Rest in Mesopotamian and Israelite Literature 9781463240929

Citation preview

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 29

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, Biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

Rest in Mesopotamian and Israelite Literature

Daniel E. Kim

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܝ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-0709-0

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

For Catherine, Naomi, and Josiah

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................... v Acknowledgments ..................................................................... ix Foreword ................................................................................... xi Chapter One. Introduction .......................................................... 1 The Theological Significance of Rest .................................. 1 Studies on Rest from a New Testament Perspective ............ 4 Studies on Rest from a Hebrew Bible Perspective ............... 5 Synchronic Approach and Heuristic Comparison ................ 6 The Scope of this Study ...................................................... 8 Overview and Outlook ...................................................... 10 Chapter Two. Rest in Mesopotamian Literature ....................... 13 Introduction ...................................................................... 13 Rest as Divine Authority ................................................... 17 Divine Rest after Creation or Victory......................... 17 “Noise” and the Disruption of Divine Rest................. 25 Rest as Divine Provision ................................................... 50 Rest to Deities............................................................ 50 Rest to Humans ......................................................... 53 Rest in a Divine Abode ..................................................... 55 Temple Building as a Response to Rest ...................... 55 Temple Building as a Response to Victory ................. 56 The Temple as the Resting Place of Deities ............... 57 Rest as Divine Appeasement ............................................. 58 Epic Narratives .......................................................... 59 Royal Inscriptions and Annals ................................... 65 The Future Hope of Rest ................................................... 74 Summary Conclusions ....................................................... 79 Chapter Three. Rest in the Deuteronomistic History ................ 81 Introduction ...................................................................... 81 The Deuteronomistic History ..................................... 81 v

vi

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Hebrew Words for Rest.............................................. 92 Deuteronomy .................................................................... 96 The Promise of Rest: Deuteronomy 12:9 ................... 98 The Nature of the Promise: Deuteronomy 12:8–14.. 104 The Response to the Fulfillment of the Promise: Deuteronomy 14:28; 26:4, 10 .......................... 106 The Curses of Disobedience: Deuteronomy 28:65 .... 108 Joshua ............................................................................ 111 Partial Rest for a Nation in Transition: Joshua 1:13, 15 .................................................................... 111 Symbolic Rest: Joshua 3:13; 4:3, 8 .......................... 114 Rahab’s Rest: Joshua 6:23 ....................................... 117 ‫ שׁקט‬as a Temporary State of Rest: Joshua 11:23; 14:15 ............................................................... 118 The (Partial) Fulfillment of the Promise of Rest: Joshua 21:43–44 .............................................. 121 Rest Reminded: Joshua 22:4.................................... 123 The Conditionality of Rest: Joshua 23:1 .................. 124 Judges ............................................................................. 126 Conditionality Enforced—Resting for Testing: Judges 2:23; 3:1 ............................................... 126 The Downward Spiral of Rest-Cycles: Judges 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28 .................................................. 130 Gideon’s Test of Rest: Judges 6:18, 20 .................... 135 The Son of Rest: Judges 16:26 ................................. 138 The Disturbers of Rest: Judges 18:7 ........................ 142 Civil War and “Unrest”: Judges 20:43 ..................... 144 The Books of Samuel....................................................... 153 A New Beginning: 1 Samuel 6:18 ............................ 153 Rest and the Constitution of the Monarchy: 1 Samuel 10:25 ................................................... 157 The Juncture of Rest from the Past to the Future: 2 Samuel 7:1, 11 ................................................. 166 The Books of Kings ......................................................... 177 The Prerequisites of Rest Achieved: 1 Kings 5:1–6 [MT 5:15–20] .................................................. 177 The Preparation for the Fulfillment of Rest: 1 Kings 7:47; 8:9 .......................................................... 178 The Pinnacle of Rest in the Deuteronomistic History: 1 Kings 8:56 ....................................... 179

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

The Challenge to a Deity’s Sleep: 1 Kings 18:27 ...... 187 Judges Revisited: 2 Kings 11:20 .............................. 188 The Resting of Foreign Deities in Samaria: 2 Kings 17:29 ............................................................... 190 The “Hope” of Being Laid to Rest: 1 Kings 13:29– 31; 2 Kings 23:18 ............................................. 190 Summary Conclusions ..................................................... 194 Martin Noth’s Original Thesis .................................. 194 Gerhard von Rad’s Conception of a Deuteronomistic Rest .................................................................. 196 Cycles of Rest .......................................................... 196 Features of the Rest Motif in the Deuteronomistic History ............................................................. 198 Comparisons with Mesopotamian Literature ........... 200

Chapter Four. Rest in Chronicles ............................................ 207 Introduction .................................................................... 207 The Title of Chronicles ............................................ 208 Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah ............................... 209 Parallel Rest-statements between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History ............................ 211 Rest in Chronicles ........................................................... 212 A Land at Rest: 1 Chronicles 4:40 ............................ 213 The Resting of the Ark: 1 Chronicles 6:31 [MT 6:16] ................................................................ 214 The “Non-Resting” of Other Nations: 1 Chronicles 16:21 ............................................................... 216 The Shift of Emphasis from David to David’s House: 1 Chronicles 17 ................................................ 217 The Man of Rest: 1 Chronicles 22:9 ......................... 220 Israel’s Rest: 1 Chronicles 22:18 .............................. 226 The Transition toward a Permanent Dwelling: 1 Chronicles 23:25 ........................................... 230 The House of Rest: 1 Chronicles 28:2 ...................... 232 The Resting of ‫ ֻשׁ ְל ָחנוֹת‬: 2 Chronicles 4:8.................. 235 The Temple of YHWH’s Rest: 2 Chronicles 6:41 ...... 238 Asa’s Reform, Part I: 2 Chronicles 14:1; 14:5–7 [MT 13:23; 14:4–6] ......................................... 245 Asa’s Reform, Part II: 2 Chronicles 15:5, 15 ............ 249 Jehoshaphat—YHWH Has Judged: 2 Chronicles 19:1; 20:30 ...................................................... 252

viii

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

‫שׁקט‬-Cycles Revisited: 2 Chronicles 23:21 ............... 255 Hezekiah, the Second Solomon: 2 Chronicles 32:22 257 Rest in Peace: 2 Chronicles 34:28 ............................ 258 The Sabbath of the Land: 2 Chronicles 36:21 .......... 260 Summary Conclusions ..................................................... 263 The Development of Rest from the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles ....................................... 263 Significant Aspects of the Chronicler’s Theology of Rest .................................................................. 264 Comparisons with Mesopotamian Literature ........... 272

Chapter Five. Conclusion ........................................................ 275 Conclusory Remarks ....................................................... 275 Rest, Defined ........................................................... 275 Expressions of Rest .................................................. 276 Cyclical Nature of Rest ............................................ 277 Eschatological Rest .................................................. 277 For Further Research ...................................................... 278 ANE Concept of Rest................................................ 279 The Book of Ruth..................................................... 279 The Books of Judges and Chronicles........................ 279 The Prophetical Books ............................................. 280 The Psalms .............................................................. 280 The Targumim ......................................................... 281 The New Testament ................................................. 281

Bibliography ........................................................................... 285 Index ...................................................................................... 299

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As a revised PhD thesis, the publication of this book owes much to many who contributed over the years to bring this work into fruition. Deserving first mention is Andrew Clarke, my PhD supervisor. The model of a biblical scholar, he showed me how to engage with scholarship in a manner that is proper, responsible, and humble. It is truly doubtful that any of this would have been completed without his patient guidance. I will always be grateful. I offer my sincere appreciation to Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, who not only penned the Foreword of this book but was also the internal examiner when it was still in PhD thesis form. For well over a decade now, she has been many things to me, from confidant and counselor to Akkadian teacher. I have benefited greatly from her continual support. I would also like to thank Adrian Curtis, the external examiner, for an enjoyable and constructive viva experience. I am grateful to John Walton, Kenneth Way, and J. Michael Thigpen, all of whom selflessly read large portions of this manuscript at various stages of its development. They provided fresh perspectives and at many points saved me from folly. Talbot School of Theology and Biola University each provided generous funding for a research sabbatical during which I completed important revisions. I extend my heartfelt thanks to Talbot Deans Clinton Arnold and Scott Rae, and to Biola’s Provost Deborah Taylor for their gracious provision. Special thanks go to Jackie Beatty and Lynne Johnson, who were instrumental in securing the funding, going above and beyond to make the sabbatical a reality. Thanks also to Katherine Evensen for compiling the indexes. Many colleagues told me that Gorgias Press is a strong publishing house that has exceptional editors with whom it is an ix

x

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

absolute delight to work. My experience has been that and even more. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Melonie Schmierer-Lee, and in particular to Yael Landman, who found this project, gave it life, and patiently saw it through to completion with the utmost professionalism and kind grace. I am deeply indebted. One of the main reasons my parents, David Dalsaing and Susan Inok Kim, immigrated from Korea to the United States was to provide their children with a formal education. They sacrificed their lives in every way so that we could have the opportunity to thrive. My sister, Grace, having benefitted from their sacrifice herself, was often a channel of their support. My father, having earned a PhD himself, was the model of the now rare scholar-pastor, while my mother showed me her unending love through her constant prayer and support. 진심으로 감사드립니다. My family was a constant source of encouragement during some very trying times. While finishing the PhD thesis, my then six-year-old daughter, Naomi, asked me about my word count every day and prayed for me nightly. My son, Josiah, at the age of three was too young to comprehend why daddy couldn’t play with him as much as he would have liked, or needed. My children are the joy of my life and I am grateful for their patience and sacrifice that enabled me to complete this work. Catherine, my beautiful wife, deserves the greatest acknowledgement and appreciation, for she carried many burdens with me from beginning to end. Never faltering and ever supportive, she cheered at every milestone and picked me up at every stumble. Indeed, she exemplifies Proverbs 31. Words cannot adequately express how grateful I am to my family, to whom I dedicate this book. Soli Deo Gloria.

FOREWORD It is a great privilege to be able to introduce this book by Dr Daniel E. Kim. I have known Daniel for more than 14 years. We met at a conference in Tübingen that he was attending before commencing his doctoral studies at the University of Aberdeen. I was likewise due to begin my new job as lecturer in Hebrew Bible at the same university. I was intrigued to hear Daniel talk about his future research on the topic of rest in ancient Near Eastern texts. I had never really thought about this topic, but the more I heard the more interesting it sounded. Having followed Daniel’s career since then, both as his teacher (of Akkadian), as one of the examiners of his thesis, and later also as a friend and colleague, I am delighted to see the publication of this research. This book is about rest—divine rest and human rest. Rest is something that we all long for and need. The question is, how can we obtain it and what do we do with it once we have it? Kim opens his well-researched study with an overview of previous research on the topic. He shows that although never a central topic in the Hebrew Bible, the notion of rest runs persistently through it. Kim then explores the concept of rest in select Mesopotamian literary texts. In this material, the gods desire and obtain rest. Rest is often depicted as the needed reward after an act of creation or a significant victory. The divine longing for rest is further one reason for the conception of humanity: the humans toil so that the gods can rest. Rest is thus understood as a divine prerogative; human beings are never offered rest from their toil, yet they can be threatened with unrest as a punishment. Turning to the Hebrew Bible, Kim explores the presentation of rest in the book of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History, and the Chronicler’s account. Rather than humanity giving rest to YHWH, God bestows rest upon Israel. This rest has two xi

xii

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

aspects. It is rest from enemies and rest for obedience to and worship of YHWH. There is both continuity and innovation when comparing this picture with that found in the Mesopotamian texts. Whereas Mesopotamian literature depicts the deities as craving rest and thus creating humanity to provide that rest through the building of temples, the Bible envisages YHWH giving rest to Israel so that they can use that opportunity to build the temple for YHWH. Kim then traces how the concept of rest continues yet also is transformed in Chronicles. Here rest represents peace and divine presence, expressed by the increased focus on the temple: it is YHWH’s resting place, but it is also Israel’s response to his provision of rest. In other words, YHWH grants political rest / peace which is then conceptualized as the reason for Israel to build the temple. YHWH’s granting of rest is also transformed into a hope for the future. Although there is no rest at present, Chronicles articulates the forward-looking hope that YHWH will provide rest again to his people and that there will be, at the end of time, an ultimate God-given rest. Kim concludes his fine study with some thoughts on future studies of rest in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible and into the New Testament. This book will engage and benefit a number of readers. On the one hand, it will be of use to students who are just at the beginning of their deep engagement with Scripture. On the other hand, it will also benefit seasoned biblical scholars who are looking for new insight into passages with which they are already familiar. To repeat my initial words, before encountering Daniel’s research I had never thought twice about the concept of rest. Now, this is a notion that I detect again and again when reading a biblical text. I am truly grateful to Daniel for opening up this area of research to me and I look forward to reading his next research project, whatever that may be! Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer University of Aberdeen

CHAPTER ONE.

INTRODUCTION You will not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes. For you have not come as of yet to the resting place and to the inheritance that YHWH your God is giving to you. Deuteronomy 12:8–9

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF REST

What is the promise of rest that God offers his people? People seek peace and prosperity, refreshment and flourishing. Perhaps the relentless search for rest comes from the human condition, or maybe it is even a core part of human identity. History shows that throughout the centuries humankind has sought crown and government to bring anew what is believed the right of all. Both nations and the individuals that make the collective embark time and again on what seems to be an endless journey toward a state of affairs that would be the final culmination of all the war and strife that were endured for it. Indeed, the irony of the cycle of war and peace plagues us all. And while nations have contended for it, individuals also search for rest on a personal level, foraging through life in the pursuit of happiness. And yet, comparatively few in scholarship have investigated the biblical foundations that would give rise to a theology of rest in the Hebrew Bible (HB). In 1933, von Rad published an

1

2

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

essay regarding the Old Testament (OT) conception of rest. 1 In this essay, he makes mention of the lack of attention given to the topic in biblical scholarship, despite its significance: “‘rest’ has been almost overlooked in biblical theology, despite the fact that, theologically speaking, it expresses a highly characteristic notion.” 2 In 1985, Kaiser also recognized the importance of rest for biblical theology—and, given its magnitude, also noted the surprising lack of attention appropriated to it: Fifty years have not substantially changed [von Rad’s] assessment of the situation. In fact, except for the brief and conflicting opinions delivered in commentaries on Hebrews 3 and 4, only a few major articles in the journals and fewer graduate theses have been devoted to the concept of “God’s Rest” in the last century. Most biblical theologies of the OT and NT biblical encyclopedias, theological wordbooks, Festschriften, and systematic theologies are ominously silent on the topic. 3

Unfortunately, another thirty years have also not substantially changed these assessments of the situation. Von Rad’s short work on this apparently important subject outlined the intriguing journey the rest motif takes through the biblical corpus, and in conclusion von Rad boldly asserted: This rest is an eschatological expectation, a fulfilment of the prophecies of redemption, an entering into that rest which there has always been, from the beginning, with God. In the fulfilment of this hope the whole purpose of creation and the whole purpose of redemption are reunited. Such is the in-

Gerhard von Rad, “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 94–102. 2 Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 94. 3 Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 153. 1

1. INTRODUCTION

3

sight vouchsafed to the writer [of Hebrews] in the simple juxtaposition of these two texts [Psalm 95 and Genesis 2:2]! 4

In following the biblical motif, von Rad correctly assessed that the author of Hebrews understood the varying notions of rest in the HB, and joined two different theological ideas in order to present rest as the beginning and the end, both purpose and fulfillment. One could say that von Rad was asserting that rest is a central theme in biblical theology. 5 While there is discussion of whether a central theme in biblical theology is even possible, von Rad clearly established that the theological concept is both pervasive and essential in the biblical canon. Although words that mean rest appear frequently in the HB, from a lexical standpoint rest is an elusive term. The variety of ideas rest-terms can portray creates an impediment to establishing precisely the theological underpinnings that may exist. In English, rest can have numerous meanings and express different ideas, whether as a noun or a verb. Rest can mean leisure or some type of restorative activity, but it can also mean, “to place something,” denoting an object that “comes to rest.” The term can be metaphorical, as in the phrase “rest in peace.” Altogether different in meaning is the homonym, spelled and pronounced the same way but means “remainder,” or “left over.” In Biblical Hebrew, the semantic domains of rest-terms are just as broad. For example, the verb ‫“( נוח‬to rest”) can mean “to give something or someone rest” (hiphil 1) or “to place or put something ָ ‫ ְמ‬, down” (hiphil 2), while the derivative noun forms of ‫נוּחה( נוח‬ �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬and �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ) usually mean “resting place.” Furthermore, both English and Hebrew have a number of words that can describe a type of rest: respite, repose, relaxation, etc.; and ‫שׁקט‬/‫שׁקט‬, ‫רגע‬, ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬, etc. Hence, one task of this investigation of rest in the HB is to distinguish the possible meanings, and therefore explore how some rest-terms may interact with each other. Collectively, do various rest-terms function together to express a coherent Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 102. Gnana Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980): 32–42. 4 5

4

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

biblical theology in the Deuteronomistic History (DH) and in Chronicles?

STUDIES ON REST FROM A NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE

In 1970, Hofius published his doctoral dissertation on rest focusing on Heb 3:7–4:13. 6 Hofius’ work did much to counter the prevailing consensus, which was first promulgated by Käsemann. Käsemann argued that the rest described in Hebrews is a spatial concept (i.e., a resting place), and therefore it is similar to the concept of rest in Gnostic thought. 7 Hence, Hofius had a specific purpose: to refute the idea that the spatial concept of rest in Hebrews is necessarily Gnostic, and that it could also be found in both the HB and other Jewish sources. Consequently, the scope of Hofius’ work was limited to his purpose and the primary text at hand: Heb 3:7–4:13. Since Hofius, few have proceeded beyond Hebrews. Laansma also published his doctoral dissertation on rest, and provided a thorough and comprehensive work with an aim to understand better the offers of rest in Matt 11:28–29 and Heb 3–4. 8 Although Laansma broadly treated the subject in the texts of the Christian OT (MT, LXX) and other surrounding texts (Jewish Pseudepigrapha, rabbinic literature) that were possibly available to the New Testament (NT) authors, his already extensive thesis Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 2, 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970). 7 Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God (trans. R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sandberg; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). 8 Jon C. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The “Rest” Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2, 98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Laansma also provides a brief but thorough recounting of the modern discussion on Hebrews 3–4 (10– 13). Judith H. Wray also studies rest from a NT perspective in Rest as a Theological Metaphor in The Epistle to The Hebrews and The Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), although her method is aligned with rhetorical and homiletic studies. 6

1. INTRODUCTION

5

could not cover in detail specific nuances of rest in the HB. This present study provides further evidence to supplement and expand Laansma’s work in the HB. Laansma correctly searched for a background of the NT concept in the HB; this study is similar, except that the HB is the starting point, with the Mesopotamian Literature (ML) providing context for comparison and contrast. Indeed, the concept of rest could be explored even further in the ML and also the wider ancient Near East (ANE); one hopes that this study will serve as an impetus for further inquiry in the ANE.

STUDIES ON REST FROM A HEBREW BIBLE PERSPECTIVE

From a HB perspective, Walton produced a very useful and exceptional work on rest in the ANE, the results from which he compares to Genesis. 9 More recently, Willis published an excellent treatment of the “deuteronomic rest formula” as it relates to 2 Sam 7:1b. 10 Both of these works are significant, and their contributions are integrated into this present study, which largely supports their conclusions. At the same time, this study expands Walton’s work beyond Genesis in the HB and provides more examples and analysis in the ML, but consequently narrows the focus in the ANE to Akkadian texts from Mesopotamia. This study also broadens the scope of Willis’ analysis considerably and introduces new evidence and observations, thus incorporating his work into a broader framework of rest in the DH beyond 2 Sam 7. Despite these previous studies of rest, a large gap still remains in biblical scholarship regarding rest in the HB.

John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 100–118. 10 Timothy M. Willis, “‘Rest All Around from All His Enemies’ (2 Samuel 7:1b): The Occasion for David’s Offer to Build a Temple,” in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson (eds. K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 129–147. 9

6

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

SYNCHRONIC APPROACH AND HEURISTIC COMPARISON

As a heuristic comparative study, the correct starting point is a synchronic analysis in the final forms of the texts. Using the historical-critical method to begin such an inquiry in the biblical texts may lead to a diversification of ideas or layers, which in turn could lead to a portrait of the parts instead of the whole. Although speaking of the Pentateuch, Ska, a strong proponent of the historical-critical method, 11 suggests that the proper initial stance is synchronic, not diachronic: because diachronic, analytical readings always follow synchronic readings and synthesis of the data. If the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it is important to consider the whole before looking at the “sum”…I do not at all discount synchronic views—the stylistic and narrative analysis of multifarious texts. This kind of approach turns out to be more profitable than some studies on the sources, which atomize texts without actually making their reading any easier. 12

A similar view of the DH and Chronicles is appreciated in this present work, which is primarily concerned with the theological significance of the rest motif within the contexts of the final forms of the DH and Chronicles. And while this is essential to the task of laying a foundation upon which further compositional/redactional studies might be conducted, and the results of this study could make an appreciable impact on compositional and redactional theory in the HB, it is not the primary aim of this present inquiry to do so. It is quite possible that different aspects of the concept of rest developed from various traditions, and even from different parts of the concept in the ML—but,

“From a methodological viewpoint, this book seeks to convince its readers that it is impossible to read the Pentateuch without recourse to the historical-critical method,” Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), xi. 12 Ska, Pentateuch, x–xi. 11

1. INTRODUCTION

7

without understanding the concept(s) in the final form of the texts, the conclusions of such studies may lead to myopic results. Moreover, there is now a growing appreciation of synchronic studies on the DH and the value they produce. McConville states: Literary readings, that is, those that want to read the books of the OT as complete works of literature, regardless of any hypothetical previous history of the text, are now numerous and influential…they seem to me to have important implications for the study of DtH, because they say something about natural entities within the larger narrative. 13

Hence, there is considerable value to a synchronic analysis even beyond the groundwork it paves for historical-critical inquiries. As a heuristic comparison, the presentations of rest in the final forms of the DH and Chronicles are analyzed in order to understand the similarities and the differences, which in turn lays the foundation to work toward a biblical theology of rest in these sets of texts, as well as the wider canon of Scripture. The ML provides context from the wider ANE cognitive environment, and therefore the analysis of rest in the ML and the underlying theology/cosmology therein allows one to ask better questions of the motif in the HB: who gives what kind of rest to whom, and why? A heuristic comparison will undoubtedly be most difficult in Chronicles, for the Chronicler relies heavily on—along with other sources—the DH, or at the least the two share a common source. The challenge here, however, is not to distinguish the source(s) literarily or theologically, but rather, the greater challenge and objective is to allow the Chronicler to articulate his own theology of rest, even though the core of it may have originated from the DH. The pertinent question is: “what is the Chronicler trying to portray about rest to his reader?” This can only be done by distinguishing the differences from the DH in order to establish the Chronicler’s own theology of rest. HowevJ. Gordon McConville, “The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship,” Them 22 (1997): 9. 13

8

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

er, instead of treating the Chronicler’s presentation as secondary and therefore merely derivative, 14 this study aims to comprehend how and why the Chronicler’s theology of rest is significant in its own context. Finally, since the ultimate concern of this project is to produce a biblical theology of rest in the DH and in Chronicles, even though terms such as concept, motif, and theme are employed throughout this work, these terms are not intended to present this project as a congnitive linguistic concept analysis or a technical literary motif study—they are used in a broad and general sense. Moreover, as a heuristic study, each corpus is examined in its own right and on its own merits, and therefore does not draw conclusions about source, dependence, echoes, resonance, etc. To be sure, there are shared aspects among the texts that are significant, and some of these are brought to light in this work—but, an argument as to which text is dependent and which is the source is not necessary for this study. Instead, a framework of rest in each corpus is presented for comparison and contrast.

THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

When one speaks of rest in biblical terms, often the words “sabbath” and “shalom” come to mind. However, sabbath likely originates from the Pentateuch, and moreover, while sabbath and shalom can denote a type of rest, they are somewhat different from the notions of rest examined in this study of nâḫu and pašāḫu in the ML, and the ‫ נוח‬family of rest-words that is best defined in the DH. Sabbath is often referred to in the HB as a singular day of rest, and shalom is frequently used as a greeting. A survey of these words would be unnecessarily encumbering to the reader, and therefore shalom and sabbath are only investiVon Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97: “The Chronicler’s historical compilation is of late literary date, but leans heavily on Deuteronomy, and at the point under discussion it shows even more clearly how far it has swung away from the real deuteronomic conception of ‘rest’.” Emphasis mine. 14

1. INTRODUCTION

9

gated in this study when they come in contact with the concept of rest as defined in the DH and therefore Chronicles. Further inquiry on sabbath can be found in the technical works of Andreasen 15 and Robinson, 16 and the essays collected in the volume edited by Yoder and Swartley serve as a fine introduction to the technical aspects of shalom in biblical studies. 17 The present study of rest complements the scholarly literature on sabbath and shalom concepts by focusing on another lexical set of restwords, thereby creating a more enhanced understanding of the broader notion of rest in the HB. Beyond the Pentateuch, the Psalms and Prophets also have elements that are significant, and a number of texts from these two are explored in conjunction with the DH and Chronicles. If the concept of rest examined in this study is indeed a Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic concept, then this work provides the essential foundation upon which to understand better the concept in additional areas of the HB corpus. Beyond the HB, it should be noted that the survey of ML literature is selective, but representative of the texts that frequently exhibit rest. A relatively broad sampling of texts from various time periods and genres have been selected, and featured among them are a few major works of Akkadian literature, such as Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and The Poem of Erra, due to their significance to the culture and civilization of Mesopotamia.

Niels-Erik Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A TraditionHistorical Investigation (SBLDS 7; Missoula: SBL, 1972), and “Recent Studies of the Old Testament Sabbath: Some Observations,” ZAW 86 (1974): 453–469. 16 Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (BBET 21; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998). 17 Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swartley, eds., The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies (trans. Walter Sawatsky; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). 15

10

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

OVERVIEW AND OUTLOOK

Since von Rad’s essay on the promise of rest in Deut 12, many refer to a “Deuteronomic” or “Deuteronomistic” conception of rest, 18 but very few have attempted to define it by scrutinizing the instances of it throughout large corpora of literature. Therefore, this study seeks to provide an in-depth examination in the following collections of texts, and therefore clearly define the often referred to Deuteronomistic conception of rest. Chapter two of this study surveys several texts in the ML, both earlier and later in composition, as well as varying genres. These texts exhibit a higher frequency of rest-words than others in the ML—and, the rest-words in these texts are more theologically significant in their literary context. The Akkadian texts Enuma Elish (also known as The Epic of Creation) and Atrahasis, are examined; these texts are significant because they narrate the origins of humanity. Other texts, such as The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, supply a reasonable sampling of texts from later monarchic periods and are helpful for establishing comparisons with literature in the HB pertaining to Israel’s monarchic era. The Poem of Erra is an interesting bridge between the creation narratives and the monarchic texts. Human beings already exist in The Poem, but it also reflects the punishment of humans, similar to Atrahasis. At the same time, Ashurbanipal’s Annals make reference to Erra the warrior god and his destructive activities, which are similar to the actions of Erra in The Poem. Within these Mesopotamian texts, there is some consistency in the meaning of rest, such that a paradigm of rest can be formulated—a paradigm through which one is better able to understand some of the theological undercurrents in these texts. The ML surveyed serves to provide points of comparison with the biblical historical narratives, and therefore provides better I.e., “Deuteronomic” labels those characteristics that belong to the core of the book of Deuteronomy, and “Deuteronomistic” describes those aspects in the historical books that are shaped by the theology of Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomistic texts are Joshua–2 Kings, and certain portions of Deuteronomy itself. 18

1. INTRODUCTION

11

clarity for the rest motif in the latter, since the ML provides context and background into the ANE cognitive environment within which the HB is situated. Moreover, given the close contact between Israel and Mesopotamia during the exilic period, depending on when one dates portions of the DH, there may be shared or common aspects of thought and theology regarding rest in both the DH and Chronicles with the ML. Chapter three traces the rest motif in the DH. Rest is first promised in Deuteronomy (12:8–11), and the fulfillment of the promise is revealed in the DH thereafter. Hence, the promise is Deuteronomic, but the fulfillment of it is Deuteronomistic. As mentioned above, the concept of rest in the DH is different from the Pentateuchal sabbath concepts, and therefore the proper starting place in the HB for this study is Deuteronomy and the DH. The Hebrew word ‫ שׁקט‬is often not included in studies of rest in the DH, even though its importance is palpable. Braun states: That the term šāqaṭ is regularly used in Judges to denote the periodic rest following deliverance won by judges is doubtless significant, although it is difficult to see what relationship, if any, exists between this temporary rest and the měnûḥâ of Deuteronomy 12, 2 Samuel 7, or the age of Solomon. 19

Since this study seeks to provide a comprehensive paradigm of rest in the DH, most instances of rest, whether ‫נוח‬, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬, ‫שׁקט‬, or other, are examined in order to determine if there are any connections between the terms. Given the potential importance of ‫שׁקט‬, one ancillary objective of this study is to evaluate whether there is any association between ‫ שׁקט‬and the DH rest motif, and therefore answer the question raised by Braun. Further, because von Rad’s initial assessment of rest is seminal, close attention will be given to his work and conclusions throughout this study. Following the conclusions of this chapter, comparisons with the ML are offered. Both the similarities and Roddy Braun, “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976): 584, n. 9. 19

12

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the differences will allow for sharper clarity of rest in each corpus. Chapter four examines the theology of rest in the books of Chronicles. A unique opportunity is afforded by the Chronicler’s use of sources available to him, namely the Books of Samuel and Kings in the DH. The re-narration of Israelite history by the Chronicler allows one to compare and contrast the concept of rest in such a way that the theology of each is better revealed, and it actually serves to help define the concept of rest so that the two are distinguished from each other. As many have already observed, the Chronicler combines aspects that are distinctly defined parts of a DH rest paradigm. But, instead of viewing the combining of these distinct aspects as confusion and conflation stemming from an imprecise understanding of the DH concept, this study shows that the Chronicler may actually have a very similar understanding of the DH paradigm of rest as presented in this study, and that there may have been a specific theological motivation to combine the aspects in order to re-present Israel’s history in a manner that would exhort the returned exiles. Comparisons are therefore made with the DH, but also the ML. Indeed, one could expect that Chronicles, as an exilic document, would compare more favorably with certain aspects in the ML than in the DH, and therefore a three-way dialogue among the texts of the ML, DH, and Chronicles is necessary for a constructive analysis. Chapter five draws brief conclusions from an overarching point of view, harmonizing the conclusions from the previous chapters. This chapter also provides suggestions for further inquiry and research that result from this study, especially for other portions of Hebrew Scriptures beyond the historical narratives of the DH and Chronicles. The rest motif may not be prominent in the HB, but it is prevalent. Furthermore, rest is referred to with some frequency in the Christian NT texts, and therefore suggestions are offered as to how rest in the DH and Chronicles may be relevant for further exploration in the Christian canon.

CHAPTER TWO.

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN LITERATURE The poem of Erra and Ishum is a vehicle for reflection on the human condition…For all its divine cast of characters, the poem of Erra and Ishum is nevertheless a composition that grasps a very human problem, the problem of war, and attempts to understand it. A. R. George, “The Poem of Erra and Ishum”

INTRODUCTION

The search for rest is universal—it spans both globe and history. Even the ancients, as expressed in The Poem of Erra, sought to understand the nature of war and longed for rest in the wake of its devastation. Oppressive conditions, whether stemming from warfare, toilsome labor, or destitution, are perennial problems that have plagued humankind for millennia, and therefore reflecting upon these topics in ML can be fruitful for the modern critic even beyond academic fascinations, as ancient as these Near Eastern texts might be. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization and its literature are vast, covering thousands of years of history and comprised of thousands of cuneiform texts. Any inquiry of a specific idea in this extensive amount of material must be narrowed in order to conduct a reasonable analysis. Three main factors have shaped the focus and boundaries of this study: (1) previous research; (2) lexical relevance; and (3) current technical and practical limitations. First, there are a number of scholars who have already explored some aspect of rest in Mesopotamian texts. While Ma13

14

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

chinist published a study on the interplay between rest and violence in The Poem of Erra without the further goal of comparison to the HB, 1 many others had a broader research goal beyond the ANE. For example, Lambert sought a parallel to the Sabbath rest of God in Gen 2:2. 2 Batto analyzed the topic of rest in the ANE to provide an understanding of the apparently contradictory portrayal of whether YHWH never sleeps or sometimes sleeps in the HB. 3 Walton developed a framework of rest in the broader ANE cognitive environment with a view to establish a temple cosmology in the creation account(s) of Genesis. 4 Hurowitz 5 and Beale 6 both briefly covered rest in the ANE in conjunction with their study of the temple. Laansma’s study on the rest motif is substantial overall, but its focus on Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 only allowed for a shorter treatment in the ANE compared to his work in the New Testament. 7 While some of these studies include a variety of texts from the broader ANE, the main texts analyzed in these studies generally focus on three major Akkadian texts: Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and The Poem of Erra. This is altogether reasonable, since not only are they major works of Akkadian literature but also Peter Machinist, “Rest and Violence in the Poem of Erra,” JAOS 103 (1983): 221–226. 2 W. G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,” JTS 16 (1965): 287–300. 3 Bernard F. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Bib 68 (1987): 153–177. 4 John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 100–118. 5 Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). 6 Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (NSBT; Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004). 7 Jon C. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The “Rest” Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT II 98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 1

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

15

they are writings in which rest appears to be at least a submotif, if not the central theme. Hence, this study follows the same path by focusing initially on these same three texts. Batto and Walton both provide a framework of how rest might function in an ANE worldview, and therefore these are briefly summarized below. Machinist’s work is also substantial, and it is explored in conjunction with The Poem of Erra later in this chapter. Second, two Akkadian verbs—nâḫu and pašāḫu—mean rest and feature prominently in the three major texts. Consequently, these two words are used to limit scope lexically, but they are also used to broaden the search by exploring the two terms in other Akkadian texts or inscriptions. Doing so also limits the Mesopotamian material in this study to the Akkadian language, even though Sumerian texts would obviously qualify as Mesopotamian. Nâḫu is a cognate to the Hebrew verb ‫נוח‬, which primarily marks the rest motif in the DH—this makes nâḫu all the more relevant. While a Hebrew cognate of pašāḫu does not occur in conjunction with the promise of rest in the DH, pašāḫu shares great affinity and overlap with the semantic range of nâḫu, and the two are even interchangeable at times. While The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 8 (CAD) is helpful to understand the base meanings of nâḫu and pašāḫu, the aim here is to go beyond the categorizations of meanings to see how these rest-terms may function within their respective texts, as well as to explore the possible theological mindset of the ancient authors that produced these writings. The focus of this entire study is primarily theological, and therefore the meanings of nâḫu and pašāḫu analyzed in this chapter principally locate on rest-terms that are divine in some manner (e.g., whether rest is taken or given by a god or gods, etc.). Accordingly, some of the more minor and/or technical uses of nâḫu and pašāḫu have largely been excluded, such as when they are used in medical tablets to indicate “healing” A. L. Oppenheim, et. al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956–). 8

16

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

from an illness, 9 represent the extinguishing of a fire, 10 or used as part of a personal name. 11 Finally, there are also practical considerations that unfortunately limit the extent to which one is able search Akkadian literature. Owing to the careful work of Assyriologists, some cuneiform texts are easily accessible and searchable, for which many scholars are undoubtedly grateful. Even before the online databases that are currently available, print copies of texts, often with exhaustive indices of the Akkadian words contained within them, brought these works of literature into much closer reach to the wider academic community. Yet, unfortunately there are still many published texts that are not as easily accessible, let alone the unpublished ones. Some are not digitally searchable in Akkadian or do not have an Akkadian index. These invaluable texts, such as the Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles by Grayson, 12 must be searched manually, which is of course subject to error. CAD provides a useful compendium of numerous instances and examples of the two Akkadian rest-terms, but these entries are not exhaustive. While a manual search through ABC and other various Akkadian texts has been conducted for this study, this is admittedly not as exhaustive as one would prefer but must nevertheless suffice given present technological and logistical limitations. Within these parameters, presented below is an analysis of rest categorized in a way that accentuates what rest symbolizes theologically, as well as the possible givers and receivers of rest: (a) rest as divine authority; (b) rest as divine provision; (c) rest in a divine abode; (d) and rest as divine appeasement.

CAD, 11 I:147, 149–150; 12:229–231. CAD, 11 I:149. 11 CAD, 11 I:149; 12:229. 12 Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources; Locust Valley: J. J. Augustin, 1975). 9

10

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

17

REST AS DIVINE AUTHORITY

This first category of divine rest is one that is taken by a deity usually after a creation event or a significant victory. It is not bestowed upon the deity by another but taken by the deities themselves when the cosmos is functioning as intended and in good order. Another prominent aspect of rest in the major Akkadian texts is the disruption of it—indeed, there are probably more instances of rest disruption than an affirmative statement of rest taken by a deity. Both aspects are explored below.

Divine Rest after Creation or Victory

Batto and Walton have already established this type of rest in the broader ANE environment, and they also provide helpful paradigms showing how rest can function in ANE texts; summaries of their research are first presented below, then expanded/adapted and supported by detailed analysis primarily from Enuma Elish. Thereafter, the notion of divine rest as authority is also implicitly supported by the texts examined in the analysis of rest disruption, since noise and its disturbance of divine rest symbolizes a threat to cosmic order and rule. Batto describes a very simple yet effective paradigm by offering two categorizations of rest: 1) rest as a divine prerogative; and 2) the sleeping deity as a symbol of divine rule. 13 In the first category, Batto re-presents the common understanding of divine otiositas, or divine leisure, whereby “creation is a unique, primeval event that cannot be repeated. The divine rest which follows creation is, as it were, a statement that the creative activity is complete and that the work of the creator is perfect.” 14 Batto then uses various ANE texts in support of his claim: The Egyptian Theology of Memphis, the Canaanite tradition of El, Atrahasis and Enuma Elish. Batto’s main point in this category is that “the proper ‘posture’ for deity is to be at ease.” 15 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 156–164. Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 156. 15 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 159. 13 14

18

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Batto’s second category is perhaps the more useful one for the present inquiry. When deities sleep, it is not necessarily because the telos of existence is sleep; rather, deities sleep because they can. Rest is a sign that the cosmos over which they rule is stable and peaceful. Hence, when this is disturbed and deities are not able to sleep because of “disruptive noise,” it is because there is something amiss in the cosmic order. Here, Batto goes against the view that interprets ḫubūru (“noise”) and rigmu (“uproar”) primarily as audible sound, and argues that these Akkadian terms are instead metaphors that “indicate the cries of rebellion of humankind against the authority of the deity.” 16 While this understanding of noise may require some modification, it is sufficient for now to accept that in all likelihood divine sleep or rest should not be understood only as physical sleep. Instead, it is a symbol of divine rule, and the disruption of sleep could be a sign of chaos or rebellion. One can also appreciate the centrality of the rest motif in some of these texts (Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, The Poem of Erra). From beginning to end the gods strive for sleep/rest: 17 creation (of the world and beings, both divine and human) is earmarked by rest; complaints and rebellions are made over the loss of it; temples are built in the name of it; and wars and battles are won and lost because of it. It is not a far cry to say that, according to these ancient texts, rest or sleep is one of the primary aspirations for deities. It is important to note that while Batto uses the word “sleep” in his study, it is not difficult to understand “sleep” as “rest.” Moreover, the parallel use of these words in Enuma Elish makes this clear: “by day you should have rest, at night you should sleep.” 18 Batto divides his two categories by differentiatBatto, “The Sleeping God,” 160 (emphasis original). All of the instances alluded to here are explored below. 18 Enuma Elish, I 50 (“The Epic of Creation,” translated by Benjamin R. Foster [COS], 1.111:390–402). Unless otherwise noted, all English translations of Enuma Elish come from Foster’s translation in COS. In any instance where an Akkadian word has been supplied for Enuma Elish, it has been taken from Phillipe Talon, Enūma Eliš (SAACT IV; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005). 16 17

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

19

ing “sleep” from “rest,” but there is not a clear distinction between sleep and rest in his study. Instead, rest and sleep are both symbols of divine rule: the former is the symbol of authority by day and the latter by night. In fact, Batto’s first category is essentially the same as his second but for the words rest and sleep. Both of Batto’s categories represent some type of divine rule/position, and therefore the two categories are combined in this present study. Merging Batto’s two categories makes his argument even stronger: the gods should have rest by day and sleep by night because divine rest/sleep is not an activity of mere slumber, but rather a sign of divine rule. Rest is meant to be a metaphor of rule in the daytime, and sleep the corresponding symbol at night. To be sure, rest as a divine activity of reign and rule is an all-day and all-night affair. Like Batto, Walton understands rest as something more than slumber: “in the ancient Near Eastern cognitive environment, rest can be combined with cosmic rule.” 19 The fresh insight Walton provides for modern scholarship is that there is a common pattern displayed despite the varying portrayals of rest, and the idea of “response” is the hinge point in all of them. 20 Walton explains that the events and activities that surround rest are interrelated, and that they do, in fact, work together. Moreover, the locale of this rest is the temple that is the center of divine ruling activity. Walton states: Divine rest generally represents a state that has been achieved through a particular action that was undertaken as a response to a condition or situation that prior to the divine action was usually viewed as unacceptable. The condition in each case represents something that prevents rest. The action indicates how rest is achieved, and the state describes the type of rest anticipated or enjoyed. The common denominator in most of these cases is that divine rest provides a sense of security. When the situation among the gods or in the Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 116. Or, as Walton calls it, the “mechanism.” Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 111. 19 20

20

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE larger cosmos is secure, deity may rest—regardless of whether the rest means that he/she is thereby free to do nothing, to socialize, to enjoy life, or to do the work of running the cosmos unimpeded. The location where this rest will be experienced is, of course, the temple, the palace home of the god, where the deity may enjoy leisure, social activity, and rule. 21

Walton then organizes rest into five categories: 22 Condition

Mechanism

State

1.

