 and HEMPEL, Teaching, 106, 113–114, who rightly emphasizes that the distinctiveness of different headings in the various manuscripts, relating to the ‘Rule of the Community’, make it feasible that these headings signal different sub-compositions within the trajectory of the text. 50 For the text, cf. QIMRON AND CHARLESWORTH, Rule, 14.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism ‫ולפני היותם הכין כול מחשבתם‬ ‫ובהיותם לתעודותם כמחשבת‬ ‫כבודו ימלאו פעולתם‬ ‫ואין להשנות‬

16

229

And before they came into being, he ordained all their plans. And when they come into being in their fixed times, according to the plan of his glory, they fulfill their task. And nothing can be changed.

This statement sets the tone for the text as a whole: the one God above all. The ‘God of Knowledge’ is a well-known divine designation that is especially attested in 1Q/4QInstruction, in 4QMysteries and in some sectarian texts (cf. 1QH IX.28; XX.13; frag. 4.15; 4QDibHama [4Q504] 4.4; cf. 1 Sam 2.3). Furthermore, the ‘God of Knowledge’ is connected with the ideology of pre-existence and determination.51 In terms of the textual shape of the ‘Treatise’, we are at the beginning, but in terms of the hierarchy, as conceptualized in the passage, we are at the end or at the top.52 With a view to an ‘exclusive monotheism’, the question arises as to how the ‘Treatise’ describes the relationship between God and the angelic messengers. Marco Treves and Paul Heger, both of whom published articles on the topic, the former fifty years ago and the latter quite recently, answered this question rather radically by referring to Isa 45.7.53 Both deny what they call a ‘cosmological dualism’ in the ‘Treatise’. Since God is characterized as the creator of good and evil in Isaiah 45, the Qumran text cannot introduce a self-contained and autonomous class of angels and messengers. Their power is not only dependent on the one God, they simply have no power. Consequently, Treves argues for a dualism in an anthropological manner, as in the Rabbinic ‫ יצר טוב‬and ‫יצר הרע‬, while Heger denies any dualism at all in the ‘Treatise’. Both authors closely connect the disputed, and recently denied, ‘cosmic dualism’ to ideas that are heavily influenced by Persian dualistic thinking. In the end, especially Heger concludes that as the ‘Treatise’ lacks ‘cosmic dualism’, it also lacks Persian influence. But neither ‘cosmic’ functions of the angels nor even their functional power necessarily points to Persian influence; nor does a presupposed or even implicit monotheistic model in the ‘Treatise’ rapidly lead to Rabbinic

51

See also the characterization of God as a ‘God of mysteries’ and ‘knowledge’ who determines the end for the existence of injustice in 1QS IV.18: ‫ואל ברזי שכלו ובחכמת כבודו‬ ‫‘( נתן קצ להיות עולה‬the God of mysteries of his knowledge and of wisdom of his glory set an end to an existence of injustice’): for the text, see Q IMRON AND CHARLESWORTH, Rule, 18. Recently, GAGNE, Visite, 205–216, discussed the term ‫‘( פקדה‬visitation’) in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and concludes that it stands for the mighty acts of God within both a present and an eschatological or apocalyptic frame. 52 See also DAVIDSON, Angels, 149–150. 53 See TREVES, Spirits, 449–452; HEGER, Challenges, 227–310.

230

Stefan Beyerle

anthropology. 54 The ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ is, however, a multilayered composition that includes different concepts of dualism, including varying notions of monotheism. If one only gets a glimpse of the framework of the composition, the topic of ‘creation’ alludes to the model of an ‘exclusive monotheism’. While God functions as creator, it is no problem to introduce angelic powers, with reference to ‘good’ and ‘evil’, by means of a hierarchic scheme: the ‘Prince of Lights’ and the ‘Herald of Darkness’. Here, dualism has a cosmological function. At the end of the totem pole, we find mankind and the struggle of the two spirits which, consequently, evokes an anthropological or psychological type of dualism (cf. 1QS IV.15–16, 23). This type of dualism also refers to the God of creation. In 1QS III.24–25 it is stated:55 ‫ואל ישראל ומלאכ אמתו עזר‬ ‫לכול בני אור והואה ברא‬ ‫רוחות אור וחושכ‬

24

And the God of Israel and his Herald of Truth help 24/25 all Sons of Light. And it was he who created 25 Spirits of Light and Darkness.

In what follows, the text refers to the ‘works of God’ (1QS IV.3–4). Furthermore, God, who brought into existence competing spirits of good and evil, will destroy the ‘Spirit of Deceit’ (1QS IV.20–21). In conclusion, an anthropological concept of dualism as it is represented in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ fits much better with ‘exclusive monotheism’ as it is represented in Isa 45.7.56 Whether these different concepts of dualism and monotheism call for different literary layers within the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’,57 or, much more likely, whether our struggle with the logic of this text was not the struggle of the ancient writers who simply combined heterogeneous motifs in one and the same work, is hard to decide.58 Nevertheless, it is apparent that the ‘Treatise’ reflects both an ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’ approach towards the ‘one-ness’ of God. Furthermore, allusions to both types of 54

See, e.g., COHEN STUART, Struggle, 94, who opines that the ‘Treatise’ distinguishes within different personalities or sorts of mankind and not, as the Rabbis, between different intentions of the human will (but cf. also 1QS IV.23). 55 For the text, cf. QIMRON AND CHARLESWORTH, Rule, 16. 56 On the emphasized role of God in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and in the Hodayot, cf. FLUSSER, Dualism, 283–292. 57 For an analysis of literary layers, see HEMPEL, Teaching, 102–120. For ‘dualistic reworking’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see DUHAIME, Reworking, esp. 39–55, and the critical evaluation in FREY, Patterns, 286–287. 58 E.g., P OPOVIĆ, Body, 181, states, ‘The ethical and cosmic dualistic categories are interlocked with each other…’, referring to 1QS III.25–IV.1. Cf. also HEMPEL, Teaching, 113. See also Jub or 2 Macc (MACH, Concepts, 32–38). Recently, STUCKENBRUCK, Interiorization, 162, 166, pointed to the merging of cosmic, psychological and ethical dualities.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

231

‘one-ness’ suggest they stem from an intrinsic Jewish tradition without necessarily reflecting Persian antitypes. 3.2. 1Q/4QInstruction As widely acknowledged, the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and 1Q/4QInstruction share several motifs, ideas and expressions. If Eibert Tigchelaar and Charlotte Hempel are correct, both compositions share the same incipit by introducing the Maśkîl as a source of the examination that follows (cf. 1QS III.13; 4Q418 238 1; cf. also 4Q417 1 I.25).59 One may ask whether the addressee is determined by the Maśkîl. In the case of 1Q/4QInstruction some tension concerning the character of the rest of the composition would arise. Tigchelaar therefore initially opined that 1Q/4QInstruction addresses someone in Jewish society who is not a professional sage and, obviously, who is not a member of one of the sectarian communities– but later Tigchelaar shifted in favor of the Maśkîl.60 Furthermore, both texts mention ‘truth and iniquity’ (cf. 1QS III.18–19; IV.23; 4Q417 1 I.6), the ‘ways of truth’ (cf. 1QS IV.2, 17; 4Q416 2 III.14 par 4Q418 9.15) and the ‘God of Knowledge’ (cf. 1QS III.15; 4Q417 I I.8 par 4Q418 43, 44, 45 I.6 and 4Q418 55.5).61 More generally, the ‘Treatise’ and 1Q/4QInstruction especially correspond in their combination of wisdom, apocalyptic eschatology and dualistic material. It is to this combination that we now turn. 1Q/4QInstruction is a composite-work existing in at least eight copies (1Q26, 4Q415–418, 4Q418a, 4Q418c, 4Q423). It comprises pedagogical, tentative philosophical and eschatological passages and can be dated to the late third or early second century BCE.62 Armin Lange and Eibert Tigchelaar compared 1Q/4QInstruction with the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’. While Lange’s conclusion is rather optimistic, as he found both texts originating in the same circles, Tigchelaar calls for caution. Nevertheless, he listed several correspondences, and both authors agree that 1Q/4QInstruction and the ‘Treatise’ share dualistic und pre-deterministic ideas.63 But it is striking that in general ‘Instruction does not know the 59

See T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 199, 245–246; HEMPEL, Teaching, 116. For the former identification, see T IGCHELAAR, Addressees, 62–75 (but see for the latter thesis also n. 58, above). 61 See the overview of terminological parallels in the ‘Treatise’ und in 1Q/4QInstruction by T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 197–199. 62 See LANGE, Wisdom Literature, 461–465, who dates 1Q/4QInstruction between Ecclesiastes and the Hodayot. On recent statements concerning the historical context of 1Q/4QInstruction cf. KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 40–44. For the recent scholarly discussion about 1Q/4QInstruction cf. GOFF, Trends, 367–416. 63 See LANGE, Weisheit, 127–130; T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 194–203. 60

232

Stefan Beyerle

distinction between two spirits, and has no apparent interest in the protagonists of truth and deceit.’64 Though one passage, widely suspected of providing the introductory section of the composition,65 refers to the ‘faithful’ and the ‘wicked’ (4Q416 1.10–12):66 10 From the heavens he will pronounce judgment (‫ ) משמים ישפוט‬upon the work/service of wickedness. All the sons of his truth will be accepted to[ ] (]‫ ) וכל בני אמתו ׄ י ׄרצו ׄ ל‬11 (its) end and they will be terrified. And they shall feel dread, for the heavens shall fear[ ] 12 [s]eas and depths fear. Every spirit of flesh shall be laid utterly bare ( ‫ויתערערו כל רוח‬ ‫)בשר‬. And the sons of heave[n]…

The following context commences with the judgment of wickedness and the approbation of the righteous with knowledge of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Already the perspective of a world in the state of creation, and also several allusions to Genesis 2–3 in 4Q416 1 as a whole, reveal the cosmological and also eschatological dimension of the text.67 With regard to judgment, God’s sovereignty is not challenged at all, and the iniquity of the wicked is greatly elaborated. In line 12 the wicked are identified with the ‘Spirit of Flesh’ (‫) רוח בשר‬, while the ‘Sons of Heaven’ (‫ ) בני ה שמים‬function as their counterpart. Seemingly, the setting in 1Q/4QInstruction is the same as in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’: the reader finds God’s sovereignty, emphasized within a setting concerned with creation, heavenly beings and, lastly, the dualistic structure of the wicked and the faithful facing the divine judgment. Nevertheless, 1Q/4QInstruction clearly differs from the ‘Treatise’ in at least two ways: first, God’s deterministic role is further elaborated and emphasized. Here, a key-term in 1Q/4QInstruction is of basic interest. The ‫ רז נהיה‬, attested more than twenty times in the preserved fragments, points to the deterministic aspect in the text. While ‫ רז‬is a Persian-Aramaic loanword, prominent in the book of Daniel, that denotes a divine mystery to be revealed through God or an angelus interpres,68 the second part of the term represents a Niph‘al participle from ‫היה‬. Most interpreters translate ‘mystery that is to be/come’ or ‘mystery of existence’ and assume the entire range of chronological spheres: past, present and future, with a slight emphasis on the future aspect.69 Recent philological 64

T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 201 (italics in the text). Pace T IGCHELAAR (see above): cf. KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 44–45. 66 For text (and translation), cf. STRUGNELL AND HARRINGTON, 4QInstruction, 81, 83; T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 69, 74–75: for the overlap with 4Q418; KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 60–65. 67 See WOLD, Women, 90–91. 68 See W ILLI-P LEIN, Geheimnis, 162–163. 69 See HARRINGTON, Wisdom Texts, 48–49; COLLINS, Wisdom, 122; GOFF, Adam, 3; KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 46–50; STUCKENBRUCK, Interiorization, 156. For the discussion of ‫ רז נהיה‬, cf. GOFF, Wisdom, 30–79. 65