General activity

Go to bed

Sleep

2.

Exile, unsettled

Build temple

Home

3.

Cosmic disorder

Organize cosmos

Hard labor; social

Create people or

Battle

Warfare and victory

4.

disorder

5.

punish people

Cosmic rule from temple

Peace, leisure, downtime

Social rule from temple

Put this way, Walton rightly demonstrates that the different uses of rest might be viewed as parts of a functioning system. Walton is also quick to note that these categorizations often overlap and that some texts exhibit a combination of these categories, Enuma Elish having the most. 23 For example, exile and unsettlement is not the only condition for which building a temple is the response. In Enuma Elish, the “Great Sanctuary” (Esagila) is built after the defeat and execution of Tiamat, and her body is used to create heaven and earth. 24 In this instance, the temple is built as a place of rule after heaven and earth are created and after vicWalton, Ancient Cosmology, 110–111. Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 111, table 3.2. 23 Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 111 n. 333. 24 Enuma Elish, IV 125–146. 21 22

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

21

tory in warfare (implied in categories 3 and 5). Following this, when Marduk relieves the imprisoned gods of labor by creating humankind, the freed gods build a temple in honor of Marduk in response (category 4). 25 Consequently, building a temple is not the exclusive “mechanism” following the “condition” of exile. Both Batto and Walton are quite helpful in organizing the various components of rest. Batto argues persuasively that rest and sleep are not mere activities of slumber but symbols of divine authority, which Walton validates by connecting rest with cosmic rule. Walton advances our understanding further by showing that the constituent parts of rest work and function together in a broader framework.

Enuma Elish

The opening lines of Enuma Elish recount creation. However, this creation account is qualitatively different from others in that the whole epic describes an ongoing process of creation. Moreover, there does not appear to be one final, complete “rest.” Instead, there are less substantial rest-statements throughout the narrative, but nothing as final as Ptah in The Theology of Memphis. 26 The lack of a final rest is actually quite important, and will be examined later in this chapter. 27 For now, several examples of rest as divine authority will be reviewed. In the opening section of the Epic, the scene is immediately one of unrest instead of rest. Apsu and Tiamat are the progenitor gods through whom the other gods are born. As soon as Nudimmud (Ea) is born, he is wreaking havoc in the divine assembly: Confusing Tiamat as they moved about in their stir, Roiling the vitals of Tiamat By their uproar distressing the interior of the Divine Abode Enuma Elish, VI 48–58. “Memphite Theology,” translated by James P. Allen (COS 1.15:22–23). 27 See the section on “The Future Hope of Rest” toward the end of this chapter. 25 26

22

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Apsu could not reduce their clamor (ri-gim-šu-un), But Tiamat was silent before them. 28

While Tiamat exhibits patience, the clamor clearly upsets Apsu, who, after consultation with his vizier Mummu, says to Tiamat: By day I have no rest (šu-up-šu-ḫa-ku), at night I do not sleep! I wish to put an end to their behavior, to do away with it! Let silence reign that we may sleep. 29

With this statement Apsu reveals his desire to eliminate the insubordinate faction. 30 Ea becomes aware of Apsu’s plans, and forges a counter-plan of his own. After lulling Apsu to sleep with a magic spell and binding Mummu, Ea strips off Apsu’s royal attire (sash, tiara, and aura), puts it on himself, and kills Apsu. On the surface, the scene is merely descriptive of the events that occurred: Apsu’s sleep is a result of an incantation. However, if one were to apply the understanding of sleep/rest as a symbol of divine rule, then this may very well portray an artful reversal depicting the ultimate betrayal. By putting Apsu to sleep, it is possible that Ea is paying false homage such that there would be no alarm. After Ea becomes aware of Apsu’s plans, the text reads: He fashioned it, he established it, a master plan, He made it artful, his superb magic spell. He recited it and brought (him) to rest in the waters, He put him in deep slumber, he was fast asleep, He made Apsu sleep, he was drenched with slumber, Mummu the advisor was drowsy with languor. He untied his sash, he stripped off his tiara, He took away his aura, he himself put it on. He tied up Apsu, he killed him, Mummu he bound, he locked him securely. Enuma Elish, I 22–26. Enuma Elish, I 38–40. 30 See next section below for understanding “noise” or “clamor” (rigmu) and its disruption of sleep/rest as rebellion. 28 29

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

23

He founded his dwelling upon Apsu. 31

It would then be very ironic that the very thing Apsu seeks to attain is what opens the door for his demise. If it is correct that the rest and sleep that Apsu desires imply divine authority, then this magic spell—the master plan that Ea fashions—would represent a stealthy coup d’état in which the leader is led into a false sense of security. This is confirmed by the lines immediately following. The original “noise makers,” or “rest disturbers” find their own rest: After Ea had captured and vanquished his foes, Had won the victory over his opponents, In his chamber, in profound quiet, he rested (šup-šu-ḫi-iš i-nuuḫ-ma). He called it “Apsu,” (meaning) “They Recognize Sanctuaries.” 32

It is clear from these lines that the victory is directly connected with the rest of the conqueror, and victory in battle is the ultimate assertion of authority and rule. Further confirmation of the above understanding of rest is revealed in the next instance of rest in the narrative as Marduk and Tiamat face each other in the final divine battle for position. Interestingly, just as Ea placed a spell on Apsu, Tiamat attempts to do the same to Marduk. In this similar passage, Tiamat “cast her spell point blank,” 33 which is “falsehood, lies she held ready on her lips.” 34 Marduk is not affected by this, for “he was holding a spell ready upon his lips, a plant, antidote to venom, he was grasping in his hand.” 35 Thus, he is able to respond to Tiamat’s empty words: To Tiamat, who acted conciliatory, sent he (this word), “Why outwardly do you assume a friendly attitude,

Enuma Elish, I 61–71. Enuma Elish, I 73–76. 33 Enuma Elish, IV 71. 34 Enuma Elish, IV 72. 35 Enuma Elish, IV 61–62. 31 32

24

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE While your heart is plotting to open attack?” 36

When the spell does not work, Tiamat shows her true intentions and she is shown to be “beside herself, she turned into a maniac. Tiamat shrieked loud, in a passion, her frame shook all over, down to the ground.” 37 Tiamat’s plans fail as the two engage in battle, and Marduk rises as the final ascendant. Having been victorious, Marduk’s fathers celebrate: His fathers watched, joyful and jubilant; They brought gifts of homage, they to him. Then the lord rested (i-nu-uḫ-ma), surveying her cadaver. 38

The last phrase is a short statement that can easily be missed. “Then the lord rested.” Speiser’s translation of “the lord rested” is preferable here (so too Dalley), 39 instead of Foster’s in the COS reading “he calmed down” 40 for the Akkadian i-nu-uḫ-ma be-lum (also Talon: “s’apaisa”). 41 First, it is probably parallel to the earlier rest-statement by Ea after his victory over Apsu rendered with the same word: i-nu-uḫ-ma. Second, while the setting of war makes it possible that Marduk simply “calmed down” after battle, given the immediate context of Marduk’s fathers bringing him gifts of homage there is probably more intended than to show Marduk physically calming down from battle. Moreover, when seen in conjunction with all the evidence thus far, it is quite probable that this short statement is a major metaphor for Marduk’s ascension as the champion and executive head of the gods. Immediately prior to this episode, even Marduk’s generational fathers bring him gifts of homage, and immediately after, Marduk proceeds to create heaven and earth—a creation theme that dominates the rest of the epic.

Enuma Elish, IV 77–78. Enuma Elish, IV 88–90. 38 Enuma Elish, IV 133–135 (E. A. Speiser, ANET, 32), italics mine. 39 Enuma Elish, IV 135 (Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991], 254). 40 Enuma Elish, IV 135 (Foster, COS 1.111:398). 41 Enuma Elish, IV 135 (Talon, Enūma Eliš, 94). 36 37

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

25

“Noise” and the Disruption of Divine Rest

Once the cosmos is created and the creator god is at rest, naturally, this rest can become disrupted. The disruption is normally expressed in the texts as an inability to sleep. Metaphorically speaking, if “sleep” is a symbol of divine rule, then “noise,” or something like it, would be that which disturbs sleep and therefore disrupts divine rule. In the Mesopotamian texts, noise is represented by the Akkadian words rigmu and ḫubūru. These two words are often studied in relation to Atrahasis and therefore in comparison to the Genesis flood narrative. As such, since the publication of the critical edition of Atrahasis by Lambert and Millard, 42 there has been a vast amount of literature on the comparison of the two texts. However, it is not the aim of this study to establish a comparison between the biblical flood narrative and Atrahasis. Instead, the focus is on the metaphor of noise in relation to rest in the Mesopotamian texts. Two main points of view have arisen with regard to noise. 43 The first, held by critics such as Kilmer, 44 Moran, 45 and FrymerKensky, 46 is that noise represents overpopulation. Kilmer states: “our understanding of man’s offense must be based primarily on his numerical increase, and only secondarily on his noisiness which may be regarded as the natural consequence of the many

W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999). 43 For more on comparative studies on Genesis 1–11 and specifically the debate regarding noise and the Genesis Flood Narrative, see Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumura, eds., I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994). 44 Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology,” Or 41 (1972): 160–177. 45 William L. Moran, review of W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Biblica 52 (1971): 51–61. 46 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9,” BA 40 (1977): 147–156. 42

26

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

lively beings.” 47 Those who hold this view tend to use it to argue that the flood story in Genesis is a conscious rejection of Atrahasis. The other viewpoint, held by those such as Pettinato, 48 von Soden, 49 Oden, 50 and Batto, 51 is that noise represents rebellion and the attempt to go beyond humankind’s own boundaries, trespassing into the divine realm. Combining the work of Pettinato and von Soden, Oden states: “the crime for which humanity is punished in the Atrahasis Epic is the crime of rebellion (Pettinato); and the source of this rebellion is the human tendency to over-reach its limits and to encroach upon divine territory (von Soden).” 52 In this sense, there is more of a similarity than a contrast between Genesis and Atrahasis. Each position seems to provide helpful insight into the problem, but they are at odds with each other—the arguments presented from both sides are well challenged by examples cited by the opposing perspective. Moreover, as shown in the analysis below, neither definition of noise can fully account for the many ways noise is used in Atrahasis. There is another angle—perhaps coming from a broader perspective—through which one can view noise that is inclusive of both understandings and may help to elaborate and nuance the concept of noise further. Without making comment on any potential relationship with Genesis, it seems reasonable that the best context in which one should study the noise is within the framework of rest. Noise is prominent in three texts surveyed below: Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, and The Poem of Erra. Kilmer, “Overpopulation,” 167. Giovanni Pettinato, “Die Bestrafung des Menschengeschlechts durch die Sintfult,” Or 37 (1968): 165–200. 49 Wolfram von Soden, “Als die Götter (auch noch) Mensch waren,” Or 38 (1969): 415–432. 50 Robert A. Oden, Jr., “Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1–11,” ZAW 93 (1981): 197–216. 51 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 153–177; see also Bernard F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 (1987): 187–211. 52 Oden, “Divine Aspirations,” 208. 47 48

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

27

Atrahasis

In Atrahasis, sleep (and its disruption) is a central motif, frequently appearing in the narrative. While Atrahasis is often thought of as a parallel to the flood narrative in Genesis, the actual flood story in Atrahasis is only one part of the larger story. 53 Indeed, almost every major section of Atrahasis begins with the disruption of sleep and the remainder of each section reveals how the state of affairs comes to an adequate resolve. There are four “events” of sleep disruption detailed in the epic, each reviewed below. The very beginning of Atrahasis deals with the revolt of the gods upon whom labor and toil are imposed. As the gods (Igigi) suffer the work “night and day,” 54 they conspire to rebel against Enlil saying, “come let us unnerve him in his dwelling!” 55 The disgruntled gods surround the temple of Enlil during the night where he is, of course, sleeping. Kalkal notices the rebellion, wakes Nusku, and together they: …listened to the noise (rigmu) of […] Nusku roused [his] lord, He got [him] out of his bed, “My lord, [your] temple is surrounded, Battle has come right up to your gate.” 56

Here, the “noise” (rigmu) is directly correlated with the battle that has come right up to the gates of the temple. In this context, it does not appear that the primary concern of Enlil, Nusku, and Kalkal is the auditory noise that might wake a sleeping deity. Rather, the main concern is the rebellion.

53

climax.

That is not to say, of course, that the flood section is not the

Atrahasis, I i 38. Unless otherwise noted, all citations from Atrahasis (both English and Akkadian) have been taken from Lambert and Millard, Atra-ḫasīs. 55 Atrahasis, I i 44. 56 Atrahasis, I ii 77–81. 54

28

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

After Enlil wakes and sees the war outside his door, he presents the issue to Anu and Enki. In reporting the problem, the word “noise” is not used to describe the issue at hand. Instead words such as “hostilities,” “battle,” “weapons,” and “war” are used. 57 Moreover, Nusku is sent back by Enlil, Anu, and Enki to find out what has caused them to declare war. The insurgent gods reply: Every single [one of us gods has declared war We have…our [.] . in the [excavation]. [Excessive] toil [has killed us] [Our] work was heavy, [the distress too much]. 58

After Nusku recounts this statement to the higher gods, Enlil asks that one god be put to death. Anu responds sympathetically: What are we accusing them of? [Every day] . [……….]… [The lamentation was] heavy, [we could] hear the noise (rigmu). 59

In the last line, “noise” is the sound of their lamentation, their outcry. Their lamentation is so loud or “heavy” that it could be heard by the ruling gods. All of this—the noisy hoard of rebellious gods that wake Enlil and his viziers, the description of the rebellion with words that connote war and the absence of the word “noise” as the problem, together with Anu’s response— strongly suggests that “noise” is a complaint and outcry against the ruling god. “Lamentation” (I iv 179) is a very fitting description. Grumbling/complaining and lament/supplication are two sides of the same coin. The Igigi gods are in rebellion; however, this is the way they express their indignation and outcry against the heavy labor and toil they are experiencing. In other words, rebellion is the vehicle by which they lament and seek to change

Atrahasis, I ii 108–iii 133. Atrahasis, I iii 146–150. 59 Atrahasis, I iv 177–179. 57 58

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

29

their laborious situation. This rebellion is then, of course, “noisy.” Neither Kilmer nor Moran includes this passage in their study of noise in Atrahasis. This inevitably weakens their contention that noise describes overpopulation exclusively. Of course, overpopulation is a fundamental theme of Atrahasis, but considering the evidence thus far, it is likely that overpopulation itself is indicative of something more. These initial events that open the Epic make no mention of overpopulation, and yet the same word for noise, rigmu, is used extensively in the Epic. This presents a serious problem to those who hold that noise only represents the sound and rumbling of too many people in an urban setting. As the introduction to Atrahasis, this initial noise event cannot be overlooked, for it is the rebellion of the lower gods that is the predicate of the succeeding events—namely, the creation of human beings and their noisy stir. In order to resolve the conflict, one representative god is slain and from his flesh and blood humankind is created to take up the arduous labor the gods were complaining about. This must be emphasized: the same toil and labor that caused the Igigū to complain and rebel are placed on humans. It is no wonder that the human beings follow suit in reviving the noise that disturbed Enlil’s sleep. After humans are created, the narrative immediately goes on to describe how human beings now create the same noise and uproar that disrupt divine sleep (šittu), to which the gods respond with a plague to destroy humanity: The god got disturbed with their [uproar] (ḫubūru) [Enlil heard] their noise (rigmu) [And addressed] the great gods, “The noise (rigmu) of mankind [has become too intense for me], [With their uproar (ḫubūru)] I am deprived of sleep (šittu).” 60

The words ḫubūru and rigmu are set in a chiastic structure, linking the two words together. Because of the use of the same word (rigmu) one might assume that the noise of the people depicts a 60

Atrahasis, I vii 355–359.

30

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

rebellion, similar to the rebellion of the lower gods. However, Kilmer is correct to assert that “if we follow the text, the first plague is sent without work refusal as a reason. We may only say that after the plagues human beings may have neglected their usual work duties. It is nowhere stated in the text, however.” 61 This, then, is a problem for those who view noise exclusively as a sign of rebellion. The most immediate context hints toward overpopulation as the reason for the noise and therefore plague (“when the land extended and the people multiplied”). 62 The next instance of noise in the text comes fewer than 20 lines afterward. Atrahasis petitions Enki, who gives him the following instructions: [Command] that heralds proclaim, And make a loud noise (rigma lišebbû) in the land, “Do not reverence your gods, Do not pray to your goddesses, But seek the door of Namtara And bring a baked (loaf) in front of it. The offering of sesame-meal may be pleasing to him, Then he will be put to shame by the gift and will lift his hand” 63

There is some debate as to whether rigma lišebbû should be translated as, “make a loud noise” or “let them silence/diminish the roar.” According to CAD, the verb šapû is differentiated into three categories: A) to flare, surge, billow; to make resound; B) to wrap, to fasten with laces; and C) to be silent, remain silent; to silence, subdue. 64 Hence, it is only left to context as to how to determine which meaning fits best. Following Lambert’s translation, CAD lists this passage under category A. If the correct translation is “make a loud noise in the land” (category A), then one implication is, if noise means rebellion, that the proclamation is “die praktisch eine Kampfansage an die Kilmer, “Overpopulation,” 167. Atrahasis, I vii 353. 63 Atrahasis, I vii 391–398. 64 CAD, 17 I:487–491. 61 62

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

31

Götter,” 65 or a virtual challenge/rebellion against the gods. Pettinato and von Soden both maintain that it is a call for all not to “reverence” or “pray” to their gods as an act of rebellion, and instead turn all of their worship and direction to Namtar and Adad. However, it is somewhat difficult to imagine that a rebellion on such a large scale, especially to upper gods such as Enlil, would occur in favor of elevating lower deities such as Namtar and Adad. Still, this explanation is more coherent than if noise represented the sound of overpopulation. For those proponents, the translation “make a loud noise” is rather problematic, for the implication would be that the people are being commanded to increase their roar, conceivably through even more reproduction. Moran and Oden, who disagree about whether noise means over overpopulation or rebellion, prefer category C: to silence, or diminish. In such a case, the translation would be: “diminish noise in the land” 66 or “let them silence the roar in the land.” 67 Moran writes: “in view of the problem the rigmu of the people had already created, it seems much more likely that the heralds are not to be told to add to the noise but rather to go about putting it down.” 68 Oden, who argues that noise means rebellion, agrees with Moran’s translation, yet the two disagree about the meaning of noise. For Oden, the proclamation makes sense in that when the people are told to quieten down, the implication is that they are to stop their rebellion or outcry, “and then replacing this din with worship directed to the deity responsible for each crisis.” 69 This is more reasonable than Pettinato or von Soden’s understanding that the people were to have a mass rebellion while in turn focusing on one god. Moran contends that it is not in Enki’s character to incite an open, outright rebellion against all the gods. Instead, Enki’s actions show him to be more of a “sly diplomat” (he is the one Pettinato, “Die Bestrafung,” 189. Oden, “Divine Aspirations,” 203. 67 Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 54. 68 Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 54, n. 1. 69 Oden, “Divine Aspirations,” 209. 65 66

32

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

who suggests creating human beings instead of fighting with the rebellious gods). Moreover, it seems contradictory that Enki would have Adad act stealthily in providing rain during the drought in the midst of an open rebellion (II ii 17–19: “and may furtively rain down a dew in the night, so that the fields will furtively bear grain”). 70 All things considered, the context suggests that the proper translation is “to diminish” or “to silence.” There does not appear to be any recent scholarship that challenges the above translation. Nonetheless, even when the command is to be taken as “diminish/silence the roar,” both Moran and Oden have problems with their respective positions. Moran argues that not all the gods should be abandoned, but only the personal gods: “as almost countless examples show, this is the usual way of referring to personal gods. If the poet had wished to include all the gods, he would almost certainly not have used the pronominal suffix.” 71 Hence, Moran’s interpretation of Enki’s advice is as follows: First of all, quiet down, then neglect for a time your individual gods and goddesses, concentrate the cult you would ordinarily give to them on the god afflicting you, making him a kind of universal personal god, until he is so embarrassed by your attentions that he either desists or adopts some way of nullifying the effects of the plague. 72

Moran is likely correct to assert that the command is to neglect their personal gods. Moran, however, does not clearly explain what it means to “quiet down” in this instance—he only argues that the context is established by the introduction to each plague where the size of the population is the cause of the disruption of sleep. 73 If Moran’s interpretation is taken in a strict sense and applied to the translation of the proclamation, it is unclear how the people are to quiet down if the meaning of Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 54. Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. 72 Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. 73 Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 56. 70 71

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

33

noise is in fact the sound of overpopulation. It does not seem feasible for an overpopulated crowd to reduce their clamor if not by reducing the population itself. One is left to wonder how an industrious city would actually reduce their noise and still accomplish the task of work given to them by the gods. However, both Moran 74 and Kilmer 75 are correct to note that the context does not have any work-stoppage or descriptions of rebellion in the immediate context, and that the introduction to each plague is couched in terms synonymous with overpopulation: “when the land extended and the people multiplied.” Oden does not speak to this potential problem. Hence, it is contended here that noise represents the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings. 76 This interpretation of noise fits better in the present context than the options previously suggested. In the opening lines introducing the plagues, the people’s “noise” is offered as the reason for the plagues. The people multiplied and their roar bellowed 77 throughout the land. There does not have to be any mention of a work-stoppage if noise represents lament or complaint. In fact, the more people there are, the louder the lament/grumbling would be. The command to silence their noise also makes sense if it is a command to stop their lament. It brings to light a better understanding of the command “do not reverence your gods, do not pray to your goddess.” 78 Again, Moran is correct to interpret

Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. Kilmer, “Overpopulation,” 167. 76 My sincere thanks to John Walton for his thoughts and direction that have helped shape and focus this understanding of noise. 77 “Bellowed” is a translation of šabû, the same word used to indicate that either noise should be increased or silenced. While this might lead one to believe that the proper translation of the heralds’ command is to increase noise, given the above evidence, and the fact that this could very well be an expression of artistic ironic style on the part of the poet, the proper translation is likely “to diminish/silence.” 78 Atrahasis, I vii 393–394. 74 75

34

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

“your gods” as personal gods, not all the gods. 79 However, Moran’s paraphrase of the command, “first of all, quiet down” 80 sounds conspicuously similar to a call to stop their complaining or lament. For Moran, “first of all, quiet down, then neglect for a time your individual gods” 81 are two separate commands; one comes after the other. Instead, it seems more likely that the command to diminish noise is related to the command to diminish their lament and cry to their personal gods, and replace that lament with offering to the god in control of the plague. In this way, the plagues can be viewed as strong-arm tactics to get the people to stop their grumbling. Once the plague is lifted, theoretically the people would not be as discontented, realizing that the situation could be much worse. In the climax of the narrative, all of humanity is to be destroyed by a flood. 82 It is unclear why exactly this is done as the tablets are heavily fragmented at this point. It can only be assumed, as is most commonly done, that the same problem— excessive noise—in the prior two attempts to kill humankind is the reason for the flood. Beyond the flood event, the term rigmu is used five times in Tablet III to mean: a) the roar of a god’s voice; 83 b) lamentation or cry (twice); 84 or c) the “noise” of the flood (twice). 85 As the roar of a god’s voice, rigmu is used in the text to describe Adad’s voice when he brings on the flood. According to von Soden 86 and Oden, 87 this reference supports the idea that “rigmu is a characteristic of divine actions, and not the proper Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. 81 Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 55. 82 As the narrative of the text transitions from the first plague to second, the second mimics the first but with a different god and plague so there is no need to reduplicate the analysis. 83 Atrahasis, III ii 50. 84 Atrahasis, III iii 43, 47. 85 Atrahasis, III iii 10, 23. 86 Von Soden, “Als die Götter,” 415–432. 87 Oden, “Divine Asprirations,” 205, 209. 79 80

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

35

accompaniment to human activity.” 88 While it is true that rigmu is often used to denote the clamor of the gods, it is used of humans also in The Poem of Erra. 89 Further, it does not necessarily follow that because one class of beings (humans) stirs up rigmu in the same manner as another class (gods), that one class is attempting to be like the other. Complaint or lament can be accompanied, or rather, expressed, by anger. Moreover, rigmu need not always represent a deeper metaphor. Rigmu does, in many instances throughout ML, simply imply audible noise. Mami’s response to the devastation contains two more instances of rigmu, which probably mean lamentation or complaint: As a result of my own choice And to my own hurt I have listened to their noise (rigmu). My offspring—cut off from me—have become like flies! As for me, like the occupant of a house of lamentation My cry (rigmu) has died away. 90

In the first instance of rigmu, it may be assumed the noise Mami heard is the rigmu of the complaining gods for that is the cause of the flood, which in turn is the cause of her lament. The translation “complaint” or “lament” is more fitting here than “rebellion” or “war cry,” for there is no record of an actual rebellion or war within the gods. True, Enlil quarrels with Enki about a plan to destroy the human beings, but there is no mention of any kind of rebellion. On the contrary, the quarrel appears to be more suggestive of complaint. Moreover, the idea that rigmu is complaint or lamentation fits very well in this context, as compared with the other options. Mami regrets that she listened to their noise, “their noise” most likely being the gods’ complaint of the noise of the people. The second instance of rigmu in the above passage is translated as “cry,” by Lambert, and it is rather self evident that the

Oden, “Divine Asprirations,” 209. See below on noise in The Poem of Erra. 90 Atrahasis, III iii 42–47. 88 89

36

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

connotation is “lament.” Both CAD 91 and Moran 92 translate this instance of rigmu as lamentation. This is direct support for the idea that rigmu is representative of complaint, outcry, and lament. Hence, the idea of the clamor of overpopulation does not work well here, nor does the notion of rebellion. The final uses of rigmu in Tablet III describe the sound of the flood. Depicting the storm leading to the flood, the flood is said to have “shattered its noise [like a pot].” 93 This could mean that the flood shattered the noise of human beings, but this is uncertain due to the fragmented nature of the text. The other instance of noise referring to the sound of the flood is also fragmented, and all that can be gleaned from it is “the noise of the flood.” 94 In these two instances, none of the options, whether rebellion, overpopulation, or complaint/lament, fits in this context. It is possible that the loud noise of the flood is simply an extension of the loud noise of its thunderous originator, Adad. There are no further direct references to noise through the remainder of the text of Atrahasis. While there is not much lexical evidence to aid our understanding of noise in Tablet III, there are still both the context and narrative of the story. After the flood is sent, the gods are shown to be thirsty and hungry: “Their lips were feverishly athirst, they were suffering cramp from hunger.” 95 Foster notes that this feeble state of affairs causes them to regret their “hasty action.” 96 It is well known that the ancients understood offerings and sacrifices to have fed the gods. Since most of humankind is killed in the flood, sacrifices are no longer being offered. These epics lead one to envisage the gods entrusting the labor of irrigation and farming to human beings as the way for them to receive food through offerings. The following text provides a brief glimpse of the labor assigned to human beings: CAD, 14:333. Moran, review of Lambert and Millard, 57 n. 3. 93 Atrahasis, III iii 10. 94 Atrahasis, III iii 23. 95 Atrahasis, III iv 21–22. 96 Benjamin R. Foster, “Atra-ḫasis” (COS 1.130: 452). 91 92

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE With picks and spades they built the shrines, They build the big canal banks. For food for the peoples, for the sustenance of [the gods]. 97

37

These are the very last lines before the famous “twelve hundred years had not passed” statement leading to the gods’ displeasure at the noise of human beings. The humans take the same kind of agricultural tools (picks and spades) that the Igigi gods turned into weapons and bear the labor of building shrines and canal banks. This, however, has a specific purpose: food for both people and gods. In this context, it is easy to see why overpopulation would be problematic. To a certain extent, more people means more food unless, of course, too many people means fewer sacrifices for the gods. Even then, however, the problem would be a lack of offerings, not merely overpopulation. Noise and overpopulation are quite related to each other in that the latter causes a lack of offerings and food supply, which in turn causes the “noise of complaint.” This is different from the traditional understanding of “noise” being the “sound” of too many people stirring about. While overpopulation is a cause of noise, it is not the only cause of noise. There are too many other accounts of noise, as is shown in other texts below and in the opening section of Atrahasis, which exclude the idea that the two are inextricably linked. It would also be unreasonable to export the concepts of overpopulation and noise to other texts where noise exists without any explicit account of overpopulation. In the end, the gods allow humanity to continue existing because they are dependent on humans for their own wellbeing. However, they do this with a few regulations, of which there is only a partial record: In addition let there be a third category among the peoples, (Let there be) among the peoples women who bear and women who do not bear. Let there be among the peoples the Pāšittu-demon To snatch the baby from the lap of her who bore it. 97

Atrahasis, I vii 337–339.

38

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Establish the Ugbabtu-women, the Entu-women, and Igiṣītuwomen, And let them be taboo and so stop childbirth. 98

It is regrettable that the other regulations are lost as they would have provided more insight into the purpose of the text. What does exist seems to be related to overpopulation, and, as Biggs states, “it is always in a society’s interest to find means to control fertility,” especially “in times of restricted resources such as periods of famine.” 99 There is evidence from Mesopotamian medical tablets to suggest that the ancients believed they could have effective contraceptives as well as abortifacients. 100 However, as noted above, this does not mean that noise only represents the clatter of overpopulation. In this case overpopulation would mean that there would not be enough for sacrifice to deities and the cult. The first two categories (lines 1–4) represent an explanation of pre-existing phenomena; but, it is unthinkable that the whole of the epic should have been written so as to explain these phenomena. 101 The last two lines provide insight into its connection with the cult. Foster translates these last lines as “establish high priestesses and priestesses, let them be taboo, and so cut down childbirth,” 102 recognizing that the “high priestess and certain other classes of priestesses were forbidden to have children (except perhaps by the king).” 103 In this way even population control is tied to worship and loyalty to the divine cult. The priestesses were set aside exclusively for divine work. Atrahasis, III vii 1–8. See R. D. Biggs, “Conception, Contraception, and Abortion in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert (eds. A. R. George and I. L. Finkel; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 4. 100 Biggs, “Conception,” 1–13. 101 See Biggs, “Conception,” 4, n. 25, who doubts that infanticide was used as a means for population control. 102 Atrahasis, III vii 6–7 (Foster, COS 1.130: 452). 103 Foster, “Atra-ḫasis,” (COS 1.130: 452, n. 9). 98 99

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

39

In summary, when taking all the instances of noise in Atrahasis into account, there is evidence that there are major problems with both traditional interpretations of noise. Neither fits the majority of the uses of noise in the text, and both avoid the occurrences of noise that do not fit each respective paradigm. This does not mean that there is no value to either understanding; on the contrary, both touch upon important aspects of noise. When synthesized together, the two metaphors can be augmented to provide a more general and overarching metaphor for noise. This present study argues that noise symbolizes the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings. This can come from overpopulation (which leads to a shortage of food and therefore sacrifice), but it does not need to necessarily. It can also be expressed by rebellion, but again, this does not have to be the case. This view makes good sense of nearly all the instances of noise, not just a selection of them. With regard to rebellion, when there is actually some sort of work-stoppage or attempt to undermine authority, it must be noted that when gods are creating noise, often rebellion is involved, but when humans are causing noise, it is usually complaint or lament. It is possible that humans are not able to wage war against the gods and therefore are resigned to simple complaint or lament. This is important to distinguish because proponents of the overpopulation understanding of noise often argue (correctly) that rebellion does not always attend the concept of noise. At the same time, as illustrated above, there are instances where rebellion is described by the word noise. Hence, this simple bifurcation helps to answer some of the criticism presented by both sides of the debate regarding the definition of noise. Perhaps the more important question at this point is whether this new understanding of noise fits well in the contexts of other bodies of literature in which rigmu can be found.

Enuma Elish

Enuma Elish begins with unrest instead of rest. Unlike the opening scene in Atrahasis, the unrest in Enuma Elish is caused neither by humankind nor by overpopulation. As already noted, when the gods create noise, it tends to be attended by rebellion/war. Given this pattern, it is possible that there are hints of

40

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

some type of insurgence in Enuma Elish. In the opening scene, the younger gods are: Confusing Tiamat as they moved about in their stir, Roiling the vitals of Tiamat By their uproar distressing the interior of the Divine Abode Apsu could not reduce their clamor (ri-gim-šu-un), But Tiamat was silent before them. 104

In Atrahasis, the labor of the lower gods causes them to be noisy and rebel, and that same labor which is placed on humankind causes humankind to be clamorous. The lower gods are not just complaining but had declared war. In other words, in a sense they sought to ascend the hierarchy by overthrowing Enlil and shaking off the yoke of labor placed on them. However, in Enuma Elish, people are not portrayed as being noisy and the lower gods are not seen as “complaining.” The lines that immediately precede the statements of noise that roil Tiamat and Apsu are informing: Then Anshar made Anu, his offspring, his equal. Then Anu begot his own image Nudimmud, 105 Nudimmud was he who dominated(?) his forebearers: Profound in wisdom, acute of sense, he was massively strong, Much mightier than his grandfather Anshar, No rival had he among the gods his brethren. The divine brethren banded together 106

First, Anshar makes his son, Anu, his equal. This is already a statement of hierarchy and ascension. 107 Second, when it comes to Ea (Nudimmud), the statements of ascension are even stronger. Foster, as alluded to by the question mark in his translation, Enuma Elish, I 22–26. Nudimmud = Ea. 106 Enuma Elish, I 15–21. 107 Not to mention that Anshar and Kishar also grew up to be “greater” than their forerunners Lahmu and Lahamu. See Enuma Elish, I 10–12. 104 105

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

41

suspects that Ea “dominated” his fathers in line 17 above, and Heidel translates the phrase “Nudimmud, the master of his fathers was he.” 108 Ea is mightier than even his grandfather and, moreover, he has no rival. Third, in these four lines devoted to Ea much more is said about him than any other god in this genealogy. Fourth, there is no other statement but these that describe the clamor that upsets the Divine Abode. Indeed, the last line is one continuous statement connecting clamor to that which confuses Tiamat: “The divine brethren banded together, confusing Tiamat as they moved about in their stir, roiling the vitals of Tiamat.” The reader is offered nothing else by this part of the text as to a description of noise other than the statements of ascension and allegiance. It is then no coincidence that after Ea prevails over Apsu (because Apsu in his desire for rest plots to kill Ea) Ea rests in his chamber “in profound quiet.” 109 Taken together, it appears that there is evidence to support the notion that there is some level of upheaval or insubordination taking place. The next statement of noise comes quickly after this depiction of Ea resting. Anu forms four winds, puts them in Ea’s hands and proclaims, “Let my son play!” 110 Indeed, Ea does play, again causing a stir, so much so that he rouses a storm and causes a wave to hit Tiamat, churning her “day and night.” 111 Now all the other gods complain. They too find no rest as they “bore the brunt of each wind.” 112 The text says that they “plotted evil in their hearts” and speak out to Tiamat: “When he killed Apsu your husband, You did nothing to save him but sat by, silent. Now he has made four terrible winds, They are roiling your vitals so we cannot sleep. Enuma Elish, I 17 (Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951], 18). 109 Enuma Elish, I 75. 110 Enuma Elish, I 106. 111 Enuma Elish, I 109. 112 Enuma Elish, I 110. 108

42

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE You had no care for Apsu your husband, As for Mummu, who was captured, you remained aloof. Now you churn back and forth, confused. As for us, who cannot lie down to rest, you do not love us! Think of our burden, our eyes are pinched, Lift this unremitting yoke, let us sleep! Battle has begun, give them what they deserve, [Ma]ke a [tempest], turn them into nothingness.” When Tiamat [heard] these words, they pleased her. 113

This time, wind is Ea’s instrument of choice for roiling Tiamat and the other gods, but the result is the same: they cannot sleep. Ea’s “playful” use of wind is not how the winds should be used. He uses them to cause chaos and unrest. This, according to the complaining gods, is a sign of battle: “battle has begun, give them what they deserve.” Though the word “noise” is not used here the result is the same as they “cannot sleep” and “cannot lie down to rest.” The absence of the word “noise” is actually intriguing. This is what one would normally expect, and thus left to wonder why the word noise is not used here. Interestingly, this part of the narrative comes right after Ea conquers his foes and claims victory over Apsu. Apsu is the original father god and Ea builds a temple meaning “They Recognize Sanctuaries.” Herein Ea rests, and this is the only statement of rest by any god thus far in the narrative. Therefore, it can be inferred that Ea is now virtually the head of all. The tables have been reversed. Even though Ea is wreaking havoc and not allowing any rest, he is no longer doing it rebelliously because he is no longer under any authority against which he may rebel. It is curious that there is no statement about this chaos being caused by Ea, which distresses “the interior of the Divine Abode.” 114 It is possible that there is no statement of noise because as the virtual head Ea could now do as he pleases.

113 114

Enuma Elish, I 113–125. Enuma Elish, I 24.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

43

Moreover, while the word “noise” is not used directly, similar images are described and attributed to the complaining gods after they convince Tiamat to go to war. In their warfare they: Closed ranks and drew up at Tiamat’s side, Angry, scheming, never lying down night and day Making warfare, rumbling, raging, Convening in assembly, that they might start hostilities. Mother Hubur, who can form everything, Added countless invincible weapons, gave birth to monster serpents, Pointed of fang, with merciless incisors(?) She filled their bodes with venom for blood. 115

While ḫubūru is not employed here, it is Mother Hubur who provides all the weaponry and makes all kinds of monsters, serpents of warfare from dragons to lion monsters. In this context, the name of the progenitor of the warfare weaponry is probably not a coincidence. Most likely it has the same etymology as ḫubūru. This actually makes sense considering Ea’s new position over the other gods.

The Poem of Erra

ANE scholars recognize that The Poem of Erra 116 ranks high in importance among the major Akkadian works, not only for its sheer literary beauty but also for its popularity during its own time. More copies of The Poem from the first millennium BCE have been found than even those of the Gilgamesh epic. 117 The number of copies coupled with the fact that the general trend

Enuma Elish, I 129–136 (italics mine). While there is debate as to the proper designation of the text (myth, epic, etc.), the most commonly used term “poem” will be used here. 117 Luigi Cagni, The Poem of Erra (eds. Giorgio Buccellati, et al.; SANE 1, 3; Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977), 5. 115 116

44

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

has been to push the date of composition earlier (although there is not a consensus) 118 shows its rapid spread and popularity. 119 The opening lines of The Poem recount the plea made to Erra to arise for battle. Exactly who makes this plea is unclear from The Poem itself, and it is not clear whether this lack of identification is intentional or the result of loss of key fragments of text. 120 Regardless, the plea is made to Erra: Arise, Erra! By laying waste the country How relieved your mind will be, how much your heart will rejoice! Erra’s limbs are wear[y] like those of one who cannot fall asleep (dal-pi). “Shall I get up? Shall I keep lying?”, he wonders. To his weapons he says: “Stay in the racks!”. To the Sibitti, unrivalled heroes: “Back to your seats!”. Until you rouse him, (Erra) will lie in his chamber. 121

This portrayal of Erra is quite interesting and unusual. Erra appears extremely tired, yet he cannot fall asleep. Machinist interprets this to mean that Erra is so tired that he cannot sleep properly. 122 This interpretation would be contrary to what has been presented above. However, there does appear to be ample evidence that there is more to Erra’s unrest than his weariness. While there is no direct statement about what causes the restlessness of Erra, there are many statements to which one can refer to discern the reason for Erra’s unrest. Immediately following the call for Erra to rise, there is a section describing the See Cagni, Poem, 5, 20–21, and Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 221–222. 119 Cagni, Poem, 5. 120 See Cagni, Poem, 27 n. 1, for a summary of the different options on this issue. 121 The Poem of Erra, I 13–19. All English translations are taken from Cagni, Poem, 26–61, while any Akkadian words are from Luigi Cagni, L’Epopea Di Erra (Studi Semitici 34; Rome: Istituto Di Studi Del Vicino Oriente, 1969). 122 Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 223. 118

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

45

Sibitti, Erra’s “sidekicks” as Machinist puts it, created by Anum for warfare. The Sibitti are given to Erra as it is declared: Let them march beside you When the noise (ḫu-bur-ši-na) of the inhabitants becomes unbearable to you, And your heart is driven to make devastations, To kill the Dark-headed (people and) to slaughter Šakkan’s herds, Let them be your fierce weapons, let them march beside you! 123

The above statement is the only one given as to the purpose of the Sibitti. The Sibitti march next to Erra as his weapons for the time when the “noise” of humankind becomes unbearable and therefore humankind is to be destroyed. The statement is specific: the Sibitti become of use when the noise of men becomes unbearable “to you” (elī-ka, i.e., Erra). Directly following the section on the Sibitti, it is the Sibitti themselves who are now urging Erra to rise for battle. It is no surprise that in trying to persuade Erra that they exclaim: “Let men be frightened and may their noise (ḫu-bur-ši[n]) subside.” 124 Hence, it is the “noise” of men that is the cause of the unrest. Moreover, the Sibitti also cite the unrest of other gods. In so doing, they also give insight as to what humankind’s noise is: To the Anunnaki, who love deathly silence (šaḫ-ra-ar-ti), do something good: Because of men’s noise (ḫu-bur) the Anunnaki cannot fall asleep The herds are trampling the grazing grounds (which are) life to the country. [Bit]terly does the farmer grieve over his (destroyed) [. . . . . . . .]. Lion and wolf strike down Šakkan’s herds.

123 124

The Poem of Erra, I 41–44. The Poem of Erra, I 73.