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

233

insights lead to further precision: the morphology clearly hints at a Niph‘al form, and the Niph‘al is not simply a passive stem compared to the Qal, but reflects on the progress of the described process. It emphasizes the incidence and manifestation of what happens with a view to the subject. This can be seen in those texts which utilize the Qal and Niph‘al of ‫ היה‬in the same context: And at that time stands Michael, the great prince, the one who is standing over your people, and there will be a time of distress (‫ ) והיתה עת צרה‬that never happened since there were nations (‫) אשר לא נהיתה מהיות גוי‬. (Dan 12.1a) ‫מאל הדעות כול הויה ונהייה‬

15

From the God of Knowledge [comes] all that is and that (will) happen(s). (1QS III.15 (cf. XI.4))

In both cases it is not the temporal aspect, future and past or present and future, but the difference between what generally is and what, on the other hand, specifically happens, happened or will happen, in terms of an incident.70 ‘With reference to situations which are in fact future, the participle may denote merely a circumstance accompanying a future event…’.71 Therefore, the Niph‘al participle in ‫ רז נהיה‬denotes a ‘futurum instans’ as Rüdiger Bartelmus recently concluded.72 Die Fügung kann geradezu als Musterbeispiel für die noetische Struktur des futurum instans gesehen werden: In der göttlichen Welt steht bereits fest, was sich (demnächst) ereignen wird; für Menschen ist es aber noch ein Geheimnis, das zu lüften allein dem Apokalyptiker vorbehalten ist.73

In conclusion, I would suggest the translation ‘mystery that is in the process of taking place’ for ‫ רז נהיה‬. In the context of 1Q/4QInstruction the righteous stay away from the ‘Spirit of Flesh’ that stands in contrast to the ‘Sons of Heaven’ (‫ ) בני השמים‬or to the ‘Sons of his Truth’ (ׄ ‫) בני אמתו‬. One of the most interesting passages that brings the ‘mystery’ and the ‘spirit’ together is the following (4Q416 2 III.17–18):74 17 As he has made them rule over you and formed (you) according to the spirit ( ‫המשילמה‬ ‫)בכה ו ׄי ׄצר על הרוח‬, so serve them! And as 18 he has uncovered your ear with view to75 the 70

See JENNI, Funktion, esp. 52–54; B ARTELMUS, Art. ‫היה‬, 767, 773. Here, I argue against a scholarly tendency to simply identify in the ‫ רז נהיה‬a marker of apocalyptic future orientation. Cf. the approaches in scholarship discussed in GOFF, Trends, 386–388. 71 W ALTKE AND O’CONNOR, Introduction, 627, § 37.6f (italics in the text). 72 Cf. B ARTELMUS, Art. ‫היה‬, 777–778. 73 B ARTELMUS, Art. ‫היה‬, 777 (italics in the text). 74 For text (and translation), cf. STRUGNELL AND HARRINGTON, 4QInstruction, 110, 113; T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 48: for the overlap with 4Q418; KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 73. 75 The preposition should be understood as a bet comitantiae that functions as a second accusative object besides ‫ אוזן‬: for the bet comitantiae that denotes a ‘spiritual

234

Stefan Beyerle

mystery that is in the process of taking place (‫) גלה אוזנכה ברז נהיה‬, glorify them for the sake of your own glory.

The context deals with the honoring of parents, i.e. the fifth commandment, and combines sapiential admonitions with participation in the heavenly realm (cf. 4Q416 2 III.10–12)76 for those who act according to the admonitions. The latter observation points to the second difference in 1Q/4QInstruction, when compared to the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’: the ‘Sons of Heaven’ (‫ ) בני השמים‬are, as already noted, placed in opposition to the wicked, several times referred to in 1Q/4QInstruction as ‘Spirit of Flesh’ (‫) רוח בשר‬. This dualism equates the ‘Sons of Heaven’ (cf. 4Q418 69 II.12–13) with the ‘Sons of His Truth’ (cf. 4Q416 I.10), the ‘Holy Ones’ (‫קדושים‬: cf. 4Q417 1 I.17 par 4Q418 43, 44, 45 I.13; 4Q418 81+81a 11–12) and with the ‘Spiritual People’ (‫רוח עם‬: cf. 4Q417 1 I.16 par 4Q418 43, 44, 45 I.13).77 In the so-called ‘Vision of Hagu’, probably the most famous and also most disputed text in 1Q/4QInstruction, this dualism is further explained (4Q417 frag. 2, 1 I.15–18):78 15 A book of remembrance is written before him 16 of/for those who keep his word. And that is the vision of the meditation (and/of/on) a book of remembrance ( ‫והו ׄאה חזון ההגו ׄי‬ ‫)לספר זכרון‬. And he bequeathed it to Enosh/Man/humanity together with a spiritual people (‫) וינחילונו לאנוש עם עם רוח‬79 f[o]r 17 according to the pattern of the holy ones is his fashioning (or: did he fashion him/it: ‫) כתבנית קדושים יצרו‬. And moreover, meditation has not been given (or: not did he give) to a/the fleshly spirit (‫) ועוד לוא נתן הגו ׄי ׄ לרוח בשר‬, for it does/did not distinguish between 18 [go]od and evil according to the judgment of its [sp]irit.

contact’: see J ENNI, Präposition Beth, 242–47, §262, and on the syntax of this passage cf. B ARTELMUS, Art. ‫היה‬, 778. 76 The context speaks of those who are ‘seated among the princes/nobles’. They are further appointed to have authority ‘over an inheritance of glory’ (4Q416 2 III.11–12). GOFF, Wisdom, 206–214, and KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 75–76, argue for a metaphorical sense of the ‘princes/nobles’ who are designated to share the lot of the angels. 77 See STUCKENBRUCK, Interiorization, 159–160. 78 For text (and translation), see STRUGNELL AND HARRINGTON, 4QInstruction, 151, 155; T IGCHELAAR, Learning, 52: for the overlap with 4Q418; KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 95. Recently, T IGCHELAAR, People, 103–118, has provided a new reconstruction of the text. The above text and translation follows Tigchelaar, with slight modifications. Tigchelaar also challenged some of the proposed interpretations (105– 106). 79 The second ‫ עם‬is written supralinear in the manuscript of 4Q417 1 I.16 (cf. STRUGNELL AND HARRINGTON, 4QInstruction, 151, 164 and pl. VIII).

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

235

A tremendous number of books and articles has been written on this passage.80 Tigchelaar posed several questions concerning the understanding of the text: The content or reference to the ‘book of meditation’ and its relationship to the ‘book of remembrance’ is not clear. The double reading of ‫ עם‬is open to interpretation. The riddle of the meaning of ‘judgment of his or its spirit’ is not resolved. And, finally, the semantic of ‘Spirit of the Flesh’ still awaits further clarification. What can be said on the basis of this text is that the dualism refers to two different types of humanity. One of them is represented by the ‘Spirit of the Flesh’, the other by the ‘spiritual people’. The latter is fashioned ‘according to the holy ones’. Therefore, the ‘spiritual people’ achieve an angel-like status. In another fragment of 1Q/4QInstruction, for example, they are referred to as being in the lot of the ‫( אלים‬cf. 4Q418 81+81a. 4–5), including a priestly ascent.81 Consequently, the angel-like status and related terms are organized in a hierarchical manner – here, the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ is in fact comparable. But what differs in 1Q/4QInstruction is that ‘angelic’ terminology refers to the elect and chosen people, obviously addressed in this sapiential work. In other words, the angels in 1Q/4QInstruction lack any intermediary function. 3.3. Conclusions Both texts discussed in this paper represent ancient Jewish sources stemming from early Hellenistic times, the third and second centuries BCE. Furthermore, both texts leave no doubt as to their Jewish provenance and presuppose a divine concept that should be called ‘monotheistic’ – in its widest meaning. Also, both texts are not necessarily of sectarian origin, even if their affinities to ideological aspects known from sectarian evidence cannot be disputed. Both texts combine sapiential and apocalyptic motifs wherein their specific dualisms are conceptualized.82 With view to different concepts of ‘monotheism’, from ‘summodeism’ to ‘exclusive monotheism’, the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and 1Q/4QInstruction have nuanced their ‘monotheisms’ in different ways: while the ‘Treatise’ combines both an ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’ divine 80

See the literature that is listed in T IGCHELAAR, People, 103–105 nn. 2 and 3; GOFF, Adam, 13–17. 81 See KAMPEN, Wisdom Literature, 134. See also WOLD, Women, 161–179; ANGEL, Priesthood, 61–77, esp. 77: ‘Whatever the case, this chosen community accessed God’s mysteries and was destined for eternal life by means of participation with the angels.’ 82 After listing the most intriguing parallels between the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and 1Q/4QInstruction, LANGE, Weisheit, 130, concludes: ‘Aus diesen Parallelen darf geschlossen werden, daß die Zwei-Geister-Lehre aus den Kreisen stammt, die auch 4QSap [i.e., 1Q/4QInstruction: S. B.] und Myst hervorgebracht haben.’

236

Stefan Beyerle

concept, 1Q/4QInstruction clearly prefers the ‘exclusive’ type. Helpful criteria for this difference are to be found in a more elaborated idea of divine determinism in 1Q/4QInstruction on the one hand and different dualistic concepts in both texts on the other.83

4. The ‘Ancient of Days’ and the ‘Son of Man’ When we examine the ‘inclusive’ or ‘integrative’84 monotheism as attested in Jewish writings of Persian and Hellenistic times, we can detect several categories of terms and figures, whose place and functions are in a divine sphere. John J. Collins, for example, distinguishes under the heading ‘Was Judaism Monotheistic?’, ‘angelic figures’, ‘exalted human beings’ and ‘wisdom and Logos’.85 Larry W. Hurtado discusses three types: ‘divine attributes and powers’, ‘exalted patriarchs’ and ‘principal angels’.86 Loren T. Stuckenbruck counts more categories of mediator figures: ‘divine attributes’, ‘patriarchal personages’, ‘priestly and royal figures in the literature’ and ‘eschatological ideal figures’.87 Among the latter category Stuckenbruck includes the so-called ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel 7. Nevertheless, the vast majority of scholars preferred – and still favors – a collective understanding that identifies Aramaic ‫כבר אנש‬ in Dan 7.13 symbolically with the faithful remnants of ‘Israel’ (cf. v. 27).88 Here, recent analyses of Otfried Hofius are a good case in point:89 Hofius not only presupposes a collective reading in the Aramaic text, but, beyond this, also argues for a separation of Greek υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου and παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν in Pap. 967 and Codex Chisianus (Ms. 88). Both Greek witnesses attest the reading ‘one like a Son of Man comes as the Ancient of Days’ instead of the MT’s and Pseudo-Theodotion’s ‘one like a Son of Man

83 For the somewhat unresolved riddle of combining determinism and monotheistic thinking on the one hand and dualism on the other hand, especially in the ‘Treatise of the Two Spirits’, cf. P AINTER, Monotheism, 235–239. 84 For the idea of an ‘integrative monotheism’ in Israel and in the ancient Near East, see LEVIN, Monotheismus, esp. 153–158, 169–172. 85 See COLLINS, Monotheism, 82–94. 86 See HURTADO, One God, 17–18. DAVILA, Methodology, 5–6, adds ‘Charismatic Prophets and Royal Aspirants’ and ‘Ideal Figures’ to the listed triad. 87 See STUCKENBRUCK, ‘Angels’, 47 and 47–48 n. 7. In general, STUCKENBRUCK discusses the motif of veneration of angels and, consequently, points to another aspect of ‘inclusive monotheism’ (see also HURTADO, Monotheism, 550–556). 88 See, e.g., KEEL, Geschichte, 1176. 89 See HOFIUS, Septuaginta-Text, 73–90.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

237

comes to the Ancient of Days’. 90 Whether the Greek text is a scribal error of Greek ἕως and ὡς or whether the writers intentionally changed the meaning of the text, is not Hofius’ point.91 He translated the OG version of Dan 7.13 as follows (Pap. 967):92 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶ(ν) παρῆν καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες προσήγαγον αὐτῷ Ich schaute im Gesicht der Nacht: Und siehe, auf den Wolken des Himmels kam einer, der aussah wie ein Mensch, und der, der aussah wie ein Hochbetagter, war zugegen, und die Umstehenden näherten sich ihm.