46

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Because of his (ravaged) flocks the shepherd cannot rest by day or night, (but) entre[ats] you. 125

Cagni states that these lines depict “the state of general disorder which, joined with the feeling of suffering and the attitude of prayer in mankind, requires, in the judgment of the Sibitti, the prompt intervention of Erra.” 126 Herds are trampling the grazing grounds, and lions and wolves are attacking the herds. The farmer bitterly grieves and the shepherd has no rest by day and night. The farmer’s bitter grieving and the shepherd’s entreaty may very well be indicative of the same noise as described in this study: the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings. One might also deduce that along with the noise, the chaos brings about a shortage of food, which in turn would cause a shortage of sacrifice and tribute. Toward the end of The Poem, Erra instructs Išum regarding the rebuilding of Akkad, and the wording there is reminiscent of the chaos described above: You shall make Šakkan and Nisaba come down again into the country. You shall take care that the mountain districts yield their abundance and the sea its tribute. You shall make the fields, which were ravaged, bring (their) tribute. May the governors of all the cities draw their massive tribute into Šuanna. May the ruined temples raise their heads as (high as) the flaming sun. 127

These instructions reverse the destruction, the purpose of which is to pay tribute and rebuild the temples. Returning to the initial call for Erra to rise, his weariness is probably due to the battles he has already been fighting; hence the order for the weapons to “stay in the racks” and for the The Poem of Erra, I 81–86. Cagni, Poem, 31 n. 22. 127 The Poem of Erra, V 32–36. 125 126

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

47

Sibitti to return “back to your seats.” However, it is not yet time for Erra to sleep, nor is it the proper state of affairs—apparently there is still much noise to suppress. As the text shows, it is not only Erra who cannot sleep but other gods as well. The call for Erra to arise is necessary for his work is not yet done. With regard to noise as overpopulation in Atrahasis, there is one statement in The Poem that might make some connection to overpopulation: “I shall make . . . . . . . . angry and he/she will put an end to childbirth. The nurse will be deprived of the screams of baby and child.” 128 However, this statement comes amidst a long list of punishments that Erra intends to impose on humankind, and these statements, as is seen later from Išum’s reply, are wholly capricious and indeed excessive: I shall cut off [the life] of the righteous man who acts as intercessor. The evil man, who cuts throats, him I shall put in the highest? places?. I shall so change men’s hearts that father will not listen to son (And) daughter will talk to mother with hatred. I shall cause them to speak ill and they will forget their god (And) speak gross blasphemy to their goddess. I shall rouse the th[ief] and bar the way. People will plunder each other’s goods in the city. [Li]on and wolf will strike down Šakkan’s h[er]ds. 129

It becomes obvious from this list that Erra’s desired action goes far beyond what is deserved. Indeed, much of the remaining text is devoted to Išum’s reply and the complaint that Erra’s actions are illegitimate. Furthermore, the conclusion of the dialogue between the two results in Erra’s realization of his arbitrary actions. Erra amends his decision and exacts a proper punishment: Akkad’s enemies are destroyed instead of all of humankind (V 128–150). Erra attributes this corrected action to the wisdom of Išum (V 1–19). Hence, the one statement from Erra about put128 129

The Poem of Erra, III 16–17. The Poem of Erra, III 7–15.

48

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ting an end to childbirth is couched within statements that The Poem itself finds to be wrong. This brings the discussion to an important point: the dialogue between Erra and Išum. Erra seeks rest, as do the other gods, and the noise (or contempt) of humankind prevents it. Though Erra is called upon to remedy the situation, his response is unilateral and unjustified. He calls for blind destruction, whether or not it is deserved. But this is certainly peculiar. If sleep and rest simply refer to the sloth and laziness of the gods, and if noise and clamor mean only the “sound” of human beings (apart from the contempt that has been suggested here), then why not destroy everything? Why does The Poem assume the illegitimacy of Erra’s actions? In Išum’s final accusation against Erra he states, Hero Erra, you killed the righteous man, You killed the unrighteous man You killed him who sinned against you, You killed him who did not sin against you. You killed the enu (-priest) who was eager to bring the taklīmu (-offerings) to the gods You killed the gerseqqû, the king’s attendant. You killed the old men on the threshold. You killed the young girls in their chambers Yet you could find no peace (na-ḫa-am-ma ul ta-nu-uḫ) at all! 130

Even after killing so many, it is quite astonishing and even shocking that Erra could find “no peace at all!” Instead, what is implied in this statement is that the proper rest of the deity can only be found with proper justice. One cannot reduce noise simply by wiping out the source of it. The source of noise comes not simply from the number of people but also from the actions (contempt) of those people. Furthermore, rest only comes with righteous punishment of such actions, not impetuous annihilation. Hence, rest and sleep are symbols not only of divine rule but righteous divine rule. In fact, earlier in The Poem, Išum flips 130

The Poem of Erra, IV 104–112, emphasis mine.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

49

Erra’s actions back on to him: “And (dare) you say in your heart: ‘They held me in contempt!’? (It is) you, hero Erra, (who) did not fear prince Marduk’s name!” 131 The very contempt that the people had for Erra and the gods is the same contempt Erra showed by coercing Marduk away from his throne and causing even more chaos. This provides insight into the contempt of humanity. The fact that rest comes from proper justice is confirmed by Erra’s final actions. Erra, having been convinced by Išum to return to reason, orders the destruction of Akkad’s enemies and elevates the Akkadians over the others. 132 Only after this is decreed and carried out is Erra able to rest: “When Erra was appeased (i-nu-ḫu) and occupied his seat.” 133 The last line of tablet IV is also the first line of tablet V; this kind of repetition occurs with all the tablets in The Poem, and the sets of repeated lines are, in fact, important catch lines. 134 Now that the proper order has been restored, Erra rests. It is interesting that after Erra rests, the beginning of tablet V describes how Erra attributes the correcting of his actions to Išum; Erra explains what would have happened if he went on making “no distinction between good and bad.” Erra states, Without Išum my herald, what would have happened? Where (would) your provisioner (be)? Where your ēnu (priest)? Where the food offering to you? You would no longer smell incense! 135

The Poem of Erra, III frag. D 15–16. The Poem of Erra, IV 128–151. 133 The Poem of Erra, IV 151, V 1. 134 From I to II: “(Marduk then) rose from his inaccessible seat. Towards the abode of the Anunnaki he turned his face”; from II to III the only extant words are: “he needs nobody”; from III to IV: “(It is) you, hero Erra, (who) did no fear prince Marduk’s name!”; and lastly from IV to V: “When Erra was appeased and occupied his seat.” 135 The Poem of Erra, V 13–15. 131 132

50

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Again, as was shown in Atrahasis, one of the primary concerns is the offerings to the gods. Humans are vital in this regard. If a deity wipes out the good and bad alike, no one is left to appease the gods; yet again there would be no rest for the gods. Rest is again tied to the cult. As Machinist points out, there is a fine balance and interplay between rest and violence, activity and inactivity: Thus, activity is necessary for the universe to function. But too much activity brings on violence and potential chaos. Likewise, a certain inactivity, if understood as peacefulness and calm, helps to insure a balanced and just order. But too much inactivity is the equivalent of paralysis and death, and invites violent activity to fill the void it has left. 136

Peace requires warfare, yet the goal of warfare is peace. Peace can easily become non-vigilance, leaving a gap for violence, injustice, and contempt. In dealing with such violence a just portion of punishment needs to be exacted or else too much of it will create a similar injustice and contempt (recalling how Erra was in contempt to Marduk just as humans were). Impartial devastation does not provide rest to the gods in any sense. The balance required for peace is fair justice. And it is this fair justice—righteous rule, so to speak—which is required for divine rest.

REST AS DIVINE PROVISION Rest to Deities

A pattern begins to emerge in Enuma Elish and Atrahasis. After cosmic rule is established by upper-level gods, lower-level deities are assigned labor responsibilities. Human beings are then created to assume these responsibilities so that the lower-level deities may rest. This rest—rest from labor—is a divine provision from the upper to the lower. Together with nâḫu and pašāḫu, the words šubarrû and andurāru are also used to describe 136

Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 225.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

51

rest from labor, and this second pair can denote some type of relief from a service obligation, often translated with words such as freedom, liberty, remission, and relief. 137

Enuma Elish

Marduk constructs the cosmic order after his victory over Tiamat, then apportions the tasks and responsibilities for the other gods. While the text moves quickly from the point at which these tasks are assigned to when Marduk decides to create humankind, it is unclear in the text how much time passes. As Marduk plans to create human beings, he says: I shall make stand a human being, let “Man” be its name. I shall create humankind They shall bear the gods’ burden that those may rest (pa-ašḫu). 138

A few lines later, the plan to bestow rest to the gods is restated: “he told him a plan to let the gods rest (tap-šu-uḫ-ti).” 139 In response, the “liberated” gods state to Marduk: Now, Lord, you who have liberated us (šu-bar-ra-ni), What courtesy may we do you? We will make a shrine, whose name will be a byword, Your chamber that shall be our stopping place, we shall find rest (nu-šap-ši-iḫ) therein. We shall lay out the shrine, let us set up its emplacement, When we come (to visit you), we shall find rest (nu-šap-šiḫ) therein. 140

Marduk’s ability to create is coupled with his authority. In ordering the cosmos and creating humankind he imposes a new system that releases the lower gods from their labor. By this point in the narrative, there is no longer any noise that disrupts CAD, 1 II:115–117; 15:169–170. Enuma Elish, VI 6–8. 139 Enuma Elish, VI 13. 140 Enuma Elish, VI 49–54. 137 138

52

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

rest—there are not any challenges to divine authority or any hints of rebellion.

Atrahasis

Atrahasis also exhibits this pattern, but slightly differently. The lower gods revolt against the upper gods because of their laborintensive work. Their complaint, however, is resolved in the same way it does in Enuma Elish: human beings are created to bear the gods’ toil. After creating humankind, Nintu proclaims: You commanded me a task, I have completed it; You have slaughtered a god together with his personality. I have removed your heavy work, I have imposed your toil on man. You raised a cry for mankind, I have loosed the yoke, I have established freedom (an-du-rara aš-ku-un). 141

Although nâḫu and pašāḫu are not used here, the concept of freedom is employed (andurāru), just as it is in Enuma Elish, where šubarrû is used in virtual parallel to pašāḫu. Apart from this, other terms such as dullu (toil, burden, labor) and emedu (to put on, impose) are shared between Atrahasis and Enuma Elish. In both texts the overall theme is the same: humans are created to relieve the lower gods of their burden so that they might find rest and freedom from toil. Beyond this, two observations can be made. First, in both texts the god providing rest was at some point already in a state of rest. Marduk rests as he was looks over the dead body of Tiamat. Enlil is sleeping when the lower gods are in contempt and refusing to work. This is of no small significance. Both are in positions of authority. Marduk is the one who establishes the stations of the other gods, and Enlil is the one who assigns the yoke of the lower gods in Atrahasis. 142 It seems imperative that only after a position of power is established and there is not any noise threatening it that a deity can 141 142

Atrahasis, I v 237–243. Enuma Elish, V 117–156; Atrahasis, I v obverse, 196.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

53

provide any kind of benefit for those being ruled. Second, there is not a statement of a deity’s rest in the sense of a release from labor in The Poem of Erra, due to the fact that in The Poem labor has already been imposed on humankind. The noise that arises comes from the chaotic activity of humanity, not deities. Hence, The Poem lacks the opening scene of Atrahasis where the gods rebel, but it is similar to the succeeding scenes where humankind’s activities are noisy to the gods.

Rest to Humans

One initially surprising observation in the Akkadian literature from Mesopotamia is that rest is not offered to human beings from deities. 143 After a digital and manual search of nâḫu and pašāḫu in major Akkadian works, one is hard pressed to find these two words associated with any direct statement of rest from the divine to the human, except for in prayers asking gods for “healing” (rest) from a disease. 144 While it is, of course, entirely possible that an instance exists in one of the thousands of Akkadian texts (some of which are yet untranslated and/or unpublished), after a reasonably extensive search, it is likely that a statement that describes a deity giving rest to a human being— including rest from labor—does not exist in these Mesopotamian texts. Its non-existence, however, would be consistent with a key thought in ancient Mesopotamian theology and culture: human beings are created to labor on behalf of the gods, and therefore the primary responsibility and purpose of humankind is to provide for the gods. Humankind is uniformly portrayed as the group upon which labor is imposed, and it is nowhere stated or implied in the texts that it is even a possibility for human beings to be released from

There are a few instances where men are “exempted” (u-ne-eḫ) from the work of the harvest, but this is bestowed from other people. See CAD, 11 I:150. 144 CAD, 11 I:147; 12:230–231. Both nâḫu and pašāḫu may also be used to denote general healing of the body, without the request to a deity. 143

54

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

this responsibility. Apparently, humanity’s task of working to provide for the gods is never questioned. There is a statement that moves closer to a divine offer of rest to humans in The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, but it represents the deprivation of human rest by the gods, not the bestowal of rest. The treaty itself is made with Esarhaddon, and allegiance is sworn to him and his son Ashurbanipal. However, in the “curses” section the names of the gods (at least 22 of them) are specifically invoked in conjunction with a curse, such that it is the gods who actually bring down the curses. Another section follows with a series of forty curses, and the names of the gods are not provided individually in this subsequent list of curses, but “the efficacy of each curse was thought to lie with ‘all the gods named in this tablet.’” 145 Hence, the “rest” in the following statement, or more properly the denial of it, is enacted by the gods: As a killu which slips into a grinding-mill Just so may you, your women, your sons (and) Your daughters have no rest (ta-nu-ḫa) or sleep (ta-ṣa-lala) 146

The curse describes the killu, or worm, that falls in the grinding mill and is constantly being crushed, and the vivid analogy applies to the whole family, including wives and children. The unrest depicted in this particular curse is emblematic of the kind of oppression expressed by the entire section, oppression that is in large part brought on by the military conquest by enemies: May they treat you as a fly (caught) in the hand; May your enemy squash you. 147

And furthermore:

D.J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958), 26. All citations from The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon have been taken from Wiseman. 146 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 637–639. 147 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 601–602. 145

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

55

[Just as] this chariot with its base-board is spattered [with blood]; just so, [in battle with] your [enemy], may they spatter your chariots with your own [blood]. 148

The imprecations involve such military brutality that all the inhabitants of the land, and no one—not even children—are spared. And although the unrest is mediated by other human beings, it is sanctioned by the gods. In sum, human beings are not given rest (specifically from labor) in these texts, but they can be stripped of rest. This unrest is political and brought on by military oppression.

REST IN A DIVINE ABODE

The concept of a temple is, of course, very complex and obviously cannot be treated fully in this study. While the temple has been found to have connections with other important concepts such as cosmology, 149 the primary concern in this study is its connection with rest. There are three ways in which temple is associated with rest: 1) temple building as a response to the provision of rest; 2) temple building as a response to victory; and 3) the temple as the resting place of deities.

Temple Building as a Response to Rest

Returning to the text of Enuma Elish, there is one passage already cited above where there is a concrete statement about temple building as a direct response to the divine provision of rest. After Marduk releases the Anunnaki, their response is: “Now, Lord, you who have liberated us (šu-bar-ra-ni), What courtesy may we do you? We will make a shrine, whose name will be a byword, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 612–615. On Temple as cosmos and its relationship to creation, see Walton, Ancient Cosmology; Beale, The Temple; and Hurowitz, Exalted House. Of course, rest is tied to creation activity and creation is tied to the temple. 148 149

56

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Your chamber that shall be our stopping place, we shall find rest (nu-šap-ši-iḫ) therein. We shall lay out the shrine, let us set up its emplacement, When we come (to visit you), we shall find rest (nu-šap-šiḫ) therein.” When Marduk heard this, His features glowed brightly, like the day, “Then make Babylon the task that you requested, Let its brickwork be formed, build high the shrine.” The Anunna-gods set to with hoes, One (full) year they made its bricks. When the second year came, They raised up Esagila, the counterpart to Apsu, They build the high ziggurat of (counterpart-)Apsu, For Anu-Enlil-Ea they founded his…and dwelling. Majestically he took his seat before them, Its pinnacles were facing toward the base of Esharra. 150

While this is the only occurrence of temple building as a response specifically to rest from labor, it would seem natural that beneficiaries of rest would reciprocate in some form of gratitude.

Temple Building as a Response to Victory

There are two other accounts of temple building in Enuma Elish—these occur after victory in battle. The first has already been explored above in connection with rest as divine authority. In that example, Ea builds “his chamber” (ku-um-mi-šu) and names it “Apsu” after killing Apsu and Mummu. After Ea had captured and vanquished his foes, Had won the victory over his opponents, In his chamber, in profound quiet (šup-šu-ḫi-iš), he rested (inu-uḫ-ma). He called it “Apsu,” (meaning) “They Recognize Sanctuaries.” 151

150

Enuma Elish, VI 49–66.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

57

While the word “temple” is not used, scholars recognize that Ea indeed built a temple. 152 This also seems to be an appropriate response to victory. It is in this sense that temple building after victory is tied to rest. Ea is the “victor” of the battle, and therefore he establishes both peace and his position of authority; thus, Ea is able to rest “in profound quiet” in the temple. Later in the epic, Marduk builds a counterpart to Apsu naming it Ešarra. This too is after victory, as it comes immediately after the defeat of Tiamat. In Ešarra, Marduk “made Ea, Enlil, and Anu dwell in their holy places.” 153 It is odd that there is no reststatement tied to this second account of building a temple. It is possible, however, that this is purposeful, for at this point it is Marduk who is in the supreme position of authority, not Ea. This is confirmed in the next tablet where it states “formerly [Mar]duk was ‘our beloved,’ now he is your king, pay heed to his command.” 154 The gods name Marduk “Lugaldimmerankia” and give “kingship over to Marduk.” 155

The Temple as the Resting Place of Deities

The temple is also the gods’ place of rest. It is well established that the temple is thought to be the house of the deity. In Akkadian, the temple is generally written with the logograms É.GAL (bītum rabûm) meaning “big house” or “great house.” Hence, it is no surprise that in the above survey of deities sleeping or resting (in the Mesopotamian texts) they are in their temple abodes: Enlil, Enki, and Ea. As much as the temple is the home of a deity, it is much more than a divine residence. It is the central place of rule and authority. Hence, Walton describes the temple as the “control room” of the universe: 151 152

102.

Enuma Elish, I 73–76. E.g., Hurowitz, Exalted House, 333; Walton, Ancient Cosmology,

Enuma Elish, IV 146. Enuma Elish, V 109–110. 155 Enuma Elish, V 113. 153 154

58

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Thus, we can see that these cosmic associations are not merely superficial or metaphorical—they communicate that the central functions of the cosmos are carried out from the temple, the control room of the cosmos from which order in the cosmos is maintained. Fertility flows from this cosmic center to the surrounding territory. 156

All of this makes even more sense when combined with the idea of rest as divine authority. The temple is considered the center of the cosmos; as such it is also the center of life and fertility, and the place where the entire universe is controlled. Hence, it is the place where the sovereign deity orchestrates all of life. It is not simply the deity’s place of residence, but also the god’s place of authority—his resting place.

REST AS DIVINE APPEASEMENT

The act of building a temple provides rest to the gods by providing a sacred space in which the divine may rest. But, is it merely the provision of sacred space that gives rest to the divine? If a god at rest does indeed depict divine authority, and if the temple is the “control room” whereby a deity exerts authority and rule, then there must be something about the cultic activity within the temple that is also associated with giving rest to the divine. After all, inherent in the act of worship is the expression of fidelity—one is not noisily rebelling or complaining when offering sacrifices. These expressions of loyalty give credence to the deity’s authority, whereby a god may be at rest since all is in order. While the act of worship (and therefore allegiance) is present in Enuma Elish and Atrahasis, The Poem of Erra uses rest language more specifically to depict “divine appeasement,” thus providing a clue to explore further how human beings give rest to the divine in Mesopotamian theology beyond the major epic narratives explored thus far in this chapter.

156

Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 105.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

59

Epic Narratives Enuma Elish

In Enuma Elish, after the liberated gods build the temple Esagila in Babylon, Marduk seats “the gods his fathers for a banquet.” 157 Once the father-gods feast, they proceed to do three important acts. First, they perform an act of worship: After they had taken their enjoyment inside it, And in awe-inspiring Esagila had conducted the offering, All the orders and designs had been made permanent, All the gods had divided the stations of heaven and netherworld. 158

Of course, this is normal activity inside a temple, but the noteworthy aspect of this offering is that Marduk’s father-gods perform it, paying homage to Marduk their ruler. Thus, the fathergods fix a hierarchy, as is shown in the lines immediately following the offering. 159 Second, the father-gods enthrone Marduk. After the stations of the gods are established, Marduk sets his bow before the father-gods. 160 They marvel at how artfully it was crafted and perform a ritual ceremony, kissing and naming the bow. 161 Further establishing the order and rank of the pantheon, the gods enthrone Marduk: After Anu had ordained the destinies of the bow, He set out the royal throne which stood highest among the gods, Anu had him sit there, in the assembly of the gods. Then the great gods convened,

Enuma Elish, VI 71. Enuma Elish, VI 76–79. 159 Enuma Elish, IV 82. 160 Enuma Elish, IV 82. 161 Enuma Elish, IV 83–91. 157 158

60

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE They made Marduk’s destiny highest, they prostrated themselves. 162

The gods both enthrone Marduk and bow down in worship before him, paying homage and expressing their loyalty to him. Third, the father-gods swear an oath. The enthronement of Marduk, taken together with the ritual act involving the bow, reveals that the gods are establishing their loyalty and allegiance to Marduk by means of a covenant. After the gods prostrate themselves, they proceed to seal the covenant: They laid upon themselves a curse (if they broke the oath), With water and oil they swore, they touched their throats. They granted him exercise of kingship over the gods, They established him forever for lordship of heaven and earth. Anshar gave him an additional name, Asallubi, “When he speaks, we shall all do obeisance, At his command the gods shall pay heed. His word shall be supreme above and below, The son, our champion, shall be the highest, His lordship shall be supreme, he shall have no rival. 163

These three acts performed in Esagila reveal the intricate and interwoven nature of the worship. In the god’s place of rest—the temple—the god receives offerings, and inextricably tied to the offerings are loyalty and allegiance. The act itself establishes cosmological order.

Atrahasis

Twice in Atrahasis the noise of humankind becomes so intense that it disrupts the sleep of the god Enlil, and in response, Enlil orders a plague by Namtara in the first instance, and a famine by Adad in the second. 164 After both of Enlil’s attempts to quieten the noise of human beings, Enki tells Atrahasis how to stop Enuma Elish, IV 92–96. Enuma Elish, IV 97–106. 164 Atrahasis, I vii 352–360; II i 1–22. 162 163

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

61

the plague and famine. Both times Enki advises Atrahasis to make a proclamation to all the people to silence or diminish their grumbling by turning away from their personal gods and goddesses. Instead, the people should turn toward the god who brought on the natural disaster with offerings. 165 The act of making the offerings to the god in control of the disaster accomplishes two things: 1) it relieves the people of the plague or famine; and 2) it also quiets the people’s noise (grumbling and complaining), thereby giving rest to Enlil. This is further heightened by the fact that in both instances, the text states that the people build a temple for the god who had brought about the natural disaster. 166 By reducing their clamor and turning their attention to Namtara and Adad, humankind restores equilibrium to the state of rest because their actions provide rest to Enlil and they build resting places for Namtara and Adad. Lament and complaint are replaced by worship and offering directed specifically to the god in control of the people’s immediate circumstances. Unfortunately, this equilibrium is not sustained. After the plague, Enlil orders a famine because of the resurgence of humanity’s noise, and after the famine he orders a flood to eliminate humankind entirely. In doing so, the gods end up regretting their actions, for by annihilating humankind the gods lose their source of food: offerings from people. The gods too, are now suffering. After Atrahasis escapes the flood by building a boat on the advice of Enki, 167 Enlil is convinced to allow human beings to survive. 168 This, however, comes with a caveat. Lambert and Millard state that Enlil requires that “Enki and the mother goddess organize [human beings] better, no doubt to spare him the noise.” 169 The text that follows is heavily fragmented, and only a few of the regulations that are imposed on humankind to control the Atrahasis, I vii 376–383; II ii 9–14. Atrahasis, I viii 401; II ii 20. 167 Atrahasis, III i 22–23. 168 Atrahasis, III vi 40. 169 Lambert and Millard, Atra-ḫasīs, 13. 165 166

62

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

level of their noise remain (the creation of childless women and priestesses). It is doubtful that the use of the cult in order to regulate noise is coincidental. In Enlil’s previous attempts to diminish noise, his plans were subverted by the construction of temples and deity worship. Moreover, while Enlil nearly succeeds in eliminating noise with the flood, the annihilation of human beings also leads to the loss of their own food, which is obtained by cultic offering. Hence, there is a symbiotic relationship between deity and humankind, one that requires equilibrium. On the one hand, too many people can lead to too much lament, as well as too little sacrifice to the gods. Both in turn lead to the disruption of rest to the gods. On the other, while fewer people lead to less noise, not enough people lead to insufficient sacrifice and food for the gods. By regulating the cult, the gods sought to control the population and its noise, as well as the continual income of offerings and sacrifice. Organized worship and cultic activity thus bring balance to the state of rest, which is shown to be fragile in Atrahasis.

The Poem of Erra

The Poem reflects the idea that governance requires righteous rule for the equilibrium of the state of rest and noise to be balanced. Creation of the world and humanity are already past events in The Poem, and therefore the rest of a deity is depicted differently. Since a creation event or an ascension/victory is not narrated, neither rest after creation nor victory nor rest from labor is present. Instead, The Poem uses nâḫu to reflect “appeasement” of a weary, angry deity. The end of Tablet IV and the beginning of Tablet V both state: “when Erra was appeased (i-nu-ḫu) and occupied his seat.” 170 The appeasement or resting of Erra comes after Erra is convinced by Išum that his plans to annihilate humanity completely are an overreaction and unjust. Erra allows Išum to carry out a modified and more appropriate plan that destroys much but not all. Once Išum executes his plan, Erra is appeased at the end of Tablet IV. 170

The Poem of Erra, IV 151 and V 1.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

63

Tablet V gives insight as to why Erra is appeased. After Erra is appeased and occupies his seat, he gives a brief speech to the Igigi and Anunnaki gods where he admits his rashness and the foolishness of his initial plan to devastate the land completely: Like a man unexperienced in tending orchards I pruned unrestrainedly. Like one who ravages a country I made no distinction between good and bad: I slew (them alike). 171

However, it was Išum who counseled Erra and corrected his ways: Without Išum my herald, what would have happened? Where (would) your provisioner (be)? Where your ēnu (priest)? Where the food offering to you? You would no longer smell incense! 172

Išum appeases Erra by calming him, by giving him rest. There is primarily a sense of the calming of anger that is meant by appeasement. One should not, however, overlook the fact that the partial destruction suggested by Išum allows food offerings to continue, and Erra cites this in his speech to the gods. In fact, other than the elimination of offerings, no other possible repercussions of the complete devastation that Erra had originally intended are mentioned in his speech. Furthermore, nâḫu is used again in Išum’s response to Erra: Išum opened his mouth and spoke: To the hero Erra he addressed (his) speech: “Hero, pay attention! Listen to my words!” “That is all very well, but now be appeased (nu-ḫa-am-ma)! We are at your service.” 173

The Poem of Erra, V 9–10. The Poem of Erra, V 13–15. 173 The Poem of Erra, V 16–18. 171 172

64

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Subtly implied in the last line is the connection between Erra’s appeasement and the service of the gods, as well as the order restored by Išum’s alternate plan. There is one further use of nâḫu that is noteworthy. An epilogue stands at the end of Tablet V, which in very brief fashion recapitulates a main theme in The Poem: For Erra had burned with wrath and planned to lay waste the countries and slay their peoples, But Išum, his counselor, appeased (ú-ni-ḫu-šu-ma) him and (Erra) left a remnant! 174

The appeasement of Erra is likely describing the same appeasement in lines 1 and 18 of Tablet V. However, instead of the G stem, 175 the causative D stem is employed in the epilogue. 176 The use of the D stem is logical here, since Erra’s appeasement, or rest, is “caused” by Išum: “Išum, his counselor, caused him to be at rest.” Since line 41 is a restatement of the previous statements of appeasement in Tablet V, the use of the D stem in the Epilogue indicate that in some sense a causal idea is already present (and perhaps inherent) in the previous uses of nâḫu in lines 1 and 18 of Tablet V. And while there are no direct connections to rest and the provision of worship, The Poem does reflect an appeasement of Erra that is tied to proper cultic activity. The chaotic cosmos and improper cultic attitude that lead to Erra’s anger 177 are realigned by the retribution exacted by Išum. Interestingly, nâḫu (or pašāḫu) is not used to represent appeasement in Enuma Elish and Atrahasis the way it is in The PoThe Poem of Erra, V 40–41. Or perhaps the N stem, but this is uncertain since the i-n root can assimilate the affixed n of the N-stem. 176 The two Akkadian verbs used to denote rest in the texts surveyed in this chapter are nâḫu and pašāḫu. In Akkadian, the D and the Š stems can both have causative meanings. As such, rest in these stems would quite simply be “to put at rest” or “to cause to rest.” Pašāḫu has both the D and Š stems, while nâḫu has only the D as the counterpart to the G stem. 177 Cagni, Poem, 31 n. 22. 174 175

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

65

em. What might account for the disparity? In Enuma Elish, the temple—the resting place of the gods—is the context in which worship, enthronement, and expression of loyalty occur, but beyond this the appeasement of Marduk is depicted only conceptually without nâḫu and pašāḫu. The lack of these words might be correlated to the fact that Marduk does not take a final rest after the completion of creation, an aspect of the epic that may be integral to the narrative. In Atrahasis, cultic aspects are prominent in the conclusion, and the appeasement of the gods exist conceptually, similar to Enuma Elish. The cult regulations given in the conclusion are prescribed for society in a postdiluvian reality, and these regulations may in some way regulate interplay between rest and noise. In one sense, The Poem depicts one such postdiluvian era and how divine rest might be mediated at that time. Not only are the events of The Poem sequentially after the events of Atrahasis but also the text itself was probably written later, and therefore one wonders if the use of nâḫu as appeasement of a deity is a later historical development. Whatever the case, the use of nâḫu in a causative stem in The Poem prompts interest for how deities might be appeased in other texts beyond these major epics.

Royal Inscriptions and Annals The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon

The son of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon was the third king of the Sargonid dynasty. There are a great number of inscriptions of his reign compared to other Assyrian kings, 178 and these annals record a diverse range of activities, from military campaigns to reconstruction activities. Of particular interest are the accounts Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (RINAP 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 1. All texts from Esarhaddon in this chapter are taken from Leichty, and the references numbers provided here follow the numbering convention employed by his book. When available, common titles of the texts are provided. 178

66

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

detailing the rebuilding of temples and their commemoration. Out of the 21 occurrences of nâḫu in The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, at least 16 are found in inscriptions that are templerelated. 179 The two main temples are Ešarra in Aššur and Esagila in Babylon; Esagila is best represented in The Royal Inscriptions. Texts concerning temples from Nippur and Uruk are also included in these Inscriptions; they are explored below, although there are not many extant. Inscription 57 (Aššur A) records the reconstruction of Ešarra in Aššur. The excerpt below comes after a declaration of the completion of the temple, 180 describing the cultic activity as the gods Aššur, Ninurta, and Nusku (along with unnamed deities) are installed in it. I had the god Aššur, king of the gods, dwell in his lordly, sublime chapel on (his) eternal dais (and) I placed the gods Ninurta, Nusku, (and all of) the gods (and) goddesses in their stations to the right and left. I slaughtered a fattened bull (and) butchered sheep; I killed birds of the heavens and fish from the apsû, without number; (and) I piled up before them the harvest of the sea (and) the abundance of the mountains. The burning of incense, a fragrance of sweet resin, covered the wide heavens like heavy fog. I presented them with gifts from the inhabited settlements, (their) heavy audience gift(s), and I gave (them) gifts. I banned access to A.RI.A.TA.BAR, (that is) “Foreign Seed,” from its midst and appeased (ú-ni-iḫ) his (Aššur’s) anger. 181 The number of temple-related inscriptions is probably 17 out of 21. Inscription 117 is so short and fragmented that its contents cannot be fully determined. However, Leichty (Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 247) suggests that it may be part of Inscription 116, which describes the rebuilding of Esagila. Moreover, the context suggests some connection with a temple: “(and) you (are the one) who entrusted to h]im [... s]hrines ... [... to or]ganize well the [forgotten] rites [... to app]ease the heart of [your] great divinity [...]” (116 5'–8a'). 180 Esarhaddon, 57 vi 1–14. 181 Esarhaddon, 57 vi 28–vii 16. 179

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

67

In the portions of text from Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and The Poem of Erra surveyed for this category of rest, the rest/appeasement of the gods was shown to relate to cultic activity. Here, the connection is also present, perhaps even more explicitly. The various cultic rituals (installation of gods, sacrifice, burning of incense, and the presentation of gifts) are part of what appears to appease Aššur’s anger. The lines immediately following in the text also link appeasement with worship: The god Aššur, king of the gods, truly looked on my good deeds and his heart became joyful, his mood shone. He blessed me with a blessing of long days and named me as the builder of the temple. I, together with my nobles (and) the people of my land, held a celebration in the courtyard of Ešarra for three days. I appeased (ú-ni-iḫ-ma) the heart of his great divinity and placated his mood. 182

The description of Aššur’s heart and mood starts and ends the pericope in parallel: Aššur’s heart became “joyful” and was “appeased,” and his mood “shone” and was “placated.” Couched between these positive statements of Aššur’s disposition are the naming of Esarhaddon as the builder of the temple and the account of a three-day celebration in the courtyard of Ešarra. Esarhaddon is also named as priest among his many titles listed at the beginning of Inscription 57: “[Esar]haddon, great king, mighty king, king of the world, king of Assyria, appointed by the god Enlil, priest of the god Aššur; son of Sennacherib.” 183 Esarhaddon’s priesthood is also noted later in the text: “good signs occurred for me concerning the securing of the foundation of the throne of my priestly office forever.” 184 It is possible that Esarhaddon’s capacity as priest serves to facilitate the rest and appeasement of the gods. Of the temple-related texts in Esarhaddon’s Royal Inscriptions, the restoration of Marduk’s temple Esagila in Babylon is most attested. Inscriptions 104 (Babylon Prism A) and 105 Esarhaddon, 57 vii 17–34. Esarhaddon, 57 i 1–5. 184 Esarhaddon, 57 ii 14–17. 182 183

68

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

(Babylon Prism C) are clay prisms that record the rebuilding of Babylon and the temple Esagila; both contain much of the same text. 185 Inscription 114 (Babylon D) is a black basalt cuboid monument, also known as Lord Aberdeen’s Black Stone, 186 and likewise records much of the same material as 104 and 105, even though it is shorter. The selection below from Inscription 104 is a description of a flood and the appointment of Esarhaddon to rebuild Babylon and Esagila. This pericope is also found in 105 and 114, with minor variations. The Enlil of the gods, the god Marduk, became angry and plotted evilly to level the land (and) to destroy its people. The river Araḫtu, (normally) a river of abundance, turned into an angry wave, a raging tide, a huge flood like the deluge. It swept (its) waters destructively across the city (and) its dwellings and turned (them) into ruins. The gods dwelling in it flew up to the heavens like birds; the people living in it were hidden in another place and took refuge in an [unknown] land. The merciful god Marduk wrote that the calculated time of its abandonment (should last) 70 years, (but) his heart was quickly soothed (i-nu-uḫ-ma), and he reversed the numbers and (thus) ordered its (re)occupation to be (after) 11 years. You truly selected me, Esarhaddon, in the assembly of my older brothers to put these matters right, and you (are the one) who placed your sweet [pro]tection over me, swept away all of my enemies like a flood, killed all of my foes and made me attain my wish, (and), to appease (nuuḫ-ḫu) the heart of your great divinity (and) to please (šupšu-uḫ) your spirit, you entrus[ted] me with shepherding Assyria. 187 Leichty, Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 193, 202. Leichty, Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 231. 187 Esarhaddon, 104 i 34–ii 23a. This text is also found in 105 i 37b–ii 40 and 114 i 19–iii 8. All phrases that include a rest-statement are the same in the three inscriptions. Examples of variation among the inscriptions include: 1) Inscription 104 records “it swept (its) waters 185 186

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

69

This pericope explains that a flood was the cause for the need to reconstruct Babylon. The flood is said to have been “plotted evilly” by Marduk; his actions are noted to be wrong, similar to Erra’s plan in The Poem. This event is also reminiscent of the flood story of Atrahasis, if not referring to the same episode. According to the text, the gods leave the city, as do its inhabitants. It is unclear whether the 70-year abandonment is by the gods, people, or both, but in any case Marduk’s heart is “quickly soothed” (i-nu-uḫ-ma).” It is also not clear what soothes Marduk such that he changes his mind, but the text continues to state that Esarhaddon is selected to “make these matters right.” Further, both nâḫu and pašāḫu (in the infinitive of the D and Š stems, respectively) are then used to explain the purpose of vanquishing Esarhaddon’s enemies: “to appease” the heart of Marduk and “to please” his spirit. It is uncertain whether the appeasement (nu-uḫ-ḫu) of Marduk is best connected to the statements of protection from, and defeat of foes before it (“you protected me in order to appease you”), or the statement after it (“you trusted me with shepherding Assyria in order to appease you”). Perhaps appeasement is correlated to both. If it is correlated to Esarhaddon’s protection, then there is a protection from enemies for the purpose of appeasement. While it is not explicitly stated which of Esarhaddon’s actions appeases the deity, two items can be highlighted. First, the text states that Esarhaddon is chosen “to put these matters right.” Second, the lines following this pericope show that after the gods are “reconciled” there are positive signs to rebuild Babylon and the temple within it (connecting appeasement to the building of the temple): At the beginning of [my] kingship, in my first year, when I sat in greatness on (my) royal throne, [go]od signs [were] across the city (and) its dwellings,” while 105 exchanges the word “dwellings” for “shrines.” Inscription 114 includes both “dwellings” and “shrines”; 2) instead of “the gods dwelling in it,” Inscriptions 105 and 114 record “the gods and goddesses dwelling in it”; 3) Inscription 105 alone adds “king of Assyria” after “you truly selected me, Esarhaddon.”

70

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE established for me; [in] heaven and on ear[th, he (the god Marduk) constantly sent me his] omen(s). The angry [gods] were recon[ciled] (and) they repeatedly disclosed favorable signs concerning the (re)building of Bab[yl]on (and) the renovation of E[sag]il. 188

In Inscription 57, the appointment of Esarhaddon as the builder of the temple of Aššur is also correlated with appeasement of the gods, as is the celebration worship within the temple. Inscription 113, while related to the rebuilding of Eniggidrukalamasuma, contains a portion of text that provides a recounting of previous temples that were reconstructed (Esagila and Ešarra). In this portion of text, the passage cited above from Inscription 104 (and therefore 105 and 114 also) is summarized and re-presented. This recapitulation reorders some of the phrases such that the correlation between the appeasement of Marduk and the restoration of the temple is further strengthened. At the beginning of my kingship, in my first year, when I sat in greatness on (my) royal throne, the merciful god Marduk’s heart was appeased (i-nu-uḫ-ma) and he became reconciled with the city that had angered (him). I had Esagil and Babylon built anew. I renovated the statues of the great gods (and) had (them) dwell on their seats as an eternal dwelling. I completed the temple of the god Aššur (and) set up proper procedures in all of the cult centers. 189

Translated as “soothed” in Inscription 104, here the same word (i-nu-uḫ-ma) is translated as “appeased.” The statement, “Marduk’s heart was quickly soothed” in 104, is shifted down to after the parallel statement in 113: “at the beginning of my kingship, in my first year.” 190 The new placement puts the statement of Marduk’s appeasement in closer contact to the building of the temple (“I had Esagil and Babylon built anew”). Esarhaddon, 104 ii 23b–33. Esarhaddon, 113 15b–19. 190 Esarhaddon, 104 ii 23b and 113 15b. 188 189

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

71

Apart from Ešarra and Esagila, there are three texts that are virtual copies of each other within the corpus of The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon related to three different temples. The differences among them are mainly the name of the temple and the name of the god to whom the temple is dedicated. The temples in these inscriptions are: 1) Ebaradurgara for the goddess “Queen of Nippur” at Nippur (Inscription 128); 2) Ekur for the god Enlil at Nippur (Inscription 129); and 3) Eanna for the goddess Ištar at Uruk (Inscription 133). 191 Since these inscriptions are essentially the same, the same rest-statement appears in all three: (the one who) recognized their power, (the one) over whom (the gods) extended their eternal protection in order to appease (nu-uḫ-ḫu) their divine heart(s) and set their mind(s) at rest. 192

The word nu-uḫ-ḫu is again used in the infinitive form of the D stem, as it is in Inscription 104. There, it is unclear precisely what appeases Marduk: the protection placed on Esarhaddon, or his appointment as Assyria’s shepherd. In these inscriptions (128, 129, and 133), however, the connection between protection and appeasement is clearer; Esarhaddon’s protection is for the appeasement of the deities. Of course, the context of all these texts revolves around the construction of temples. In order to have the resources available for a project of this magnitude, a kingdom would have to be free from outside attack.