But several problems accompany this interpretation of two separated figures, referred to in the parallel stichos with ὡς: first, while a translation with ‘looks like’ or ‘in the appearance of’ is an interpretation, albeit a possible one, Hofius insinuates that different subjects are meant. Besides the fact that he does not substantiate this understanding, the parallelism speaks against such a reading.93 Second, a collective understanding of ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου in the Septuagint, same as for Aramaic ‫ כבר אנש‬in MT, is assumed, not discussed, by Hofius. Klaus Koch argued against this assumption:94 while Koch admits some morphological and semantic problems inherent in ‫ כבר אנש‬and its derivations, he states that language clearly differentiates between the ‘simplex’ and the ‘composite form’, pointing to a collective on the one hand and to an individual on the other. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the ‘composite form’ in Dan 7.13 has a collective 90

For the Greek readings Pap. 967 (second or third century CE) and Codex Chisianus (Ms. 88: tenth century CE) are relevant. They represent a pre-Hexaplaric text that is to be dated to the second or first century BCE. The Pseudo-Theodotion Greek text was probably written a little later. It is very close to the content of MT. 91 Cf. YARBRO COLLINS AND COLLINS, King, 194–198. 92 For the translation, with slight deviations, see HOFIUS, Septuaginta-Text, 87. For the OG text cf. GEISSEN, Septuaginta-Text, 108; ZIEGLER AND MUNNICH, Daniel, 338: the reading ἕως is also preferred in the Göttingen Septuagint, while ὡς appears only in the apparatus. See also KOCH AND RÖSEL, Polyglottensynopse, 202–203. Ms. 88 (and Syrohexaplar) reads ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου instead of ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, and παρῆσαν instead of προσήγαγον. 93 E.g., in Num 23.24 LXX one reads: ἰδοὺ λαὸς ὡς σκύµνος ἀναστήσεται καὶ ὡς λέων γαυριωθήσεται ‘behold the people shall rise up like a cub and shall exalt himself like a lion’. It is obvious that the subjects, marked with ὡς, refer to the same ‘people’. Much more comparable to Dan 7.13 is Ezek 1.13 LXX: καὶ ἐν µέσῳ τῶν ζῴων ὅρασις ὡς ἀνθράκων πυρὸς καιοµένων ὡς ὄψις λαµπάδων συστρεφοµένων ἀνὰ µέσον τῶν ζῴων ‘and in the midst of the living beings an appearance as of burning coals of fire, as an appearance of lambs gathered in the midst of the living beings’. Cf. also LXX in 1 Sam 2.2; Pss 34.14; 77.52; 81.7; Ezek 20.32. Furthermore, Dan 7.14 LXX possibly points to a veneration of the υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου as identified with the ‘Ancient of Days’; but cf. HURTADO, Jewish Monotheism, 19–20. 94 See KOCH, ‘Menschensohn’, 369–385.

238

Stefan Beyerle

meaning. Beyond this, Koch favors an individual, angel-like interpretation of ‫ כבר אנש‬, as proposed by John J. Collins and followed by a few other scholars.95 In short, some arguments for the individual, angelic-like interpretation: It is well known from other apocalypses that angels appear as human figures (cf., e.g., 1 En. 87.2). Also, the collective interpretation cannot explain, why on the one hand the ‘Holy Ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess the kingdom forever and forever and ever’ (Dan 7.18),96 while on the other the ‘Holy Ones took possession of the kingdom’ (7.22),97 and finally, ‘kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under all heaven were given to the people of the Holy Ones of the Most High’ (7.27).98 If the angelic-like interpretation is preferred, then the ‘kingdom’ is delivered to the leader of the host, after that to the host and, lately, to the people of the host. Furthermore, angels in the book of Daniel are addressed as appearing ‘in the likeness of a man’ (Dan 8.15: Gabriel; cf. 9.21; 10.5, 16, 18; 12.5–7). Finally, several texts of comparable provenance and style, such as the so-called ‘Son of God’-text (4Q246), speak of individual figures whose functions are comparable with those of the ‘one like a human being’ in Dan 7.

The most interesting point in the discussion between Hofius and Koch is the theological bias which leads Hofius to his conclusion. Koch speaks of the coercion to ‘keep Jesus Christ away from apocalypticism’.99 And what is more, the theses from Hofius suggest grounds for believing that the ‘Son of Man’-texts in the New Testament had a Christian origin. A collective understanding of ‫ כבר אנש‬could also eliminate the danger of ‘two powers in heaven’. Recently, Daniel Boyarin reconstructed two apocalypses in Daniel 7, one about the four beasts, written in prose (Dan 7.2–8, 11–12), the other about ‘one like a human being’ and the ‘Ancient of Days’, written in poetic style (Dan 7.9–10, 13–14).100 While Larry Hurtado left the riddle unresolved as to whether the human-like figures in Ezekiel (Ezek 1.26; 8.2) and Daniel (Dan 7.13) should be identified with angels or God, Boyarin argues decidedly for a ‘second God’, because the phrase ‘coming with the clouds 95 See especially COLLINS, Daniel, 304–310, 318–319. See also IDEM, Scepter, 171– 214; BEYERLE, Wolken, 1–52; IDEM, Son of Man, 54–58. 96 Aramaic: ‫ ויקבלון מלכותא קדישי עליונין ויחסנון מלכותא עד עלמא ועד עלם עלמיא‬. The translation ‘Most High’ (Aramaic: ‫ )עליונין‬can be disputed since, in terms of morphology, a plural is attested that probably points to the highest rank of angels. Note, however, there are no distinct criteria to distinguish between the ‘Holy Ones’, the ‘Holy Ones of the Highest Angels’ and ‘the People of Holy Ones of the Highest Angels’. 97 Aramaic: ‫ומלכותא החסנו קדישין‬. The simplex ‫ קדישין‬clearly has the heavenly host in view. 98 Aramaic: ‫( ומלכותה ושלטנא ורבותא די מלכות תחות כל שמיא יהיבת לעם קדישי עליונין‬all translations from COLLINS, Daniel, 276). 99 See KOCH, ‘Menschensohn’, 369. 100 See BOYARIN, Daniel 7, 139–162. Cf. also IDEM, Gospels, 31–52.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

239

of heaven’ could only denote a divine being.101 But this ‘duothesim’ is only valid for the apocalypse of the two thrones (vv. 9–10, 13–14) and was re-interpreted by inserting the apocalypse of the four beasts (vv. 2–8, 11– 12) and also the pesher of the vision: what followed from this combined reading was that the second God that looked like a human being changed his meaning and function: from a divine figure towards a representative of Israel.102 Boyarin’s approach is fresh and stimulating and, at the same time, highly hypothetical and, therefore, rather unconvincing. With a view to the motifs in the vision of the thrones, no one can deny that both the ‘Ancient of Days’ and the ‘one like a human being’ achieve divine status. The tradition behind the text is clearly polytheistic. But, whether the text itself, even in an earlier stratum, was polytheistic is a matter of dispute. Nevertheless, tradition and text have in common the enhancement of divine subordination, and the tradition, therefore, provided the basis for an angelic understanding of the ‘one like a human being’. What remains is that two powers act in the heavenly realm103 – another clear example for an ‘inclusive monotheism’; not least, the reception history of Dan 7 attests to this characterization. For both ancient versions of the text, like the preHexaplaric OG, and modern interpreters, like Hofius, try to read the ‘one like a human being’ in compliance with their own theology and ideology.

5. Summary Generally speaking it is dangerous to use modern terminology for interpretations of texts stemming from the Hellenistic-Roman era. But, sometimes, it helps us in distinguishing different concepts, and especially in the case of ‘monotheism’, concepts of the divine. The texts from Hellenistic times, discussed above, showed no explicit interests in the ‘one-ness’ of God, as Deutero-Isaiah and especially the Cyrus oracle. In this connection, other texts from the Dead Sea are more significant, like the ‘War Scroll’ which states in 1QM X.8–9:104 ‫מיא כמוכה אל ישראל‬ ‫בש]מי[ם ובארץ אשר יעשה‬ 101

8

Who is like you, God of Israel, in h[eav]en and on earth, who acts

See HURTADO, One God, 75–77; BOYARIN, Daniel 7, 149–150, 154–162. See BOYARIN, Daniel 7, 150–154. 103 See SEGAL, Powers; HURTADO, Jewish Monotheism, 23–25. See, furthermore, the critical review of Hurtado’s approach in RAINBOW, Jewish Monotheism, esp. 88–89, and also the critical comments on Segal’s theses in MCGRATH AND TRUEX, Two Powers, 43– 71. 104 For the text, cf. DUHAIME, War Scroll, 116. 102

240

Stefan Beyerle ‫כמעשיכה הגדולים‬ ‫וכגבורתכה החזקה‬

9

according to your great works and according to your mighty strength?

The divine incomparability can also be combined with angelic hosts in 1QM XII.1:105 ‫כיא רוב קדושים ]א[לה‬ ‫בשמים וצבאות מלאכים‬ ‫בזבול קודשכה‬ ‫לה]ודות אמת[כה‬

1

Because th[ey] are a multitude of holy ones in heaven and hosts of heralds in your holy habitation to pra[ise] your [truth].

And, lastly, evil itself finds its place within this concept of eschatological war (1QM XIII.10–11, 13):106 ‫ואתה עשיתה בליעל לשחת‬ ‫מלאך משטמה‬ ‫מיא כמוכה‬ ‫בכוח אל ישראל‬

10/11 And you [i.e. God] are the one who has made Belial for perdition, 11 a herald of hatred/Mastema. 13 Who is like you according to strength, God of Israel?

The cited passages praise God’s incomparability. They explicitly refer to God as the creator of Belial. The dualism of the ‘War Scroll’ knows of the angelic host, mentions Belial and Mastema (cf. Jub), but, contrary to the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’, God also made Belial. In this concern, the ‘War Scroll’ comes closer to the ‘exclusive monotheism’ we find in Isaiah 45. Apart from an ‘exclusive monotheism’ or its mixed-up forms in the ‘Treatise on the Two Spirits’ and 1Q/4QInstruction, the vision in Daniel 7 attests an ‘inclusive monotheism’. The angelic, human-like being is enthroned, endowed with glory and royal power and is, consequently, next to God. The divine status of the ‘Son of Man’ is not explicitly stated, but deduced from a religio-historical typology that reminds us of El and Baal or Zeus and Typhon. Thus, in the final analysis, the Aramaic text of Daniel 7 is ‘monotheistic’, its background is ‘polytheistic’. Not only the Septuagint

105 For the text, cf. DUHAIME, War Scroll, 120. RAINBOW, Christology, esp. 228–250, has shown, in a detailed list of ‘monotheistic’ expressions in canonical, as well as noncanonical, ancient Jewish and early Christian writings, that the explicit characterization of God as a superior, sovereign and incomparable divine being in early Jewish apocalyptic texts is rather meagre. Consequently, the War Scroll and the related literature from the Dead Sea represent the exception to the rule. The book of Daniel (MT), e.g., is only listed with reference to Dan 6.27 (cf. also quotations from the additions in OG of the book of Daniel: Dan LXX 3.44–45; Bel 5, 23–25, 41). References from 1 En. are missing. Furthermore, Jub 1.24–25; 10.6; 12.19–20; 15.31–32; 21.3–4; 1QM X.8–9, 11– 12 should be taken into account. Most attestations from later apocalyptic writings stem from the Sib Or, 4 Ez, 2 En or 2 Bar. 106 For the text, cf. DUHAIME, War Scroll, 122.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

241

(Ms. 88; Pap. 967) but also modern interpreters fought and fight against this understanding, impulsively, but in vain.