The Annals of Ashurbanipal

Ashurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon, is well known as the last great king of Assyria. Ashurbanipal is also famous for establishInscription 130, dedicated to the god Enlil, also contains much of the same material as the three listed above. It is fragmented, and therefore the temple to which it belongs is uncertain, although Leichty suspects that it belongs to the temple Ekur (Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 266). 192 Esarhaddon, 128 5b–6; 130 10b–12; 133 11b–13. 191

72

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ing the great library in Nineveh, yielding over 30,000 cuneiform tablets to date. As noted by Melville, his annals are imprinted on prism tablets, also known as cylinders, of which there are seven editions known to have survived (Cylinders E, B, D, K, C, F, and A). 193 In Ashurbanipal’s Cylinder A (also known as the Rassam Cylinder), nâḫu is used in much the same way that has been described thus far. Melville designates Cylinder A as an “‘autobiographical apology’ because it emphasizes the personal experiences and character of the king in order to justify his rule.” 194 Included in Cylinder A is a record of Ashurbanipal’s sixth campaign, which he fought against rebels who had allied with his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin. In the text, Ashurbanipal states the reason for the civil war: He prevented me from making my sacrifices before Bel, son of Bel, light of the gods, Shamash, and the warrior Erra, and he caused me to abandon giving my food offerings. In order to take away the temples, dwellings of the great gods, whose shrines I supplied copiously and loaded up with gold and silver—I adorned their interiors appropriately—he plotted evil. 195

The text implies that the offended gods kill Shamash-shum-ukin. However, some of his co-conspirers escape punishment, and therefore Ashurbanipal continues the retribution of their iniquity:

Sarah C. Melville, “Ashurbanipal,” in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation (ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 360. 194 Melville, “Ashurbanipal,” 360. 195 Ashurbanipal, Cylinder A, III 111–117. All translations of Ashurbanipal’s Cylinder A come from Melville, “Ashurbanipal,” 363–367. Akkadian words supplied in the English translation, as well as column and line numbers, have been supplied from Maximilian Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s (vol. 2: Texte; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1916). 193

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

73

Those remaining alive, by the Shedu and Lamassu where they overwhelmed Sennacherib, father of the father my creator, now I destroyed them there as his funerary offerings. I fed their dismembered flesh to dogs, pigs, jackals, vultures, eagles, the birds of heaven and fish of the deep. After I did those deeds, I calmed (ú-ni-iḫ-ḫu) the hearts of the great gods, my lords. The corpses of the people whom Erra (the plague god) caused to fall, and who from famine and starvation lay down (their) lives, the remainder of the food of dogs and pigs that blocked the streets and filled the precincts, I had their remains removed from Babylon, Kutha, and Sippar. I cast (them) outside. Through the work of the purification priests, I cleansed their sanctuaries, I purified their filthy streets. Their furious gods and their angry goddesses I quieted (ú-ni-iḫ) with offerings and prayers. I restored their regular offerings which had become too little, as in distant days. 196

There are several important points in this text. First, the reason given for the military campaign is the prevention of offerings in the temple by the rebels. The plundering of the gold and silver in the temple might very well be the more primary motivation, but nonetheless, the blockage of offerings is still cited, and is likely a cause of the gods’ anger. Second, there is a sense of poetic justice since the rebels are killed at the same place that Ashurbanipal’s grandfather, Sennacherib, was killed. Moreover, since it was the rebels who prevented offerings in the temple, it is only fitting they are executed as funerary offerings. Third, nâḫu, translated in this text as “calmed” (ú-ni-iḫ-ḫu) and “quieted” (ú-ni-iḫ) could indeed be translated as “appeased,” as is often done in The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon. It could be said that all of Ashurbanipal’s actions against the rebels, as graphic as some of them may be, are appeasing to the gods. The purification of the sanctuaries and streets through the purification priests are surely also part of the appeasement. There is however further evidence with language that is more specific: the furious 196

Ashurbanipal, Cylinder A IV 70–91.

74

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

gods are appeased with “offerings and prayers,” and furthermore, Ashurbanipal “restored their regular offerings which had become too little, as in distant days.” There should be little doubt, at this point, that worship and offerings are exactly what appeases the divine. Building a temple and making offerings within it are one side of what Walton calls the “Great Symbiosis,” stating: The foundation of religion in Mesopotamia is that humanity has been created to serve the gods by meeting their needs for food (sacrifices), housing (temples), clothing, and in general giving them worship and privacy so that these gods can do the work of running the cosmos. The other side of the symbiosis is that the gods will protect their investment by protecting their worshipers and providing for them. Humans thus find dignity in the role that they have in this symbiosis to aid the gods (through their rituals) in running the cosmos. 197

While Walton describes this relationship between the divine and human within the broader ANE cognitive environment, this present analysis of rest shows that, at least in the Akkadian texts, the two sides of the symbiotic relationship are marked by the use of nâḫu and pašāḫu. These two words symbolize both the deity’s rule and authority over a kingdom as well the deity’s appeasement, and thus the theology of the “Great Symbiosis” is conveyed by statements of rest.

THE FUTURE HOPE OF REST

Noise (ḫubūru and rigmu) is prominent in the storylines of the Mesopotamian epic narratives reviewed in this chapter, and it also plays a large role in the rest motif primarily because it functions as a disrupter of rest. Enuma Elish and The Poem of Erra begin their stories in a state of unrest due to noise. Atrahasis opens with a deity sleeping, but it is immediately disrupted by noise. The pursuit of rest and the minimizing of noise are repre197

Walton, Ancient Cosmology, 78.

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

75

sented by cycles of rest and unrest. In the Poem of Erra, Machinist has shown that rest and violence are interdependent, and so intertwined that one necessitates the other as they revolve “together in a ceaseless cycle.” 198 Hence, in exploring the four categories of rest thus far, one may notice that there is an aspect of perpetuity in the cycle of rest—the ongoing struggle, by both deity and human, for a state of rest. As such, a state of rest may very well be inherently elusive, leaving a reader of these narratives with a sense of longing, or hope for an ultimate state of rest. Batto has observed that one does not see an absolute and final rest in Enuma Elish. 199 While there are indicators that would imply such an event occurred, an ultimate statement is not made. Batto outlines the following three points to describe the ambiguous state of affairs: 200 1) Marduk’s rest after the defeat of Tiamat is “momentary.” 201 The act of creation is yet to come, since Tiamat’s body is to be used as the material from which the world is to be formed; 2) shrines are assigned to each god for their rest, 202 and Marduk’s own place of rest (and authority) is built—Esagila; 203 and 3) Marduk hangs up his bow, 204 and the act is intended to be “as graphic a symbol as possible that Marduk will never have to face another challenge; the order of the cosmos was secure.” 205 Hence, the final rest of Marduk is implied, but not stated. As Batto states, “this appears deliberate,” 206 but is done “delicately.” 207

Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 225. Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. 200 The following is only a recounting of Batto argument, “The Sleeping God,” 162–164. 201 Enuma Elish, IV 135. 202 Enuma Elish, VII 10–11. 203 Enuma Elish, VI 59–64. 204 Enuma Elish, VI 92–90. 205 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. 206 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. 207 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 162. 198 199

76

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Although the Akitu Festival featured Marduk’s enthronement and therefore his rest in the temple, Batto notes that the reciting of Enuma Elish at Akitu was “conceived partially as a periodic renewal of Marduk’s battle with Tiamat to be an ongoing conflict.” 208 Batto supports this with the “prayer” 209 in Marduk’s forty-ninth title: May he vanquish Tiamat, constrict and shorten her life. Until the last days of humankind, when even days have grown old, May she depart, not be detained, and ever stay far away. 210

Since Marduk kills Tiamat in the narrative of the epic, these lines are obviously contrary to the epic itself. In explanation Batto states, The tension between story (myth) and experience (history) is a common phenomenon within the history of religions. The ancients surely believed the “salvation” proclaimed in the myth to be true, even though experience taught them that the promised transformation of their everyday world was at best still being worked out. 211

There seems to have been an understanding among the ancients that the state of “rest” is in flux. Although the Mesopotamian stories speak of rest, because secure order can be threatened and sovereign rule can be destabilized, a final state of rest is not unambiguously shown to be achieved. In Atrahasis, the constant disruption of rest spurs the gods to action, and only by the proper response could humanity avert danger. The result is that noise is limited, not eliminated. A proper cult and rituals are established to maintain a proper balance.

Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. 210 Enuma Elish, VII 132–134. The English translation is supplied from Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 163. 211 Batto, “The Sleeping God,” 164. 208 209

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

77

Similarly, according to the end of Enuma Elish, the names of Marduk (and perhaps the whole story) should be pondered, repeated, and taught. One must: …pay attention He must not neglect the Enlil of the gods, Marduk, So his land may prosper and he himself be safe. His word is truth, what he says is not changed, Not one god can annul his utterance. If he frowns, he will not relent If he is angry, no god can face his rage. 212

This portion of text, imbued with ritualistic overtones, codifies the means by which one can ensure prosperity and safety. Persistent attention is the way to avoid the anger and wrath of the god(s). This is an on-going process, even though the process had seemingly come to an end in the story. In reality, the ancients still experienced suffering in the form of famine, disease, warfare, and destruction. Through these ritual acts they had sought to alleviate their distress and return to a state of cosmic peace in the cycle of rest—their purpose in “appeasing” the gods. The same ritualistic tone is also found at the end of The Poem of Erra. The epilogue features the command to memorize the text, 213 and thereafter it states: To the house in which this tablet is placed—however furious Erra may be, however murderous the Sibitti may be— The sword of destruction shall not come near; salvation shall alight on it. May this song last forever! May it endure to eternity! 214

As Machinist notes, one full copy of The Poem has been found in amulet form along with several amulets containing Tablet V (which includes the epilogue). Similar to Batto’s view of the ending of Enuma Elish, Machinist suggests that The Poem:

Enuma Elish, VII 148–154, emphasis mine. The Poem of Erra, I 55. 214 The Poem of Erra, V 57–59. 212 213

78

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE may be understood, in conception and execution, as a kind of incantation—that form of literature where, one might argue, the power of language is most explicitly recognized and celebrated, and put to use, as here, both to expose a problem of potentially cosmic dimensions to its source and to offer a means for its resolution or neutralization. 215

The repetitive recitation and memorization of The Poem is the means by which the ancients aspired to find rest, both for the gods and themselves, and thus upon The Poem “the burden of stopping and transmuting the rest/violence cycle is thrown.” 216 At the end of the Egyptian creation epic, The Theology of Memphis, a rest-statement is used and it carries with it a sense of finality because nothing is shown to disrupt it. 217 In contrast, the rest-statements that appear at the beginning of the Mesopotamian texts surveyed (if there were one) appear to function as the beginning of a cycle, even in a creation epic such as Enuma Elish. If divine rest is divine authority, the irony is that the disruption of rule is what stretches the cycle forward into the present and future; the interference of rest causes the gods to bring more violence to reestablish cosmic order and divine rest. By reciting, chanting, and memorizing these texts, all the while providing ritual offerings, the ancients believed that they could avert disaster and secure their own protection and well-being, since they were allying themselves to the gods by giving them rest. This symbiotic relationship perpetuated and propelled everyone’s rest indefinitely and provided hope for a future. It is unclear and indeed doubtful that the Mesopotamian ancients envisaged this future as a separate age. The only hint provided in Enuma Elish is in the prayer of Marduk’s forty-ninth title: Until the last days of humankind, when even days have grown old

Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 226. Machinist, “Rest and Violence,” 226. 217 Memphite Theology,” (COS 1.15:22–23). 215 216

2. REST IN MESPOTAMIAN LITERATURE

79

(aḫ-ra-taš UN.MEŠ la-ba-riš UD-me  aḫrataš nišū labāriš ūmū) 218

Translated literally, it would read: “(in the) future (of the) peoples, (in the) growing old of days.” Talon translates the line as: “que dans l’avenir des peuples, dans la suite des jours.” 219 The abbreviated nature of the line leaves uncertainty and is open to speculation, but there is enough to know that they imagined a future and a perpetual extension of the present. Their hope for a future of peace was apparently a daily endeavor.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has surveyed numerous instances of Akkadian words for rest in ML. Following the paradigms of Batto and Walton, an expanded paradigm for rest was presented to provide an interpretive lens through which one may understand rest in ancient Mesopotamia. These two words are used interchangeably and often employed by the ancient author to express an idea within one of four categories, summarized below. First, the rest of a deity can represent divine authority and rule (nâḫu and pašāḫu). When a deity is at rest, the cosmos is in proper order. Noise (ḫubūru and rigmu) disrupts divine rest. While there has been some debate as to what noise means in these texts (overpopulation versus rebellion), a new interpretation has been offered that encompasses both understandings: the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings. Defined in this way, rebellion can be one way to express noise, and overpopulation can be one cause of noise. The absence of rebellion or lament allows a deity to rest, signifying that the deity’s authority is established. Second, once divine rule and order are established and the deity is at rest, a god may give other (lower) deities rest from service obligations—a rest from labor. This is accomplished by the creation of human beings who take up the work of the lower 218 219

Enuma Elish, VII 133. Enuma Elish, VII 133 (Talon, Enūma Eliš, 108).

80

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

gods. There does not appear to be any direct statement of an offer of rest from gods to human beings in the Akkadian texts of ML. The closest example of divine rest to humans comes in the form of a malediction threatening unrest by the gods if a treaty were not upheld. Thus, human beings are not offered rest from labor, but they are vulnerable to political unrest stemming from military oppression. Third, the temple is a place where deities rest and sleep. It is already well established in scholarship that the temple is a place of rest for the deity to whom the temple is dedicated. The construction of it is a tangible expression of giving rest to a deity, thereby upholding the authority of the god. Fourth, inextricably tied to the notion that the temple is a resting place for a deity is the provision of rest to a deity through cultic worship in the temple. In this category, rest-terms describe cultic activity. Nâḫu and pašāḫu are routinely translated as “appease” in cultic contexts, especially when they are in the causative D or Š stems. Thus, Walton’s “Great Symbiosis” is characterized by rest-statements in Akkadian literature. One aspect of these four categories is that they can be viewed as parts of a cycle of rest. After an initial state of divine rest, there is movement downward to provide rest to lower beings. Once received, a temple is constructed in response and the worship within it provides rest back to the deity. Noise disrupts this cycle. If one way to view rest is divine rule, then it makes sense that one provides rest through cultic activity, for worship and ritual are the very expression of loyalty. One pledges oneself to the deity, without the cry of rebellion or indignation. Hence, the cycle is intrinsically reciprocal, or as Walton calls it, symbiotic. Each part of the cycle cannot exist without the others.

CHAPTER THREE.

REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

The life of the chosen people in the “pleasant land,” at rest from all enemies round about, the people owning their love for God and God blessing his people—this is the epitome of the state of the redeemed nation as Deuteronomy sees it. Gerhard von Rad, “There Remains Still”

INTRODUCTION The Deuteronomistic History

The label “Deuteronomistic History” (DH) was first used by Noth in his 1943 work titled Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (ÜgS) 1 to designate the books of the Former Prophets/Historical Books, but with the addition of (parts of) Deuteronomy. Noth’s arguments about the unity of the DH and the underlying compositional structure changed the way scholarship viewed the Former Prophets/Historical Books for over 50 years. A numbers of works in biblical studies have been labeled as “watershed” or Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeiten Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd edn; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957). The English translations cited here are from The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al., JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). 1

81

82

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

“landmark”—Noth’s ÜgS is considered among them for it irrefutably engendered a major paradigm shift in OT biblical studies much in the same way Wellhausen’s work on the Pentateuch did. The existence of the DH in some form was so widely accepted that McKenzie stated in 1992: “to the extent that any position in biblical studies can be regarded as the consensus viewpoint, the existence of the DH has achieved almost canonical status.” 2 Although the theory of a DH was widely accepted in general, there has been no shortage of modifications and adaptations that have been proposed since Noth. Ironically, the large number of scholarly works on the composition of the DH have inadvertently caused so much debate and therefore uncertainty that, in the past decade, there have been a few who have questioned its existence at all. 3 There are several helpful surveys of the various scholarly views on the DH, 4 and Römer and de Pury have provided an excellent history of scholarship on the DH—perhaps the most comprehensive and definitive to date. 5 Although the outline below loosely follows Römer and de Pury, the aim here is not to reduplicate their work, but rather to provide a foundational understanding of the major compositional theories of the DH— especially Noth’s—in order to serve as a constructive reference from which to explore the rest motif in the DH. While there are Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD 2:161. Thomas Römer, The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), viii. 4 Gary N. Knoppers, The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (vol. 1 of Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies; HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 17– 56; J. Gordon McConville, “The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship,” Them 22 (1997): 3–13; and Sandra L. Richter, “Deuteronomistic History,” DOTHB, 219–230. 5 Thomas Römer and Albert de Pury, “Deuteronomistic History (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues,” in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; ed. Albert de Pury Thomas, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 24–141. 2 3

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

83

indeed a wide variety of current opinions, most are variations of, or derive from, one of the two major “schools” that adapted Noth’s work—these two were spearheaded by Smend and Cross. Thus, presented below are the main tenets of Noth, synopses of the works of Smend and Cross, and brief coverage of a few theories to serve as exemplars of more recent scholarship that have garnered wider attention.

Noth’s Landmark Thesis

During World War II, Noth formulated his theory of the DH in the German-occupied Prussian city of Königsberg; separated from any major university or library, his own historical circumstances were quite similar to the exilic “Deuteronomist” (Dtr) 6 he proposed. 7 Römer and de Pury highlight this connection: [Dtr is] neither a member of the clergy nor of the official intelligentsia…Noth apparently thought of Dtr as a solitary intellectual who, on the day following the catastrophe, cut off in his study, set to work to draw up an assessment of the situation. 8

The similarity of the situations, both Noth’s and that of his proposed author, lead Römer and de Pury to state: “We cannot refrain from thinking that Dtr’s vision of the situation reflects a little the very situation of Noth himself.” 9 Noth proposed that Dtr constructed the history of Israel from the time of Moses to the monarchic period for the purpose of making sense out of the catastrophe that had just occurred. Dtr was quite the individual; Noth could imagine no more than one person as the Dtr, who was a compiler, redactor, and author. As a compiler, Dtr took the sources available to him and Unless otherwise noted, “Deuteronomist” is used in a general sense in this present work; no argument is made regarding the identity of Dtr, whether one or more persons or one or more schools, etc. 7 Römer and de Pury, “History of Research,” 47. 8 Römer and de Pury, “History of Research,” 52. 9 Römer and de Pury, “History of Research,” 52. 6

84

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

pieced together the events of the long history. As a redactor, not only did Dtr collect and arrange the sources but also he shaped and formed the texts for his own purposes—yet, he did so with appreciable respect for the original sources by not modifying them completely. As an author, Dtr inserted speeches into the mouths of prominent figures to guide the reader of the history toward an understanding of the exile (Josh 1:1–15; 23; 1 Sam 12; 1 Kings 8:14–61). Noth states: In particular, at all the important points in the course of the history, Dtr. brings forward the leading personages with a speech, long or short, which looks forward and backward in an attempt to interpret the course of events, and draws the relevant practical conclusions about what people should do. 10

Beyond the speeches, Dtr’s authorial work is also evident as his own reflections (Josh 12; Judg 2:11–23; 2 Kings 17:7–23): Elsewhere the summarizing reflections upon history which sum up the action are presented by Dtr. himself as part of the narrative, whether because they did not lend themselves to the reproduction in speeches or because there were not suitable historical figures to make the speeches. 11

Noth considered these speeches and reflections as the true demarcations of the DH, not the so-called Historical Books. While Noth acknowledges later redactors, they are only redactors. The first Dtr was truly an author because unlike “the redactors who will succeed him,” Dtr did not work “with a pre-existing narrative framework.” 12 Noth’s concept of a multifaceted historian allowed him to overcome hurdles that normally accompany an explanation of a work that is as extensive as the DH. According to Knoppers, this ingenious idea of an author/redactor allowed great flexibility in Noth’s theory: Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 5. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 6. 12 Römer and de Pury, “History of Research,” 49. 10 11

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

85

Noth could acknowledge discrepancies between passages by appealing to the Deuteronomist as the redactor of disparate sources. Yet he could also speak of the overarching unity of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings by appealing to the Deuteronomist as an author who carefully composed his history according to an elaborate design. 13

Whenever there was a concept contrary to Dtr’s purpose, Noth could claim that it was due to Dtr’s respect for the sources. Whenever there was a concept that matched both the purpose and linguistic style of Noth’s Dtr, it was attributable to Dtr. Although one could claim that Noth’s theory is circular, it nevertheless explained the discrepancies well, and his theory highlighted unifying elements that could be attributed to the intention of a single author. To this end, the main purpose of the DH was to explain the exile. Why would YHWH allow such a great disaster to come upon the chosen nation of Israel? The blessing and curse theology of Deuteronomy was more than adequate to serve as a foundation upon which Dtr could build the history of Israel in light of the national disaster—only the curses of disobedience could have brought on the calamity. Römer and de Pury note that for Noth: The one who presents these discourses is an artisan of a presentation of Israel’s past that conforms to a perfectly coherent theology of history. The principal leitmotiv of this history is the obedience or disobedience of Israel. Each time the stake is to know if Israel has “listened” to the voice of God. 14

Hence, “obeying the voice of God” is a demand on the people’s lives and conduct whereby God’s retributive actions are taken up against all the people. This theme is then one “unified theoGary N. Knoppers, “Introduction,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville; SBTS 8; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 2. 14 Römer and de Pury, “History of Research,” 49. 13

86

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

logical interpretation of history.” 15 According to Noth, obedience takes precedence over the cult—a ranking that is revealed by the complete lack of “all positive interest in cult practices.” 16 In summary, Noth maintained that the DH was compiled from ancient sources by a single exilic author. The author’s purpose was to explain the national disaster of the exile. Hence, the overarching theme of the DH was obedience, and indeed the disobedience of the people caused the exile. The method by which Dtr accomplished this purpose was by assembling and arranging his ancient sources to present a chronology of events and a history that fitted his purpose. Dtr inserted speeches in the mouths of leading figures that both surveyed the past and looked forward to the future, which reflects the unity of the corpus. In addition, Dtr inserted material in the form of reflective commentary that also looked back and forth. Three decades after Noth, two researchers—Smend in Germany and Cross in the United States—developed and refined Noth’s earlier work, albeit in quite different ways. Following these two vanguards, a great divide formed between two schools of thought regarding the formation and composition of the DH. Not only were the two schools divided by their method but also they were separated geographically as well, which likely added to the rift; most of those who embraced Smend’s layer model were from Europe, and those who endorsed Cross’ block model tended to be from North America, although not exclusively.

15 16

Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 6. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 6.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

87

Rudolf Smend and the Layer Model 17

Smend begins with the work of Noth’s exilic Dtr, which he names DtrG (Geschichte), but more often referred to as DtrH (Historie). Due to inconsistencies on the micro-level, Smend posits a second redactor, DtrN (Nomist). DtrN’s primary concern is obedience to the law. In the first of several examples, Smend observes that the exhortation “be strong and courageous” to Joshua in Josh 1:6–9 is repeated three times, but the second of the three exhortations is followed by an additional exhortation to be obedient to the law of Moses (Josh 1:7–8). This insertion, according to Smend, differs from the original meaning of the first and third, which are primarily concerned with the possession of the land of inheritance and the courage to conquer it. 18 By following this pattern of obedience in Josh 1:7–8, one is able to distinguish nomistic statements throughout the DH, which are attributable to DtrN and comprise the nomistic layer of the DH. A third redactor was added, largely by the work of Dietrich. 19 Dietrich argues that a third redactor can be identified in the prophetic and speech material of the Book of Kings. This redactor is critical of the cultic and political establishments in the Northern Kingdom, and is therefore assigned the abbreviation DtrP (Prophetic). This redactor came before DtrN but after DtrG. Hence, the generally accepted order for the layer model is DtrH(G)DtrPDtrN, all of which are dated in the exilic period Rudolf Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad (ed. Hans W. Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 494–509, translated and reprinted as “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History,” in Knoppers, Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 95–110. Page numbers cited hereafter correlate with the original German publication, which are also available in the English translation. 18 Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” 494–496. 19 Walter Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 17

88

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

and beyond. 20 Scholars who generally follow Smend/Dietrich and the “Göttingen School” include Timo Veijola, Hermann Spieckermann, Alberto Soggin, Ralph Klein, Wolfgang Roth, and Ehud Ben-Zvi.

Frank Moore Cross and the Block Model 21

In contrast, Cross proposes a paradigm that is different from the layer model in almost every respect. Not only are the redactions thought to exist in larger blocks of material but the first redactor for Cross is pre-exilic, dating to the time of Josiah. Furthermore, Cross focuses his analysis on the book of Kings, while Smend concentrates on the book of Joshua. Cross’ pre-exilic redactor is known as Dtr1, to whom he attributes most of the DH. Dtr1 had two main themes for his work: 1) the fidelity of David and his line in Judah; and 2) the sin of Jeroboam and the apostasy of the Northern Kingdom, which comes to the fore with the reign of Josiah: In fact, the juxtaposition of the two themes, of threat and promise, provide the platform of the Josianic reform. The Deuteronomistic History, insofar as these themes reflect its central concerns, may be described as a propaganda work of the Josianic reformation and imperial program. 22

Hence, Cross’ Dtr1 is Josianic, and the work of Dtr1 is meant to end with the Josianic Reform. Thereafter, Cross posits a second redactor, Dtr2, who is responsible for a “subtheme” in the DH, and therefore had significantly less influence on the DH: Those who advocate this model differ among themselves as to the dating of each redactor, with some arguing that all are exilic, and others arguing for some post-exilic modifications. 21 Frank Moore Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–289. 22 Cross, “Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 284. 20

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

89

[Dtr2] retouched or overwrote the deuteronomistic work to bring it up to date in the Exile, to record the fall of Jerusalem, and to reshape the history, with a minimum of reworking, into a document relevant to exiles for whom the bright expectations of the Josianic era were hopelessly past. 23

Scholars who generally follow Cross and the “Harvard School” include Richard Nelson, Richard Friedman, Jon Levenson, Robert Boling, Helga Weippert, Rolf Rendtorff, Brian Peckham, and A. D. H. Mayes.

Recent theories of a Deuteronomistic History

Although Würthwein’s theory of a DH is still well situated in the layer model of the Göttingen school, his novel approach deserves mention. 24 A Deuteronomistic History implies that the main influence developed forward from Deuteronomy to Kings, but Würthwein proposes the opposite, giving primacy of literary influence to Kings, whereby subsequent books were added one in front of the other from Kings to Samuel: “Der dtr Grundschrift des Königsbuches wurden die jetzt in Sam enthaltenen älteren Traditionen nordisraelitischer und judäischer Herkunft über Saul und David vorangestellt.” 25 This continued with each book going “backward,” to Judges and then to Joshua. Thus, for Würthwein, the books of the DH had individual shape but maintained some semblance of unity. Auld takes a similar approach and also favors the influence of Kings on the DH over Deuteronomy, and therefore begins by asking: “Are the Former Prophets in fact Deuteronomistic?” 26 to Cross, “Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 285. Ernst Würthwein, “Erwägungen zum sog. Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Eine Skizze,” in Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW, 227; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 1–11. 25 Würthwein, “Erwägungen,” 6. 26 A. Graeme Auld, “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (ed. Linda S. 23 24

90

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

which he answers: “We have to change our terminology so that it more obviously ‘goes with the flow’, and ‘Deuteronomistic’, meaning influenced by Deuteronomy, is no longer appropriate.” 27 Like Würthwein, Auld supports the literary unity of the DH, and by reversing the development also promotes the individual nature of each book. Auld names the shared text between Samuel–Kings and Chronicles as “the Book of Two Houses,” which he describes as the houses of “David and Yahweh, not of Judah and of Israel.” 28 As much as Würthwein’s view of a DH is considered part of the Göttingen layer model, so too would Person’s view be relatively consistent with the Harvard block model, although likewise with some major modifications. Person argues for an early redaction of the DH during the Babylonian exile by displaced scribes who brought texts with them from Jerusalem. 29 Part of this “Deuteronomic school” returned to Yehud with Zerubbabel, but since some scribes remained in Babylon there were now effectively two scribal communities—separated by geography yet with shared source material: “Both scribal schools used this common source, but they continued to revise this source independently of each other, responding to their increasingly diverse social and theological perspectives and including additional source material.” 30 Person further develops his theory to include Chronicles, stating: “Over time this produced two different historiographical works, the Deuteronomic History and the book of Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 116. 27 Auld, “What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” 122, emphasis original. 28 Auld, “What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” 124. 29 Raymond F. Person Jr., The Deuteronomistic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (SBLSBL 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 152. 30 Raymond F. Person Jr., The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (SBLAIL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 18–19.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

91

Chronicles. These two different works came into contact with each other when Ezra and his accompanying scribes (the Chronistic school) returned to Jerusalem.” 31 For Person then, Chronicles is not a second, later history after the DH, but rather the two are “competing contemporary historiographies.” 32 Finally, an example of a departure from Noth’s DH altogether is found in the work of Knauf, who states: “I stopped believing in the existence of a ‘Deuteronomistic historiographical work’ (DtrH) some time ago.” 33 According to Knauf, the uniformity found in the DH is not the result of a Deuteronomist or a Deuteronomistic school, but rather a common literary style: “‘Dtr’ designates a literary style (probably influenced by the rhetoric of Assyrian annals, especially those of Esarhaddon).” 34 But the diversity in the DH can be attributed to the length of time over which the texts were produced: “Since the Dtr texts have been produced over a long period—from the court of Josiah up to the final additions to the book of Jeremiah in the second century BCE—Dtr style conceals a vast multiplicity of theological positions.” 35 These are only some of the theories and positions that have been recently posited. And while this present work as a synchronic study does not attempt to put forth yet another, it is hoped that a contribution might be made to DH studies at least in some small measure, since the promise of rest in the DH is a main component of the present book, perhaps in the way Conroy describes:

Person, The Deuteronomic History and Chronicles, 19. Person, The Deuteronomic History and Chronicles, 18. 33 Ernst Axel Knauf, “Does ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’ (DtrH) Exist?” in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; ed. Albert de Pury Thomas, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 388. 34 Knauf, “Does DtrH exist?” 389. 35 Knauf, “Does DtrH exist?” 389. 31 32

92

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE A final-form examination of the text, carried out primarily for its own sake, can nonetheless make a contribution to the subsequent diachronic phase of study by pointing out features that have not usually been included among the clues for arriving at a probable hypothesis about the origins of the text. 36

Since a rest motif likely runs through the whole of the DH, it is possible that a biblical theology such as this one might have implications for diachronic studies by analyzing texts that may not normally lend themselves to such analyses.

Hebrew Words for Rest

In establishing a biblical theology of rest in the DH, a study of words and their relationship to each other must be undertaken to formulate a theological framework. After all, in written or verbal sources, theological concepts are expressed by words and necessarily require one or more words to convey an idea. The meaning is derived both from the word and—as Barr well notes—on the sentence level. 37 Words, and therefore the ideas they create, must be examined within the context in which they function. This study, therefore, surveys several words from various lexemes that mean rest in Hebrew and seeks to understand their meaning in context, which in turn reveals a broader notion of rest in the DH in order to present a biblical theology.

Charles Conroy, “Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kgs 16,34 in Its Immediate Literary Context,” Bib 77 (1996), 218. 37 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 270: “But as a whole the distinctiveness of biblical thought and language has to be settled at the sentence level, that is, by the things writers say, and not by the words they say them with.” Barr is correct to establish meaning at the sentence level—but, sentences are necessarily constructed with meaningful words. Thus, the sentence will inform the interpretation of the word(s) (or phrase), and likewise the meaning of the word(s) will inform the meaning of the sentence. 36

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

93

The main Hebrew word for rest in the DH is ‫ נוח‬in the hiphil (1), “to give rest.” Preuss states that this term “is used primarily in theological contexts,” and that in these contexts: (a) for the most part, they are associated with Deuteronomistic thought and its influence; (b) they mean rest as relief from enemies and war (sometimes “on all sides” instead of “from the enemy”); (c) this relief from enemies is often expanded to peace and prosperity in the land. 38

Kaiser has further noted that “whenever the hiphil stem of this root is followed by the preposition le plus a person or group, it usually assumes a technical status.” 39 In the DH corpus, the hiphil of ‫ נוח‬is usually followed by ‫( ל‬of indirect object). When this is the case, 11 out of 13 times the subject is YHWH and the indirect object is David, Solomon, or the Israelites. 40 The noun ָ ‫— ְמ‬is used four times in the DH, of which two form of ‫נוּחה—נוח‬ are traditionally classified as being critical elements in Dtr’s concept of rest (Deut 12:9; 1 Kings 8:56). While not previously ָ ‫ ְמ‬in Judg 20:43 may also prove to be noteworconsidered, ‫נוּחה‬ thy. 41 Those who study rest in the DH usually do not consider the instances of ‫ נוח‬beyond the hiphil (1). However, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) (“to place, put, leave, remain”) may very well be significant in the discussion of the rest motif in the DH. The uses of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2), at first glance, appear to be unimportant: “someone places something,” similar to how rest in English can also mean “to place” or “to set down,” simply describing an action. But, as Preuss has already observed, many instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in 278F

H. D. Preuss, “�‫;נוּ‬ ַ ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫מ‬,” ְ TDOT 9:280. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 157. 40 Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1; 2 Sam 7:1, 11; and 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]. 41 A theological connection to a DH rest motif is difficult to discern for the fourth use of ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in 2 Sam 14:17. 38 39

94

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the HB are in cultic contexts. 42 The Akkadian cognate nâḫu (“putting to rest” or “appeasement”) is essential in its function in cultic contexts in the ML, and therefore provides impetus to examine ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) further. While dividing between the two meanings of the hiphil ‫“—נוח‬to rest” (1) and “to place” (2)—is certainly a proper division lexically, there is another way to view ‫ נוח‬that may be helpful. There are 137 instances of ‫ נוח‬in the HB. The majority of these are associated with animate objects being given rest (people, animals, etc.), but when ‫ נוח‬is used with an inanimate item as the verb’s object, the item usually has some type of cultic association. Some examples of items being “placed” are: the tithes and first fruits of produce (Deut 14:28; 26:4, 10); the feet of the priest who carry the ark (Josh 3:13); the 12 memorial stones from the Jordan (Josh 4:3, 8); Gideon’s offering before the angel of YHWH (Judg 6:18, 20); and the ark of YHWH (1 Sam 6:18). When not in conjunction with a cultic object, it is rare to find ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) used to rest an inanimate object. Of the 40 instances of ‫ נוח‬in the HB not connected to an animate being, nine are connected to an abstract concept (such as a name or a blessing), all of which are used in poetic or prophetic texts and should be set aside. 43 Of the remaining 31, 29 (93.5%) are associated with cultic objects, 44 leaving only two non-cultic, inanimate objects. One of these refers to the Ark that “rested” on Ararat in Gen 8:4, although this use of ‫ נוח‬may have some other literary and theological importance in the flood narrative given the etymological connection with Noah’s name and because the Ark itself could have a cultic connection insofar as it could be Preuss, “�‫;נוּ‬ ַ ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫מ‬,” ְ 9:282. Of the instances in the DH, Preuss cites Deut 14:28, 26:4, 26:10, Judg 6:18, and 6:20 as having cultic contexts. However, there are several more, as will be seen in this chapter. 43 Isa 65:15; Ezek 44:30; Am 5:7; Zech 5:11; Ps 125:3; Prov 14:33; Eccl 2:18; 7:9; 10:4. 44 Ex 16:23, 24, 33, 34; Lev 7:15; 16:23; Num 10:36; 17:4, 7; 19:9; Deut 14:28; 26:4, 10; Josh 4:3, 8; Judg 6:18, 20; 1 Sam 6:18; 10:25; 1 Kings 7:47; 8:9; 2 Kings 17:29; Isa 30:32; 46:7; Ezek 40:42; 42:13, 14; 44:19; 2 Chr 4:8. 42

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

95

considered a salvific vessel. The only instance of an inanimate object that resists explanation in an animate/inanimate classification of ‫ נוח‬is in Gen 39:16, where Potiphar’s wife “rests” Joseph’s garment beside her until her husband arrives. 45 Within the DH and Chronicles, however, every use of ‫ נוח‬with an inanimate object is associated with a cultic object. Given that this brief survey points to the primary use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) for inanimate objects as cultic, coupled with the cultic context of nâḫu in a causative stem, it seems reasonable to include ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in this analysis, at the very least for the sake of comparison. Beyond those related to inanimate objects, another nine instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) that are linked to animate beings are significant in this study. Especially important are Judg 2:23 and 3:1, where God “rests” or “allows to remain” some of the nations that Israel was to drive out, causing unrest for Israel. Not all the instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) can be included in the theological framework of rest in the DH. A theological connection cannot be inferred for only eight of the instances, and therefore these are not included in this study: 1 Sam 25:9; 2 Sam 16:11, 21; 20:3; 21:10; 1 Kings 19:3; 2 Kings 2:15. One might raise the objection that the connection between the two hiphil uses is ostensible, that the correlation between the two uses is lexical and therefore they may not have any theological relationship with each other. First, as this study demonstrates, the instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) function well and consistently within the broader DH rest paradigm. Second, the differentiation in modern lexicons of the two uses of the hiphil arises primarily because modern languages may use different words to describe actions that ‫ נוח‬in the hiphil can describe. However, to the native Hebrew speaker in biblical times, there would not have been such a conscious distinction—the two hiphils would have been heard and understood as the same word. This is similar to Childs’ response to Barr regarding the multiple meanings Although, as a garment, it is connected to life and is animated when worn. Furthermore, one might say that with possession of Joseph’s garment, Potiphar’s wife actually had Joseph’s life in her hands, at least metaphorically speaking. 45

96

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

of dābār (“word” or “event”): “However, when the mythopoeic background of dābār within a cult is discovered, it becomes apparent that the primitive mind conceived of these two entities as one.” 46 Finally, the Hebrew verb ‫“( שׁקט‬to give respite”) is also not ָ ‫ ְמ‬concept of normally investigated together with the ‫נוח‬/‫נוּחה‬ rest in the DH. Most who have studied rest, such as Kaiser, 47 Laansma, 48 and Braun, 49 determine that it is unrelated to a DH rest motif and therefore set it aside from their respective analyses of rest. Although previous studies of rest have not found a correlation, ‫ שׁקט‬is included in this study because: a) as a synchronic analysis of the DH, a broad examination of the notion is required in order to discover any new or fresh insight into a DH conception of rest; and b) as a provisional state of rest, the use of the term does not appear to contradict any statements of permanent rest in the DH. Therefore, ‫ שׁקט‬may be complementary rather than contradictory.

DEUTERONOMY

Seminal to the discussion of rest in the DH is von Rad’s 1933 essay, “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God,” where he states: This uncertainty concerning the time at which the “rest” began is quite remarkable. Joshua, David, Solomon: it can be said of all of them that God gave rest to the nation in their Brevard S. Childs, review of James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, JBL 80 (1961): 376. Childs continues on to say that “Barr’s claim that research should focus only on what the writers say, not on the words they say them with, can not be sustained.” 47 Kaiser, The Uses of The Old Testament in the New, 157. 48 Jon C. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The “Rest” Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2, 98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 21–22. 49 Roddy Braun, “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976): 584, n. 9. 46

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

97

day, and hence the gift of rest can no longer be something which happened once and for all. One gets the impression that someone who knew full well the deuteronomic saying about “rest” hesitated to apply this weighty notion to any one stage of the history to which he looked back. Who shall say that his hesitation was not justified? When in fact he did apply the notion to the historical account, it unexpectedly broke into three pieces: one could speak of divinely given rest (‫ ) ְמנוּ ָחה‬equally well in the case of Joshua, David, and Solomon. 50 287F

Von Rad’s assessment is understandable. After all, both Deut 12:9 and 25:19 look forward to what appears to be a singular event: Deut 12:9: ‫�הי� נ ֵֹתן ָל�׃‬ ֶ ‫ל־הנַּ ֲח ָלה ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫נוּחה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ד־ﬠ ָתּה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אתם ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫א־בּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ִכּי ל‬ For you have not come as of yet to the resting place and to the inheritance that YHWH your God is giving to you. 51 Deut 25:19: ‫�הי� נ ֵֹתן‬ ֶ ‫ה־א‬ ֱ ָ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ הו‬ ֶ ‫�הי� ְל� ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֶבי� ִמ ָסּ ִביב ָבּ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ ָהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ְל� נַ ֲח ָלה ְל ִר ְשׁ ָתּהּ ִתּ ְמ ֶחה ֶאת־זֵ ֶכר ֲﬠ ָמ ֵלק ִמ ַתּ ַחת ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִ ם לֹא ִתּ ְשׁ ָכּח׃‬ And it will be, when YHWH your God gives rest to you from all your surrounding enemies in the land, which YHWH your God is giving to you as an inheritance to possess, you will blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; do not forget.

Hence, it is easy to conclude, with von Rad, that the God-given rest to Israel “broke into three pieces.” However, the question remains whether the Deuteronomic promise of rest was meant to be understood as happening “once and for all” or in stages, and therefore whether the notion “unexpectedly broke into three pieces,” such that “one could speak of divinely given rest 50 51

Von Rad, “There Remains Still, 97. Unless otherwise noted, all translations of the MT are mine.

98

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ ) ְמ‬equally well in the case of Joshua, David, and Solo(‫נוּחה‬ mon.” 52 It may be helpful to explore whether Deuteronomy and the DH are more precise than von Rad thought. 289F

The Promise of Rest: Deuteronomy 12:9

The proper starting point of this discussion is Deut 12:9, and, of course, this verse is embedded in the context of Deut 12:8–12, which itself needs to be properly segmented. Deut 12:8:

‫ל־היָּ ָשׁר ְבּ ֵﬠינָ יו׃‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ַת ֲﬠשׂוּן ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנַ ְחנוּ ע ִֹשׂים פֹּה ַהיּוֹם ִאישׁ ָכּ‬ You will not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes. Deut 12:9:

�‫�הי‬ ֶ ‫ל־הנַּ ֲח ָלה ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫נוּחה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ד־ﬠ ָתּה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אתם ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫א־בּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ִכּי ל‬ ‫נ ֵֹתן ָל�׃‬ For you have not come as of yet to the resting place and to the inheritance that YHWH your God is giving to you Deut 12:10:

‫יכם ַמנְ ִחיל ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ישׁ ְב ֶתּם ָבּ‬ ַ ִ‫ת־היַּ ְר ֵדּן ו‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲﬠ ַב ְר ֶתּם ֶא‬ ‫ם־בּ ַטח׃‬ ֶ ‫ישׁ ְב ֶתּ‬ ַ ִ‫יכם ִמ ָסּ ִביב ו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֵהנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬ But when you cross over the Jordan and you dwell in the land that YHWH your God allots to you, and He gives you rest from all your enemies from all about so that you live securely, Deut 12:11:

‫יכם בּוֹ ְל ַשׁ ֵכּן ְשׁמוֹ ָשׁם ָשׁ ָמּה‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ַה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר־יִ ְב ַחר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫יכם ַמ ְﬠ ְשׂר ֵֹת‬ ֶ ‫יכם וְ זִ ְב ֵח‬ ֶ ‫עוֹ�ת‬ ֵ ‫ל־א ֶשׁר אָנ ִֹכי ְמ ַצוֶּ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ֲ ‫ָת ִביאוּ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ‫יכם ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּ ְדּרוּ ַליהוָ ה׃‬ ֶ ‫וּת ֻר ַמת יֶ ְד ֶכם וְ כֹל ִמ ְב ַחר נִ ְד ֵר‬ ְ

52

Emphasis mine.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

99

Then, the place that YHWH your God will choose to make his name to dwell in it there, to there you will bring all that I command you, your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and the tribute of your hand, and all your choice votive gifts that you vow to YHWH. Deut 12:12:

‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫יכם וְ ַﬠ ְב ֵד‬ ֶ ‫וּבנ ֵֹת‬ ְ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫וּבנ‬ ְ ‫אַתּם‬ ֶ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫וּשׂ ַמ ְח ֶתּם ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫יכם ִכּי ֵאין לוֹ ֵח ֶלק וְ נַ ֲח ָלה ִא ְתּ ֶכם׃‬ ֶ ‫יכם וְ ַה ֵלּוִ י ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ַשׁ ֲﬠ ֵר‬ ֶ ‫אַמה ֵֹת‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ And you will rejoice before YHWH your God, you, and your sons and your daughters, your male servants and female servants, and the Levite who is within your gates, for he does not have a territory or inheritance with you.