Bibliography ACHENBACH, R., Das Kyros-Orakel in Jesaja 44,24–45,7 im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen, ZAR 11 (2005) 155–194 ALEXANDER. P. S., The Dualism of Heaven and Earth in Early Jewish Literature and Its Implications, in: Light against Darkness. Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (JAJ.S 2), eds. A. Lange et al., Göttingen 2011, 169– 185 ANGEL, J. L., Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (StTDJ 86), Leiden/Boston 2010 B ARTELMUS, R., Art. ‫ היה‬, ThWQ 1 (2011) 762–779 B AUMGART, N. C., ‘JHWH…erschafft Unheil’. Jes 45,7 in seinem unmittelbaren Kontext, BZ 49 (2005) 202–236 B EENTJES, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VT.S 58), Leiden/ New York/Köln 1997 B ERGES, U., Jesaja 40–48 (HThK), Freiburg/Basel/Wien 2008 B EYERLE, S., ‘Der mit den Wolken des Himmels kommt’. Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefüge ‘Menschensohn’ vom Danielbuch ausgehend, in: Menschensohn und Gottessohn. Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität (BThSt 67), ed. D. Sänger, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, 1–52 – ‘One Like a Son of Man’. Innuendoes of a Heavenly Individual, in: Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. G. Boccaccini, Grand Rapids/ Cambridge 2005, 54–58 B IANCHI, U., The Category of Dualism in the Historical Phenomenology of Religion, Tem. 16 (1980) 10–25 – Art. Dualism, EncRel(E) 4 (1987) 506–512 B OYARIN, D., Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult, HThR 105 (2012) 139–162 – The Jewish Gospels. The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York 2012 B OYCE, M., A History of Zoroastrianism. Volume Two: Under the Achaemenians (HO I/8.1, 2A) Leiden/Köln 1982 COHEN STUART, G. H., The Struggle in Man between Good and Evil. An Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeṣer Hara’ (sic!), Kampen 1984 COLLINS, J. J., Daniel. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1993 – Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, London/New York 1997 – Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology, in: Aspects of Monotheism. How God Is One: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution October 19, 1996, eds. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt, Washington 1997, 81–105 – Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville 1997 – Powers in Heaven. God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), eds. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2000, 9–28

242

Stefan Beyerle

– The Eschatology of Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20–22 May, 2001 (StTDJ 51), eds. J. J. Collins et al. Leiden/ Boston 2004, 49–66 – The Scepter and the Star. Messianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2010 2 DAVIDSON, J. M., Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSP.S 11), Sheffield 1992 DAVILA, J. R., Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron. Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJ.S 63), eds. C. C. Newman et al., Leiden/ Boston/Köln 1999, 3–18 DELITZSCH, F., Zweiter Vortrag über Babel und Bibel, Stuttgart 1903 – Babel und Bibel. Ein Rückblick und Ausblick, Stuttgart 1904 D IETRICH, W., Über Werden und Wesen des biblischen Monotheismus. Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Perspektiven, in: Ein Gott allein? JHWHVerehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), eds. W. Dietrich and. M. A. Klopfenstein, Göttingen/Fribourg 1994, 13–30 D IMANT, D., Dualism at Qumran. New Perspectives, in: Caves of Enlightenment. Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997), ed. J. H. Charlesworth, North Richland Hills 1998, 55–73 DUHAIME, J., Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran, CBQ 49 (1987) 32–56 – War Scroll (1QM; 1Q33; 4Q491–496 = 4QM1–6; 4Q497), in: The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 2), Tübingen/Louisville 1995, 80–203 – Art. Dualism, EncDSS 1 (2000) 215–220 FALK, D., 4QWorks of God, in: Qumran Cave 4. XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 29), Oxford 1999, 25–44 FLUSSER, D., The ‘Flesh-Spirit’ Dualism in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament, in: D. FLUSSER, Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, Grand Rapids/Jerusalem, 2007, 283–292 FREY, J., Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on Their Background and History, in: Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies (FS J. M. Baumgarten [StTDJ 25]), eds. M. J. Bernstein et al., Cambridge 1995, Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 275–335 GAGNE, A., La visite de dieu dans l’instruction sur les deux Esprits (1QS 3:13–4:26). Caractérisation de la communauté de Qumrân et de ses ennemis, in: Defining Identities. We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (StTDJ 70), eds. F. García Martínez and M. Popović, Leiden/Boston 2008, 205–216 GAMMIE, J. G., Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature, JBL 93 (1974) 356–385 GARCÍA M ARTÍNEZ, F., Iranian Influences in Qumran?, in: IDEM, Qumranica Minora I. Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (StTDJ 63), ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, Leiden/ Boston 2007, 227–241.

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

243

– Art. ‫ברא‬, ThWQ 1 (2011) 502–506 GEISSEN, A. (ed.), Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5–12 mit Susanna, Bel et Draco sowie Esther Kap. 1, 1a–2, 15: Nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (PTA 5), Bonn 1968 G IERE, S. D., A New Glimpse of Day One. Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1:1–5 (BZNW 172), Berlin/New York 2009 GOFF, M., The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (StTDJ 50), Leiden/ Boston/Köln 2003 – Recent Trends in the Study of Early Jewish Wisdom Literature. The Contribution of 4QInstruction and Other Qumran Texts, CBibR 7 (2009) 376–416 – Adam, the Angels and Eternal Life. Genesis 1–3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction, in: Studies in the Book of Wisdom (JSJ.S 142), eds. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, Leiden/Boston 2010, 1–21 – Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran, in: Dualism in Qumran (LSTS 76), ed. G. G. Xeravits, London/New York 2010, 20–38 HARRINGTON, D. J., Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls), London/New York 1996 HEGER, P., Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues (StTDJ 100), Leiden/Boston 2012 HEMPEL, C., The Teaching on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community (LSTS 76), in: Dualism in Qumran, ed. G. G. Xeravits, London/New York 2010, 102–120 HOFIUS, O., Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7,13–14. Erwägungen zu seiner Gestalt und seiner Aussage, ZAW 117 (2005) 73–90 HULTGÅRD, A., Persian Apocalypticism, in: The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. J. Collins, New York 1998, 39–83 HULTGREN, S., From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community. Literary, Historical, and Theological Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (StTDJ 66), Leiden/ Boston 2007 HURTADO, L. W., One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, London 1988 – First-Century Jewish Monotheism, JSNT 71 (1998) 3–26 – Art. Monotheism, in: The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2010, 961–964 – Monotheism, Principal Angels, and the Background of Christology, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins, Oxford 2010, 546–564 IBBA, G., Art. ‫ חושך‬, ThWQ 1 (2011) 925–928 JENNI, E., Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 1: Die Präposition Beth, Stuttgart et al. 1992 – Zur Funktion der reflexiv-passiven Stammformen im Biblisch-Hebräischen, in: IDEM, Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments, eds. B. Huwyler and K. Seybold, Stuttgart et al. 1997, 51–60 J OKIRANTA, J., Art. ‫ בן‬, ThWQ 1 (2011) 462–473 DE J ONG, A., Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins, Oxford 2010, 479–500 KAMPEN, J., Wisdom Literature (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls), Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2011

244

Stefan Beyerle

KEEL, O., Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 2 (Orte und Landschaften der Bibel IV.1), Göttingen 2007 KNAUF, E. A., Ist die Erste Bibel monotheistisch?, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus and Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82), eds. M. Oeming and K. Schmid, Zürich 2003, 39–48 KOBELSKI, P. J., Melchizedek and Melchireša‘ (CBQ.MS 10), Washington DC 1981 KOCH, K., Monotheismus und Angelologie, in: IDEM, Vor der Wende der Zeiten. Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur, Gesammelte Aufsätze 3, eds. U. Gleßmer and M. Krause, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996, 219–234 – Der ‘Menschensohn’ in Daniel, ZAW 119 (2007) 369–385 KOCH, K. AND M. RÖSEL (eds.), Polyglottensynopse zum Buch Daniel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000 KRÜGER, T., Einheit und Vielfalt des Göttlichen nach dem Alten Testament, in: Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie X: Trinität (MThSt 49), eds. W. Härle and R. Preul, Marburg 1998, 15–50 LANGE, A., Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (StTDJ 18), Leiden/New York/Köln 1995 – Wisdom Literature and Thought in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins, Oxford 2010, 455–478 LEUENBERGER, M., ‘Ich bin Jhwh und keiner sonst’. Der exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1–7 (SBS 224), Stuttgart 2010 LEVIN, C., Integrativer Monotheismus im Alten Testament, ZThK 109 (2012) 153–175 LEVISON, J. R., The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology, in: The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, Waco 2006, 169–194 LORETZ, O., Die Einzigkeit eines Gottes im Polytheismus von Ugarit. Zur Levante als Ursprungsort des biblischen Monotheismus, in: Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients (AOAT 298), eds. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot, Münster 2002, 71–89 LEONHARDT B ALZER, J., Art. Dualism, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2010, 553–556 MACDONALD, N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT II/1), Tübingen 2012 2 MACH, M., Concepts of Jewish Monotheism During the Hellenistic Period, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJ.S 63), eds. C. C. Newman et al., Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999, 21–42 MCGRATH, J. AND J. TRUEX, ‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, JBSt 4 (2004) 43–71 METSO, S., Art. Rule of the Community (1QS + fragments), in: The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2010, 1169–1171 MOBERLY, R. W. L., How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?, in: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT.S 263), eds. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North, London/New York 2004, 216–234 N ITZAN, B., The Idea of Creation and Its Implications in Qumran Literature, in: Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT.S 319), eds. H. Graf Reventlow and Y. Hoffman, Sheffield 2002, 240–264 P AINTER, J., Monotheism and Dualism, in: Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BEThL 184), eds. G. Van Belle et al., Leuven 2005, 225–243

Monotheism, Angelology, and Dualism

245

P HILONENKO, M., La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux esprits. Ses origins iraniennes et les prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme antique, in: Apocalyptique iranienne et dualisme qoumrânien (Recherches Intertestamentaires 2), eds. Widengren et al., Paris 1995, 163–211 P OPOVIĆ, M., Reading the Human Body. Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (StTDJ 67), Leiden/Boston 2007 Q IMRON, E., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29), Winona Lake 1986, 2008 Q IMRON, E. AND J. H. CHARLESWORTH, Rule of the Community (1QS; cf. 4QS MSS A–J, 5Q11), in: The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 1), Tübingen/Louisville 1994, 1–51 RAINBOW, P. A., Monotheism and Christology in I Corinthians 8. 4–6, D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford 1987 – Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology. A Review Article, NT 33 (1991) 78–91 RÖMER, T. C., Tendances dualistes dans quelques écrits bibliques de l’époque perse, Trans. 23 (2002) 45–58 SEGAL, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25), Leiden 1977 SMITH, M. S., God in Translation. Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (FAT 57), Tübingen 2008 STAUSBERG, M., Monotheismus, Polytheismus und Dualismus im Alten Iran, in: Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients (AOAT 298), eds. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot, Münster 2002, 91–111 – Die Religion Zarathushtras. Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale, Bd. I, Stuttgart/Berlin/ Köln 2002 STEGEMANN, H. et al. (eds.), 1QHodayota. With Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f (DJD 40), Oxford 2009 STOLZ, F., Einführung in den biblischen Monotheismus (Die Theologie), Darmstadt 1996 STRUGNELL, J. AND D. J. HARRINGTON (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār Lě Mēvîn): 4Q415 ff. (DJD 34), Oxford 1999 STUCKENBRUCK, L. T., ‘Angels’ and ‘God’. Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism, in: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT.S 263), ed. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North, London/New York 2004, 45–70 – The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism. The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III:13–IV:26) in its Traditio-Historical Context, in: Light against Darkness. Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (JAJ.S 2), eds. A. Lange et al., Göttingen 2011, 145–168 T IGCHELAAR, E. J. C., The Addressees of 4QInstruction, in: Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998 (STDJ 35), eds. D. K. Falk et al., Leiden /Boston/Köln 2000, 62–75 – To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones. Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (StTDJ 44), Leiden/Boston/ Köln 2001 – ‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’. Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians, in: Echoes from the Caves. Qumran and the New Testament (StTDJ 85), ed. F. García Martínez, Leiden/Boston 2009, 103–118 TREVES, M., The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community, RdQ 11 (1961) 449–452

246

Stefan Beyerle

ULRICH, E. AND P. W. FLINT (eds.), Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions (DJD 32.1), Oxford 2010 – Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (DJD 32.2), Oxford 2010 W ALTKE, B. K. AND M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990 W ILLI-P LEIN, I., Das Geheimnis der Apokalyptik, in: EADEM, Sprache als Schlüssel. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, eds. M. Pietsch and T. Präckel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002, 159–176 W ILLIAMS, A., The Theological Significance of Dualism in the Three Times of Zoroastrian Eschatology, in: Zeit und Ewigkeit als Raum göttlichen Handelns. Religionsgeschichtliche, theologische und philosophische Perspektiven (BZAW 390), eds. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, Berlin/New York 2009, 53–66 W OLD, B. G., Women, Men, and Angels. The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar LeMevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions (WUNT II.201), Tübingen 2005 YARBRO COLLINS, A. AND J. J. COLLINS, King and Messiah as Son of God. Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids /Cambridge 2008 ZIEGLER, J. AND O. MUNNICH (eds.), Susanna–Daniel–Bel et Draco (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI.2), Göttingen 1999

Worship and Idolatry in the Book of Daniel through the Lens of Tertullian’s De idololatria J ENNIE GRILLO In introducing their study of idolatry within Judaism, Halbertal and Margalit observe that ‘different concepts of God create, when reversed, different concepts of idolatry. Different religious sensibilities conceive of the alien or the enemy in totally different terms’.1 Borrowing that description, what I seek to do in this essay is to understand alien religion in the book of Daniel as a way of being exposed to the religious sensibility and the concept of God which has conceived of that enemy, and as Halbertal and Margalit’s language indicates I assume those opposed categories will have an affective relationship as well as a conceptual one. Trying to understand the monotheism of the book of Daniel by understanding the book’s notion of idolatry means, of course, applying not one but two categories which are not native to the world of the text: Greek εἰδωλολατρία is not attested in the biblical corpus before the New Testament.2 But in applying that non-native category of idolatry to the book of Daniel I assume that when the three friends talk about not serving Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, or when the visions speak of a desolating abomination in the place of regular sacrifice (8.13; 9.27; 11.31; 12.11), they are dealing with the same phenomenon that rabbinic usage would later call strange worship, or that Greek and Christian theological thinking would call idolatry. 3 To work out what idolatry looks like in the book of Daniel, I begin by examining some different examples of reverence which have seemed to later readers like contradictions; these dissonances take us to the 1

HALBERTAL AND MARGALIT, Idolatry, 1. These two later notions of monotheism and idolatry do at least have a logical relation to one another from their intertwined history in thinking about religion: Nathan MacDonald has pointed out that before the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century shift to characterizing religions by their propositions rather than their piety, the opposite of ‘monotheism’ was not ‘polytheism’ but ‘idolatry’: see MACDONALD, Origins of Monotheism, 211 n. 38. 3 For the continuities and innovations in the Jewish Greek development of εἴδωλον and εἰδωλολατρία as ways of speaking about the Hebrew Bible material, see HAYWARD, Observations, and B ÜCHSEL, εἴδωλον, 373–380. 2

248

Jennie Grillo

points where the writers’ assumptions about what idolatry is are different from the ones which later readers might bring to the text.

1. Worship Given and Withheld in Daniel I will mention two sets of formal contradictions. First, and most famously, the three Judeans refuse the command to fall down and worship the golden statue, whereas Nebuchadnezzar, in exactly the same terms, has just fallen down and worshipped Daniel for explaining his dream (the verbs in both cases are ‫ נפל‬and ‫סגד‬, 2.46 and 3.18). The parallels between these two scenes are rather exact, and they shape it as a cultic action in each case. On the one hand, the statue is described with the clichés of idolatry: it is giant and golden, like divine statues across the ancient world,4 and it is set up and consecrated, in the terms typical of biblical anti-idolatry polemic;5 displayed against this, Nebuchadnezzar’s veneration of Daniel has embarrassed commentators since antiquity with its full and frank cultic apparatus of a grain offering and incense.6 Certainly we could read a distinction between worshipping Daniel (2.46) and confessing Daniel’s God (2.47), but this is only replicated by the distinction made throughout chapter 3 between worshipping the golden statue and serving Nebuchadnezzar’s gods; it mutes none of the likeness which readers have found so uncomfortable, but simply puts Daniel in the position of the golden idol.7 I am not convinced that the undoubted echo of the foreign rulers who bow down to Israel in the book of Isaiah (Isa 49.7, 23; 60.14) should be made to do the work of theological apology here; rhetorically, the prostration of Nebuchadnezzar is simply a satisfying climax to what is in part a conversion story. There is a lack of felt theological tension in the text which should make us look at something other than a grammar of gestures to understand what idolatry is for the writers of Daniel.8 4 COLLINS, Daniel, 180, gives ancient parallels for giant golden figures; all are images of gods. 5 DICK, Parodies, 1–53. 6 See COLLINS, Daniel, 171–172, for rabbinic and early Christian solutions. FEWELL, Circle, 62, puts it down to Nebuchadnezzar’s confusion or to Daniel’s limitations in accepting what he should not have accepted. 7 For the pair ‘serve your gods (‫ )פלח‬/ worship the statue (‫ ’)סגד‬see 3.12, 14, 18. The placing of the statue story directly after the dream interpretation makes the juxtaposition all the more acute: since Daniel is absent from the action of chapter 3, the abiding image of him is the previous scene’s closing tableau of Daniel receiving from the prostrate Nebuchadnezzar the worship which his friends would now die to withhold. 8 The only hint of a distinction in gestures which I can find in the book is that the service of the Ancient of Days in 7.10 is not ‫ פלח‬but ‫ – שמש‬is a deliberate distinction made

Worship and Idolatry

249

A second apparent clash in Daniel’s language of worship and idolatry occurs between this same tale and a recurring image later in the book. As well as ‫ נפל‬and ‫סגד‬, Daniel 3 also makes use of the slightly broader term ‫( פלח‬usually translated ‘serve’), which has stronger cultic resonances and only has gods as its object in this tale: the three friends insist that ‘we will not serve (‫ )פלח‬your gods’, only ‘our God, whom we serve (‫( ’)פלח‬3.17–18; see also 3.12–14, 3.28).9 But this service which is reserved for the God of the Judeans in chapter 3 is then given in the vision of chapter 7 to the Son of Man (all people, nations and languages serve him, ‫יפלחון‬, 7.14) and to the people of the holy ones of the Most High (all dominions will serve them, ‫יפלחון‬, 7.27); this is the language of cultic worship given otherwise than to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, which is what they were willing to die not to do (3.28). The difference is not explicable as simply a shift between two thought-worlds in the tales and the visions – say, a sharply exclusive monotheism in the tales and a more calibrated celestial world in the visions10 – because the editorial shaping of chapter 7’s vision claims for it a continuity with chapter 3’s notion of what is false and true worship. Specifically, in the cultic service offered to the one like a son of man there are recollections of the worship of the golden statue: ‘all peoples, nations and languages’ serve that figure (7.14), the same audience that the musicians summoned to the idolatrous worship of the statue (3.4); it is essentially a deliberate inversion of the false worship in chapter 3, rather than a new category of a different sort of veneration. Or, a link between the worship in the tales and the worship in the visions is created when the liturgical language of praise that was earlier directed toward the Most High is later reapplied to both the one like a Son of Man and the people of the holy ones of the Most High: the language of their everlasting kingdom that shall not be destroyed (7.14, 27) recalls Nebuchadnezzar’s hymns (3.33 and 4.31), and the doxology of Darius’ decree (6.27). The cultic service of the one and the many in chapter 7, then, is constructed on the model of the worship which was reserved for the Most High in the earlier chapters.11 All this cuts across any typology of mediator figures

here, so that the one like a Son of Man is not equal to the Ancient of Days but nevertheless receives veneration? 9 See HALOT, V 1957. Daniel’s service of his God is also described with the same verb in 6.17, 21. 10 For example, for Michael Mach the book of Daniel contains a bold ‘composite concept of “monotheisms”’ in its final redaction, because the faithful struggle to preserve monotheism in the court tales is in tension with the introduction of angels of the nations in the visions; see MACH, Concepts of Jewish Monotheism, 38. 11 A parallel though less developed collision also exists over the practice of ‘making petitions’ (‫)בעה‬: in chapter 6 Daniel resists Darius’ demand to make petitions exclusively

250

Jennie Grillo

occupying different levels of what has been called ‘venerative status’, such as we find in scholarship on Jewish antecedents to the worship of Jesus; those grids which arise out of a different group of texts seem not to map usefully onto this material.12 So a hierarchy of venerated figures works no better than a grammar of gestures to parse out the diversity of worship practices as they are sometimes withheld and sometimes given in the book of Daniel. These observations, however, should not be used to recruit the book of Daniel in support of a construction of early Jewish monotheism as ultraflexible and promiscuous in its ideas about who can be worshipped; instead, what is interesting here is the book’s lack of engagement with those issues. To highlight this absence of anxiety about definition around worship and idolatry, it is worth briefly comparing the book of Daniel in this respect with other strands of tradition within early Judaism. Daniel’s silence when Nebuchadnezzar falls at his feet contrasts with the angelic refusal tradition which we meet across a wide range of other early Jewish texts, mostly later than the book of Daniel (though not all, such as Tobit).13 This formulaic refusal of worship by an angel or another intermediary figure does not appear where we might expect it to in Daniel: in chapter 8, Daniel is twice described as falling to the ground in his fear at the approach of Gabriel (8.17–19), but the narration lacks even the weakest form of the angelic refusal tradition, ‘Do not fear’. Gabriel simply tells Daniel to understand, picks him up and tells him to listen; there is no perceptible anxiety about what is in other texts a worrying posture of veneration before an angel. Or in the encounter with the heavenly being of chapter 10, which has more of the apparatus of an angelophany with its descriptions of the messenger’s radiant appearance, Daniel is told not to fear (10.12, 19), but there is no trace of the rebuke which elsewhere construes that fear as inappropriate worship (simply ‘Do not fear, greatly beloved, you are safe’) and the encounter lacks any of the other form-critical elements of the angelic refusal scene, like the command to fear God instead or the explanation that the angel is only a fellow-servant with the visionary.14 Stuckenbruck sees the refusal tradition as a new effort of definition, securing the borders of monotheism; he traces the development whereby strictures and to the king, perhaps felt to amount to divine honours, but at 2.16 and 2.49 he has unproblematically done this to a king. 12 See, for instance, DAVILA, Methodology, 3–18. 13 The classic study is STUCKENBRUCK, Angel. 14 Stuckenbruck in fact gives Dan. 8 as one example among many where ‘in biblical and early Jewish writings any one of the above-mentioned reactions to the presence of an angel or human superior is frequently not deemed an act which runs at all counter to the worship of one God’ (STUCKENBRUCK, Angel, 82 [italics original]).