The author of Deut 12:8 speaks in the classic hic et nunc voice of Deuteronomy. In Deut 12:9, the transition out of the present tense is smooth, using the perfect in the negative (“you have not come as of yet”) and participles to move into Deut 12:10, where the consecutive perfects are used to portray a future tense. While Deut 12:8 speaks of the present status, Deut 12:9 speaks of what has not yet happened, and Deut 12:10 lays out what is about to happen. What is in Deut 12:9 (resting place and inheritance) is assumed to have been picked up by Deut 12:10, where God will give “the land which YHWH your God allots to you, and He gives you rest from all your enemies in the land from all about.” Further, Deut 12:11 is marked off by the temporal modifier ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬. In this sequence of events, it appears that the former (Deut 12:8–10) is a prerequisite for the latter (Deut 12:11): YHWH will choose “the place” where his name will dwell, and it is precisely to this “place” that they are to bring their offerings. Roth also notes the idea of prerequisite and sequencing as he states: It sets it and the rest formula off from what precedes by way of periodization: the entry into Canaan with the assignment of settlement areas is followed at a later date by the granting of rest with the attendant secure settlement. Then—and only

100

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE then—are the Israelites to worship at the divinely chosen place. 53

Only when these requirements are fulfilled (rest, inheritance, and land) is the central worship location to be identified. Deuteronomy 12:11 begins the statutes of the sanctuary, and Deut 12:12 includes the phrase “and you will rejoice before YHWH your God.” The activity of “rejoicing” is further expounded until Deut 12:28. In Deut 12:12, a technical formulaֶ ֵ‫( ְבּנ‬your tion is used to describe the participants: ‫( ַא ֶתּם‬you), ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫( ְבּנ ֵֹת‬your daughters), ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫( ַﬠ ְב ֵד‬your menservants), and sons), ‫יכם‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫( ַא ְמה ֵֹת‬your maidservants). Within the HB, this formulation (with a few variations of the pronominal suffix from plural to singular) is found almost exclusively in Deuteronomy (5:14; 12:12, 18; 16:11, 14). The formulation in Deut 16:11 and 16:14 speaks of the Feast of Weeks (‫ ) ַחג ָשׁ ֻבעוֹת‬and the Feast of Booths (‫) ַחג ַה ֻסּכֹּת‬, respectively. Both feasts are to commence “in the place that YHWH will choose” (‫) ַבּ ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְב ַחר יְ הוָ ָה‬. In the HB, the only instance of the above combination of participants outside of Deuteronomy is in the sabbath commandment of the Exodus Decalogue (Ex 20:10). Exodus 20:10 stands in close parallel to Deut 5:14, but Deut 5:14 expands Ex 20:10, adding to the end the commandment: “so that your servַ ָ‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן י‬ ant and maidservant may rest, like you” (�‫נוּ� ַﬠ ְב ְדּ� וַ ֲא ָמ ְת‬ �‫) ָכּמוֹ‬. The redundancy of �‫ ַﬠ ְב ְדּ� וַ ֲא ָמ ְת‬produces an emphasis on the act of allowing the servants to rest, and �‫ ָכּמוֹ‬suggests that the ‫נוח‬-rest given to the servants is linked to the sabbath day of rest that is to be enjoyed by all Israel. Moreover, Barker notes that “the way the sabbath commandments are written in Deuteronomy 5 makes the sabbath command central and thus in a position of great importance.” 54 It is unfortunate that Deut 5:14 is the only point of contact between ‫ נוח‬and ‫ שׁבת‬in the DH. 55 29F

Wolfgang Roth, “The Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-Critical Study,” BR (1976): 10. 54 Paul A. Barker, “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee,” DOTP, 696. 55 The explanation for the sabbath commandment in Ex 20:11 also connects ‫ נוח‬and ‫שׁבת‬, stating that YHWH “rested (‫ )נוח‬on the seventh 53

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

101

The idea that the provision of rest from a deity is a benefit that should continue to be gifted to others would have been interesting—but, as stated in the introduction chapter of this study, sabbath rest is beyond the scope of this analysis of the concept of rest in the DH, especially given the limited data connecting ‫ נוח‬and ‫ שׁבת‬in the DH. Indeed, the promise feature of the passage lies in Deut 12:9–10. The inheritance aspect of the promise in Deut 12:9 is more fully described in Deut 12:10: “and you dwell in the land that YHWH your God allots to you.” The inheritance (‫ ) ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬in Deut 12:9 appears to be the “land” which YHWH will allot ָ ‫ ) ַה ְמּ‬is still distinct(‫ ) ַמנְ ִחיל‬to them. Yet, the resting “place” (‫נוּחה‬ ly tied to the land. The land is the actual locale in which the promise of rest is realized. Without the land, there can be no rest. Moreover, the promise does not end here, and, indeed, the climax of the progression has yet to be reached. In Deut 12:11, YHWH states he will only then choose the place (‫ ) ַה ָמּקוֹם‬in which his name is to dwell. The use of the definite article is quite important here: the resting place, the inheritance, the place. The actual geographic location of all these places appears to be the same (but this is not necessarily to say that the three parts are themselves the same). With regard to ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬and ‫ ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬, Braulik states: “these two gifts of God cannot be identified with each other.” 56 In Deut 12:4–28, Braulik observes that in the qal, ‫ בוא‬is tied to ‫ ַה ָמּקוֹם‬, and in the hiphil the verb coordinates with ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה‬to refer to ‫ ַה ָמּקוֹם‬as well. On this basis, Braulik contends that the phrase “‘arrive at (the place of) rest, come to rest’ refers to the procession to the Temple of Jerusalem.” 57 However, Braulik has overlooked two important points: 1) in the main statement about entering “the rest” in Deut 12:9, ‫ בוא‬has two distinctly interreday,” and “therefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day (‫ )יוֹם ַה ַשּׁ ָבּת‬and consecrated it.” 56 Georg Braulik, “Some Remarks on the Deuteronomistic Conception of Freedom and Peace,” in The Theology of Deuteronomy (trans. Ulrika Lindbald; North Richland Hills: Bibal, 1994), 88. 57 Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 88.

102

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ל־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ד־ﬠ ָתּה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אתם ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫א־בּ‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ lated indirect objects, not one: ‫נוּחה וְ ֶאל־‬ ‫ ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬. This should not go unnoticed because both the resting

place and the inheritance will be entered. Also, there is another use of ‫ בוא‬in Deut 12:29, and while this use occurs in the qal participle form, it is also connected with ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה‬. The context of Deut 12:29 clearly reveals that it is the land being referred to, not a temple: Deut 12:29:

‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫א־שׁ ָמּה ָל ֶר ֶשׁת‬ ָ ‫אַתּה ָב‬ ָ ‫ת־הגּוֹיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫�הי� ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי־יַ ְכ ִרית יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫אַר ָצם׃‬ ְ ‫ִמ ָפּנֶ י� וְ יָ ַר ְשׁ ָתּ א ָֹתם וְ יָ ַשׁ ְב ָתּ ְבּ‬ When YHWH your God cuts off the nations before you, whom you are going in to dispossess (them), and you dispossess them and dwell in their land…

On the basis of these two omissions one would hesitate to state “entering into rest” represents “the procession into the temple” exclusively. There is one other instance, moreover, that is significant. Until now the discussion of Deut 25:19 has been set aside, for it is a summary recapitulation of Deut 12:9–10. Deut 25:19:

‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ הוָ ה־‬ ֶ ‫�הי� ְל� ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֶבי� ִמ ָסּ ִביב ָבּ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ ָהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הי� נ ֵֹתן ְל� נַ ֲח ָלה ְל ִר ְשׁ ָתּהּ‬ ֶ ‫ֱא‬ Then it will be when YHWH gives you rest from all your surrounding enemies in the land that YHWH your God gives you as an inheritance to possess…

There is an obvious correlation between Deut 12:9–10 and 25:19. The latter speaks of both God-given rest as well as inheritance. Immediately following 25:19, 26:1–2 records: ‫�הי� נ ֵֹתן ְל� נַ ֲח ָלה וִ ִיר ְשׁ ָתּהּ‬ ֶ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫י־תבוֹא ֶא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכּ‬ �‫אַר ְצ‬ ְ ‫ל־פּ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר ָתּ ִביא ֵמ‬ ְ ‫אשׁית ָכּ‬ ִ ‫וְ יָ ַשׁ ְב ָתּ ָבּהּ׃ וְ ָל ַק ְח ָתּ ֵמ ֵר‬ ‫ל־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְב ַחר‬ ַ ‫�הי� נ ֵֹתן ָל� וְ ַשׂ ְמ ָתּ ַב ֶטּנֶ א וְ ָה ַל ְכ ָתּ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הי� ְל ַשׁ ֵכּן ְשׁמוֹ ָשׁם׃‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ Then it will be, when you enter into the land which YHWH your God gives to you as an inheritance, and you possess it and dwell in it, you will take some of the first of all the produce of the ground which you bring in from your land that

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

103

YHWH your God gives you, and you will put (rest) it in a basket and go to the place where YHWH your God will choose to establish his name.

In this recapitulated promise of rest, ‫ בוא‬is used twice, once in the qal and once in the hiphil. In the first instance (qal), it is the land that is being entered. In the second (hiphil), it is produce from the land the Israelites enter that they are to “bring” (hiphil) to the place where YHWH chooses. Willis observes that while the cult-centralization law in Deut 12:9–10 hints at a temple, the language is too broad to depict solely a temple: One should not assume, however, that Dtr intends that the reader view the Jerusalem temple as the sole fulfillment of the cult-centralization law: the law does not designate the building of a temple as the goal of centralization, but it speaks instead of a more generic “place” that the Lord will choose. 58

Given the evidence presented above, Braulik’s contention that rest should be identified exclusively with the temple and not the inheritance (especially based on the use of ‫ )בוא‬requires more substantiation. 59 In fact, the aforementioned double use of indiָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬and ‫ ) ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬of ‫ בוא‬implies the opposite; the rect objects (‫נוּחה‬ two are, in fact, very much interrelated. Of course, Braulik is correct to assert a strong association between the resting place and a temple; it is merely that this is not an exclusive association. In summary, Deut 12:9–12 contains four different parts. The first is a blanket statement, describing the rest and the inheritance that have not been given yet (Deut 12:9). Both rest Timothy M. Willis, “‘Rest All Around from All His Enemies’ (2 Samuel 7:1b): The Occasion for David’s Offer to Build a Temple,” in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson (eds. K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 134. 59 Others have also doubted Braulik’s contention, see Laansma, I Will Give You Rest, 23 n. 23. 58

104

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

and inheritance, seemingly abstract concepts, find their concrete expression in the land. In the second part, Deut 12:10 expands the statement of Deut 12:9 and thrusts it forward to the future. The land will be given as an inheritance, and it will also be the locale for the Israelites to live securely in rest. These two aspects are what YHWH is promising to give to the Israelites, and yet it is only after these two prerequisites are satisfied that God will choose ‫( ַה ָמּקוֹם‬Deut 12:11, part three). The description of this “place” that follows sounds very much like the temple, yet a temple is not mentioned. Moreover, it is the place where YHWH will have his name dwell. In a sense it will be YHWH’s abode— his place of rest—although this is not mentioned either. While there is no specific language, to this effect it does appear that the text may be referring to God’s resting place as the temple, although more evidence is required to specifically locate the notion in Deut 12. Part four of the text contains ordinances for proper worship. Interestingly, the participants—sons and daughters, servants, and the Levite—exhibit a high degree of similarity with those mentioned in the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue in Deut 5:10. One may view Deut 12:9 as a blanket statement summarizing the gifts to be given, Deut 12:10 picking up the same theme as Deut 12:9 and describing the prerequisites for “the place,” Deut 12:11 as the climax of the progression, whereby YHWH chooses “the place,” and Deut 12:12–14 as the ordinances for the maintenance of the inheritance.

The Nature of the Promise: Deuteronomy 12:8–14

It is quite significant that the ordinances for worship are stipulated in Deut 12:8–14, because it is well communicated in Deuteronomy that promises are conditional. Deuteronomy 12:28 is illuminating in this regard, and provides context for Deut 12:8– 24: “be careful to heed all these words which I am commanding you, so that it will go well with you and your sons after you forever.” There is already a hesitancy to make this either a onetime event that will inaugurate a “new age,” so to speak, or a lasting experience. All of the promises are based on a covenantal relationship. The keeping of the ordinances ensures that all ָ ‫ﬠ‬...‫ב‬ ַ ‫יט‬ ַ ִ‫)י‬. The breaking of the would “go well…forever” (‫ד־עוֹלם‬ commands, however, means the promises would not and could

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

105

not be fulfilled. This is reiterated and reinforced through the later rest-statements to Joshua (Josh 21:44, 22:3, 23:1). 60 One might object because Deut 12:8–14 seems to utilize language that is too certain to embody such a sense of conditionality. Indeed, Deut 12:8–14 is often thought to describe a one-time event that was to occur. However, there are two aspects that should be taken into consideration. First, in following the narrative of the text itself, Deut 12:8 (“you will not do according to all that we are doing here today”) already depicts a state of non-conformity. From the beginning (not just at Deut 12:28) it is hinted that the actions of the people are inextricably tied to the promises. In fact, Deut 12:8 serves a transition from 12:1–7 to 12:9. Deuteronomy 12:1–7 contains classic Deuteronomic theology regarding the centralization of the cult. The entire pericope demands obedience in bringing offerings to the central place. In the midst of this pericope, Deut 12:4 states: ‫לֹא־‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫“( ַת ֲﬠשׂוּן ֵכּן ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬you will not do this before YHWH your God”), and 12:8 recapitulates this: ‫לֹא ַת ֲﬠשׂוּן‬. Hence, the theme of obedience circumscribes the promise of Deut 12:8–14. It should not be a surprise, therefore, if there is some conditionality attached to this seemingly certain promise. Second, one need not go far to find a statement of “certain” promise which is thereafter qualified. Deuteronomy 15:4–5 states, “for YHWH will surely bless you in the land that YHWH ָ ‫ִכּ‬ your God is giving to you as an inheritance to possess” (�‫י־ב ֵר‬ ‫ן־ל� נַ ֲח ָלה ְל ִר ְשׁ ָתּהּ‬ ְ ‫�הי� נ ֵֹת‬ ֶ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫)יְ ָב ֶר ְכ� יְ הוָ ה ָבּ‬. This is immediately qualified: “if only you indeed obey the voice of ֶ ‫מוֹ� ִתּ ְשׁ ַמע ְבּקוֹל יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ם־שׁ‬ ָ ‫) ַרק ִא‬. Both YHWH your God” (�‫�הי‬ statements employ the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute. The term “programmatic” has been used to refer to Deut 12, acknowledging a type of formula/sequence/plan of how things were to operate. 61 Deuteronomy 12 is indeed programmatic, but 298F

Roth argues in a similar manner as to the conditionality of the promise in Josh 23 (“Deuteronomic Rest”, 8–9). 61 See Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 89, and Laansma, I Will Give You Rest, 23, n. 22. 60

106

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the program is very much oriented under a promise-fulfillment scheme—one that is conditional and fragile. It would also be helpful at this point to revisit some observations drawn from the ML, as outlined in the previous chapter. In unpacking the notion of rest there, it was observed that when the idea of rest meets real history and events, it propels the hope of rest into the future. This means that while the picture of rest is painted in such secure terms that it is thought of as permanent, ongoing wars and battles would push that vision of rest toward a future time. Ultimately, in the ML rest is elusive to those seeking it and becomes a thing to be wished for—it is a time that one would put one’s hopes in, as it is in The Poem of Erra, where the only constant is the interchange of rest and violence.

The Response to the Fulfillment of the Promise: Deuteronomy 14:28; 26:4, 10

Following Deut 12, the regulations enjoined on Israel are expounded. Not all of these laws can be examined in detail here, but a few passages that are instrumental to the development of a rest paradigm should be explored before moving past Deuteronomy. While the hiphil (1) uses of ‫ נוח‬have been discussed above, there are three instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2)—carefully placed in Deuteronomy—that will surface in the same manner later in the DH. The three uses are in Deut 14:28, 26:4, 10 (26:10 is a recapitulation of 26:4). Deut 14:28:

‫בוּאָת� ַבּ ָשּׁנָ ה ַה ִהוא‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ְﬠ ַשׂר ְתּ‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫תּוֹציא ֶא‬ ִ ‫ִמ ְק ֵצה ָשׁ�שׁ ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫וְ ִהנַּ ְח ָתּ ִבּ ְשׁ ָﬠ ֶרי�׃‬ At the end of every third year you will bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and will place (rest) it within your gates. Deut 26:4:

‫�הי�׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָל ַקח ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַה ֶטּנֶ א ִמיָּ ֶד� וְ ִהנִּ יחוֹ ִל ְפנֵ י ִמזְ ַבּח יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ And the priest will take the basket from your hand and set (rest) it before the altar of YHWH your God.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

107

Deut 26:10:

‫אשׁית ְפּ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ָתּה ִלּי יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ת־ר‬ ֵ ‫אתי ֶא‬ ִ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ִהנֵּ ה ֵה ֵב‬ ‫ית ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא� ֶהי�׃‬ ָ ִ‫�הי� וְ ִה ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִהנַּ ְחתּוֹ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ Now behold, I have brought the first of the produce of the ground which you, YHWH have given me. You will set (rest) it down before YHWH your God, and worship before YHWH your God.

These instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) are subtle, yet they stand out in comparison to references of other offerings in Deuteronomy. In Deut 12–16, the offerings are usually brought out and eaten, with no mention of “placing” or “putting.” The offerings are simply eaten in the presence of YHWH in Deut 12:18 and 15:20 ֲ ‫�הי� ת‬ ֶ ‫) ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬. When an offering is placed, it is (‫ֹאכ ֶלנּוּ‬ “made” (‫ )עשׂה‬on the altar, as described in Deut 12:27 or “taken up” (‫עלה‬, hiphil), as it is in Deut 12:13. The tithes of produce in Deut 14:28 and 26:4 are also to be eaten. However, both offerings (14:28; 26:4, 10) are not to be eaten by the offerer, but instead by the Levite, alien, orphan and widow (‫ ַה ֵלּוִ י‬, ‫ ַהגֵּ ר‬, ‫ ַהיָּ תוֹם‬, ‫) ָה ַא ְל ָמנָ ה‬. While the offering is rested before YHWH, it is also distributed to those without an inheritance. It is at once both an offering to YHWH and a provision to others. The idea of providing rest while feasting is reminiscent of the ML, where once the provision of rest is given by the god, the principle of response then follows. In Enuma Elish, this took the form of building a temple and feasting within it. The temple was a place of rest not only for the head god but also for those offered freedom from labor. The common features of both texts are notable. Once a provision of rest is made (Deut 12:9–10 precedes 14:28, and Deut 25:19 immediately precedes 26:4, 10), the response of offering is made to the deity. Throughout, feasting/merrymaking is the common method of an offering response. There are contrasts between the two texts as well. First, in Enuma Elish it is the lower gods who are given rest and then respond to the provision, not human beings. Without taking up

108

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

issues of monotheism at this point, 62 it is apparent that the same type of principle is involved in both texts. Second, in the ML it is the deity or the deity’s heart that is given rest or appeased by the offering. In Enuma Elish, there is no statement of an offering being placed, and the appeasement or resting of the gods is implied and not directly stated. Instead of seeing these differences as barriers to the comparison, the differences may represent a conscious effort on the part of Dtr to distinguish the DH and Israelite beliefs from Mesopotamian texts and religions. The language used in the DH avoids depicting a tangible influence upon the state of the Deity. In contrast to the ML, where the heart of the god is “rested” or “appeased,” in the DH the offering itself is rested before YHWH. When considered in conjunction with the understanding that the only inanimate objects that are rested/placed are cultic ones make these verses in Deuteronomy all the more significant. While a “rest” or “place” statement is used only with tithes of the produce in Deut 14:28 and 26:4, 10, the concept of response should not be restricted only to tithes of produce. It is already clear that observance of all the statutes—including meat sacrifices—is in response to YHWH’s provision and maintenance of the relationship. Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:4, 10, simply highlight this, and one should not expect to see ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) used only for these types of offerings.

The Curses of Disobedience: Deuteronomy 28:65

If the Deuteronomic promise of rest is conditional, one should then expect to see the taking away of that rest as a consequence of disobedience, especially because Deuteronomy is well known for its covenantal structure involving blessings and curses. Embedded in the curses of Deuteronomy is 28:65: 63 See Georg Braulik, “Deuteronomy and the Birth of Monotheism,” in The Theology of Deuteronomy (trans. Ulrika Lindbald; North Richland Hills: Bibal, 1994), 99–130. 63 Some consider this passage in Deuteronomy to be secondary, making this portion (curses) of the conditional promise of rest late. 62

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

109

‫ף־רגְ ֶל� וְ נָ ַתן יְ הוָ ה ְל� ָשׁם‬ ַ ‫נוֹ� ְל ַכ‬ ַ ‫וּבגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵהם לֹא ַת ְרגִּ ַי� וְ לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה ָמ‬ ַ ‫ֵלב ַרגָּ ז וְ ִכ ְליוֹן ֵﬠינַ יִ ם וְ ַד ֲאבוֹן נָ ֶפשׁ׃‬ Among those nations you will find no rest, and there will not be a resting place for the sole of your foot; but YHWH will give you there a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul.

There are a few points about Deut 28:65 worth exploring. First, the curse of removing rest, especially in a treaty context, is remarkably similar to the curses of unrest in The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, since in both instances it is the taking away of rest that is the curse. That unrest is a curse implies that a state of rest is already in place. The curse in Esarhaddon’s treaty describes a politico-military conquest that causes constant unrest, and since there is a lack of statements in the ML of a deity providing rest to human being, this removal of rest is the closest reference to a divine rest to humans. In this sense, the curse in Esarhaddon is oddly more akin to Deuteronomy than it is to the overall theological understanding of rest in the ML. Second, Deut 28:65 confirms that the promise of rest could be revoked for failure to adhere to the covenant. The removal of rest does happen later in Judges, and should not be a surprise when it does. Some critics challenge the conditionality of the rest given to Israel by YHWH in Josh 21:44 (especially as a fulfillment of Deut 12:9–10). Roth maintains that conditionality was attached to the concept of rest by DtrN later in Josh 23, 64 as does Braulik: “this rest depends entirely on Israel’s relation to God (Joshua 23).” 65 Given the evidence in Deuteronomy presented above, especially taking into account the curse in Deut 28:65, it would be doubtful that the conditionality of the promise was a later development. The conclusions deduced by Roth and Braulik are the only viable ones when one sets aside the However, as shown above, the conditionality was not something new to the later writers, which is already found in Deut 12:28 and Deut 15:4– 5. 64 Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest,” 8–9. 65 Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 92.

110

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ ְמ‬and ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1). expressions of rest outside of the terms ‫נוּחה‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬and ‫ רגע‬are used (both words mean rest), In Deut 28:65, �‫נוֹ‬ making most overlook the passage. Both words are at least conָ ‫ ְמ‬, and �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬is etymologically ceptually related to ‫ נוח‬and ‫נוּחה‬ related. If included in the analysis of rest in Deuteronomy, then then the conditionality of the promise of rest is once again highlighted, an aspect that likely existed from an early stage. Third, the two uses of rest in Deut 28:65 coordinate well with the two uses of rest in 12:9–10. In Deut 28:65, the first exַ . The use of ‫ רגע‬is in the pression of rest is: �‫וּבגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵהם לֹא ַת ְרגִּ ַי‬ hiphil, yet it is intransitive. There is no mention of a giver or a recipient. It must simply be translated “you will not rest among those nations.” This probably coordinates with the use of ‫נוח‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֵהנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬. Both Deut hiphil (1) in Deut 12:10: ‫יכם ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬ 12:10 and the first use in Deut 28:65 express a state of rest with a verb. The second expression of rest in Deut 28:65 is ‫וְ לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬is a close cousin to ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬and �‫ף־רגְ ֶל‬ ַ ‫נוֹ� ְל ַכ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬. The noun �‫נוֹ‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in Deut 12:9. Both express a restprobably correlates with ‫נוּחה‬ ing place with a noun. Finally, given that there are strong points of contact between Deut 28:65 and Deut 12:9–10, it is quite intriguing that the words for rest used in Deut 28:65 are different from those used in Deut 12:9–10. The different words for rest employed in Deut 28:65 suggest that when rest is taken away from Israel, the same words that are used for giving rest to Israel are not to be employed. As is explored later in this study, this is the case particularly in Judges. Whenever rest is taken away from Israel by foreign nations (or rather, rest is given to other nations to cause ָ ‫ ְמ‬or ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1), unrest to Israel), it is not expressed with ‫נוּחה‬ but with other words that also denote “rest.” 66 Hence, Deut 28:65 serves to protect two aspects that are important for the overall paradigm of rest: 1) it protects the technical use of ‫נוח‬ hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬as an expression denoting YHWH giving rest to Israel or a leader of Israel. The taking away of rest is expressed See the section below on Judg 20:43, where ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬is used to indicate the taking away of rest, not from foreign nations but from other Israelite tribes. 66

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

111

differently; and 2) in so doing it also preserves the actual giving of rest to Israel. Once rest is granted to Israel it is not taken away in the full sense that it is given. Dtr actually seems to be precise about this. As noted by von Rad above, the concept of rest is spread throughout the DH in “pieces,” but it is not as though one could parse it equally in each case. Instead, it would be better to speak of stages or phases. If Deut 28:65 indeed corresponds with Deut 12:9–10, it would be a reversal (but not completely) of the promise in Deut 12:9–10. This would then cast doubt on the idea that Deut 12:9– 10 is made up of two parts from two different layers of redaction, as both Roth and Braulik suggest. If Deut 12:9–10 is made up of two different layers, Deut 28:65 must come exceptionally late, after Deut 12:9–10 had been welded together. This would seem dubious, however, since Deut 28:65 may also prove to be programmatic for the remainder of the DH, where the lack of rest is expressed in a manner that is different from the way it is given.

JOSHUA Partial Rest for a Nation in Transition: Joshua 1:13, 15

Following the narrative of the DH, after the promise of rest is given to Israel in Deut 12:9, the book of Joshua opens with YHWH’s provision of rest to only a part of Israel. Joshua 1:13– 15 records: ‫ת־ה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם מ ֶֹשׁה ֶﬠ ֶבד־יְ הוָ ה ֵלאמֹר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫זָ כוֹר ֶא‬ ‫יכם ַט ְפּ ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫אָרץ ַהזֹּאת׃ נְ ֵשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫יכם ֵמנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם וְ נָ ַתן ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ֱא‬ ‫אַתּם ַתּ ַﬠ ְברוּ‬ ֶ ְ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ָל ֶכם מ ֶֹשׁה ְבּ ֵﬠ ֶבר ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן ו‬ ֶ ‫יכם יֵ ְשׁבוּ ָבּ‬ ֶ ֵ‫וּמ ְקנ‬ ִ ָ ‫בּוֹרי ַה ַחיִ ל וַ ֲﬠזַ ְר ֶתּם‬ ֵ ִ‫יכם כֹּל גּ‬ ֶ ‫ֲח ֻמ ִשׁים ִל ְפנֵ י ֲא ֵח‬ �‫אוֹתם׃ ַﬠד ֲא ֶשׁר־יָ נִ ַי‬ ‫יכם נ ֵֹתן‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫ם־ה ָמּה ֶא‬ ֵ ַ‫יכם ָכּ ֶכם וְ יָ ְרשׁוּ ג‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲא ֵח‬ ‫אוֹתהּ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ָל ֶכם מ ֶֹשׁה ֶﬠ ֶבד‬ ָ ‫ָל ֶהם וְ ַשׁ ְב ֶתּם ְל ֶא ֶרץ יְ ֻר ַשּׁ ְת ֶכם וִ ִיר ְשׁ ֶתּם‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ֵﬠ ֶבר ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן ִמזְ ַרח ַה ָשּׁ ֶמשׁ׃‬ Remember the word that Moses, the servant of YHWH, commanded you, saying, “YHWH your God is giving rest to you, and will give you this land. Your wives, your children, and your livestock will settle in the land that Moses gave to you across the Jordan. But you must cross over organized for

112

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE battle before your brothers, all the valiant ones of the army, and you must help them until YHWH gives rest to your brothers like you, and they have also possessed the land that YHWH your God is giving to them. Then you will return to the land of your possession and you will possess it, the land that Moses the servant of YHWH gave to you across the Jordan, east toward the sunrise.”

The command to the two and a half Transjordanian tribes (Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh) and the promise of rest to their brothers actually extend back to Deut 3:12–20. The command portion also echoes back to Num 32. The two uses of ‫ נוח‬in Josh 1:13 (�‫ ) ֵמנִ ַי‬and Josh 1:15 (�‫ )יָ נִ ַי‬are embedded in Joshua’s speech (1:11–15), which Noth identified as characteristically deuteronomistic 67 and “compiled from stock Deuteronomistic formulae.” 68 The rest-statement in Josh 1:13 is the first instance of a provision of rest to Israel by YHWH. Although the technical rest formula of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬is used twice (Josh 1:13, 15), most do not consider these instances of rest provision as part of the rest motif in the DH. Conceivably, one reason for not associating Josh 1:13 to a DH rest paradigm is due to the possible translation of ‫ נוח‬as “to settle” (i.e., “YHWH is settling you”), 69 instead of “to give rest.” Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the rest-statements in Joshua’s speech is the ambiguity with which the provision of rest is communicated. Unlike the later statements of rest using the technical formula, in Josh 1:13 ‫ נוח‬is in the participial form. The predicative use of the participle indicates a durative action and therefore describes an ongoing process. There are further aspects of ambiguity: 1) the wives, children, and the livestock are allowed to settle in the land but not the men, who must still 306F

Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 5. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 33. 69 See the translation by Alberto Soggin, Joshua (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 25: Soggin translates this phrase as: “The LORD your God has settled you, giving you this land” (Josh 1:13), and later “until the LORD settles your brethren” (Josh 1:15). 67 68

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

113

fight; 2) the Transjordanian tribes are obviously only a part of Israel, and therefore only a part of the nation is in the process of receiving rest; and 3) the text is unclear whether the Transjordan is actually part of the “promised land.” Indeed, the command to the Transjordanian tribes and the promise of rest to their kinsman are recapitulated from Deut 3:18–20, where ‫ ֵמנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם‬is absent: Josh 1:13:

‫אָרץ ַהזֹּאת‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫יכם ֵמנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם וְ נָ ַתן ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ֵלאמֹר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ Deut 3:18:

‫אָרץ ַהזֹּאת‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫נָ ַתן ָל ֶכם ֶא‬

‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ֵלאמֹר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

The addition of ‫ ֵמנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם‬into the previous command from Deut 3:18 is one of the causes of the ambiguity in Josh 1:13, since the added phrase forces the inclusion of the waw before ‫נתן‬. Without ‫ ֵמנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם‬, the land would have been envisaged as already given. Dtr could have easily used the perfect verb form to coordinate with ‫וְ נָ ַתן‬. Further, the future pointing rest-statement in Josh 1:15 remains intact and is copied verbatim from Deut 3:20: ‫ַﬠד‬ ‫יכם ָכּ ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר־יָ נִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲא ֵח‬. Hence, the promise of rest is recapitulated, but at the same time the narrative depicts the beginning stages of a state of rest. All things considered, the ambiguity may be both intentional and appropriate. There is by no means a well-defined establishment of a state of rest for Israel. The nation is in transition and en route to the final destination and place of rest. The ensuing conquest narratives have yet to be told, and therefore any statement of an established rest is premature. Finally, as is exhibited in later portions of this study, the ambiguity with which the state of rest is described appears to be a common practice of Dtr.

114

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Symbolic Rest: Joshua 3:13; 4:3, 8

Boling and Wright state: “The Book of Joshua is one of the Bible’s critically important historical and religious works.” 70 One of the many reasons it is so critical to the HB is because it marks a major transition in Israel’s history: from Moses to Joshua, from the wanderings to conquest, and from tribe to nation. 71 This has led many to see the book of Joshua as an extension of the Pentateuch, thus speaking of a Hexateuch, but at the same time the book is also properly seen as the beginning of the DH. Since the book of Joshua stands as an essential transition in the DH, it would make sense that this key book is also significant for rest motif in the DH. Boling and Wright again observe that “with Exodus it tells how the mighty God delivered a group of Egypt’s state slaves to freedom in the wilderness of Sinai, then gave them a land, a place of ‘rest’ and refuge.” 72 Joshua 3 records the crossing of the Jordan, and because it is strongly tied to the Exodus event, the importance of this strategic chapter in the saga of Israelite history cannot be underestimated. It is, in some respects, a re-birth of Israel. Israel crossed the Red Sea but failed to enter the Promised Land. Now, in Josh 3, Israel has its second chance. Just as it is fitting that such an event of crossing a body of water would occur, it is also appropriate for rest-statements to be made. Whereas Josh 1 and 2 hinted that the concept of rest would be important to the book, Josh 3 and 4 bring forth the concept more readily. Joshua 3:13 states: ‫אָרץ ְבּ ֵמי‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫נוֹ� ַכּפּוֹת ַרגְ ֵלי ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים נ ְֹשׂ ֵאי ֲארוֹן יְ הוָ ה ֲאדוֹן ָכּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְכּ‬ ‫ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן ֵמי ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן יִ ָכּ ֵרתוּן ַה ַמּיִ ם ַהיּ ְֹר ִדים ִמ ְל ָמ ְﬠ ָלה וְ יַ ַﬠ ְמדוּ נֵ ד ֶא ָחד׃‬ Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright, Joshua (AB 6; New York: Doubleday, 1982), 3. 71 Boling and Wright (Joshua, 3) describe that the book of Joshua shows how “slaves and wanderers for whom the world’s justice and powers had not time were delivered, redeemed, rescued, formed into a nation, and given a land in which to live with their own government.” See also L. Daniel Hawk, “Joshua, Book of,” DOTHB, 563. 72 Boling and Wright, Joshua, 3. 70

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

115

It will be when the soles of the feet of the priests who carry the ark of YHWH, the Lord of all the earth, rest in the waters of the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan will be cut off—the waters which are flowing down from above—and they will stand in one heap.

Initially, Josh 3:13 appears to be only a description of the event: when the ark comes to the Jordan, the waters will stop. However, there are indications of something deeper. First, YHWH (or the ark of YHWH) 73 is referred to as “the Lord of all ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫) ֲאדוֹן ָכּ‬. This title reflects YHWH as the one the earth” (‫אָרץ‬ who is in control of everything—the whole earth is under YHWH’s submission—and certainly the act of stopping the natural flow of water supports this assertion. The divine title also hints at YHWH as creator. Viewed in this way, and in conjunction with what has been observed in the ML, the rest-statement in Josh 3:13 may be quite significant. It re-presents the two beginnings of creation and the Exodus in a highly condensed manner. Hence, the “rest” of the ark is similar to the idea of rest as divine authority in the ML. The miracle foretold in Josh 3:13 transpires in Josh 3:16, and thereafter in Josh 4:3 Israel is commanded through Joshua to: ‫ים־ﬠ ְשׂ ֵרה‬ ֶ ‫אוּ־ל ֶכם ִמזֶּ ה ִמתּוֹ� ַהיַּ ְר ֵדּן ִמ ַמּ ַצּב ַרגְ ֵלי ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים ָה ִכין ְשׁ ֵתּ‬ ָ ‫ְשׂ‬ ‫ר־תּ ִלינוּ בוֹ‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ַבּ ָמּלוֹן ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ִﬠ ָמּ ֶכם וְ ִהנַּ ְח ֶתּם‬ ָ ‫ֲא ָבנִ ים וְ ַה ֲﬠ ַב ְר ֶתּם‬ ‫ַה ָלּיְ ָלה׃‬ Take up for yourselves twelve stones from here out of the middle of the Jordan, from the station where the feet of the priests are standing firm, and carry them over with you and

The ark is a representation of YHWH. So too, Woudstra: “The ark was such an intimate symbol of the Lord’s indwelling (cf. Num. 10:35) that to speak of the ark is tantamount to speaking of the Lord whose ark it is. This is probably why the words the Lord of all the earth stand in apposition to the ark,” Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 85. 73

116

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE put (rest) them down in the lodging place where you will spend the night.

In Josh 4:8 the command is carried out as described in Josh 4:3. It must first be noted that the text draws the reader’s focus to the particular place from where the stones are to be taken: the very place where the priests’ feet stand firm. The stones— representative of the 12 tribes—are lifted out, and then laid to rest in the camp where they are to spend the night. If Josh 3:13 alone were not enough to show that the rest of the ark in the Jordan were a display of the authority of YHWH, there is yet more in Josh 4:8, as the stones are taken from the very resting place of the ark and then themselves put to rest (hiphil (2)). The ambiguity in all of this is quite remarkable. YHWH is not seen to be at rest in Josh 3:13, nor the ark, which represents the presence of YHWH. In fact, not even the priests on the whole are at rest, but only the soles of the feet of the priests. The way the rest of the ark is described is very carefully articulated. Moreover, the Israelites themselves are not put to rest either; only the stones that represent each tribe. Yet the stones are stationed in the place where the Israelites will make camp and sleep. Further, the transference of rest from YHWH to the people is very carefully portrayed since the text describes the taking of the stones from the same place where the feet of the priests came to rest. One rest leads to another. Thereafter, the stones also become a witness and testimony to the event and stand as a memorial (Josh 4:21–24). 74 The ambiguity on the part of Dtr is There is discussion about the unity of Josh 4, since the location of the stones is said to be in different places (in their camp, 4:8; back in the Jordan itself, 4:9; or in Gilgal, 4:21). While this may be a case of redactional activity, Woudstra (Joshua, 92) does not think the two memorials are necessarily contradictory, one in the camp and one in the Jordan. He also notes that the phrase “to this day” is probably a “confirmation of the veracity of the account” (Joshua, 92) rather than evidence of an etiological tale. Cf. the two articles by Brevard S. Childs: “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day,’” JBL 82 (1963): 279–292; and “The Etiological Tale Re-Examined,” VT 24 (1974): 387–397. 74

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

117

in some ways necessary. For example, YHWH was already at rest after the creation of the earth, but YHWH had not yet chosen the place where his name is to dwell. Moreover, Israel had not yet been granted rest by YHWH either. In this beautifully compact and concise portion of text, the past redemptive acts are woven into the present. The present stands as a memorial of the past promise of rest and reinvigorates the hope of it. The pattern also foreshadows the future: YHWH will grant Israel rest, and his presence and authority will be at the center of the nation.

Rahab’s Rest: Joshua 6:23

Joshua 2 narrates the survey of the land by the Israelite spies, and Josh 6 comes back to it with the conquest of Jericho. Rahab’s actions are famous not only in the HB (Josh 6:25) but even today for both Jewish and Christian exegetes. In the midst of this important text lies one small statement of rest in Josh 6:23: ‫ת־א ָמּהּ וְ ֶאת־‬ ִ ‫יה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־אָב‬ ִ ‫ת־ר ָחב וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ בֹאוּ ַהנְּ ָﬠ ִרים ַה ְמ ַרגְּ ִלים וַ יּ ִֹציאוּ ֶא‬ ‫הוֹציאוּ וַ יַּ נִּ יחוּם ִמחוּץ‬ ִ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫חוֹת‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ְפּ‬ ִ ‫ר־להּ וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ל־א ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫יה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫אַח‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל׃‬ And the young men who were spies went in and they brought out Rahab and her father and her mother and her brothers and all she had. They also brought out all her relatives and placed (rested) them outside the camp of Israel.

As with all the other uses of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) until now, this could be just a descriptive statement denoting “placement.” However, thus far each usage revealed something significant about rest. Therefore, there is no reason to anticipate that Josh 6:23 would be any different. There are two aspects of Josh 6:23 that can bear significance. First, as soon as Rahab and her family are brought out of the city, Josh 6:24 states that the city is burned. By bringing Rahab’s family outside of the city, they are saved from destruction. As will be seen later in Judg 2–3, rest is also granted to foreign nations with the same terminology—they too are allowed to remain and avoid destruction. Joshua 6:23 almost paves the way for, or foreshadows Judg 2:23 and 3:1. Second, Rahab’s family is rested “outside of the camp of Israel.” This further description by Dtr would be unnecessary if all Dtr want-

118

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ed to portray is that Rahab and her family are saved from destruction. The author could have stopped after saying that Rahab and her family were brought out and accomplish the task. 75 Instead, not only are Rahab and her family rested but also they are placed outside of the camp of Israel. 76 Later, in Josh 6:25, it is stated that “she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day.” 77 Whether this is the result of redactional activity or not, what is important for the present analysis is that there is an apparent effort to avoid placing any rest within Israel as of yet, similar to Josh 3–4, where there is the same kind of ambiguity with the symbolic resting of the stones inside the camp.

‫ שׁקט‬as a Temporary State of Rest: Joshua 11:23; 14:15

Still on the way to the fulfillment of the promise of rest, Josh 11:23 and 14:15 demarcate a penultimate state of rest before Josh 21:44. Joshua 1–11 outlines the conquest by Israel, with chapters 10 and 11 focusing on the conquest of southern and northern Palestine. At the end of this account, Josh 11:23 states: ‫אָרץ ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יִּ ְתּנָ הּ‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ� ֶא‬ ֻ ְ‫וַ יִּ ַקּח י‬ ‫אָרץ ָשׁ ְק ָטה‬ ֶ ‫יהם וְ ָה‬ ֶ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ� ְלנַ ֲח ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְכּ ַמ ְח ְלק ָֹתם ְל ִשׁ ְב ֵט‬ ֻ ְ‫י‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה׃‬

Or, if this last statement is a redaction, it also reveals specific intention. 76 Trent Butler, Joshua (WBC 7; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 71. Butler and Woudstra (Joshua, 115) note that Rahab and her family were left outside for reasons of ceremonial uncleanness. If this is the case, it only strengthens the argument that along with the hesitation to bring the impurity in the camp, the author also takes care not to place any rest in the camp as well. Butler’s translation (Joshua, 65) using the jussive (“they let them rest outside”) is not supported by the Hebrew, which employs the waw-consecutive (‫)וַ יַּ נִּ יחוּם ִמחוּץ ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. 77 Some hold that the statement, “to this day” in this instance could either denote that Rahab was still alive at the time this portion of the text was originally written, or that it simply indicates that Rahab had permanently settled with the Israelites (see Woudstra, Joshua, 115). 75

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

119

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that YHWH had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had a respite from war.

Butler states: “the final verse of the chapter summarizes the conquest and the work of Joshua. Chapter 1 has been realized.” 78 Joshua 11:23 stands as an important summary of chapters 1–11, identifying that for the most part the land has been conquered. A statement of rest, at this point, would be natural. There are, however, some further important observations to be made. First, the use of ‫ שׁקט‬in this verse is noteworthy. It demonstrates that significant strides have been made in the conquest of the land. However, there may have also been a hesitancy on the part of Dtr to use the same terminology from the original promise of Deut 12:9–10. This would most likely be due to the fact that it is not yet seen as a total conquest: Josh 13:1–6 details the portions of land that still remain to be possessed, and Israel must still drive out the remaining inhabitants of the conquered land. Second, it is not Israel per se that achieves rest, but the land that has a respite. 79 This also preserves the formulation set out in Deut 12:9–10. Israel as a nation is not yet in a full state of rest. After Josh 11:23, the narrative is interrupted by: 1) the list of kings defeated (Josh 12:1–24); 2) the regions still to be conquered (Josh 13:1–6); 3) the recounting of the lands given to the East Jordanian tribes (Josh 13:7–33); and 4) Caleb’s request for land (Josh 14:1–15). Joshua 14:15 restates the phrase in Josh ֶ ‫וְ ָה‬. This reiteration is likely meant to 11:23: ‫אָרץ ָשׁ ְק ָטה ִמ ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬ resume the narrative from Josh 11:23. 80 Woudstra also notes: 316F

317F

The story of Caleb’s acquisition of Hebron, an instance of what could and should be done with the whole land allotted to the tribes, concludes with the same words as were used Butler, Joshua, 130. Throughout this study, ‫ שׁקט‬is translated as “respite” instead of “rest” to distinguish the two uses. 80 Butler, Joshua, 174. 78 79

120

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE for the conclusion of the conquest stories (11:23). As such this information also leads naturally to the story of the allotment. The peaceful condition of the country allowed Israel to engage in this activity without fear of hostile interference. 81

Both statements of ‫ שׁקט‬in Josh 11:23 and Josh 14:15 represent the process of fulfillment of rest for Israel. The nation is in via. Most who study rest in the DH observe that ‫שׁקט‬-rest, or ָ ‫ ְמ‬or ‫ נוח‬rest, and therefore respite, is very different from ‫נוּחה‬ ‫ שׁקט‬is not scrutinized along with ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬or ‫נוח‬. Laansma acknowledges some correlation: “these passages are not entirely unrelated to the ‫ נוח‬formula; the Chronicler clearly saw them as related. Moreover, Neh 9.28 uses ‫( נוח‬qal) to recall these ‘‫שׁקט‬ periods.’” 82 Yet, Laansma, along with others, notes that “in the Dtr history the two usages—‫( נוח‬Hi/1) and ‫—שׁקט‬are never directly linked and the latter passages do possess a distinctive flavor.” 83 Perhaps they are not directly related, but, in Josh 11:23 ‫ שׁקט‬is tied to ‫נַ ֲח ָלה‬. In Deut 12:9–10, ‫ נַ ֲח ָלה‬and ‫ נוח‬are inextricably tied together, along with “the place” (‫) ַה ָמּקוֹם‬. Regarding ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫נַ ֲח ָלה‬, Woudstra states: Inheritance is a theologically significant word. The same is true of the statement that the country had rest from war. These concluding sentences show the interpretative element in Israel’s historiography. When Israel had completed the Conquest it thereby entered into its promised inheritance and enjoyed the rest which was the concomitant of inheritance. 84

Woudstra, Joshua, 232. Laansma, I Will Give You Rest, 21. 83 Laansma, I Will Give You Rest, 21–22. See also Kaiser, The Uses of The Old Testament in the New, 157, and Braun, “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder,” 584, n. 9. 84 Woudstra, Joshua, 199. 81 82

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

121

While ‫ שׁקט‬is somewhat different from ‫נוח‬, it may still be an integral part of the complex program of rest in the DH. 85 The use of different terminology is purposeful, so as to safeguard the meaning of the major statement of rest in Josh 21:44. In order to preserve the key statements of rest, Dtr employs other words for rest to denote less momentous times of rest. ‫ שׁקט‬represents shorter periods or intervals of rest from war. One may also note—both in Joshua and later in Judges— that in many respects ‫ שׁקט‬is tied to the obedience of a leader. In Josh 11:23 it is stated that “Joshua took the whole land, according to all that YHWH had spoken to Moses.” Joshua 14:6– 12 recounts Caleb’s request for land. Caleb makes reference to his earlier obedience as a spy (Josh 14:7–8), and also declares his obedience in the future (Josh 14:12). The ‫ שׁקט‬statement is made after the allotment is given to Caleb, but not to other tribes in Josh 15–19. As will be discussed later in Judges, ‫ שׁקט‬is given in different periods following the rise of obedient judges. These leaders were examples to be followed and through faithful obedience Israel would receive ultimate rest, promised in Deut 12:9–10.

The (Partial) Fulfillment of the Promise of Rest: Joshua 21:43–44

With the rest-statement in Josh 21:43–44, one is finally able to see the first major milestone in Israel’s long journey towards rest. Joshua 21:43–44 may appear to suggest that all the promises set out in Deut 12 are fulfilled, but there is still more to come. Joshua 21:43–44 states: ‫שׁוּה‬ ָ ‫בוֹתם וַ יִּ ָר‬ ָ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ְשׁ ַבּע ָל ֵתת ַל ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ֵתּן יְ הוָ ה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶא‬ ‫א־ﬠ ַמד‬ ָ ֹ ‫בוֹתם וְ ל‬ ָ ‫וַ יֵּ ְשׁבוּ ָבהּ׃ וַ יָּ נַ ח יְ הוָ ה ָל ֶהם ִמ ָסּ ִביב ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר־נִ ְשׁ ַבּע ַל ֲא‬ ‫יהם נָ ַתן יְ הוָ ה ְבּיָ ָדם׃‬ ֶ ‫יהם ֵאת ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬ ֶ ‫יהם ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬ ֶ ֵ‫ִאישׁ ִבּ ְפנ‬ YHWH gave Israel all the land that He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And ‫ שׁקט‬and its function in the DH rest paradigm will be more fully described later in the Judges section of this chapter. 85

122

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE YHWH gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and not one stood before them from all their enemies; YHWH gave all their enemies into their hand.

The Israelites at this point are said to have been given both the land and rest by YHWH, but crucially missing are two items: 1) there is no mention of “the place” that YHWH will choose; and 2) while at this point it seems minor, there is a difference beָ ‫ ְמ‬, as will be tween the use of the verb ‫ נוח‬and the noun ‫נוּחה‬ shown later. In one sense, the promises are fulfilled. They had both land and rest (but not ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫) ְמ‬. As far as the Israelites are concerned, there is nothing else to be given to them. Earlier, it was noted that: a) Deut 12 is a promise that is conditional and programmatic; and b) in the ML the fulfillment of rest tended to be elastic, since cycles of it perpetuate it forward indefinitely. With such an understanding, it could be anticipated, notwithstanding the above, that the promise of rest outlined in Deut 12 does not end with Josh 21:44. Of course, 2 Sam 7, 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18], and 8:56 are in view, but in the immediate context Josh 22:4 and 23:1 must also be considered. Joshua 21:44, 22:4, and 23:1 are often analyzed separately, usually on the grounds that they represent different redactional layers. Roth, preferring to view Josh 21:44 separately from Josh 23:1, argues that in Josh 23:1 rest is given from enemies as rest for the purpose of worship (DtrN layer), while Josh 21:44 is simply rest from, since there is no statement of worship in that context (DtrG layer). 86 If Roth is correct, then Josh 21:44 (rightfully grouped together with Deut 3:20; Josh 1:13, 15; 22:4) is part of the DtrG layer, since there is no sense of rest for, but only rest from. However, when looking at the overall notion of rest in the DH, it becomes clear that rest from is essentially rest for. Referring to Josh 21:44 and Josh 23:1, Willis provides the purpose for which rest was given: References to rest in this context reinforce the connection between military success and cultic unity. The law in Deu86

Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest,” 8–13.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

123

teronomy 12 speaks of the offering of sacrifices at one shrine as the ultimate goal, while military success—“rest”—seems to be a means to this end…The Transjordanian shrine threatens to invalidate the rest achieved under Joshua, until the people make it clear that they will not offer sacrifices there. This emphasizes that the rest mentioned in Deuteronomy 12 is not fully realized unless cultic unity accompanies the military success. 87

As the motif is traced through the DH, one finds that the rest provided from enemies and the peace enjoyed are directly tied to the obedience of the people (and kings) of Israel. This obedience is a prerequisite to victory, and victory is a prerequisite to a sustained time of peace in covenant obedience that allows the nation to build a temple—or, in other words, rest for.

Rest Reminded: Joshua 22:4

Joshua 22 describes the interaction between Joshua and the Reubenites, Gadites and half-tribe of Manasseh. This dialogue actually starts back in Deut 3:10 with Moses instead of Joshua. 88 In Deut 3:20 it is recounted that the two and a half tribes are to cross the Jordan in order to fight alongside their kinsmen. Joshua 22:4 states that it is only after their brothers are given rest by YHWH and possess the land that the two and a half tribes may ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַל ֲא ֵח‬. In Josh return back to their land: �‫יכם ָכּ ֶכם ַﬠד ֲא ֶשׁר־יָ נִ ַי‬ 1:12–18, Joshua reminds the East Jordanian tribes of their promise to cross the Jordan with their brothers. Of course, Josh 21:43–44 states that YHWH has now given rest to Israel on all sides. It is then indeed appropriate to return to the issue of the two and a half tribes, for their obligation to their kinsmen is now fulfilled—an obligation mentioned twice before in the DH (three times including Num 32). Given the increasing anticipation as well as the natural progression of the promise (that after all Israel would have rest the two and a half tribes would be 87 88

Willis, “Rest All Around,” 135. At least in the DH, see Num 32.

124

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

able to return to their land), Josh 22:4 is closely connected with Josh 21:44. In fact, Josh 22:4 depends on Josh 21:44. Without the rest-statement to Israel, the two and a half tribes would not have fulfilled their tribal duty.

The Conditionality of Rest: Joshua 23:1

The narrative of the text brings the reader to Joshua’s farewell speech starting at Josh 23:1. In the chronology of the narrative, Josh 23:1 propels the reader forward to a future time and looks back on 21:44: ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ר־הנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬ ֵ ‫אַח ֵרי ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִמיָּ ִמים ַר ִבּים‬ ‫יהוֹשׁ ַ� זָ ֵקן ָבּא ַבּיָּ ִמים׃‬ ֻ ִ‫ִמ ָסּ ִביב ו‬ Now it came about many days after YHWH had given rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side, and Joshua was old, advanced in years…

Just as Josh 22:4 connects with Josh 21:44 to bring the East Jordanian tribes into the narrative, so too does Josh 23:1 refer to Josh 21:44, and therefore ultimately to Deut 12:10. Some have considered Josh 23 to be a very late text. 89 If so, the author of Josh 23 probably had Josh 21:44 particularly in mind; it is the only place prior to Josh 23:1 in the chronology of the text that states that YHWH gave Israel rest (since Josh 22:4 is a recapitulation of Josh 21:44). 90 The rest in Josh 23 then supposedly brings to light something new: conditionality. The insertion of rest into Joshua’s stern warning to remain faithful only to YHWH suggests that the intention of the author of Josh 23 was to imply that the rest in Josh 21:44 91 may not have been final after all. For Roth, this idea of conditional rest is rest for. It is rest from enemies for the See Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 98; and also Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest,” 9, where Roth assigns Josh 23 to the “uppermost redactional layer” in the DH, i.e., DtrN. 90 Aside from Josh 22:3, which, as mentioned earlier, also refers back and is dependent on Josh 21:44. 91 Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest,” 10. 89

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

125

purpose of sole devotion to YHWH. It was noted above that the whole of Deut 12:8–32 is itself conditional. However, if Josh 23 and Deut 12:10 are of the same late redactional layer (according to Roth, DtrN), then Josh 23 and Deut 12:10 (along with their conditionality) are new additions to the rest paradigm. However, if one is to see Deut 12:9–10 as a general unity, Josh 23 then serves to remind us of the prior promise’s conditionality. But as stated above, rest from is rest for, and distinguishing redactional layers by this perceived difference may yield results that are not constructive. Moreover, Roth purports to distinguish the nuances of rest in Josh 21:44, 22:4, and 23:1 and, based upon these differences, divide Deut 12:8–11 into different redactional layers. However, when following the concept through the final form, Josh 21:44, 22:4, and 23:1 need not be understood separately (even if one were to hold that portions of Josh 23 are late). 92 Rather, continuity can be found among the three reststatements making it unnecessary to divide out Deut 12:8–11. Willis concludes that “the references in Josh 21:43–45 and 23:1 function as brackets around the story of the Transjordanian shrine, which represented a threat to cultic unity.” 93 Joshua 23 is a pivotal text for both the final form of the DH and the rest motif. The conditionality of the idea that Israel would have rest on all sides comes into full force in the opening chapters of Judges. Roth states: What is threatened in Josh 23 is described in the Deuteronomistic editorial Judg 2:6–3:6 as happening in the period of the judges: Now the remainder of the nations does remain settled in Canaan so that through them YHWH can test Israel’s faithfulness (2:17, 20–21). 94

Roth’s assessment ends there. While Roth is correct to assert that the threat in Josh 23 is realized in Judges, there is yet more to be expounded. Joshua 23 demands strict obedience (or Cross, “Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 287. Cross assigns verses 11–13, 15ff. to Dtr2. 93 Willis, “Rest All Around,” 135. 94 Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest,” 8. 92

126

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

face the consequences), and so one would expect in Judges— where the obligations are not met by Israel—to reflect in some way the disturbance of the state of rest. In this, Judges does not fail us.

JUDGES Conditionality Enforced—Resting for Testing: Judges 2:23; 3:1

With the death of Joshua came the death of an era. The record of Joshua’s death opens the book of Judges (1:1; 2:8), and, as is well known, Israel’s history takes a gradual decline. If rest is one of the major undercurrents in the theology of Dtr, then one should expect the concept of rest to be expressed in a manner concomitant with the status of Israel. In summary fashion, Judg 2:10–23 describes the apostasy of Israel. A whole generation arose that “knew neither YHWH nor what he had done for Israel” (2:10). Boling states that “the logical narrative sequel to Israel’s alienation from Yahweh in vs. 10 is the eruption of divine wrath in vs. 20.” 95 Judges 2:20–23 reads: So the anger of YHWH burned against Israel, and he said, “because this nation has transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers and they have not listened to my voice, I will in recompense 96 no longer drive out before them ֶ ֵ‫הוֹרישׁ ִאישׁ ִמ ְפּנ‬ ִ ‫אוֹסיף ְל‬ ִ ‫ם־אנִ י לֹא‬ ֲ ַ‫גּ‬ any of the nations (‫יהם ִמן־‬ ‫ ) ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬which Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them (‫) ְל ַמ ַﬠן נַ סּוֹת ָבּם ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, whether they will keep the way of YHWH to walk in it as their fathers, or not.” So ַ ‫וַ יַּ נַּ ח יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ YHWH allowed these nations to rest (‫ת־הגּוֹיִ ם‬

95

72.

Robert G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; New York: Doubleday, 1975),

For this translation of ‫ גַּ ם‬as a correlative emphatic, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §39.3.4d, especially example #16. 96

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

127

ָ ‫הוֹר‬ ִ ‫;) ְל ִב ְל ִתּי‬ ‫) ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬, not driving them out quickly (‫ישׁם ַמ ֵהר‬ and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. This is reminiscent of Josh 23:12–13: “For if you indeed go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you (‫אָרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ִא ְתּ ֶכם‬ ִ ‫) ַהנִּ ְשׁ‬, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that YHWH your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before ֶ ֵ‫ת־הגּוֹיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ִמ ִלּ ְפנ‬ ַ ‫הוֹרישׁ ֶא‬ ִ ‫יכם ְל‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫יוֹסיף יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ִ ‫;)לֹא‬ you (‫יכם‬ but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which YHWH your God has given you.

The repeated phrase “no longer drive out” (‫ירשׁ‬...‫ )יסף‬in both Josh 23:13 and Judg 2:21 helps bind the two passages together. However, at the end of Judg 2:23, there is one more use of ‫ירשׁ‬ that is illuminating: “So YHWH allowed those nations to rest ָ ‫הוֹר‬ ִ ); and he did not (‫)וַ יַּ נַּ ח‬, not driving them out quickly (‫ישׁם‬ give them into the hand of Joshua.” 97 The use of ‫ נוח‬with ‫ ירשׁ‬is striking. In Joshua, the Hebrew word ‫ שׁאר‬is employed for the nations that are to “remain.” In Judges, the idea is repeated in the text immediately following Judg 2:23 in 3:1: “These are nations that YHWH rested to test Israel by them” (‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ַהגּוֹיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫) ִהנִּ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ְלנַ סּוֹת ָבּם ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. The term ‫ נוח‬is employed again, but this time it is coordinated with ‫ ְלנַ סּוֹת‬in order to connect it with the same phrase from Judg 2:22: ‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן נַ סּוֹת ָבּם ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. It appears then, that the end of Joshua and the beginning of Judges are intimately tied together. The account of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:28–31 is repeated, although with a small but significant variation in Judg 2:6–9. 98 In the Joshua account, Joshua’s death is followed by positive statements about the elders in Joshua’s generation that had lived obediently (Josh 24:31). In the Judges account, the positive statement about ‫ נוח‬is often translated as “to remain,” but it is translated here as “to rest.” 98 Soggin, Judges, 38. 97

128

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Joshua’s generation is repositioned to before Joshua’s death (Judg 2:7), such that his death in verses 8–9 is followed immediately by Judg 2:10 and moves the reader straight to the next generation who did not know YHWH. Keil and Delitzsch note that this subtle variation was: not only to form a link between Josh. xxiv and Judg. ii. 11, and to resume the thread of the history which was broken off by the summary just given of the results of the wars between the Israelites and Canaanites, but rather to bring out sharply and clearly the contrast between the age that was past and the period of the Israelitish history that was about to commence. 99

Digging even deeper, Boling contends that the rewording of the passage reveals the author’s intent to impeach the action of the Israelites: It appears that an old Joshua–Judges narrative has been broken open, in order to be updated in terms of a theological review of historical epochs. The transitional sentences were repeated, but their sequence revised, yielding a structure more appropriate to the beginning of a story. The new period begins with indictment. 100

Furthermore, Judg 2:20–3:1 reverses (or rather, enforces) Josh 23, repeating some of the same terminology; and just as the conditionality of rest is perspicuously presented in Josh 23, so too is the conditionality of the promise in Judg 2:20–3:1 so palpably recorded, and experienced by Israel. While it is not directly stated that Israel’s rest is being taken away, it is implied by the fact that God allows the other nations to “remain” (or to rest). Just as Israel was given rest for devotion to YHWH, these nations also have a purpose in YHWH’s plan: they are rested “for” the testing of Israel. Such is the poetic justice of YHWH in the eyes of Dtr. Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (trans. James Martin; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869), 267. 100 Boling, Judges, 72. 99

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

129

One might ask, however, why the typical formulation of YHWH + ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬of indirect object was not used in the case of the other nations. It might possibly be that the lack of the typical formulation serves to preserve its technical status. This formulation is used only to describe YHWH’s intimate relationship with Israel. To use the same formulation with foreign nations would defy the nature of the formula itself. It would also break the flow of how the rest motif has been consistently intertwined into Israel’s historiography. Again, rest has not been directly taken away from Israel, but instead it is given (albeit in a different form) to the foreign nations to bring unrest to Israel. This appears to be intentional, and carefully articulated by Dtr. Israel is in a state of unrest without the text stating it explicitly, and therefore the validity of the rest-statement in Josh 21:44 (along with 22:4 and 23:1) is protected. Moreover, as an examination of Judges shows, this apparent intentional ambiguity regarding rest is a constant undercurrent behind the whole book of Judges. Throughout the remainder of Judges, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) is not used again. It is not until 2 Sam 7:1, 11 that the formulation is again employed, but interestingly, not with Israel as the indirect object, but with David. There are, however, other words employed by Dtr in Judges that reveal the master plan of rest, which are also interwoven at various points in the DH. Finally, as Braulik points out, “the ‘main article’ of the period of the judges, Judg 2:13, directs at Israel words which were spoken against the enemies in Josh 21:44.” 101 This too is a subtle expression that depicts the reversal of the Josh 21:44 reststatement. When the lines of each verse are viewed in comparison, the reversal becomes quite clear:

101

Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 92.

130

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Joshua 21:44

Judges 2:14

‫וַ יָּ נַ ח יְ הוָ ה ָל ֶהם ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬

‫יהם ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬ ֶ ‫וַ יִּ ְמ ְכּ ֵרם ְבּיַ ד אוֹיְ ֵב‬

YHWH gave them rest all around

He sold them into the hands of their

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יהם ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬ ֶ ֵ‫א־ﬠ ַמד ִאישׁ ִבּ ְפנ‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ לֹא־יָ ְכלוּ עוֹד ַל ֲﬠמֹד ִל ְפנֵ י אוֹיְ ֵב‬

Not one of all their enemies stood

They were no longer able to stand

‫יהם נָ ַתן יְ הוָ ה ְבּיָ ָדם׃‬ ֶ ‫ֵאת ָכּל־אֹיְ ֵב‬

‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ ם ְבּיַ ד־שׁ ִֹסים וַ יָּ שׁ ֹסּוּ‬

YHWH gave all their enemies into

He gave them into the hand of plun-

before them

their hand

enemies all around

before their enemies

derers and they plundered them

This supports the above assertion that there is a reversal of rest occurring in Judg 2. As would be expected, the term “rest” is not used, and instead Dtr subtly reverses the effect of the promise in Josh 21:44 without negating the statement that rest was given to Israel.

The Downward Spiral of Rest-Cycles: Judges 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28

As it is in Joshua, ‫ שׁקט‬is again used to denote a temporary respite and rest from war. A ‫שׁקט‬-statement appears after each of the first four major cycles of disobedience and subsequent deliverance through a judge. In like manner as its use in Joshua, ‫שׁקט‬ ְ ‫אַר ָבּ ִﬠ‬ ְ ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫וַ ִתּ ְשׁקֹט ָה‬. 102 Unlike is given to the land: ‫שׁמוֹנִ ים ָשׁנָ ה‬/‫ים‬ Joshua, ‫ שׁקט‬in Judges is a consecutive imperfect instead of a perfect, and instead of “from war” (‫ ) ִמ ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬a time period is There is a contrast between these four uses of ‫ שׁקט‬after the rise of a judge and Judg 18:7, 27, where ‫ שׁקט‬refers to the people of Laish. This is covered in the section on Judg 18:7 below. See also Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 155, n. 35. 102

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

131

designated (for 40 or 80 years). Perhaps this is because the uses in Joshua are before Josh 21:44, and the uses in Judges after it, but this cannot be said definitively. From Josh 15 through the end of the book, the chronology is not linear, but instead moves back and forth between the instances where each tribe is given their lot and an account of how each tribe went about inhabiting their allotment. Conversely, since Judges appears to proceed more chronologically, it is more appropriate to give a time frame, as well as the fact that the ‫שׁקט‬-statements close each “successful” cycle. As was previously mentioned in this study regarding Josh 11:23 and 14:15, there is a connection between ‫ שׁקט‬and the obedience of the leader. The ‫ שׁקט‬that Israel’s land would enjoy depends on the compliance of the leader of Israel. Out of the six major cycles of punishment and deliverance, ‫ שׁקט‬is used only after the first four: Othniel, Ehud, Barak and Gideon. The cycle follows a typical pattern in Judges: apostasy  oppression  groaning  deliverance  apostasy. 103 As both Block and Wong indicate, while this pattern revolves back to its starting point in each cycle, the progression on the whole spirals downward in a progressive deterioration. 104 Block illustrates this with the following diagram: 105 340F

341F

342F

Block, Judges, 135. Block, Judges, 132, and Gregory T. K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges (VTSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 3–4. 105 Block, Judges, 132. 103 104

132

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Othniel Cycle

Ehud Cycle

Barak Cycle

Gideon Cycle

Jephthah Cycle

Samson Cycle

With this downward progression also follows the decline of Israel’s rest. It is said at the end of the first four cycles that the land had a respite, but the last two cycles are without a reststatement. It is not important for this study to identify specific factors that caused the decline of Israel, but only to note that the uses of rest-statements follow a similar decline. This helps support the notion that the rest paradigm used by Dtr is intertwined at numerous points in the DH. Butler notes that “the judge is to be used of God to lead God’s people in war, but the judge’s ultimate goal is to lead them to and in peace. Othniel, Ehud, Deborah and Barak, and Gideon succeed in gaining such quiet (Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28).” 106 Moreover, “the editor of Judges uses the rest theme to show God’s blessing on the world of the deliverers.” 107 Despite this, those examining the concept of rest in the HB often omit ‫ שׁקט‬in their analysis. Kaiser sets aside ‫ שׁקט‬because it is not the same kind of rest as described by ‫נוח‬: “even the repeated notices of “rest” in Judges (3:1, 30; 5:31; 8:28) reflect šāqaṭ periods which were not the permanent rest promised in the nûaḥ group of words…This type of rest must be separated 106 107

Butler, Judges, 68. Butler, Judges, 73.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

133

from what God calls ‘My Rest.’” 108 It is true that ‫ שׁקט‬is a different kind of rest. However, is there any relationship with ‫ נוח‬and ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬rest? Braulik does not think so: The history of Israel thus contains a sequence of deliberate references to Deut 12:9–10 as the programmatic text for a theology of rest. There is, however no connection with the notion of ‘resting’ denoted by šqṭ…Under Joshua, YHWH granted Israel peace from all enemies surrounding it. This action is never repeated; apparently it has never been totally canceled. 109

Braulik is correct to state that the rest under Joshua cannot be repeated, or that it has not been fully canceled. However, this causes a problem that in turn reveals, contrary to Braulik, why there is a connection to ‫נוח‬. Braulik himself touches upon the problem: True, even after the settlement, Israel can be in danger from its enemies. However, as Joshua explains in his “valedictory speech” at the end of the period before the judges, this rest depends entirely on Israel’s relation to God (Joshua 23). And during the period of the judges, Israel does repeatedly apostatize from YHWH. As a result, its former successes against the enemies turn into defeat. 110

If Israel’s rest is permanent and never repeated or fully cancelled, how should Dtr describe Israel’s subsequent defeats and victories? The manner in which Israel’s apostasy is described in relation to rest (other nations were rested earlier in Judges) has already been explored, and one would expect to see the same method (the use of different rest-words) to reflect the restoration of that rest. This is precisely why ‫ שׁקט‬is needed. True, ‫שׁקט‬ is not the same as ‫נוח‬, but it is not intended to be. Instead, ‫שׁקט‬ fits into the DH framework of rest specifically because it is not ‫נוח‬. Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, 157. Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 92. 110 Braulik, “Deuteronomistic Freedom and Peace,” 92. 108 109

134

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The first five cycles contain an identical phrase after the oppression phase of the cycle: “The sons of Israel cried out to YHWH” (‫)וַ יִּ זְ ֲﬠקוּ ְבנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬. 111 Hasel notes: “the major emphasis of the basic meaning of the root ṣ‘q/z‘q falls on the loud and agonized ‘crying’ of someone in acute distress, calling for help and seeking deliverance with the emotion-laden utterance.” 112 In Judges, YHWH responds to the cry for help and delivers Israel from oppression. The cycle would then begin again with Israel’s apostasy. It is difficult not to recall the cycle of rest in the ML, and specifically the noise (rigmu and ḫubūru) that disrupts rest. It was proposed in the Mesopotamian chapter of this study that noise symbolizes the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings. While the Akkadian words rigmu and ḫubūru are not etymologically related to the Hebrew words ‫ צעק‬or ‫זעק‬, Hasel explains: 348F

349F

There is no known term in Akkadian that is cognate with the Hebrew root. The verb ragāmu(m) is used primarily for legal complaint in the sense “lodge a complaint against, accuse,” etc., and thus exhibits a similarity to one of the Hebrew usages. There is an even broader semantic correspondence in the use of the noun rigmu(m), “shout, cry, voice.” The phrase rigmu(m) šakānu(m), “lift the voice, cry,” appears frequently with human subjects in reference to a dirge, bewailing a de-

Except in Barak’s cycle in Judg 4:3, where ‫ צעק‬is used instead of ‫זעק‬. However, the two words are obviously of the same origin. See Gerhard F. Hasel “‫;צ ַﬠק ;זְ ָﬠ ָקה ;זָ ַﬠק‬ ָ ‫צ ָﬠ ָקה‬,” ְ TDOT 4:114: “The parallel use of the verb forms ṣ‘q/z‘q…make it quite clear that both spellings were actually used side by side…The hypothesis that the different spirants of the first radical represent a dialectal difference and come form different areas remain unproven…The parallel use of different forms of the root in a wide range of OT books and their synonymy indicate that the difference between z‘q and ṣ‘q in Hebrew appears to be purely orthographic.” 112 Hasel, TDOT 4:115. 111

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

135

feat, lamentation, cries of anguish uttered by a sick man, and the disturbing noise of human beings, which rises to the gods. 113

The decline of Israel’s state of rest follows the cycles of the judges, and only the first four of the six cycles of the major judges end with ‫שׁקט‬. In the fifth cycle, Jephthah’s, there is not a ‫שׁקט‬-statement, and when Israel cries out for deliverance in Judg 10:10, YHWH’s response in Judg 10:14 is: ‫יוֹשׁיעוּ ָל ֶכם ְבּ ֵﬠת‬ ִ ‫�הים ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ַח ְר ֶתּם ָבּם ֵה ָמּה‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ְלכוּ וְ זַ ֲﬠקוּ ֶא‬ ‫ָצ ַר ְת ֶכם׃‬ Go and cry out to the gods that you have chosen. Let them save you in the time of your distress.

Conceptually, it appears that the noise in the ML surveyed in this study compares well with the cries of Israel in Judges. 114

Gideon’s Test of Rest: Judges 6:18, 20

Thus far in Judges, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) is not used. In fact, it is not used in the book at all. Instead, ‫ שׁקט‬is employed to denote temporary rest to Israel, and ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) is used for foreign nations. A ‫ שׁקט‬rest-statement is made at the end of the Gideon story, and also embedded in this narrative is an additional use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2). In Judg 6:18, Gideon is called on to lead Israel against Midian. According to Judg 6:1–6, the Midian oppression is so extensive that the Israelites are forced to live on the fringes of the land, not even being able to grow crops or livestock. As is commonly expressed in Judges, the Israelites “cry out to YHWH” (6:6) in times of oppression. Judges 6:7–10 offers commentary Hasel, TDOT 4:113, emphasis mine. Separately, ‫ צעק‬and ‫ זעק‬are used in other contexts in Judges as well, particularly in military circumstances: “The Hebrew verbs take on a specialized meaning in the politico-military sphere, where they refer to the summoning of all able-bodied men (and chariots) to muster as an army before the onset of battle…and before its end…, as well as the assemble of the army following the summons,” Hasel, TDOT 4:119. 113 114

136

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

on the situation through an unnamed prophet: the reason for the oppression is Israel’s disobedience to the prohibition against worshiping the idols of the land (6:10), and it is in this context that “the angel of YHWH” comes to Gideon calling him to action. Normally, one would expect a fear statement at the beginning of the vision, but, as Soggin notes, “here, for obvious reasons, it only appears at the end: at the beginning Gideon did not know that this was a vision.” 115 Indeed, the whole story would not make sense if Gideon had known that the angel were real and a fear statement were needed, for the offering would then no longer be needed. Gideon asks the angel of YHWH for a sign to show that YHWH is really with him by asking the angel to wait until he can prepare an offering. Judg 6:18:

�‫ת־מנְ ָח ִתי וְ ִהנַּ ְח ִתּי ְל ָפנֶ י‬ ִ ‫אתי ֶא‬ ִ ‫אַל־נָ א ָת ֻמשׁ ִמזֶּ ה ַﬠד־בּ ִֹאי ֵא ֶלי� וְ ה ֵֹצ‬ ‫שׁוּב�׃‬ ֶ ‫אמר אָנ ִֹכי ֵא ֵשׁב ַﬠד‬ ַ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ “Please do not depart from here, until I come to you, and bring out my offering and lay (rest) it before you.” And he said, “I will remain until you return.”

The angel of YHWH does wait, then instructs Gideon regarding the offering: Judg 6:20:

‫ת־ה ַמּצּוֹת וְ ַהנַּ ח ֶאל־‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָשׂר וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫�הים ַקח ֶא‬ ִ ‫אמר ֵא ָליו ַמ ְלאַ� ָה ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫ת־ה ָמּ ַרק ְשׁפוֹ� וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֵכּן׃‬ ַ ‫ַה ֶסּ ַלע ַה ָלּז וְ ֶא‬ The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay (rest) (them) on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And he did so.

In Judg 6:18, Gideon intends to rest the offering before the angel of YHWH, and in Judg 6:20 while presenting it before the angel, Gideon is instructed to rest the offering on a rock. 115

Soggin, Judges, 122.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

137

The resting/placing of this offering is reminiscent of what was already noticed in Deut 14:28 and 26:4, 10. While those offerings had to do with the tithes of produce, the aspect of response was most important. Gideon is the only judge that does this, and his purpose is to see if YHWH is really with Israel; he wants to know if the angel before him is real, thereby also testing the validity of the angel’s claim that YHWH is with Gideon and will save Israel from Midian. The promise of rest is maintained by a right relationship with YHWH through offerings and resting them down before YHWH. By resting the offering before the angel of YHWH, Gideon is simultaneously maintaining the relationship and testing the validity of it. Thereafter, the offering is accepted by fire (Judg 6:21), which affirms that the messenger he sees face to face is indeed the angel of YHWH (Judg 6:22). This frightens Gideon, as the next verse (Judg 6:23) records: “YHWH said to him, ‘peace to ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ you, do not fear, you will not die’” (‫אמר לוֹ יְ הוָ ה ָשׁלוֹם ְל� אַל־‬ ‫) ִתּ ָירא לֹא ָתּמוּת‬. Gideon’s response is to build an altar, and he calls it ‫יְ הוָ ה ָשׁלוֹם‬. 116 The use of ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in this context is not likely an accident. Soggin states that the term ‫“ ָשׁלוֹם‬expresses virtually everything that can be included in a positive relationship between two parties: alliance, agreement, peace, co-operation.” 117 Furthermore, there are points of contact between rest and peace later (1 Kings 4:24 [MT 5:4], 5:4 [MT 5:18]), and importantly, also with Solomon whose name is peace and is referred to as a ָ ‫) ִאישׁ ְמ‬. All of it—Israel’s oppresman of rest in 1 Chr 22:9 (‫נוּחה‬ sion from Midian, Gideon’s resting of the offering, and the name of the altar—points to subtle undertones of Deuteronomic rest. The promise of rest is qualified by sole devotion to YHWH through exclusive worship. When this is broken, periods of unrest ensue. The name of the altar is affirmation of Gideon’s beButler (Judges, 204) notes: “the narrator of the story suddenly interrupts his narrative and interjects a word for his own day,” but that “form-critical analysis cannot define this narrative as an etiological story based on this one verse.” See also the footnote in the “Joshua 3:13; 4:3, 8” section of this chapter as to the use of “to this day.” 117 Soggin, Judges, 122. 116

138

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

lief that God’s presence is still with Israel and that YHWH’s presence will maintain peace in the inherited land.

The Son of Rest: Judges 16:26

Judges 13–16 records the events of the last judge of Israel, Samson. Judges 13:2–24 is multi-faceted, and so there has been some debate as to the proper classification of the text, either as a birth narrative, call narrative, theophany, or some combination thereof. 118 To be sure, there are elements that highly resemble a birth narrative, 119 but at the same time Block makes a compelling case to identify this text as a call narrative. 120 Perhaps there is not a decisive way to categorize this text into one particular form. What is important for the purposes of this study, however, is to understand that Judg 13:2–24 stands out as an important peak in the final form of the book of Judges. Whether birth narrative, call narrative, or both, it would seem that Dtr made a considerable effort to heighten the attention of the reader. In Judg 13:5, the angel of YHWH promises a “delivִ ‫)וְ הוּא יָ ֵחל ְל‬. That the promise erer” (‫הוֹשׁ ַי� ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִמיַּ ד ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים‬ of a deliverer is couched in a birth/call language evokes in the reader a sense of anticipation. The account also opens with the words ‫“( וַ יְ ִהי ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬a certain man”) in Judg 13:2. This particular wording is only used one other time in the HB (1 Sam 1:1), and as Block comments, this phrase “invites the reader to get ready for an entertaining story,” 121 and it likely heightens the reader’s attention that something significant in the history of Israel might happen. Furthermore, the use of the name Manoah as the father of the deliverer may help in building suspense. If 358F

For concise summaries of the literature regarding Judg 13 as a birth narrative, see Butler, Judges, 318–322, and Block, Judges, 395– 396. 119 Block, Judges, 396. 120 Block, Judges, 396–399. 121 Block, Judges, 399. 118

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

139

the name were etymologically tied to ‫ נוח‬instead of ‫ ִמנְ ָחה‬, 122 then anyone following the concept of rest through the DH would be especially roused. Who is this son of rest that will come to deliver Israel? For all its build up, there are already hints in this opening section that the salvation to come is not the full deliverance hoped for by Israel. First, the promise in Judg 13:5 is prefaced, “and he will begin (‫ )יָ ֵחל‬to deliver Israel.” 123 There is no statement of absolute deliverance. Second, this man of rest is ironically portrayed throughout the event as restless. Block states that Manoah “appears as a restless and insecure individual. The narrator casts him as a comical figure bound by ignorance and obtuseness.” 124 This is best illustrated by Judg 13:21–23, where Manoah fears death because he had seen the angel of YHWH, and his wife aptly corrects him by saying if they were to die that: a) they would have already; and b) the offering would not ַ ‫) ָמ‬ have been accepted. Third, in Deuteronomy the lack of (�‫נוֹ‬ was part of the curses of the covenant, casting a negative shadow over the term. Finally, Judg 13:2–24 is reminiscent of Gideon’s call in Judg 6:1–27. Block lists ten elements that are similar in both accounts. While all of them cannot be restated here, a few important parallels are: 1) both are in response to a call to deliver Israel; 2) both ask the messenger to wait; 3) both offerings are placed on a rock; 4) both have statements that they will not die. 125 Anyone reading the two accounts together would be hardpressed to doubt the similarities. Further, Block contends that while there are differences, “the impressive list of parallels suggests that the narrator intends for vv. 17–23 to be interpreted in 359F

Block, Judges, 400. Given the context of the passage and considering the evidence thus far regarding rest, the name is likely derived from ‫נוח‬. 123 Emphasis mine. 124 Block, Judges, 397. 125 For a full list of the comparisons and its significance, see Block, Judges, 410–411. 122

140

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

light of and in comparison/contrast to 6:16–24.” 126 Given such similarities, there is one aspect in the two accounts that is surprisingly dissimilar. In the Gideon account, the offering (‫) ִמנְ ָחה‬ is “rested” (‫ ) ִהנַּ ְח ִתּי‬on the rock, which is significant in that it reflects the tithes offered in Deut 14:28 and 26:4. In the Manoah account, the offering (‫ ) ִמנְ ָחה‬is also made on the rock, but it is ַ ‫ )וַ יַּ ַﬠל ַﬠ‬instead of “rested on the rock” “lifted on the rock” (‫ל־הצּוּר‬ ַ ‫)וְ ַהנַּ ח ֶא‬. Although the words used for “rock” are dif(‫ל־ה ֶסּ ַלע ַה ָלּז‬ ferent, given all the similarities, it is interesting that ‫ נוח‬is not used in the Manoah account, and while a ‫ שׁקט‬statement is placed after the Gideon cycle, it is absent from the Samson cycle. In sum, while there is a sense of anticipation in Judg 13:2– 24, there are also subtle hints that the Samson narrative will not end with an altogether positive outcome. The events of Samson’s rule as judge are well known. Samson is portrayed as a mighty warrior who wreaked havoc upon the Philistines, but at the same time he is plagued by various situations. At the end of the narrative, Samson is blinded and in captivity. The final scene does depict limited success, and interestingly, there is another use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in Judg 16:26: ‫ימ ֵשׁנִ י ֶאת־‬ ִ ‫אוֹתי וַ ֲה‬ ִ ‫יחה‬ ָ ִ‫ל־הנַּ ַﬠר ַה ַמּ ֲחזִ יק ְבּיָ דוֹ ַהנּ‬ ַ ‫אמר ִשׁ ְמשׁוֹן ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ‫יהם וְ ֶא ָשּׁ ֵﬠן ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ָה ַﬠ ֻמּ ִדים ֲא ֶשׁר ַה ַבּיִ ת נָ כוֹן ֲﬠ ֵל‬ Then Samson said to the boy who was holding his hand, “Place (rest) me, and let me touch 127 the pillars on which the house is fixed, that I may lean against them.”