Worship and Idolatry

251

fences that kept out pagan idolatry in earlier biblical texts are put to use against the possibility of idolatry within the imagined community of the God of Israel.15 He finds that tradition most at home ‘in a literary context which combines a prohibition to safeguard monotheism, on the one hand, with a common interest in angelology, on the other’;16 Daniel combines both of these interests, and yet for these authors monotheism does not yet seem to feel vulnerable from within.

2. Idolatry in Tertullian’s De idololatria To uncover the rationale behind the book of Daniel’s wide scatter of worship practices and its mixture of loosely guarded borders and closely policed ones, we might use a way of thinking about idolatry borrowed from early third-century North African Christianity in the writings of Tertullian. Tertullian’s De idololatria is the most systematic treatise on idolatry in early Latin Christianity, probably written between 203 and 206.17 For Tertullian, idolatry is simply any honour given to divine beings outside the Christian system, whether that honorific practice is cultic or not (‘If it is an idol’s honour, without doubt an idol’s honour is idolatry’, 15.1):18 so, being a schoolteacher means committing idolatry (though being a pupil does not) because a schoolteacher’s job requires him to speak about the old Roman gods in a way which lends them honour and credibility (10); stopping work on a public holiday which is the festival of a god is idolatry, because it gives honour to the god who is commemorated (10); hanging lamps on thresholds is idolatry because there are gods of thresholds (15.4, 7). The Christian wandering around in a world crowded with diverse idols needs constant vigilance against giving any of them any sort of honour and thus falling into the sin of idolatry (‘serving the demons, or treating them respectfully’, 8). In this sense Tertullian’s definition of idolatry is quite wide because all kinds of behaviour, and not only cultic acts, can be idolatrous. Guy Stroumsa has contrasted Tertullian’s treatise in this respect with Mishnah Avodah Zarah, which is a roughly contemporaneous and strikingly similar negotiation of the same issues; Stroumsa suggests that in 15

STUCKENBRUCK, Angel, 87, 91–92. STUCKENBRUCK, Angel, 271. 17 Dates according to the most recent editors of De idololatria, W ASZINK AND VAN W INDEN, Tertullian’s De idololatria, 10; all translations are from this volume. For a general treatment, see VAN W INDEN, Idolum, 108–114. 18 3.3 offers the etymological evidence, then reads Inde idololatria omnis circa / omne idolum famulatus et servitus. For Tertullian’s practice of definition here, see SIDER, Rhetoric, 101–102, 106. 16

252

Jennie Grillo

early Christian thinking the scope of idolatrous behaviour is so broad because worship is wider than cult alone for Christians – he sets this against the narrower patterns of behaviour that carry cultic value for the Jewish authorities behind Avodah Zarah.19 In this respect, the categories with which the book of Daniel thinks anticipate the rabbinic tradition more than they do Tertullian, since anxiety about idolatry in Daniel focuses around cultic acts: bowing before a consecrated statue, the worship in the Jerusalem temple, the misuse of sacred vessels. But in another dimension Tertullian’s idea of idolatry has an elasticity which matches well the diversity of behaviour stigmatized in Daniel. Although the practice of idolatry in Tertullian is potentially broad, his understanding of it is nevertheless strikingly narrow: all these different kinds of honour are only idolatrous when they are offered to the deities or the sacred things of an alien religious system. Tertullian is not at all interested in the move made in some New Testament expressions whereby idolatry comes to have a transferred, non-cultic usage, so that greed is idolatry (Eph 5.5, Col 3.5) – and of course this usage is later hugely developed to become probably the predominant sense of idolatry in modern discourse, where idols of power and money and ideology have no connection to any cultic system. That figurative extension of idolatry is not present in Tertullian: he is certainly worried about the ‘creep’ of idolatry into new areas (‘Amid these reefs and inlets, amid these shallows and straits of idolatry, Faith, her sails filled by the Spirit of God, navigates; safe if cautious, secure if intently watchful’, 24), but this spread of idolatry to lurk and trip up the careless is always by contiguity rather than by metaphorical equivalence – so, idolatry spreads to include making handicrafts that are used to decorate an idol’s temple, or taking a job as the civic official who organizes sacrificial banquets, but none of these are seen as metaphorical parallels to cultic idolatry; rather, they simply help real cultic idolatry to happen.20 For Tertullian, idolatry for Christians is centrally and always any dealings on good terms with other deities; idolatry is diagnosed by the presence of other gods. Now it is true that in Tertullian the commonality between all these diverse other gods is that demons are behind them, pouncing upon every divine statue or episode of imperial cult to suck up the worship offered there for themselves; all idolatrous worship is really offered to demons, which is

19

STROUMSA, Idolatry, 173–184. ‘Therefore, we urge men generally to such kinds of handicrafts as do not come in contact with an idol indeed, and the things which are appropriate to an idol’; see too ch. 11. 20

Worship and Idolatry

253

a widespread view with its roots in the Hebrew Bible.21 But the important thing for my analysis is that all the places where demons take up residence in Tertullian’s world are the sacred things of non-Christian religious systems, things that belong to the cultic sphere: we never find a demon inhabiting an everyday object or a commemorative sculpture of a victorious general, and so although for Tertullian idolatry is strictly speaking honour offered to demons, we could rephrase it as honour offered to the gods or sacred objects or holy places of any specifically cultic tradition other than Tertullian’s readers’ own religious system. This definition is narrow and economical because it focuses on the single factor of cultic otherness, instead of a gradation of how much reverence is too much or how near or far a divine mediator is to or from God.22

3. Tertullian’s Idolatry in Daniel Applied to the book of Daniel, the single factor of cultic otherness has a heuristic value in locating the instinct behind the variety of venerative behaviour that I mentioned before. From the perspective of the circles who composed the book, Nebuchadnezzar’s cultic statue and his gods occupy a prohibited space of alien deity which is what differentiates them from all the other objects of an identical veneration outside that zone. We could think of the divide as a single vertical line separating alien deity from everything else, rather than a series of horizontal gradations of which beings may and may not receive which degrees of veneration. The honour which is prohibited within that alien divine sphere, when the friends refuse to worship the statue, is given rather indiscriminately outside it to Daniel, to the faithful Judeans, to the heavenly Son of Man. Outside the prohibited sphere of alien deity, an ordinary man can accept offering and sacrifice as Daniel does from Nebuchadnezzar, and even Nebuchadnezzar himself in chapter 2 can receive the petitions that in chapter 6 only God receives – this is a specifically cultic otherness rather than foreignness itself, even the foreignness of Gentile power. This way of thinking about idolatry reveals an allergic reaction against even doing everyday honours to alien objects of cult, alongside a complete absence of an equal sense of danger when it comes to creatures within the Judeans’ own religious system; all the ki21 This is a view understood from Deut 32.17 and Ps 106.37, and attested in the New Testament and elsewhere in early Judaism, most explicitly in the Enochic literature whose canonicity Tertullian defended (see ch. 4, where he attributes the idea to Enoch); see further BRAUN, Sacralité, 340. 22 For the importance of the principle of simplicity in the thought of Tertullian, see OSBORN, Tertullian, esp. 1–26.

254

Jennie Grillo

netic energy of repulsion which gives the accusation of idolatry its emotive power is generated by the otherness of what is construed as the object of idolatry. Anxiety about idolatry is not focused on the risk of worshipping created things rather than the creator: actually, the realm of creation is rather neutral until it is drawn into the toxic orbit of alien deity. Tertullian’s single category of alien cult to circumscribe the objects of idolatry is also a helpful way of understanding the place of Antiochus Epiphanes in the book of Daniel’s sensibility. Obviously verses like 11.36– 37, ‘He shall exalt himself and consider himself greater than any god…he shall pay no respect to any other god, for he shall consider himself greater than all’, do show that for the circles who produced the book, Antiochus was felt to pose a threat to monotheistic practice in his own person, and not just in his cultic reforms.23 But we can perhaps be more precise about the nature of that felt menace. Many commentators make a link between hubris and idolatry, but hubris alone does not quite do all the work of creating an actual cultic threat: hubris has a typical quality which the book parades, by telling stories of Antiochus’ Babylonian and Persian forerunners and by setting him within a visionary typology of long eras of reduplicating proud kings.24 Hubris alone does not distinguish Antiochus from other iterations of that type, like the king of exalted heart in 11.12, or the recurring king ‘who does as he pleases’ (11.3, 16, 36). Antiochus has a newness about him: he is the culmination of the empire which is called ‘different from all that came before it’ (7.7, 19, 23), and within that empire he himself is the king who is ‘different from the former ones’ (7.24) and ‘will do what his fathers and his fathers’ fathers did not do’ (11.24). Rather than hubris alone, I suggest that the category of alien deity best explains the threat that Antiochus poses to the monotheism of the book. This distinction between the hubris of a tyrant and a more specific threat of idolatry is focussed in Daniel 3 by the dedication of the statue, which finds a counterpart in Tertullian’s notion of consecration as the marker of the objects of idolatry. In Daniel 3 as in Tertullian, what designates idols as such is an act of deliberate, public and socially intelligible marking-off of the realm of alien cult: for Tertullian this is consecration (consecratio), with its counterpart in Daniel in the dedication (ḥanukkah) of the statue.25 23

TCHERIKOVER, Civilization, 181–182 demonstrates the implausibility of the idea that Antiochus wished to set up a new ‘pagan monotheism’ with the worship of himself in the form of Zeus Olympios at its core; yet he notes at the same time that this is how it seems to have been imagined by the authors of Jewish sources such as 1 Maccabees and Daniel. For a similar distinction see COLLINS, Daniel, 321–322. 24 On the typical, undifferentiated quality of the kings in the stories of Daniel 1–6 see KRATZ, Translatio, 131 n. 217. 25 ‘And, of course, we know that, though these are empty and fictitious names, nevertheless, when they are used for superstition, they draw to themselves the demons and

Worship and Idolatry

255

Consecration for Tertullian creates a bond which draws demons to live in an object of idolatry; that is its effect, but the important thing for my analysis is its social significance as the act marking the crossing of the vertical line which separates the everyday from the sphere of cult. The ḥanukkah of the statue for the friends in Daniel 3 operates like the consecration of door-frames to the gods of doors for Tertullian’s Christians: it designates alien cult. Of course, in Daniel 3 the golden statue is certainly not a straightforward representation of the king, but there is a blurring between the two when this tale is placed straight after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a statue: the two chapters together invite us to see the figure of gold as a defiant counter-claim made by the head of gold, Nebuchadnezzar, undoing the destruction of the first statue and remaking it entirely in his own golden image; the blurred line between the king and the statue provides a way for the authors of Daniel to register their sense of Antiochus’ assimilation into the sphere of alien deity. 26 It is this, rather than only the human hubris of a tyrant, which constitutes the specific threat of idolatry. In the case of Antiochus too, the Daniel-authors’ understanding of idolatry is irreducibly religious and defines its objects by their membership of the sphere of alien deity. Overall, what we gain from this heuristic use of Tertullian is the ability to say that idolatry in Daniel is the worship (Daniel is here more specific than Tertullian’s honor) of alien deity. That could sound like something of a truism; but this is in fact a very narrow understanding of idolatry against definitions that expand it out of the cultic sphere to take in any trust, obedience, or love of anything other than God, or excessive reliance on any created good. That broadly Lutheran understanding of idolatry, with its roots in the New Testament, has come to predominate in much discussion, even though it is a secondary, figurative development based on the spiritualization of cult; so there is some usefulness in Tertullian forcing us to register that certain strands of even late Hebrew Bible thinking still conceive of idolatry in a concretely cultic sense. The other approach to idolatry which is challenged by looking at Daniel through Tertullian is the habit of defining it by gradations of worship practices and intermediary figures: this certainly responds to a way of thinking in other (generally later) texts, every impure spirit by means of the bond brought about by consecration’ (15.5). See BRAUN, ‘Sacré’, 48: consecratio speaks basically of ‘l’acte par lequel on introduit quelqu’un ou quelque chose dans le ius diuinum’. Cf. KOEP, Consecratio, 269, where the sense is ‘die Herausnahme eines Gegenstandes aus dem Bereich des “profanum” (dies kontradiktorisch zu “sacrum”) und seine Zueignung an die Gottheit durch den Menschen, und zwar ursprünglich nicht in privatem Weiheakt, sondern durch amtlichen Vollzug’. 26 For discussion of various interpretations of the relation between king and statue, see LACOQUE, Daniel, 58–59.