As hinted in Judg 13:5, Samson’s tenure as judge does not bring full deliverance and has only limited success. Dtr’s commentary on the events of Samson’s life, as discerned from his use of different words for rest, follows the partial achievements. By using ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2), Dtr weakens the statement of rest by not using the technical formulation of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬. Moreover, Block, Judges, 411. The kethib takes a different root from the qere, from ‫ ימשׁ‬and ‫ מושׁ‬respectively. This is of no consequence here, as they both have similar meanings (“to touch” and “to feel”). Block, Judges, 467, 1. 438. 126 127

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

141

it is not YHWH who provides rest, but instead it is a boy (‫)נַ ַﬠר‬ who “places” Samson. Block comments, “the image is pathetic: this Israelite ‘hero’ is blinded, imprisoned, ridiculed, and dependent on a young boy.” 128 At the same time, Samson’s last act as judge brings considerable damage to his enemies; more are killed in this one act than in his whole life combined (Judg 16:30). However, Dtr cannot place a ‫ שׁקט‬statement here for total victory is not even remotely achieved (in contrast to the other instances in Judges where ‫ שׁקט‬is used and the land had rest for a certain amount of time). Further, as Judg 13:2–24 represents a promise of a deliverer, perhaps it is more appropriate to use ‫ נוח‬and not ‫שׁקט‬, as ‫ נוח‬may have more points of contact with a “deliverer” theme (2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]). Obviously, this is not the same kind of rest provided to Israel through Joshua, or to David and Solomon later. However, it is in many ways very appropriate that the same statement not be made of Samson, yet with the actual victory it is also appropriate to make some kind of rest-statement. It is acknowledged that the above analysis of Judg 16:26 may only be received tentatively and cautiously. On its own, it would be very difficult to discern whether the rest in Judg 16:26 carries with it some deeper implication in the DH paradigm of rest. However, in all probability the rest-statement in Judg 16:26 should be subsumed under the DH rest framework because: a) there are other instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) that make sense in the DH rest paradigm; b) Judg 16:26 does not contradict, but is in line with, the overall paradigm of rest laid out in this study. If so, then its use here helps illuminate the situation in Israel. While Israel is continuing to spiral downward, there are clues that an upward progression will begin. The promise of deliverance is only “to begin” with Samson (Judg 13:5), and, moreover, the first line of Judg 13:2 is worded exactly as 1 Sam 1:1. Indeed, Israel’s downward journey continues in Judges, but there are faint glimmers of hope. 128

Block, Judges, 466.

142

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The Disturbers of Rest: Judges 18:7

In Judg 13:2, Manoah is identified as a Danite, and this detail “sets the stage not only for the coming conflicts between Samson and the Philistines…but also the events in chaps. 17–18.” 129 Judges 18 narrates the Danite occupation of Laish, in which the inhabitants are living “at rest (‫ )שׁקט‬and secure (‫( ”)בטח‬Judg 18:7): ‫ר־בּ ִק ְר ָבּהּ‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ָﬠם ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁת ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים וַ יָּ בֹאוּ ָליְ ָשׁה וַ יִּ ְראוּ ֶא‬ �ַ ‫ת־ל ֶב ַטח ְכּ ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ִצד ֹנִ ים שׁ ֵֹקט וּב ֵֹט‬ ָ ‫יוֹשׁ ֶב‬ ֶ Then the five men departed and came to Laish and saw the people who were living in it in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, at rest and secure…

Many agree that “after the manner of the Sidonians” means that the Laishians were living the same kind of quiet and peaceful life for which the Sidonians were known. Soggin states that the phrase “seems to indicate that this was a place with Phoenician customs, whose inhabitants were uninterested in war, being concerned, rather, with agriculture and commerce.” 130 Mueller also notes the contrast between the Laishians and Danites: “the author regards the Laishan way of life as ethical, quite unlike that of the Danites.” 131 As Wong observes, while “no overt value judgment has been provided regarding the incident, one can nonetheless detect a subtle disapproval of the Danites’ actions.” 132 Wong identifies two aspects that reveal this disapproval. First, the Laishians Block, Judges, 400. Soggin, Judges, 272. So too, E. Bons (“‫שׁ ַקט‬,” ָ TDOT 15:454). Block (Judges, 499–500) views it differently and maintains that the phrase means “lived under the umbrella of the Sidonians…within the sphere of influence of the costal city of Sidon.” However, there is no evidence of this, and the long distance between the two cities noted by the text itself appears to describe otherwise. 131 E. Aydeet Mueller, The Micah Story: A Morality Tale in the Book of Judges (SBL 34; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 73. 132 Wong, Compositional Strategy, 39. 129

130

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

143

are living �ַ ‫שׁ ֵֹקט וּב ֵֹט‬. As outlined in this study, ‫ שׁקט‬is used four other times in Judges, each time referring to “the ‘rest’ for the land secured by the judges after Israel’s foreign enemies have been defeated.” 133 Wong further points out that in Ezek 38:10– 11, when the two roots ‫ בטח‬and ‫ שׁקט‬are used together to describe a people under attack, the assault is “characterized as an evil scheme (‫) ַמ ֲח ֶשׁ ֶבת ָר ָﬠב‬.” 134 Second, Laish is described as “at a distance (‫ ) ָרחוֹק‬from the Sidonians in Judg 18:7, 28. Wong is probably correct when he suggests that this term is “included specifically with the rule of military conduct given in Deut 20:10–15 in mind,” 135 where an offer of peace is to be made to ֹ ‫) ֶה ָﬠ ִרים ָה ְר‬. 136 Wong doubts this very distant cities (‫חקֹת ִמ ְמּ� ְמאֹד‬ offer was made, for had it been he suspects the Laishians “would probably have accepted the offer.” 137 For the purposes of this study, the most important link to the DH rest paradigm is the use of ‫שׁקט‬. Judges 18:7 is the only instance where ‫ שׁקט‬is used in Judges to refer to non-Israelites. In the first four instances of ‫שׁקט‬, it is secured by a judge in the land that is allotted to the Israelites. In other words, nonIsraelites are disturbing the rest of the Israelites. The last two cycles lacked the rest-statement, and this is reflective of the downward progression of Israel. In Judg 18, it is now the Danites themselves who are the rest-disturbers. Butler also notices the irony: “Dan’s enemies enjoyed the quiet rest God desired for Israel until Dan took peacefulness away from these people of Laish.” 138 This supports the contention that the use of the different rest terms is consistently applied to reflect the downward progression of Israel as depicted in Judges. Moreover, it also bolsters 37F

374F

375F

Wong, Compositional Strategy, 39. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 39, n. 35. 135 Wong, Compositional Strategy, 39. 136 While Judg 18:7 and 18:28 refer to Laish as geographically distant from the Sidonians, and Deut 20:15 speaks of cities far “from you” (�‫)מ ְמּ‬, ִ the Danites from Zorah and Eshtaol are considerable farther from Laish than the Sidonians. 137 Wong, Compositional Strategy, 39. 138 Butler, Judges, 394. 133 134

144

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Wong’s contention that there seems to have been “an intentional contrast in the way certain military actions have been applied by Israel in the [epilogue and prologue].” 139 In the former, Israel applies military action appropriately to foreign enemies, but in the latter, it is applied “under questionable circumstances.” 140 To summarize, up to this point in Judges rest is given to foreign nations in order to “test” Israel (Judg 2:22; 3:1). Israel does succeed at certain points, and the uses of ‫ שׁקט‬after the first four cycles coordinate with it. A ‫ שׁקט‬rest-statement is absent from the last two cycles, which also coordinates with the downward spiral of Israel’s spiritual plight. Now, in Judg 18:7, Israel is portrayed as the rest-disturber. The first four uses of ‫ שׁקט‬reflect victory in the land, the last four cycles without it reflect less successful campaigns in the land, and Judg 18:7 reflects suspect military actions against nations that are at a distance. Of course, the narrative in Judges reveals that the situation will become even worse. The question is whether the concept of rest follows the plight of Israel’s spiritual degradation. Thus far, the battles have been fought between Israel and other nations, but as the narrative progresses in Judg 19–20, Israel’s problems turn inward.

Civil War and “Unrest”: Judges 20:43

Like ‫שׁקט‬, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in Judg 20:43 is not usually associated with a ָ ‫ ְמ‬is used in rest paradigm in the DH. To complicate matters, ‫נוּחה‬ a very awkward manner in the verse, and as a consequence many English translations differ. ‫יכהוּ ַﬠד נ ַֹכח ַהגִּ ְב ָﬠה‬ ֻ ‫נוּחה ִה ְד ִר‬ ָ ‫יפהוּ ְמ‬ ֻ ‫ת־בּנְ יָ ִמן ִה ְר ִד‬ ִ ‫ ִכּ ְתּרוּ ֶא‬:MT ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ָ ‫ִמ ִמּזְ ַר‬ NASB: They surrounded Benjamin, pursued them without rest and trod them down opposite Gibeah toward the east.

139 140

Wong, Compositional Strategy, 40. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 40.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

145

JPS: They inclosed the Benjaminites round about, and chased them, and overtook them at their resting-place, as far as over against Gibeah toward the sunrising. NJPS: They encircled the Benjaminites, pursued them, and trod them down [from] Menuhah to a point opposite Gibeah on the east. NRSV: Cutting down the Benjaminites, they pursued them from Nohah and trod them down as far as a place east of Gibeah.

The awkwardness of the sentence itself makes one pause and question this construction. Perhaps the text is corrupted in some way, or the odd construction is evidence of redactional activity. But it is also possible that this is a theological expression that is purposefully awkward, expressing a particular point. These kinds of grammatical difficulties typically warrant further attention. In this case, the full context of the narrative must be explored to ascertain whether there are any points of contact with the DH rest paradigm. While the whole chapter of Judg 20 recounts the battle against the Benjaminites, the roots of the story reach back further to Judg 19, which narrates the story of the Levite and his concubine. 141 The concubine leaves the Levite and returns to her father’s home in Judah from the hill country of Ephraim. The Levite pursues his wife and persuades her to return with him. On the way back, they pass by Jebus (Jerusalem) and, because it is late in the day, the servant of the Levite traveling with them suggests that they stop there. The Levite at this point makes a prompt decision: “We will not turn aside into the city of forIt is well known that this story is parallel to the narrative of Sodom in Gen 19. Distinguishing whether Judg 19 is primary or secondary, historical or tale, is beyond the scope of this study. All that is to be determined is how the story leads to the warfare between the Benjaminites and their kinsman, which in turns leads to the reststatement in Judg 20:43. This should help to clarify whether or not Judg 20:43 belongs within the overall DH rest paradigm. 141

146

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

eigners who are not of the sons of Israel; but we will go on as far as Gibeah” (Judg 19:12). Firstly, Judg 1:21 records that the Jebusites were supposed to have been driven out by the Benjaminites, but were not. Secondly, the Levite’s response reveals his expectation of tribal loyalty. He prefers to go to a city that is populated by his own kinsman; it is there where he expects to find security, not in a foreign city (‫) ִﬠיר נָ ְכ ִרי‬. As the Levite enters Gibeah in the territory of the Benjaminites, he sits down in the city square and meets a man living in Gibeah, but from the same territory that he is from (the hill country of Ephraim). The text makes a special effort to say this. From here the story is well known due to the close parallel found in Gen 19 (Sodom). For the purposes of this study, over and above its parallel use in Gen 19, is the importance of how the story fits in the context of Judges, and how it pushes forward any theological themes that are important for Judges and the cycle of rest. ְ ֵ‫ )אַנְ ֵשׁי ְבנ‬come to In Judg 19:22, “worthless men” (‫י־ב ִליַּ ַﬠל‬ the door of the old man where the Levites are staying and demand to “know” the Levite. 142 It is difficult to determine the exְ ֵ‫אַנְ ֵשׁי ְבנ‬. 143 In the end, most conclude act etymology of ‫י־ב ִליַּ ַﬠל‬ that it is meant to describe some type of wicked, lawless, and useless people. Boling even translates it as “the local hellraisers.” 144 After these worthless men persist in their demand, the Levite’s concubine is offered in replacement and she is “raped and abused all night until the morning” in Judg 19:25. 380F

381F

While there is some debate as to the use of ‫ ידע‬in this passage, the context of the passage strongly suggests that a sexual act is implied in this use of ‫ידע‬, since the old man’s virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine are offered in replacement. The concubine is raped and abused all night, which is, in fact, the very reason why the other tribes of Israel go to attack the tribe of Benjamin. See Soggin, Judges, 288; Boling, Judges, 276; and George F. Moore, Judges (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 417. 143 See Soggin, Judges, 288, for the different possible options. 144 Boling, Judges, 276, bringing out the allusion to Sheol in the name. 142

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

147

The Levite finds her in the morning lying at the doorstep, unresponsive. After taking her body home, the Levite cuts her into 12 pieces, and sends her limbs to different parts of Israel. Appalled at this act, the rest of the Israelites send men through the entire tribe of Benjamin to inquire about the criminal act and punish the guilty (Judg 20:12–13). Instead of surrendering the criminals, the Benjaminites gather at Gibeah (still within the Benjamin’s borders) to fight against their fellow tribesmen. The Benjaminites achieve limited success but are eventually defeated, and it is at this point that the rest-statement is recorded in Judg 20:43. The Benjaminites are surrounded, chased down to a place east of Gibeah, possibly beyond the borders of Benjamin. The majority of the Benjaminites are slayed, while some escape towards the rock of Rimmon, which is now certainly beyond Benjamin’s borders. The pursuit continues and more Benjaminites are killed. The final death count is recorded at 25,000. Three relevant points need to be underscored in order to understand how this story relates to Deuteronomy within the DH framework, thereby revealing how the story fits in a DH paradigm of rest. First, it is important that the narrative revolves around a Levite. In Deuteronomy, special attention is paid to the Levite. Of course, the Levites have a special connection to the cult, since they are given the written law (Deut 31:9) and carry the ark of YHWH (Deut 10:8; 31:9, 25). But beyond this, there are ordinances scattered throughout Deuteronomy that command the Israelites to look after the welfare of the Levite. Previously mentioned are the two verses in Deuteronomy where the produce offerings are rested down, in particular for the Levites, widows, and orphans (Deut 14:28; 26:4). Because these groups of people have no allotment or inheritance of land, they are in many ways dependent on their fellow kinsmen. Deuteronomy 10:8–9 ties the two together: the Levites have no inheritance because they have been set aside for priestly duties, including carrying the ark. When the term Levite is used in conjunction with the lack of an inheritance (‫)נַ ֲח ָלה‬, purposeful reminders are often given to ensure that the Levites are to feast and eat along with their kinsmen (Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1). Beyond these references, while no mention is immediately made of inheritance, there are other passages that command the Israelites to include

148

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the Levites (Deut 12:19; 16:11, 14; 26:11–13). By providing hospitality to the Levite (Judg 19:20–21), the old man from Ephraim living in Gibeah is shown to follow the principles set forth in Deuteronomy. In Judg 19:18, the Levite tells the old man that “no man has taken me into his house,” and that it is only the old man that takes in the Levite and those with him, feeds the donkeys, washes their feet, and provides them with something to eat (Judg 19:21). As they are “celebrating” ִ ‫יט‬ ִ ‫) ֵמ‬, the men of the city surround the house with their de(‫יבים‬ mand. It is, then, quite ironic that the Levite rightfully chose to go to the place of his kinsmen instead of Jebus. Second, when comparing Judg 19–20 to Deuteronomy, the language that is used in Judg 19:22 is noteworthy: the “worthְ ֵ‫ )אַנְ ֵשׁי ְבנ‬come to the door demanding to know less men” (‫י־ב ִליַּ ַﬠל‬ ְ ֵ‫ ְבּנ‬is used almost excluthe Levite guest. The exact words ‫י־ב ִליַּ ַﬠל‬ sively in the DH (eight times in the plural, once in the singular), with only one occurrence outside of the corpus (2 Chr 13:7). The first time it is used in the chronology of the text of the DH is in Deut 13:13—a context that is closely related to the programmatic passage of Deut 12:8–12. The very next two instances in the DH are here in Judg 19–20. Further, in Deut 13, when there is a report of worthless men drawing the people of a town astray to other idols, the matter is to be investigated fully and substantiated (Deut 13:12–14 [MT 13:13–15]). This is done in Judg 20:12. If found to be guilty, the worthless men are to be put to death by the sword. The punishment by the sword is distinctive. The whole of Deut 13 deals with those who lead others to idolatry: 13:1–5 [MT 13:2–6] describes the prophet (‫ )נָ ִביא‬or dreamer (‫ )ח ֵֹלם‬who leads astray; in 13:6–11 [MT 13:7–12] it is an immediate relative (brother, son, daughter, wife) or close friend; in 13:12–18 [MT 13:13–19] it is worthless men. The prophet or dreamer is to be killed, but there is no indication of how. The immediate relative is to be stoned to death. The worthless men are to be killed by the sword (‫ַה ֵכּה ַת ֶכּה ֶאת־י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ָה ִﬠיר ַה ִהוא ְל ִפי־‬ ‫) ָח ֶרב‬. In Judg 19–20, the Benjaminites are armed with swords (20:15–17), as are their Israelite kinsman (20:2, 17, 25, 48). In Judg 20:48, the Israelites strike down the Benjaminites by the ֶ ‫)וַ יַּ כּוּם ְל ִפ‬. Hence, the use of ‫י־ב ִליַּ ַﬠל‬ ְ ֵ‫ ְבּנ‬, the investigasword (‫י־ח ֶרב‬ tion of the matter, and the punishment by the sword, suggest

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

149

that there are strong lexical and conceptual affinities between Deut 13 and Judg 19–20. Third, in associating the two passages the punishment of the acts described in Deut 13 and Judg 19–20 is revealing. Deuteronomy 13 describes what is to be done about idolatry, but in Judg 19–20 no mention of idolatry is present at all. The objection would be that there is a confusion of crimes. However, when the crime itself is not always clear, the punishment for such acts can help to elucidate the problem. Judges 20 describes the reaction of the Israelites to the crime in Judg 19. The result is that 25,000 of the Benjaminite swordsmen are struck down (Judg 20:46), and the Israelites “put them to the sword, the entire city with the cattle and all that they found; they also set on fire all the cities which they found” (Judg 20:48). If the crime committed were thought to be sexual assault or even murder, the punishment would appear to be far too great for such acts, as heinous and horrible as these acts might be. In such cases, one would expect that only the one(s) found to be the offender(s) would be punished. In Judg 20, not only are most of the inhabitants put to death by the sword but also the livestock—even the towns are even set on fire. Ironically, no mention of the actual offenders being punished is made. When this punishment is compared with that of Deut 13, a clear parallel arises. Deuteronomy 13:15 states that not only should the inhabitants of the city be slain by the sword but also the livestock as well. The city itself should be destroyed and set on fire (Deut 13:16). True, it is idolatry that is forbidden in Deut 13 and there is no obvious idolatry mentioned in Judg 19–20. However, that it is a Levite in the narrative also shows some cultic association. Pressler notes that “sons of Belial” literally means “sons of wickedness or worthlessness, and is used especially of groups who threaten the social order.” 145 That these worthless men come to commit such acts suggests that there is some form of idolatry and apostasy already present in Gibeah. Carolyn Pressler, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 243. 145

150

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Hence, the background of the Levite, the lexical affinities, and the severe punishment all suggest a Deuteronomic background. How then does this fit into the DH paradigm of rest? Deuteronomy 13 describes some of the stipulations required to maintain a relationship with YHWH, and therefore required to fulfill the promise of rest in Deut 12. Judges 19–20 shows that these stipulations are being broken, and the tribe of Benjamin is removed from their resting place by their own tribesmen, just as it is commanded in Deut 13. Moreover, the Levite is a member of the cult hierarchy, and this is precisely the reason he has no inheritance and needs to be given due attention. The criminal act shows a disregard not only for the law but also for YHWH’s covenant relationship. In other words, with the breaking of the covenant, the benefit of rest is in some ways being reversed (the Benjaminites are chased out of their territory—their place of rest), akin to Judg 2:23 and 3:1. Until Judg 19–20, however, unrest comes via the form of external opponents, or rather, nonIsraelites. Toward the end of Judges, unrest comes from within the tribes themselves. Given the Deuteronomic background of Judg 19–20, a translation of Judg 20:43 that takes into account the DH rest paradigm is likely beneficial. In doing so, the NASB translation, “pursued them without rest” is the least appropriate. 146 Alternaָ ‫ ְמ‬as an actual place, whether denottively, one could view ‫נוּחה‬ ing a proper name or not. The options would then be: (1) The city name Menuhah, and the extra ‫ מ‬was accidentally dropped: “pursued them [from] Menuhah” (NJPS). (2) The city name Nohah, and the ‫ מ‬is a preposition: “pursued them from Nohah” (LXX, ESV). 147 384F

(3) Or, without attaching a proper name, simply their “place ָ ‫ ְמ‬would denote, and again the extra ‫ מ‬was of rest” as ‫נוּחה‬ Likewise, the NIV: “chased them and easily.” Some LXX manuscripts (GBRC l II) record ἀπὸ Νουα, referring to an unknown city. Cf. 1 Chr 8:2, however, where the name there refers to a person. 146 147

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

151

accidentally dropped: “pursued them [from their] resting place” (JPS).

All three translation options fit into the DH rest paradigm. Options 1 and 2 might be a play on words, since there is no record of cities with these names. The last option would fit best within the rest paradigm. It is also supported by the Targumim: ‫ִמ ֵבית‬ ‫“( נְ יָ ְחהוֹן‬from their house of rest”). On this basis the BHS also ָ ‫ ִמ ְמּ‬is the proper emendation. The makes the suggestion that ‫נוּחה‬ Targumim have a unique sensitivity to the concept of rest in their translations, and at times may better convey the concept of rest in the DH compared to other translations. 148 The evidence suggests that the best translation is option 3. If translated in this manner, Judg 20:43 would fit well with the overall direction of the book of Judges. The entire book portrays Israel’s gradual decline. Judges 19 opens with the words: ‫וּמ ֶל� ֵאין ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַבּיָּ ִמים ָה ֵהם‬. The noun �‫ ֶמ ֶל‬is used 37 times in Judges, but there are only four occurrences where it is included in the above phrase “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In fact, from Judg 17:6 onwards, �‫ ֶמ ֶל‬is only used as part of this phrase. This continues to show a downward movement of Israel’s spiritual condition. If the end of Joshua is a high point, the end of Judges is a low point. Two aspects of the use of ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫( ְמ‬or a related form) in Judg 20:43 are significant. First, while Judg 20:43 does not represent ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬in Deut 12:9, it may represent part of the full meaning of ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬in Deut 12:9 likely represents more it. The promise of ‫נוּחה‬ than only a temple, and the use of it in Judg 20:43 may hint that the land in which the Israelites inhabit is also part of the promise of it in Deut 12:9. It has not yet been stated that Israel ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬up this point in the chronology of the has been granted ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in which text, yet the Israelites are pushed away from the ‫נוּחה‬ they inhabit. This is similar to, and in line with, the careful 385F

See my article, “Jewish and Christian Theology from the Hebrew Bible: The Concept of Rest and Temple in Hebrews, the Targumim, and the Old Testament,” in Hebrews in Contexts (eds. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 31–46. 148

152

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

appropriation of rest statements in the DH rest motif. Just as the techinal ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬is employed carefully, so too must ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬since the temple has yet to be built. Second, Judg 20:43 is related to Deut 28:65, where the curses of disobedience involved the removal of rest: “among these nations you will not find rest (‫)רגע‬, and there will not be a ַ ‫ ) ָמ‬for the sole of your foot.” The pursuit of the resting place (�‫נוֹ‬ Benjaminites from their place of rest therefore reflects theology from Deuteronomy, and reveals the extent of the Benjaminites’ disobedience. This push away from a resting is no small matter—von Rad states regarding Deut 28:65: “even more horrible than final annihilation is the condition of finding no rest, of despair and of never-ending terror into which disobedient Israel is to be thrust.” 149 Yet, rest from Israel is not directly stated to be taken away. The strongest statement of the elimination of rest would be Judg 20:43, but in one stroke, Dtr preserves both Israel’s rest (since rest is not taken away from all Israel) and the Benjaminites’ rest (since the Benjaminites are chased away from it, rest is not actually removed from Benjamin). This pushes Israel’s unrest to the furthest extent thus far. Thus, the rest motif in Judges follows Israel’s spiritual decline. 150 Other words that also mean rest are used instead of the technical formulation of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬to preserve the reststatement in Josh 21:44. The use of different words for rest does not likely indicate differing frameworks of rest or even different redactional layers, but rather, close examination may furnish a different possibility. Without taking away the force of the reststatements in Joshua, the rest motif in Judges is carefully pro386F

Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 176. 150 See J. Cheryl Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges,” CBQ 52 (1990): 410–431. Exum advocates a final form reading of Judges and applies this method in her work. The result is that when following the final form, one is able to recognize that the structural framework of the book dissolves following the theme of Israel’s decline in the narrative. The evidence from this study on the rest motif in Judges supports her conclusions. 149

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

153

pelled further into Israel’s history, but yet it is done in a manner that shows the decline of rest, or unrest, of Israel. The lowest point of rest in Israel coordinates very well with her decline recorded in Judges; indeed, to the very last verse (Judg 21:25): “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes.” This is reminiscent of the state of affairs in Deut 12:8: “you will not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes.” At once the reader is taken back to the curses of Deuteronomy, but also given hope in the form of a king. The time is ripe again to bring Israel back to a full state of rest.

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

Rest appears only three times in 1 Samuel (6:18; 10:25; 25:9), and only in the form of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2). No other Hebrew restwords are used until the famous Nathan oracle in 2 Sam 7. Of the three in 1 Samuel, only the first two appear to have any relevance in the DH paradigm of rest. The last instance (1 Sam 25:9) does not have any discernible connection.

A New Beginning: 1 Samuel 6:18

In the chronology of the narrative, 1 Sam 6:18 describes that the ark of YHWH is returned by the Philistines, along with the five golden mice and “tumors” as a guilt offering representing the Philistine Pentapolis (1 Sam 6:4). In 1 Sam 6:15, the ark of YHWH and the box of gold articles are taken down from the cart. It is unclear, however, as to what is actually placed (‫)שׂים‬ on or toward the stone, whether the ark or the box, or both: ‫ר־אתּוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר־בּוֹ ְכ ֵלי־זָ ָהב‬ ִ ‫אַרגַּ ז ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ְ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫ת־ארוֹן יְ הוָ ה וְ ֶא‬ ֲ ‫הוֹרידוּ ֶא‬ ִ ‫וְ ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם‬ ‫ית־שׁ ֶמשׁ ֶה ֱﬠלוּ עֹלוֹת וַ יִּ זְ ְבּחוּ זְ ָב ִחים‬ ֶ ‫דוֹלה וְ אַנְ ֵשׁי ֵב‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ה ֶא ֶבן ַהגּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ ֶא‬ ‫ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא ַליהוָ ה׃‬ The Levites took down the ark of YHWH and the box that was with it, in which were the articles of gold, and set (them) toward the large stone; and the men of Beth-shemesh lifted burnt offerings and made sacrifices that day to YHWH.

In contrast to 1 Sam 6:15, 1 Sam 6:18 is more precise:

154

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE ‫ל־ﬠ ֵרי ְפ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים ַל ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁת ַה ְסּ ָרנִ ים ֵמ ִﬠיר ִמ ְב ָצר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠ ְכ ְבּ ֵרי ַהזָּ ָהב ִמ ְס ַפּר ָכּ‬ ‫יה ֵאת ֲארוֹן יְ הוָ ה ַﬠד‬ ָ ‫דוֹלה ֲא ֶשׁר ִהנִּ יחוּ ָﬠ ֶל‬ ָ ְ‫אָבל ַהגּ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַﬠד כּ ֶֹפר ַה ְפּ ָרזִ י וְ ַﬠד‬ ‫ית־ה ִשּׁ ְמ ִשׁי׃‬ ַ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ� ֵבּ‬ ֻ ְ‫ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה ִבּ ְשׂ ֵדה י‬ And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fortified cities and of country villages. The great stone on which they set (rested) the ark of YHWH is a witness to this day in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite. 151

There are two significant points of contrast between the two verses: 1) although in 1 Sam 6:15 it is unclear whether the gold articles were placed on the stone with the ark, 1 Sam 6:18 depicts only the ark of YHWH on the stone; and 2) while ‫ שׂים‬is used in 1 Sam 6:15 to denote the placing on the stone, in 1 Sam 6:18 ‫ נוח‬is employed. That the two different Hebrew words are used to describe the one action signals that the use of ‫ נוח‬might be intentional. The term “ark” (‫ ) ֲארוֹן‬is used 114 times in the DH. The ark is often described as being moved and carried using verbs such as ‫בוא‬, ‫נשׂא‬, and ‫לקח‬, and it is even “circled around” the Philistine Pentapolis using ‫סבב‬. 152 While the ark resides or dwells (‫ )ישׁב‬in various locations, 153 it is seldom said to be “placed” or “set down” anywhere. Out of the 114 instances, the ark is placed only eight times, mostly in the books of Samuel. The ark can be placed using the verbs ‫( נתן‬1 Sam 6:8; 1 Kings 6:19), ‫( יצג‬1 Sam 5:2; 6:17), ‫( יצק‬2 Sam 15:24), ‫( שׂים‬1 Sam 6:11, 15) and ‫( נוח‬1 Sam 6:18). Further paring down the data, four out of the eight instances describe the ark being placed on top of another object, with all four being in 1 Sam 6. In 1 Sam 6:8 and 6:11, the ark is placed on a cart (‫ נתן‬and ‫שׂים‬, respectively). In 1 Sam 6:15 it is unclear whether the ark or the box is being placed (‫)שׂים‬, and also whether the two are placed on or toward “the great stone” Taking ‫ ָא ֵבל‬as ‫א ֶבן‬, ֶ following the LXX translation. Some examples are: ‫בוא‬: 1 Sam 4:5, 6; 5:1, 2, 10; 7:1; ‫נשׂא‬: Deut 10:8; 31:9; Josh 3:3; 4:10; 6:12; 2 Sam 15:24; ‫לקח‬: 1 Sam 4:1, 17; 5:1, 2. 153 1 Sam 7:2; 2 Sam 6:11; 7:2; 11:11. 151 152

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

155

ָ ְ‫ל־ה ֶא ֶבן ַהגּ‬ ָ ‫) ֶא‬. In 1 Sam 6:18, ‫ נוח‬is used to describe the plac(‫דוֹלה‬ ing of the ark on the great stone. While the evidence is limited to this one instance, it might be possible that ‫ נוח‬is employed in 1 Sam 6:18 because the ark is being placed on the great stone, which is either an altar or some type of cultic object. Moreover, the cart that carries the ark is disassembled and used to make offerings at the great stone (1 Sam 6:14–15). Of course, the variation can simply be stylistic, and it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions at this point due to the limited data. There is discussion whether the great stone the ark is laid on is actually an altar, 154 or a site for placing the ark, 155 or somewhere in between as a “cultic stone” which is “obviously holy.” 156 Regardless of the actual object, the stone must have some type of cultic association in the text. In any case, this issue is not of great concern for this study, but it is related to another issue regarding redactional activity. In 1 Sam 6:15, the Levites make a sudden entrance into the story to handle the ark. They are not mentioned in the recapitulation of the event in 1 Sam 6:18. Most maintain that 1 Sam 6:15 is a later addition due to the mention of the Levites (which is quite infrequent in Samuel– Kings), and that the editor wanted to show that only the Levites could touch the ark. 157 If 1 Sam 6:15 is a secondary addition, then the older 1 Sam 6:18 contains the rest-statement. 158 There are others, however, who do not see the redaction as a necessiDavid Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 221. 155 David Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (AOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 100. 156 Gnana Robinson, Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 41. 157 Those who consider 1 Sam 6:15 as secondary include: Robinson, 1 and 2 Samuel, 41; Henry P. Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1904), 47; and Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 55. 158 Contra Robinson, 1 and 2 Samuel, 41, who thinks both verses are later additions. 154

156

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ty. 159 They argue that lack of reference to Levites in Samuel– Kings is not evidence of redaction, and also that the city of BethShemesh is listed as one of the Levitical cities (Josh 21:16, 1 Chr 6:59). Hence, it is not unnatural to have Levites enter the scene, and that “it is unlikely that the Levites were introduced here merely because of the special status of Beth-Shemesh.” 160 When the Levites are mentioned in Samuel–Kings, two out of the three times they are mentioned together with the ark (2 Sam 15:24, 1 Kings 8:4). 161 It is then quite interesting that an earlier rest-statement is also connected with the Levites and the ark. In Josh 3:13 the “soles of the feet of the Levites” carrying the ark of YHWH came to rest in the waters of the Jordan. As concluded above, this rest most likely represents the first category of rest (divine authority) as described in the Mesopotamian chapter of this study. A similar theme is probably also present here, although in 1 Sam 6:18 it is in the hiphil form and not the qal. This may indicate both the beginning and the end of the constant cycle as in the Mesopotamian texts: the deity first rests, then provides rest, then in turn is provided rest through worship. It is possible that both themes, the initial rest of the deity and the provision of rest to the deity through worship are being depicted here. It seems unlikely that the events described in 1 Sam 7 and the use of a rest-statement are a coincidence, where the whole chapter depicts a return to and worship of YHWH, as well as subsequent deliverance by YHWH. When the ark of YHWH is rested in Josh 3:13, Israel is en route to take possession of their inheritance and to a state of rest (Josh 21:44). After Israel’s (continual) apostasy in Judges and their defeat at the hands of the Philistines and subsequent capture of the ark in 1 Sam 4, 1 Sam 6:18 begins again the upward journey that Israel is about to take—the remainder of 1 Samuel narrates the beginning of the monarchy in Israel. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 100; Tsumura, Samuel, 221; and Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, (LBI; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 102. 160 Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 102. 161 Klein, 1 Samuel, 59. 159

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

157

Rest and the Constitution of the Monarchy: 1 Samuel 10:25

Transitions are usually marked with contradictions. Such is the very nature of a transition; on one hand it is “out with the old and in with the new,” but on the other, there still remains continuity such that the sequence of events still form a line. From Judges to Samuel there is a transition from one to another: the time of the judges is taken over by the monarchy. In this transition, 1 Sam 10:25 is a pivotal point in Israel’s history—BenBarak states that the verse is “one of the important turningpoints in the ancient history of Israel, and particularly in the history of the kingship.” 162 Briefly, to summarize the narrative leading to 1 Sam 10:25, in 1 Sam 6, the ark of YHWH is brought back to Israel, and 1 Sam 7 depicts a return to YHWH and a defeat of the Philistines (7:10). In 1 Sam 8, Israel calls for a king, and while Samuel is displeased over the demand (8:6), YHWH says “listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them” (8:7). 1 Samuel 9–10 narrate both the private choosing of Saul (1 Sam 9) as well as the public declaration (1 Sam 10). 163 It is in the public declaration of Saul as king that 1 Sam 10:25 is recorded: ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ֵאת ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָכה וַ יִּ ְכתֹּב ַבּ ֵסּ ֶפר וַ יַּ נַּ ח ִל ְפנֵ י‬ ָ ‫מוּאל ֶא‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר ְשׁ‬ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ִאישׁ ְל ֵביתוֹ׃‬ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫מוּאל ֶא‬ ֵ ‫יְ הוָ ה וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח ְשׁ‬

Zafira Ben-Barak, “The Mizpah Covenant (I Sam 10 25),” ZAW 93 (1979): 30. So too, Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 132–33: “in what has been judged to be one of the turning points of Israelite History, the faithful judge Samuel declared to the people ‘the [divine] judgment of the kingship’.” 163 While this is often attributed to redactional activity, Tsumura (Samuel, 281) understands this to simply be two parts of the selection process, private and public; and similarly, P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 187–188. 162

158

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Samuel announced to the people the ordinances of the kingship. He wrote (them) in a (certain) book and he rested/placed (it) before YHWH. Then Samuel sent out all the people, each one to his home.

In context, 1 Sam 10:25 is embedded in the narrative after Saul is publicly singled out by the lot-casting led by Samuel. In 1 Sam 10:1, Samuel pours oil on Saul’s head, and it is recorded that YHWH had anointed Saul as a ruler over YHWH’s inheritance (‫) ְמ ָשׁ ֲח� יְ הוָ ה ַﬠל־נַ ֲח ָלתוֹ ְלנָ גִ יד‬. 164 Klein points out the “paradoxical message” in this transition: “choosing a king is rejection of Yahweh; yet Yahweh himself chose the first king.” 165 There is nothing present in 1 Sam 10:25 that is overtly connected to the DH rest motif. Samuel writes the ordinances down in a scroll and “rests” it before YHWH (in the sanctuary). 166 The same associations can be made as before, that ‫נוח‬ hiphil (2) is used in association with placing an object in a cultic context. Beyond this, however, there are subtle undercurrents that swirl about the context of this verse (especially ‫ משׁח‬in 1 Sam 10:1) that might represent a minor prelude to a major development of theology: rest, inheritance, and messianism. While there is no direct statement that explicitly symbolizes it, the elements together suggest a possibility. Before fully exploring 1 Sam 10:25, the connection between 1 Sam 10:25 and 1 Sam 10:1 must be examined. This study has already explored a connection with rest and inheritance in Deut 12:9–12, where the land is the locale of the people’s rest, and it is also pivotal to “the place” that is to be designated for central worship. YHWH’s inheritance (‫ )נַ ֲח ָלתוֹ‬in 1 Sam 10:1 is described by commentators as being either the physical land 167 or the peo401F

402F

40F

As Gordon notes, “God anoints, but Samuel pours,” I & II Samuel, 116. 165 Klein, 1 Samuel, 97. 166 Commentators state that “before YHWH” means “in the sanctuary,” Tsumura, Samuel, 299; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 121; Klein, 1 Samuel, 100; Robinson, 1 and 2 Samuel, 63. 167 McCarter, I Samuel, 180–1. 164

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

159

ple (1 Sam 9:16). 168 Both positions are supported and have merit. Hence, Tsumura seems to be justified to think “inheritance” in this case symbolizes both, pointing out that people and inheritance are often associated as a word pair (Deut 9:26–29; Isa 19:25; Joel 2:17; Ps 78:71; 94:5), 169 especially in 1 Kings 8:51 (Solomon’s dedicatory prayer of the temple). 170 The inheritance in Deut 12:9–10 most likely symbolizes land, but YHWH’s inheritance is his people. In 1 Sam 10:1, the two join together through the introduction of a monarchy: the vice-regent and representative of YHWH is anointed to be over YHWH’s inheritance (the people), yet the land, which is Israel’s inheritance, comes with it. Additionally, in 1 Sam 10:1 there is an association with inheritance and “anointing” (‫)משׁח‬. Of course, ritually the king is anointed, making him an “anointed one” (�‫) ְמ ִשׁ ַי‬. Moreover, Saul is referred to by David as an “anointed one” in 1 Sam 24:6 [MT 24:7]. The two words are in Ps 2 (2:2, 8), which is often considered to be messianic. Speaking of “his anointed” (‫ ) ְמ ִשׁיחוֹ‬in Ps 2:2 (who is also referred to as “my king” in 2:6), Ps 2:8 states: “Ask of me and I will give the nations (‫ )גּוֹיִ ם‬as your inheritance (�‫)נַ ֲח ָל ֶת‬.” By no means is this analysis meant to argue that 1 Sam 10:1 is messianic in and of itself. All that is intended here is to identify that important elements are present in the private anointing of Saul in 1 Sam 10:1, and that these elements lend themselves to be interpreted messianically later on, such as in the LXX. There is an addition in the LXX in 1 Sam 10:1, which is followed by some commentators and the NRSV: MT: 171 *-* ‫אמר ֲהלוֹא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ת־פּ� ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמן וַ יִּ צֹק ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ וַ יִּ ָשּׁ ֵקהוּ וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫מוּאל ֶא‬ ֵ ‫וַ יִּ ַקּח ְשׁ‬

‫י־מ ָשׁ ֲח� יְ הוָ ה ַﬠל־נַ ֲח ָלתוֹ ְלנָ גִ יד׃‬ ְ ‫ִכּ‬

Gordon, I & II Samuel, 116–7. Tsumura, Samuel, 282. 170 Solomon’s prayer and dedication of the temple is the climax of the rest paradigm in the DH. 171 The * denotes the text in the LXX which is not in the MT. 168 169

160

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Then Samuel took the vial of oil and poured it on his (Saul’s) head, kissed him and said: “Is it not *-* that YHWH has anointed you as a ruler over his inheritance? LXX:

καὶ ἔλαβεν Σαμουηλ τὸν φακὸν τοῦ ἐλαίου καὶ ἐπέχεεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐφίλησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Οὐχὶ *κέχρικέν σε κύριος εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ Ισραηλ; καὶ σὺ ἄρξεις ἐν λαῷ κυρίου, καὶ σὺ σώσεις αὐτὸν ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ κυκλόθεν. καὶ τοῦτό σοι τὸ σημεῖον* ὅτι ἔχρισέν σε κύριος ἐπὶ κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἄρχοντα· And Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured (it) on his head, and kissed him, and said to him: “Has not *the Lord anointed you ruler over his people, over Israel? And you will rule among the people of the Lord, and you will save them from the hand of his enemies all around; and this (is) a sign to you* that the Lord has anointed you for a ruler over his inheritance.”