256

Jennie Grillo

but it does not seem to apply to the book of Daniel, where a single vertical divide marks off alien deity, rather than a system of fences within the sphere of the God of Israel. Here, too, the perspective of Daniel contrasts with much of the history of discourse around idolatry, where elements within the same religious system have often attracted more of the force of anti-idolatry polemic than the actually alien. Understanding idolatry in Daniel this way, I suggest three conclusions about how the book relates to some of the usual indexes of monotheism: I will consider in turn the issues of the existence of other gods; universalism; and the relationship of monotheism to early Jewish identity.

4. The Existence of Other Gods The book of Daniel shows very little interest in the question of whether other gods exist or not. In the most pressing situations, the rhetoric of nothingness is strikingly absent: the friends’ protest in chapter 3 is only the simple ‘we will not worship your gods’, with no question about their godhood, and no squeamishness about calling them gods such as we would have found in Ezekiel, for example.27 The only conventional ‘monotheistic’ rhetoric in this chapter in fact comes from Nebuchadnezzar: he uses the terminology of ‘there is no other’ (3.29), but on the more exemplary level of the friends, the refusal of other gods is at the level of practice and not of theory. Nebuchadnezzar’s credo is set against the much less abstract formulation of their own faith: ‘if our god is able to deliver us’, in contrast to the king’s ‘there is no other god who is able to deliver like their God’.28 The king, and not the Jews, comes closest to the voice of the canonical monotheist in this story. Ernst Axel Knauf speaks of what he calls the exclusive monotheism of the Judeans in the book, in which their god is the only god, but the only expression of this he gives is in the Greek editions: he cites Dan 3.45, where Azariah prays for enemies to ‘know that you are the only God’ (γνώτωσαν ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς µόνος).29 But in the Hebrew and Aramaic book of Daniel, theoretical abstractions like this are missing. This is not to suggest that the book of Daniel contends for the existence of other gods, and in fact calling Belshazzar’s images ‘gods’ probably means that here the old prophetic identification of images with their deities has become naturalized – there really is no more to the Babylonians’ gods 27

See KUTSKO, Heaven, 35–42. See COXON, Daniel III 17. 29 KNAUF, Bibel, 46–47. 28

Worship and Idolatry

257

than these objects.30 But in the parenetic thrust of the book as it speaks to Jews under pressure to apostasize, the rhetoric of non-existence seems to have offered the authors remarkably little purchase. We may find an explanation for the book of Daniel’s backing-away from the rhetoric of nothingness in a matching rhetorical gap in Tertullian, for whom demons do exist, and therefore idolatry has a real and dangerous object. Correspondingly, for the circles who completed the book of Daniel, the language of non-existence would have little valency in a situation where the being felt to pose the threat of false worship is not Bel or Nebo but a real man; Antiochus has a newly objective existence. The idol-polemic of Daniel is thus unusual, constructed for a situation where the threat to monotheism is uniquely human and undeniably alive.31 The book presents a fiercely practical monotheism without ontological scruples, defined apart from the issue of non-existence.

5. Universalism I have been speaking of idolatry in the book as the worship of alien deity, but the powerful charge carried by that defining notion of alienness means that the book is centrally preoccupied with the fear of Judeans worshipping other gods. There is no corresponding level of anxiety about whom non-Judeans are worshipping, which puts a question to Klaus Koch’s assertion that Daniel ‘presumes, like no other book of the Old Testament, a universally oriented monotheism’.32 Koch locates this universally oriented monotheism in the book’s cameos of foreign kings worshipping the Most High God, and the same line of argument has been developed more fully by John Barton, for whom ‘Daniel treats non-Jewish rulers as subject to the authority of his own God – a clear indication of the advanced state of monotheism by this time’.33 A universalistic reading of Daniel is most often grounded in episodes like chapter 5, where blaming Belshazzar for worshipping idols seems to apply Jewish standards to a foreign king. However, I wonder whether the main rhetorical current of chapter 5 in fact runs 30

See B ARTON, Work of Human Hands, for this process. This singularity is thrown into a higher relief by the contrast with a Daniel-tale formulated outside the pressure of the crisis under Antiochus: the old idolatry of gods of wood and stone comes back into focus in Bel and the Dragon, and like all good idolmockery this story gives its audience the last laugh at seeing the idol toppled, when Bel is destroyed and the dragon blown up; contrast Dan 3, where the statue stays standing. 32 KOCH, Das aramäisch-hebräische Danielbuch, 24; see also 9–10. For a similar universalism in Daniel see LEBRAM, Buch, 20. 33 B ARTON, Theological Ethics, 665. 31

258

Jennie Grillo

in a different direction: the central argument of Daniel’s speech is that it is (only) because of the exceptional case of his own father that Belshazzar ought to have known better (5.18–22). Nebuchadnezzar is the patternbreaking convert king who casts a long shadow in the book, but the general assumption is that foreign kings worship their own gods: Antiochus even seems to be blamed for failing to pay respect to the gods of his ancestors in 11.37–39, and the author finds it polemically useful to exaggerate the discontinuity of Antiochus’ religious practice from his native one, with the implausible ‘a god whom his fathers did not know’.34 This seems to be a deliberate contrast with Daniel who worships the god of his fathers (2.23), and of course the phrase ‘a god your fathers did not know’ has a long history in the deuteronomistic characterization of apostasy (Deut 13.7; 28.64; 32.17; Jer 19.4). It is easy to forget that when applied to Antiochus usages like these are a mirror image of the deuteronomistic perspective: Antiochus is an ‘apostate’ for not worshipping foreign gods. Again, although this limits how far we can speak of universalism in Daniel, it is unlikely to mean that the authors approve of foreign kings worshipping their own gods; it simply shows us what they were most worried about. Back in Daniel 5, the sharp offence is not that Belshazzar is worshipping his own gods, but that he is using Judean vessels to do so. These vessels were strongly paralleled with Daniel and his friends at the start of the book, in the language of cultic purity; co-opting the vessels for Babylonian worship is like coercing Judeans to commit idolatry. 35 When we remember that the deployment of this tale in the Maccabean book of Daniel refracts Antiochus’ plundering of the Jerusalem temple, then the issue becomes alien cult within Judean boundaries.36 In chapter 5 and in the monotheism of Daniel more generally, the big offence of strange worship is not when outsiders do it but when inside elements are forced to do it. Thus I wonder whether the book remains a little more particularistic than is implied by speaking of the striking newness of ‘ethical norms 34 LEBRAM, Antiochus, 760, registers the strangeness of 11.36 so strongly that he thinks it must originate in Egyptian polemic: ‘Es muss aus ausserjüdischer Überlieferung stammen. Es ist nicht denkbar, dass einem jüdischen Autor die Verehrung der Götter so wichtig gewesen ist, dass ihre Missachtung durch Antiochus ihn interessiert haben könnte’. Collins calls it ‘probably deliberate polemical distortion, to depict the impiety of the king in the most extreme terms possible’ (COLLINS, Daniel, 387); it is striking that this could be ‘impiety’ in the eyes of the Daniel-author. 35 That 5.2 presupposes 1.1–5 is suggested by KRATZ, Translatio, 86–87. 36 Against Towner, who says that ‘This story in itself contains no veiled allusions to Antiochus’ (TOWNER, Daniel, 71); so too COLLINS, Daniel, 255, but he instead suggests that this point of analogy ensures its relevance in the Maccabean period. For sources for Antiochus’ plundering of the Temple treasures, see TCHERIKOVER, Civilization, 186 and cf. 1 Macc 1.21–24 and 2 Macc 5.15–17.

Worship and Idolatry

259

binding also on non-Jews’.37 The ethical norm here for foreign rulers is that they must humble themselves; the ethical (more properly, cultic) norm for Judeans is that they must maintain the purity of the worship of the Most High.

6. Identity Although I have indicated some ways in which the monotheism of the book of Daniel is lightly defined, or focussed on practice more than theory, I do want to note finally how central this monotheism is to the formation of early Jewish identity in the book. In Daniel, monotheistic practice (with its corollary of no idolatry) is the marker of Jewish identity, predominating within the cluster of different identity-markers from among which all our literary sources in this period select. Antiochus’ policies pressurized several different expressions of Jewish identity, and the various literary reflexes of the persecution do not register all of these pressures equally; different sources seem to value different measures of Jewish identity.38 Clear differences emerge between Daniel and 1 and 2 Maccabees in the weight they give to various elements of Antiochus’ persecution, whether real or borrowed from a stock of motifs for bad kings: as Steven Weitzman points out, not all of the elements of Antiochus’ persecution reported in our other sources find any place in Daniel.39 In particular, Daniel differs from 1 and 2 Maccabees in passing over the ban on circumcision: circumcision is an identity-marker worth dying to preserve there (1 Macc 1.48, 60–61; 2 Macc. 6.10), but it does not figure in Daniel. The forced eating of pork is also important for those books and exclusively important for 4 Maccabees but, it seems, not important for Daniel. Refusing pork could be reflected rather blurrily in the refusal of the king’s food in Daniel 1, but even there food does not function to mark identity: rather shockingly, the skill of the pious Judeans in the opening tale is the ability to look like everyone else. They end up looking better (1.15), but the test is whether they can manage not to look any different, to eat observantly but stay indistinguishable (1.10, 13), so this chapter does not really wear dietary practice as a badge

37

B ARTON, Ethics, 665. Lieu compares the selection among different boundaries (food laws, calendar, circumcision, correct exegesis, purity, avoidance of idolatry) to enforce what she calls the ‘rhetoric of separation’ in these and other early Jewish texts: see LIEU, Christian Identity, 111–114. 39 WEITZMAN, Plotting Antiochus’ Persecution, 234. Weitzman notes the absence of the Sabbath issue (Ibid, 283–284). 38

260

Jennie Grillo

of identity. 40 Antiochus’ calendrical reforms and the ban on Torah observance are also referenced in the little horn’s attempt to change the seasons and the law (7.25), but by far the strongest memories of the persecution as it impinged on Jewish identity are the demand to offer prohibited worship, to which the older tale in Daniel 3 speaks so eloquently; the profanation of the sanctuary reflected in the ‫ ;שקוץ משומם‬and the cessation of the legitimate cult, reflected in 8.11–14 and surely in mind for the copyists of chapter 6. Of the many ways in which Antiochus sought to take the place of the God of the Judeans, the shocks most profoundly felt in the book of Daniel are these measures which touch on strictly cultic practice. The only two proto-martyrdom stories in the book are those which advocate against idolatry, in chapter 3, and for correct devotion, in chapter 6; in the foodtest of chapter 1 it is the palace-master alone who puts his life at risk, 1.10.41 Worshipping the God of Israel and not committing idolatry are the things pre-eminently worth dying for in Daniel, and these are the ways that Daniel and his friends define themselves: ‘we will not worship your gods’.42 In his comparison of De idololatria with Avodah Zarah, Stroumsa has proposed that ‘Christian identity is formulated, in contrast to Jewish identity, exclusively in religious, and not in ethnic terms’ in those texts, and if we were to accept the terms of that comparison then Daniel would differ from what was to become a defining strand of Jewish monotheistic selfunderstanding in a pagan world.43 On Stroumsa’s analysis, the book of Daniel would skew closer to Tertullian than to Avodah Zarah, delineating Jewish identity in religious rather than ethnic terms. But in fact all of the identity-markers threatened by Antiochus are usually grouped together into the single category of ‘religious’ or ‘cultural’, rather than ‘ethnic’, so I am hesitant about positing too sharp a distinction between those texts which focus on circumcision or food laws and Daniel, which concentrates on resisting idolatry. 44 Perhaps we can simply say that Jewish martyrdom has 40

As against, e.g., TOWNER, Daniel 1. In contrast to 2 and 4 Macc: for the preeminence of refusing unlawful food in Jewish martyrology, see RAJAK, Law, 126–129. 42 See FINE, Art, 70–73, 80, for whom the Maccabean revolt is a point of transition when opposition to the representation of foreign idols (he calls it ‘anti-idolism’) increased in emphasis as a marker of Jewish identity. 43 STROUMSA, idolatry, 180, italics original; there are reasons for unease with this paradigm, such as those expressed in LIEU, Identity, 20, 308–310. 44 See, e.g. COHEN, Beginnings. He gives ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ as equivalent types of identity (for which one must ‘worship the God of the Judaeans and/or follow the ancestral laws of the Judaeans’), in contradistinction to an identity which is ethnicgeographic, e.g. 14, 24, 58–66, 70, 78–81, 105–106, 133–135, 137–138, 343. So too LIEU, Identity, 106. 41

Worship and Idolatry

261

not yet crystallized as dying for the law, as it will in 4 Maccabees; in Daniel, the stronger link is between martyrdom and idolatry, formulated exclusively in cultic categories.45 The worship of the god of the Jews and the refusal to commit idolatry are the preeminent traits by which the final compilers of the book of Daniel defined themselves against the identity politics of Antiochus Epiphanes.46 The development of monotheism in the post-exilic period, then, comes full-circle here: Kratz aligns Daniel 3 and 6 precisely with Deutero-Isaiah in proclaiming a monotheistic confession under the pressure of assimilation as the binding norm of Jewish identity.47 The book of Daniel’s monotheism, in all its strange flexibility and lack of definition, is at the centre of what it means to be the people of the Holy Ones of the Most High.

Bibliography B ARTON, J., The Work of Human Hands (Ps 115:4): Idolatry in the Old Testament, Ex Auditu 15 (1999) 63–72 – Theological Ethics in Daniel, in: The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VT.S 83), eds. J. J. Collins and P. Flint, Leiden 2001, 661–670 BRAUN, R., Sacralité et sainteté chez Tertullien, Bulletin de l’association Guillaume Budé 48 (1989) 339–344 – ‘Sacré’ et ‘profane’ chez Tertullien, in: Hommages à Robert Schilling, eds. H. Zehnacker and G. Hentz, Paris 1983, 45–52 B ÜCHSEL, F., εἴδωλον, TWNT II 375–380 COHEN, S. J. D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31), Berkeley 1999 COLLINS, J. J., Daniel (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1993 COXON, P. W., Daniel III 17: A Linguistic and Theological Problem, VT 26 (1976) 400– 409 DAVILA, J. R., Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (JSJSup 63), eds. C. C. Newman et al., Leiden 1999, 3–20 D ICK, M. B., Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image, in: Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.B. Dick, Winona Lake 1999, 1–53 FEWELL, D. N., Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1–6 (JSOT.S 72), Sheffield 1988

45

Rajak calls the Daniel episodes ‘aborted martyrdoms’ (RAJAK, Law, 106). See COLLINS, Daniel, 51, for this explicitly religious group identity in Daniel, which he sets against the affirmation of group identity in ethnic terms in Esther. 47 ‘Hier wie dort zielt die Argumentation auf die Grundlegung und Behauptung des dem Druck zur restlosen Anpassung ausgesetzten monotheistischen Bekenntnisses als verbindlicher Norm jüdischer Identität, status confessionis und Basis eines ansonsten akzeptierten Daseins unter fremder Herrschaft’ (KRATZ, Translatio imperii 143 n. 271). 46

262

Jennie Grillo

F INE, S., Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Towards a New Jewish Archaeology, Cambridge 2010 HALBERTAL, M. AND A. MARGALIT, Idolatry, Cambridge, Mass. 1992 HAYWARD, R., Observations on Idols in Septuagint Pentateuch, in: Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism, and Christianity, ed. S. C. Barton, London 2007, 40– 57 KNAUF, E. A., Ist die Erste Bibel monotheistisch?, in: Der eine Gott und die Götter. Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (ATANT 82), eds. M. Oeming and K. Schmid, Zurich 2003, 39–48 KOCH, K., Das aramäisch-hebräische Danielbuch. Konfrontation zwischen Weltmacht und monotheistischer Religionsgemeinschaft in universalgeschichtlicher Perspektive, in: Die Geschichte der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (BZAW 371), eds. K. Bracht and D. S. du Toit, Berlin 2007, 3–30 KOEP, L., Consecratio I (allegemein), RAC III 269–283 KRATZ, R. G., Translatio imperii. Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT 63), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991 KUTSKO, J. F., Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies 7), Winona Lake 2000 LACOQUE, A., The Book of Daniel, trans. David Pellauer, London 1979 LEBRAM, J.-C., Das Buch Daniel (ZB 23), Zürich 1984 – König Antiochus im Buch Daniel, VT 25 (1975) 737–772 LIEU, J., Christian Identity in the Jewish and Greco-Roman World, Oxford 2004 MACDONALD, N., The Origins of Monotheism, in: Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT.S 263), eds. L. T. Stuckenbruck and W. E. S. North, London 2004, 204– 215 MACH, M., Concepts of Jewish Monotheism in the Hellenistic Period, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (JSJ.S 63), eds. C. Newman et al., Leiden 1999, 21–42 OSBORN, E., Tertullian: First Theologian of the West, Cambridge 1997 RAJAK, T., Dying for the Law: The Martyr’s Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature, in: The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, Leiden 2001, 99–133 S IDER, R. D., Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (OTM), Oxford 1971 STROUMSA, G., Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance, in: Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, eds. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa, Cambridge 1998, 173–184 STUCKENBRUCK, L., Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2/70), Tübingen 1995 TCHERIKOVER, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum, Philadelphia 1959 TOWNER, W. S., Daniel (Interpretation), Atlanta 1994 – Daniel 1 in the Context of the Canon, in: Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation (FS Brevard S. Childs), eds. G. M. Tucker et al., Philadelphia 1988, 285– 298 VAN W INDEN, J. C. M., Idolum and Idololatria in Tertullian, VigChr 36 (1982) 108–114 W ASZINK, J. H., AND J. C. M. VAN W INDEN, Tertullian’s De idololatria: Critical Text, Translation, and Commentary (VigChrSup 1), Leiden 1987 W EITZMAN, S., Plotting Antiochus’ Persecution, JBL 123 (2004) 219–234

Contributors REINHARD ACHENBACH Professor für Altes Testament, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster ULRICH BERGES Professor für Altes Testament, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn STEFAN BEYERLE Professor für Altes Testament, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald KEN BROWN Doctoral Candidate, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen JOHN J. COLLINS Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Yale University MARK S. GIGNILLIAT Associate Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School and Canon Theologian, Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama J ENNIE GRILLO Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Duke University NATHAN MACDONALD University Lecturer in Hebrew Bible, Cambridge University, and Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge BERND OBERMAYER Doctoral Candidate, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn BERND SCHIPPER Professor für Altes Testament, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin LENA-SOFIA TIEMEYER Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible, University of Aberdeen

264

Contributors

JAKOB WÖHRLE Professor für Altes Testament, Carl von Ossietky Universität Oldenburg

Scripture Index Genesis 3.8 11.2 25–30 31.43–54

Joshua 80 184 17 113, 116

128 208 144 142 150 65 60–66, 69–72

Leviticus 19.17–18 19.29 26.19

155–156 149 144

Numbers 16–17

21

Deuteronomy 6.4 7.6 13.15 14.1–2, 21 17.4 18.15–22 24.9–13 28.9 28.30 29.27 32.6 32.39 32.43

105–110 136 117 136 117 136 150 136 9 137 112 20, 49 213

35

2 Samuel 7.22–23 22.11

Exodus 7.3, 5 15.11 18.11 21.14 22.25–26 32.10 34.6–7

10.1–27

106–107 82, 97

1 Kings 20.30–31

154

2 Kings 6.22 13.7 18.25

154 152 128

Isaiah 2.2–4 3.14 5.19 5.25–30 5.26 6.1–8.18 6.2 6.3–4 9.5 10.5–27 10.5–7 10.7 10.12–15 11.4 11.6–9 11.13–15 12.4 13–27 13–14

67 34 34 3–5 8 5 92 3–4 5 5–7 129 10, 145 129 20 19 6 36 7–12 8–10

266 13.2 13.4 13.5 13.5–6 13.11b 13.17 14.5 14.5–6 14.24–27 19.1–25 24–27 24.21–22 25.33 33.12 34 34.2 34.6 36.10 40.12–31 41.2 41.15 42.1–3 42.13 44.6–7 44.9–20 44.26 44.28–45.7 45.1–3 45.1–7 45.5–7 45.6b–7 45.7 45.13 45.22–24 45.22–25 46.1–17 46.7 47.12–15 49.6–7 50.4 59.15–20 60.3–4

Scripture Index 12 8 8 34 144 11 12 145 7 27–54 12 7 21 158 13–16 20 20 128 131 4, 6 153 133 9 131 130 11 11 11 133 127, 223–225 132 226–228, 231–232 11 37 135 130 10 131 134 9 14, 17 206

61.2 63.1–6 63.4 63.7–64.11 65–66 65.8 66.16

16 14, 16–18 16 16–17, 21, 112 19 17 14

Jeremiah 1.9 1.10 1.15–16 18.7–10 18.15–18 21.5 25.9 25.15–38 39.8 45.4 45.5 46.1–26 50.29 50.31–32

136 137, 142 139 138 139 18 11 140 137 137 137 141 142, 144 144

Ezekiel 1.18 28.2 39.17, 19

91 145 16

Hosea 4.19

98

Joel 4.10

67

Amos 1.3–2.3 1.3 1.6 1.11 1.13 2.1 2.6–8 3–6 4.1 5.11

146, 151 157 153 155 156 157 146–149 151 147 147

267

Scripture Index 8.4 8.6

147 147

Malachi

68 192–195

Psalms

Jonah 1.4 3.1–5 Micah 4.1–4 4.5 4.11–13 7.11–20

67, 196 68, 70, 195–197 69 69

Nahum 1.2–8 1.3

71 70

Habakkuk 1.11–17 2.1–5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9–11 2.12 2.12–14 2.15 2.15–17 2.17

159 160 161 163 161 164 162 166 161 167 168

Zephaniah 1.7 3.6–8

16 171–172

Zechariah 1.8–6.8 2.1–4 2.5–9 3.1–10 4.1–6 4.10–11 4.13–14 5.5–11 6.9–15 14.9 14.16–19

75–101 94–97 86–88 89–90 90–94 90–94 90–94 97–99, 180–185, 197 84–86 107, 110, 119–122 191

2.10–16 197

18.10 18.11 82.5 104.4

107, 110–119, 186–189,

97 82 80 82

Job 1.6 1.7 2.2

77 80 80

Proverbs 30.18–19 30.29–31

146 146–147

Lamentations 2.4 –5 5.20–22

18 18

Daniel 1.10 2.46 3.12 3.14 3.45 5.18–22 6.27 7.1 7.7–8 7.10 7.11 7.13 7.14 7.20–21 7.21 7.24 8.17–19 11.36 11.36–37 11.37–39 12.1

264 252 252 252 260 262 242 76 95 253 95 239–242 253 95 253 95 254 262 258 262 235

268

Scripture Index

Ezra 3.3 7.10–11

184 143

143

263 145

6.55–59

225

81

205

Psalms of Solomon 17.23–24

2 Maccabees 5.2–4

11.14 4 Ezra

1 Maccabees 1.48 1.60–61

264 146 81

Sirach

Nehemiah 9.16

6.10 8.17 10.29–30

207