As it stands in the BHS, the MT has the two particles ‫ ֲהלוֹא‬and ‫ִכּי‬ side by side, which is an awkward construction. This has led some to make a long emendation based on the LXX. 172 The absence of the unique LXX material is attributed to haplography due to homoioarchton (the repetition of what would have been ‫ ְמ ָשׁ ֲח� יְ הוָ ה‬. Klein also follows the LXX, 173 and furthermore contends that the use of “inheritance” in the MT is an addition by Dtr. 174 Hence, Klein maintains that there was an older tradition using just “people,” citing 1 Sam 9:16a and 1 Sam 10:1a, and that later Dtr added “inheritance” in 10:1b. This is Klein’s answer to the question of whether inheritance means land or people. To maintain that the LXX material is original would, at first, seem reasonable. However, there are problems with this See McCarter, I Samuel, 171; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 116; Klein, 1 Samuel, 83. 173 Klein, 1 Samuel, 83. 174 Klein, 1 Samuel, 90. 172

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

161

reconstruction. First, as Tsumura points out, the initial awkwardness of ‫ ֲהלוֹא ִכּי‬combination is not that unusual, and it is used the same way in 2 Sam 13:28. 175 In 1 Sam 10:1, ‫ ִכּי‬is used to introduce a subject clause (which is one of the standard uses of ‫ ) ִכּי‬176 and thus would be translated as above: “Is it not that YHWH…” Second, if the haplography were due to homoioarchton, Tsumura questions why ‫ ִכּי‬is preserved. 177 If the haplography occurred because the two initial words of each clause were identical, there is no reason why ‫ ִכּי‬would remain. Based on this evidence, the emendation now becomes somewhat dubious. Furthermore, Klein also adds that the use of “inheritance” is an addition by Dtr. First, as mentioned earlier, people and inheritance are often associated together. To make a redactional distinction based on the use of the two words is difficult. Second, one must step back and trace what Klein is implying. According to Klein, 1 Sam 10:1 was originally the (somewhat) longer form, preserved in the LXX, but without the last line. Klein is unclear as to where exactly he proposes to start the deuteronomistic addition, but presumably from “and this is a sign for you” to the end of the verse. 178 Dtr later added the final line, and this form was preserved in the LXX. All of the Hebrew manuscripts, despite the Greek translations, dropped the middle portion of the verse but kept the last, deuteronomistic line because of haplography, yet preserved ‫ ִכּי‬. While possible, it is a very complicated, if not dubious, view of the history of the transmission of 1 Sam 10:1. Along with all the above reasons to leave the verse intact, it seems improbable that this would have occurred as Klein describes. What then, does one make of the LXX? With the addition of “you will save them from the hand of his enemies all around,” Tsumura, Samuel, 281. Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 73. 177 Tsumura, Samuel, 282. 178 Klein, 1 Samuel, 90, bases this also on the fact that the singular word “sign” is in tension with the plural “signs” later in verses 7 and 9. 175 176

162

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the authors of this LXX translation appear to have had some further understanding or interpretation. The phrase, “all around,” is reminiscent of important passages in the DH rest motif (Deut 12:10; 25:19; Josh 21:44, 23:1) as well as important passages to be explored later in this study (2 Sam 7:1; 1 Kings 5:4). All of these verses contain a rest-statement, and have been instrumental to the rest paradigm in the DH. This new ruler is a savior from enemies. Of course, human agents are used in the time of the judges, but there is not a vice regent—YHWH’s anointed to rule over the people and the land. This lays ground for what is to come about with David, Solomon, and the expected future messiah. If the LXX addition is later, the authors of the LXX understood the subtle undertones in 1 Sam 10, as well as, perhaps, a paradigm of rest, and inserted a reminiscent phrase of that rest paradigm into the text at a point that is germane to messianic theology. This messiah would be a ruler over YHWH’s inheritance (people) and the land, which is allotted to those royal subjects. As such, the king would now be a “rest-giver.” Returning to 1 Sam 10:25 and the public anointing of Saul, the “ordinances of the kingship” (‫ ) ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָכה‬are announced by Samuel, written in a book, and then rested before YHWH. There is much conversation over what this document contained, such as the procedures of the king or some type of covenant. In the end, one cannot know with much certainty. 179 Whatever the 416F

McCarter, I Samuel, 194. According to B. Johnson (“‫;מ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ִ ‫;שׁ ֶפט‬ ֶ ‫שׁפוֹט‬,” ְ TDOT 9:86–98), ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬can have several meanings, including “decision” in oracles and lot casting, jurisprudence, legal right, commandment or statute, or even custom or tradition. Johnson categorizes 1 Sam 10:25 (and also 1 Sam 8:9, 11) under the category “legal right.” In 1 Sam 8:9, 11, the phrase is �‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬, not ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָכה‬as in 1 Sam 10:25. This probably also explains the LXX emendation (βασιλέως). Tsumura (Samuel, 299) and McCarter (I Samuel, 193–94) are correct to distinguish between the two. �‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬probably denotes “the right or authority that emanates from the power of a ruler,” and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָכה‬is probably a “royal compact or ‘constitution of the monarchy’” (Johnson, TDOT 9:92). Ben-Barak (“The Mizpah Covenant,” 42) maintains that 179

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

163

document might have been, most agree that it governed the relationship between the king and the people, laying out what rights and privileges the king did or did not have. But what cannot be overlooked is that this relationship was still governed under the general umbrella of YHWH’s sovereignty. Ben-Barak briefly touches upon this feature of the covenant, stating that it specified “the relations between king and people, and their joint dependence on the Lord.” 180 There are several reasons for this correlation. First, the document is rested before YHWH in 1 Sam 10:25 (‫)וַ יַּ נַּ ח ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬. Regardless of how one understands ‫נוח‬, the newly founded “constitution” is still submitted under the authority of YHWH. Second, the king chosen by YHWH was to be an intermediary between the people and YHWH. There was, to be sure, a fiduciary relationship between the king and the people, but the king was also responsible for administering the government on behalf of YHWH, in the manner dictated by YHWH. Gordon is correct to correlate the document with Deut 17:18–20, in that it was the king’s responsibility to copy the Deuteronomic laws and that “it was his duty to obey and to enforce” them. 181 When Saul himself disobeys YHWH’s commands he is rebuked, as is recordֶ ‫ת־מ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ִ ‫)לֹא ָשׁ ַמ ְר ָתּ ֶא‬. It is ed in 1 Sam 13:13 (� ָ‫�הי� ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוּ‬ this act of disobedience that Dtr offers as the grounds for Saul’s eventual demise. Third, both the king and the people collectively have an obligation to YHWH. One cannot say that when following the establishment of the monarchy, the people no longer have any tie to YHWH. This covenant would be better understood as being superimposed on the previous commitments Israel had with YHWH, not replacing them. The way in which a king governs a this covenant was “a sanctified legal document containing the divine laws with regard to royal rule,” and moreover it “was handed to the king at his installation ceremony” (see also 2 Kings 11:12). Some speculate that the contents included the Deuteronomic law, as found in Deut 17:18–20 (Klein, 1 Samuel, 100). 180 Ben-Barak, “The Mizpah Covenant,” 42. 181 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 121.

164

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

kingdom both directly and indirectly affects the behavior of the people. In 1 Sam 15, YHWH commands Saul to destroy the Amalekites completely, including all the livestock. Saul does defeat the Amalekites, but he and the people spare the choicest of the animals. When questioned by Samuel, Saul tries to claim that he is in obedience and puts the blame on the people for his insubordinate actions (1 Sam 15:21). Saul is rejected as king over Israel, and Samuel states the famous line, “to obey is better than sacrifice.” Amidst the uncertainty surrounding (‫) ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט‬, what can be said is that it was a legal document that governed the monarchy, which in its broader sense embodied all three parties: YHWH, the king, and the people. In the final analysis, it does appear significant to have a rest-statement in 1 Sam 10:25, given the placement of this verse in the narrative record of Israel’s historic transition. It is obviously not ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1), and it would be inappropriate for such a statement to be made since there has not been a substantial defeat of enemies; one could not compare this era with the state of rest that Israel enjoyed under Joshua (Josh 21:44). There is a return of the ark to Israel in 1 Sam 6, and also a return to YHWH, but there needs to be more. Certainly, there is a partial rejection of YHWH with the demand of a king, yet YHWH accommodates the request. So far in the DH rest motif, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) has been used either in connection to rest given to enemies (which implies the unrest of Israel, see Judg 2:23; 3:1), or the setting down of cultic objects. This act of worship often precedes a rest from enemies (Judg 6:18, 20), and programmatically follows the structure set forth in Deuteronomy (14:28; 25:19–26:4). After Saul is chosen publicly, he proves himself by defeating Nahash the Ammonite in 1 Sam 11. This victory serves as proof and confirmation that Saul is indeed the chosen king (1 Sam 11:12–15). Samuel states: “Come, let us go to Gilgal and renew (‫ )נְ ַח ֵדּשׁ‬the covenant there” (11:14). They install Saul as king before YHWH and offer peace sacrifices before YHWH. In this process Saul and all the people rejoice greatly. In sum, Samuel “rests” the legal document before YHWH, renewing both the covenant (including the newly founded monarchy) and their loyalty to YHWH. Thereafter, the appointed deliverer (kingly “rest-giver”) confirms his position by

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

165

defeating the Ammonites. This is subsequently followed by peace offerings (‫ )זְ ָב ִחים ְשׁ ָל ִמים‬and rejoicing. The sacrifice of peace and rejoicing after victory (having rest from enemies) is reminiscent of the rest cycle in the ML, where there is a reciprocal exchange of rest and the heart of the deity finds rest through one’s loyalty to the god. That loyalty is reciprocated via protection and rest for the people. Here, the rest of both the higher and lower intertwine: not only does the act of worship provide rest to God (through loyal acknowledgment of divine authority) but in the process the subjects also feast and rejoice. There is no rest-statement, however, after Saul’s victory. This could be because it is simply a “confirmatory” victory and there is more warfare yet to come. Moreover, during Saul’s reign neither Israel nor Saul enjoy any type of rest. In 1 Sam 14:52 is the statement: “the war against the Philistines was severe all the days of Saul.” Indeed, Saul commits suicide in the midst of battle with the Philistines after his three sons are killed. Thereafter the Philistines sever Saul’s head and parade it throughout the land of the Philistines (1 Sam 31). To some degree, it is possible to discern that the narrative foreshadows Saul’s demise. This deliverer—the anointed one—is to bring salvation to Israel, as confirmed by Saul’s defeat over Nahash. But this is only to be a penultimate stage. It is remarkable that a Benjaminite is chosen, one from Gibeah no less, since the Benjaminites are the ones who are almost completely annihilated by their kinsman at the end of Judges due to their repulsive and disobedient acts recorded in Judg 19–20. Leithart rightly understands the background description of Saul as positive (handsome, tall, etc.), but he also recognizes that Saul’s origins from Gibeah cast a negative shadow: “Though Saul’s origins in Gibeah of Benjamin might suggest a villainous character, other parts of the introductory description leave a more positive impression.” 182 As noted above, the actions of the Benjaminites are probably indicative of some kind of apostate act. Saul too, violates and disobeys YHWH’s commands. Saul offers a burnt offerPeter J. Leithart, A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003), 71. 182

166

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ing in 1 Sam 13, and in Samuel’s reprimand to Saul, Samuel states that Saul’s kingdom will no longer stand (1 Sam 13:14). It is almost as if Saul is destined to fail.

The Juncture of Rest from the Past to the Future: 2 Samuel 7:1, 11

The previous section of this study detailed the importance of a new point in history for Israel. The institution of the monarchy is now established, although the first king of the monarchy is not very successful. McCarthy’s assessment of Samuel’s speech in 1 Sam 12 is that it is a “rejection, not an acceptance of kingship, at least as it has appeared so far in the history of Israel.” 183 Even though Samuel’s “final words” are given in 1 Sam 12, Samuel does not actually die and there is not a true transition in leadership. Samuel almost outlives Saul, continues to judge, and even anoints the new king. Jobling correctly restates the “Noth– McCarthy” schema as it pertains to 1 Sam 12: Whereas 1 Samuel 12 precisely fails to solve the problem of unworthy leaders…2 Samuel 7, does solve this problem, excluding the kings from the conditionality of the covenant. At 2 Samuel 7, there is finally a kingship which has separated itself theologically from judgeship. 184

For Dtr, there is a close connection between 1 Sam 12 and 2 Sam 7, in that the latter overtakes the former. The former is connected to 1 Sam 10 (the anointing of Saul and the establishment of the monarchy) since it is the implicit rejection of it. As Dtr moves from one historic moment to another, so too does the rest motif. Nathan’s Oracle is a very famous and important text, not least because of its long history of messianic interpretation. Gordon states that this “dynastic oracle” (2 Sam 7:8–16) is Dennis J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 84 (1965): 135. 184 David Jobling, “What, If Anything, Is 1 Samuel?” SJOT 7 (1993): 24. 183

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

167

“rightly regarded as an ‘ideological summit’, not only in the ‘Deuteronomistic History’ but also in the Old Testament as a whole.” 185 Furthermore, McCarthy has argued that not only is 2 Sam 7 central to the DH but that it actually provides the structure for the entire DH. 186 Of course, this passage is especially significant for the present study of the concept of rest, given the two rest-statements in 2 Sam 7:1 and 7:11. At the very start of the analysis, one is immediately confronted with a seemingly insurmountable problem that must be dealt with, especially when following the final form. Many contend that 2 Sam 7:1b is a later addition (‫וַ יהוָ ה ֵהנִ ַי�־לוֹ ִמ ָסּ ִביב ִמ ָכּל־‬ ‫ )אֹיְ ָביו‬because of its apparent contradiction to other portions in the DH, but especially 2 Sam 7:11. McCarter summarizes the problem well: The synoptic passage in I Chron 17:1, however, omits any equivalent of v. 1b. Moreover, as critics have long recognized, retention of this half-verse at this point poses serious difficulties of interpretation. The catalogue of David’s wars, which follows immediately in chap. 8, shows that David had anything but rest at this point, and, indeed, it was the understanding of the last (Deuteronomistic) editor of this material that David did not have “rest,” as explicitly stated in I Kings 5:17–18 [5:3–4]! A related problem is that of v. 11aβ, where, according to all textual witnesses, David (“you”) is promised a “rest” from all his enemies. This promise of “rest” again conflicts with the view that David did not have “rest,” and it is also incompatible with the present assertion that he already had “rest.” 187

Other than the omission of the line in the parallel account in 1 Chr 17:1, there is no textual evidence to support its omission— the issue is an internal one. That the line does not exist in the Chronicler’s account is not and should not be an issue, for it is Gordon, I & II Samuel, 235. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 131–138. 187 P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 191. 185 186

168

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

widely acknowledged that the author(s) of Chronicles had a distinctive theological viewpoint. Moreover, while 2 Sam 7:1b is absent in 1 Chr 17, so too is the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:11 not to be found in 1 Chr 17. If 1 Chr 17 is earlier, then it is rather confounding that both rest-statements are inserted into 2 Sam 7 in a contradictory manner. The contradiction is what primarily leads one to consider that there is a textual problem in the first place. If both 2 Sam 7:1b and 11aβ, are late insertions (based on their absence in 1 Chr 17), then one cannot be removed without the other, and the textual critic must still wrestle with the apparent contradiction. McCarter proposes that comparing another textual issue in 2 Sam 7:11 might help solve the problem. He suggests, along with the “older critics” such as Wellhausen, Driver, Budde, and Nowack, that the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:11 should be amended from �‫ וַ ֲהנִ יח ִֹתי ְל� ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֶבי‬to ‫וַ ֲהנִ יח ִֹתי לוֹ ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֶביו‬, 188 changing the recipient of the promise from David to Israel. 189 Hence, 2 Sam 7:1b arose originally as a marginal correction to 7:11, but “found its way into the text at the wrong point. This took place before the translation of the OG but after the composition of the Chronicler’s history, which preserves the original, short form of v. 1.” 190 This is an interesting solution. However, McCarter himself recognizes that just as in 2 Sam 7:1 the text critical problem in 2 425F

426F

427F

This is due to the fact that the “older critics” thought that rest would not have been granted to David (“you” singular) but to Israel. Those critics, however, overlooked two important facts: 1) Solomon also says that YHWH gave him rest (1 Kings 5:3–4); and 2) the establishment of the monarchy changed the very nature of the situation. As the YHWH’s vice-regent and representative of the people, stating that the king had rest is virtually synonymous with stating that Israel had rest. 189 McCarter, II Samuel, 193. The LXX does preserve the reststatement, but mistranslates the consonants. Hence, the existence of the 7:1b is not in question by the time of the LXX. 190 McCarter, II Samuel, 191. 188

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

169

Sam 7:11 is “without textual support.” 191 In other words, McCarter amends one text without textual support due to its apparent contradiction (to 2 Sam 7:11), and again amends the contradicted text (2 Sam 7:11) to solve the original contradiction (2 Sam 7:1). While the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1 is still an issue, these kinds of solutions do little to solve the problem. In this case, one takes his or her own understanding of what may be the author’s theological biases, then amends those verses that the critic surmises are contradictory to their own understanding of the original author’s initial theology, all without textual support. An alternative would be to explore whether the contradiction is apparent or actual. The first issue observed by McCarter is that David is not shown to have rest immediately following the Nathan Oracle in 2 Sam 8. This directly contradicts David’s rest in 2 Sam 7:1, but it stands in agreement with the promise of rest in 2 Sam 7:11. However, as Anderson notes, the victories listed in chapter 8 need not be in chronological order with the events in chapter 7. In general, “the sequence of the pericopes in 2 Samuel is not always a reliable guide as to their chronological order. If authentic, our episode may well have belonged to the latter part of David’s reign.” 192 Anderson also notes that the building of David’s palace would have taken enormous resources, and therefore would “normally take place during periods of prolonged peace and political stability.” 193 Even if the accounts of 2 Sam 7–8 are to be taken chronologically, the victories in chapter 8 are activities of expansion (even if it is retaking land held prior). David is not at war in the sense of being under attack; David and the Israelites are the initiators. 194 Furthermore, the previous major milestone of rest in McCarter, II Samuel, 193. Arnold A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Dallas: Word Books, 1986), 116. 193 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 116. 194 Willis, “Rest All Around,” 136–137, 139. Willis offers a detailed (and very viable) treatment of the military activities before and after the text 2 Sam 7, and differentiates them as a defense within Isra191 192

170

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Josh 21:44 and 23:1—which at least in the latter is commonly held to be very characteristic of Dtr—do not mean that Israel had enjoyed a “final” rest at that very moment. There were expansion activities yet to be undertaken. It has already been shown that Josh 23 evoked once again the conditionality of the covenant from its Deuteronomic background. In the book of Joshua, rest is a statement of a “proper” relationship with YHWH. The people of Israel under Joshua are in an obedient relationship that prompts the rest-statement, but as observed in the book of Judges, this relationship of obedience is continually broken. It is not until the books of Samuel that one could see Israel gradually coming back to a state of rest. The monarchy under Saul is also fraught with difficulties and disobedience. But under David in 2 Sam 6, there is a defeat of the Philistines and the ark is brought to its proper home in Jerusalem. This signifies, in similar fashion with the state of affairs described in Josh 21–23, that an obedient relationship is now restored. Just as the Israelites are to continue to conquer and expand after Joshua’s era, so too is Israel to expand and conquer under David’s reign. Further battles of expansion do not contradict the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1, just as it is not contradictory in the books of Joshua and Judges. In other words, rest need not be the absence of war, but rather an absence of foreign oppression. It also signifies a state of obedience to YHWH. Hence, the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1 does not have to be understood to be contradictory to 2 Sam 8. The second issue McCarter raises is that 2 Sam 7:1 defies 1 Kings 5:3–4 [MT 5:17–18]. In a message to King Hiram of Tyre requesting cedar trees from Lebanon, Solomon states: ‫�היו ִמ ְפּנֵ י‬ ָ ‫אָבי ִכּי לֹא יָ כֹל ִל ְבנוֹת ַבּיִ ת ְל ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ִ ‫ת־דּוִ ד‬ ָ ‫אַתּה יָ ַד ְﬠ ָתּ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר ְס ָב ֻבהוּ ַﬠד ֵתּת־יְ הוָ ה א ָֹתם ַתּ ַחת ַכּפּוֹת ַרגְ ָלו׃ וְ ַﬠ ָתּה‬ ‫�הי ִלי ִמ ָסּ ִביב ֵאין ָשׂ ָטן וְ ֵאין ֶפּגַ ע ָרע׃‬ ַ ‫ֵהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ You know David my father, that he was not able to build a house for the name of YHWH his God because of the warfare that surrounded him, until YHWH put them under the soles el’s borders from foreign invaders and military campaigns beyond Israel’s borders, respectively.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

171

of his feet. Now, YHWH my God has given rest to me on every side; there is no adversary and no chance of misfortune.

From this account it appears that David did not enjoy any rest, contrary to 2 Sam 7:1, and the absence of rest is the reason why David is unable to build a temple. The argument is that the author of 1 Kings 5:3–4 (the final Dtr redactor according to McCarter) did not have any awareness that David had rest and that David had no opportunity to build a temple. However, as stated above, Dtr’s concept of rest as described in Josh 21:44 and 23:1 did not equate the idea of “having rest” with the absence of warfare. Moreover, while it is true that 1 Kings 5:3–4 states that David did not have the opportunity to build the temple, the Nathan Oracle does not speak of a lack of opportunity (even if one were to exclude the rest-statements as secondary). Instead, the Oracle disqualifies David (for a reason not recorded in the Oracle) and chooses a son of David, which the letter to Hiram (1 Kings 5:3–6) does refer to in 1 Kings 5:5. The main response from YHWH in the Nathan Oracle is that he never asked for a temple. Ota has persuasively shown that there is not a rejection of the temple itself in the oracle, but rather that it is not appropriate in the ANE for a king to take his own initiative to build a temple; the initiative is on the part of the divine. 195 In the Oracle, David is personally disqualified from building the temple, and the reason in Solomon’s message is, apparently, only one of many possible reasons. Solomon can build the temple because he, implicitly through the Nathan Oracle, is given the charge, which 1 Kings 5:5 confirms. Finally, let us assume for the moment that the Chronicles account without the rest-statements is more original. Indeed, what is being argued by those who side with McCarter is that the insertions into 2 Sam 7:1 and 7:11 must have been after Chronicles and before the LXX. But when one examines the theology of Chronicles to determine why David is not able to build Michiko Ota, “A Note on 2 Sam 7,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 403–407. 195

172

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the temple, 1 Chr 22:8–9 and 28:3 state that David is disqualified from the task because he is a “man of war” and had “shed much blood.” Solomon, on the other hand, is a “man of rest” ָ ‫) ִאישׁ ְמ‬. Here, there is evidence of both a disqualification of (‫נוּחה‬ David personally, as well as the fact that he had shed much blood (opportunity). In other words, in Chronicles, the author(s) seem to be very aware of multiple reasons why David could not build the temple. Despite the reasons against amending one or both of the rest-statements in the Oracle, one must still provide a reason as to why the two rest-statements—one pointing to the past and the other pointing to the future—are present in 2 Sam 7. Here the Noth paradigm of the DH is very useful. In ÜgS, Noth argued that: Dtr. brings forward the leading personages with a speech, long or short, which looks forward and backward in an attempt to interpret the course of events, and draws the relevant practical conclusions about what people should do. 196

Noth did not include 2 Sam 7 in his original study, but as many have recognized, McCarthy added 2 Sam 7 so convincingly that many refer to it as the Noth–McCarthy model. 197 There is much that scholarship owes to the historicalcritical method, and much is still influenced by it. In so doing, one must look at both the details and the overall picture, or otherwise risk a myopic view. As much as a text’s composition is important, one must also place it in the context of the entire corpus. Why was it placed precisely here? Even if the text were amended, was there a theological purpose to the amendment? McCarthy’s thoughts regarding 2 Sam 7 are appropriate here: Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 5, emphasis mine. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 131–138. See also Cross, who agrees that the Nathan Oracle (2 Sam 7:1–16) and the Prayer of David (2 Sam 7:18–29) “surely belong to this series” of speeches that Noth originally identified as deuteronomistic (Cross, “Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 275). 196 197

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

173

In an argument of this type the analysis of possible literary sources from the present form of II Sam 7 is not essential. As a matter of fact, the chapter seems to be a unity in form and content, and it does show the marks of the Deuteronomic hand. But whatever the origins and the history of the growth of the text, whatever its possible composite character, it is the actual text as it stands in the deuteronomic history which matters. This is the text which functions as an integral part of the literary complex. The problem here is to show this function. 198

What then is the function of the text, and how do the two reststatements relate to the chronology of the final form of the narrative? Following Noth, one can examine from Dtr’s point of view both the past and the future of Israel’s history using David’s reign as a focal point. Using this basic premise and considering what has already been discovered in the present chapter of this study, there appear to be three main reasons for the dual rest-statements. 199 First, the reference to the past state of rest is used to bring the reader resumptively from the state of affairs after Josh 23, before Israel is shown to be in a state of obedience in Judges. The book of Joshua shows Israel to conquer much, but the task is not yet finished. Continued obedience is necesMcCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 131. The verbal aspect issues in 2 Sam 7 are acknowledged, whether the statements refer to the past (simple waw with a perfect) or the future (waw consecutive). After all the discussion, there does not seem to be a definitive conclusion on the matter. Hence, the verbs in this study have been translated and understood along with the majority of the English translations, some as past and some as present. See Oswald Loretz, “The Perfectum Copulativum,” CBQ 23 (1961): 294–296, and Anthony Gelston, “A Note on II Samuel 7:10,” ZAW 84 (1972): 92–94. See also Willis, “Rest All Around,” 137–139. Willis persuasively argues that the simplest way to translate the verbal aspects is the way the Hebrew reads naturally, making 2 Sam 7:1b, 8–9a refer to past events, and 2 Sam 9b–11 refer to future events. Willis explains the dichotomy of the verbal aspects by distinguishing the past and future events by military activities within Israel’s borders and beyond them, respectively. 198 199

174

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

sary to complete the mission. Israel fails to continue in obedience from the time of the Judges until the reign of Saul. Now, Israel stands at a place of rest yet again. With David at the helm, Dtr shows us that Israel is back on track to fulfilling its original mission. Yet, the pinnacle of rest is not yet reached. The second rest-statement points the reader forward, to the time when Solomon would build the temple and the nation of Israel would be complete before YHWH. While there is more to be examined regarding the future rest of Israel, the issue must be set aside until that point of the narrative in 1 Kings 5:4 and 8:56 later in this study. For now, it is sufficient to say that the two reststatements pointing both backward and forward are very characteristic of Dtr. Second, the dual rest-statements emphasize the legitimacy of David’s reign and his lineage. The rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1, which points to the past, establishes King David as the rightful king of Israel. It was observed above that although Saul is appointed king, his background hints at his eventual failure. Also noted above, McCarthy maintains that 1 Sam 12 is in essence, a rejection of the kingship. 200 After David becomes king over all the tribes of Israel in 2 Sam 5:1–5, three important events occur before the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1: 1) David conquers and takes control of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6–12); 2) after inquiring of YHWH and receiving confirmation, David defeats the Philistines in a significant battle (2 Sam 5:17–25). Here, it is explicitly stated that “David did as YHWH commanded” (2 Sam 5:25); and 3) David brings the ark of YHWH back to Jerusalem and offers sacrifices (2 Sam 6:12–19). Of special importance are the types of sacrifices that he offers in 6:17: burnt offerings and peace offerְ ‫)וַ יַּ ַﬠל ָדּוִ ד עֹלוֹת ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬. These three events fall in ings (‫וּשׁ ָל ִמים‬ line with important features of the rest paradigm in the DH: establishing “the place,” obedience in following YHWH’s commands, and the offering of appropriate sacrifices with the placement of YHWH’s ark in “the place.” Offering peace offerings is very much symbolic of a portrayal of loyalty and, to put it in Mesopotamian terms, offers rest to (appeases) the deity. 200

McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 135.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

175

In contrast, while there is a confirmatory victory in battle over the Ammonites (1 Sam 11), Saul is plagued with wars for much of his reign. Indeed, Saul’s first battle with the Philistines ends in failure. Trying to salvage the situation, Saul offers the same burnt and peace offerings that David offers later, but is rebuked by Samuel for the illicit act (1 Sam 13:9–13). Samuel tells Saul that his kingdom will not endure, and that another king has been chosen in his stead (1 Sam 13:14). Later in 1 Sam 15, by keeping the choice sheep and cattle, Saul does not follow YHWH’s commands to destroy the Amalekites completely, and is told that obedience is desired over sacrifices. Thus, Saul did not find “rest,” and his life even ends on the battlefield. These elements in Saul’s saga parallel David’s, in the same way a mirror reflects a direct but opposite reflection. When viewed in this way, Dtr is quite clear about the supremacy of David’s reign over Saul’s. The three elements shown above are completely inverted from Saul to David. With regard to the burnt and peace offering, Dtr puts David and Saul in direct contrast. Saul’s daughter, Michal, comes out to challenge David when he offers the sacrifices before the ark. David’s reply is quite telling of the tension between the two houses: “Before YHWH—who chose me over your father and over his entire house, to appoint me as ruler over the people of YHWH, over Israel—before YHWH I will celebrate” (2 Sam 6:21). Dtr ends the tension and the chapter rather bluntly: “and to Michal, the daughter of Saul, there was no child to her until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). What immediately follows is 2 Sam 7:1 and the statement of David’s rest. This brings us to the future-pointing rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:11. This statement also serves to symbolize the legitimacy of David and, more than that, his kinship lineage. Indeed, the past rest-statement already legitimizes David and therefore his lineage. However, the forward-looking statement makes it clearer. In the Oracle, after David is promised rest, YHWH also promises to: a) make a house for David; b) raise up a descendant of David; c) establish the descendant’s throne forever; d) have a father–son relationship with the descendant; and e) make David’s house and his kingdom endure forever. As noted above, older critics thought this to be an error that should be amended to refer to Israel. Given that the dual rest-statements may legit-

176

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

imize David’s lineage, the use of the second person singular is more appropriate since it is a personal promise to David and his house. Furthermore, giving rest to David (or Solomon) as the monarch of Israel is giving rest to Israel. David is a representative of both YHWH and Israel—an intermediary between both parties. Third, the dual rest-statements highlight the centrality of 2 Sam 7 in the whole of the DH. McCarthy has argued that within the Noth model of the DH, 2 Sam 7 actually allows us to understand the structure of the whole of the DH. 201 Thus, 2 Sam 7 is not only the ideological and theological center of the corpus but it also gives form and shape to the rest of Dtr’s work in the DH. 202 As the theological center, it would be appropriate to have both a retrospective view of rest that resumes the state of affairs from Josh 23, and also a future view of rest that envisions the temple. In summary, the two uses of rest, one past and one future, not only make sense in their surrounding context in the DH but they are actually indicative of Dtr’s framework of the entire DH. There is no reason to amend the text due to its apparent contradictions, for the text as it stands illuminates our understanding of the DH and the role that rest plays in the entire corpus. The text of 2 Sam 7 stands as an important juncture. As the reststatement brings the reader back to Josh 21–23, it is almost as if the era of the Judges has been erased and the reader is immediately thrust into a hope for the future.

McCarthy, “II Samuel and the Structure,” 131–138. See McCarthy, “II Samuel and the Structure,” 137–138, for details of his analysis of the broader DH. 201 202

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

177

THE BOOKS OF KINGS The Prerequisites of Rest Achieved: 1 Kings 5:1–6 [MT 5:15–20]

The verses of 1 Kings 5:1–6 record a letter from Solomon to Hiram requesting cedar logs from Lebanon. There is little to add regarding this passage beyond what has already been discussed in conjunction with 2 Sam 7 in the last section. Solomon now ַ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֵהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ enjoys rest from all sides: ‫�הי ִלי ִמ ָסּ ִביב ֵאין ָשׂ ָטן‬ ‫( וְ ֵאין ֶפּגַ ע ָרע‬1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]), and he is given the task to build the temple. What remains to be said is how this verse continues to propel the progress of rest toward its apex. In the overall schema of rest in the DH, 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18] serves to bring the reader back to 2 Sam 7:1, and indeed the whole of the Nathan Oracle, where the divine charge and permission to build a temple are given. David must have had some measure of YHWH’s blessing of rest to have even considered building a temple. Now, Solomon also states that he has rest, but the statement is made even stronger by the inclusion of the statement “from all sides” (‫) ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬. This addition then functions to portray a more significant level of rest for Solomon beyond his father and it also then restores the state of affairs that is reported in Josh 21:44 and 23:1, since the same word is used in those verses as well. After 2 Sam 7, the final form of the text records that David continues to expand the kingdom and usher in an unparalleled peace and prosperity. David and Israel fulfill the requirement of Josh 23 by conquering the land that was allotted to Israel. It is then appropriate for the rest-statement in 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18] to go beyond 2 Sam 7:1, and even Josh 21:44 and 23:1: “there is no adversary or chance of adversity” (‫) ֵאין ָשׂ ָטן וְ ֵאין ֶפּגַ ע ָרע‬. This is the strongest statement of rest so far in the DH. There is room however, for a more complete rest. Obviously, the letter points toward the building of the temple which would connect it back to Deut 12:9–11. Also, the rest-statement is in the second person singular. While the king having rest is essentially synonymous with Israel having rest, there is still yet to come a more direct statement of rest to Israel.

178

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The Preparation for the Fulfillment of Rest: 1 Kings 7:47; 8:9

There are two instances of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in 1 Kings 5–8. The verb’s main use in other contexts of the DH has been to set down or “rest” cultic objects, and here the usages are the same. In 1 Kings 7:47, Solomon “rests” all the vessels: ‫וַ יַּ נַּ ח ְשׁ�מֹה ֶאת־‬ ‫ל־ה ֵכּ ִלים‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬. It is assumed that this means the vessels are “left unweighed” (‫)נוח‬, for the weight of the numerous vessels could not be determined. The meaning of ‫ נוח‬as “left” or “remained” is of course, proper. It is remarkable, however, that ‫ נוח‬is used to construct this statement. Its use with a cultic object is consistent with most of the other uses of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in the DH. However, the present use is slightly more nuanced, as the objects are not directly set down and placed, but rather they are “left unweighed.” This is reminiscent of Judg 2:23 and 3:1, where YHWH “allowed to remain” the other nations in order to test Israel. While there is no theological connection between 1 Kings 7:47 and Judg 2:23; 3:1, it was noted in the Judges section that “allowing to remain” or “to be left” is synonymous with actually providing “rest.” 1 Kings 8:9 offers a more typical use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2). Here, the word is used to denote the contents of the ark, in which are only the two tablets that Moses “rested” there while in Horeb. Of course, the tablets are one the most sacred of the cultic objects, and moreover they are placed in the most sacred of vessels. At this point, the use of ‫ נוח‬in the passage can signify nothing or everything. On the one hand, it is just a word denoting the past placement of the tablets in the ark; on the other, one can explore the “who, what, where, and when” aspects of the verse and immediately ascertain important elements associated with the verse. With the mention of Moses the reader is immediately brought back to Israel’s leader par excellence. The tablets themselves are the absolute embodiment of the law, and with them come the very deuteronomistic theme of obedience and adherence to the law. Mention of the ark itself would be enough to remind us of Israel’s beginnings at Horeb, but the verse intensifies the reference by stating that Moses placed/rested the tablets in the ark at Horeb, the place in which the covenant with the sons of Israel is made. The verse proceeds to describe that

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

179

this happened when the Israelites “came out from the land of Egypt,” the very salvific act that brought forth the Israelites as a nation. All of this is important because of the context in which the verse lies: the entry of the ark into the temple. The ark has finally reached its ultimate resting place after a journey that started at the very beginning of Israel’s history, reaffirmed in Deut 12 and fulfilled in 1 Kings 8. These are obviously critical moments in Israel’s history that are captured here, and it seems that the use of ‫ נוח‬at this precise and important moment—when taking into account this entire study—is beyond coincidence.

The Pinnacle of Rest in the Deuteronomistic History: 1 Kings 8:56

In tracing the concept of rest within the DH, the climax of rest is undoubtedly found in 1 Kings 8:56. While 2 Sam 7 is central, it foreshadows 1 Kings 8:56. Knoppers states: “that Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8) is a pivotal composition in the Deuteronomistic History is a proposition held to by virtually all scholars.” 203 The construction of the temple is also the pinnacle of the concept of rest. In Deut 12:9–11, both ָ ‫ ) ַה ְמּ‬are promised. Once this rest (‫ )נוח‬and the resting place (‫נוּחה‬ occurs, the Israelites are to offer their sacrifices at the place (‫ ) ַה ָמּקוֹם‬that is to be chosen. In the story line of the entire DH, the reader is finally at the point where “the place” and “the place of rest” intersect. Solomon already declares in 1 Kings 5:4 that YHWH had given him ‫נוח‬-rest, now Solomon declares ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest 1 Kings 8:56: YHWH has given ‫נוּחה‬ ‫נוּחה ְל ַﬠמּוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֵבּר לֹא־נָ ַפל‬ ָ ‫ָבּרוּ� יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ְמ‬ ‫ָדּ ָבר ֶא ָחד ִמכֹּל ְדּ ָברוֹ ַהטּוֹב ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר ְבּיַ ד מ ֶֹשׁה ַﬠ ְבדּוֹ׃‬ Blessed be YHWH, who has given a resting place to his people Israel according to all that he has spoken. Not one word Knoppers, Reconsidering Israel, 370. This consensus, however, does not hold as it pertains to the composition of 1 Kings 8. 203

180

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE has fallen from all his words that he spoke by the hand of Moses his servant.

The construction of the temple is made possible by the state of ‫נוח‬-rest enjoyed by Solomon and Israel. Hence, together with 1 Kings 5:4, 1 Kings 8:56 becomes the end of the thematic arc spanning most of the DH, starting in Deut 12:9. Returning to Noth’s paradigm, Noth does not comment on 1 Kings 8:56 specifically, although he does attribute to Dtr: a) Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the temple before the verse (1 Kings 8:14–53); and b) the account of sacrifices after the verse starting from 1 Kings 8:62. 204 Solomon’s prayer is heavily laden with the themes of forgiveness and repentance, and the ideas of worship and sacrifice are not in the prayer at all— obedience is the key factor for Noth. According to Noth, the account of sacrifices starting at 1 Kings 8:62 was written by Dtr’s own hand, but it is only because Dtr thought this was “self-evident and legitimate.” 205 Noth also goes on to say that: [Dtr] accepts, then, that sacrifice was inevitably a customary form of worship, provided that it took a form authorised by the Deuteronomic law, but he gives it such a peripheral importance that Solomon’s prayer of dedication says nothing whatsoever on the role of the temple as a place of sacrifice, even though Dtr. must surely have known that this was originally its main practical function. 206

How then, does one reconcile this with the concept of rest as it flows through the DH? The concept of rest, as has been shown in this study, is very much bound to the ideas of sacrifice and worship, but this appears to be somewhat contradictory to Noth’s understanding. Noth’s paradigm has, after all, guided this Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93. On the unity of 1 Kings 8, see Gary N. Knoppers, “Prayer and Propaganda,” CBQ 57 (1995): 229–254. 205 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93. 206 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93. 204

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

181

analysis well thus far. Further examination of Noth’s original ideas is necessary in order to reconcile the ideas of law and obedience, and worship and rest. In Noth’s view, the act of obedience is the tying bind in Israel’s relationship with YHWH: “Thus in his view the special relationship between God and people is confirmed through the promulgation of the law.” 207 Of course, the law requires worship. However, for Noth, the emphasis is not as much on the proper cultic practices but rather on “the various possible forms of deviation from this worship which could be construed as apostasy and how these were realized in history.” 208 The temple, then, has little significance to Dtr as a place of sacrifice, even though Dtr knew of its prior importance: “[Dtr] did not see the end of regulated cult as any great loss.” 209 In fact, the requirement of a single central place of worship in the Deuteronomic law “implies that the practice of cult must be drastically reduced.” 210 All of this leads Noth to conclude that Dtr “adopts a strongly negative attitude toward particular aspects of cult” and that Dtr “forms a generally pessimistic view of the possibilities of men’s worship.” 211 Yet, scattered throughout the DH are examples of apparently legitimate sacrifices outside of the temple. Noth, however, merely attributes this as Dtr’s understanding that in pre-temple times there must have been temporary provision, allowing Dtr to be quite lenient regarding sacrifices before the time of Solomon. Noth also argues that “Dtr seems to have kept as close as possible to his sources, even in a matter of such importance to him, without altering or even adding comments to them.” 212 In other words, Dtr’s respect for his sources required Dtr to keep the records of sacrifice despite Dtr’s negative attitude toward it. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 90. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 92. 209 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 94. 210 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93. 211 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 92. 212 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 96. 207 208

182

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

What Noth has touched upon and tried to make sense of is the fact that although obedience is Dtr’s “central theological idea,” worship and sacrifice are still essential parts of the DH. For Noth, there is a tension between the two ideas. Dtr’s source material retains elements of sacrifice and worship outside of the temple, yet Noth maintains that Dtr had a negative and pessimistic view of worship. This tension, however, may only be superficial. The main passages Noth adduces as Deuteronomistic emphasize obedience, but within the source material itself there is evidence that obedience is tied to legitimate sacrifice. The best example of this connection has already been explored in the 2 Sam 7 section above (the contrast of the illicit sacrifice of Saul in 1 Sam 13:9–14 and the proper and perfectly acceptable sacrifice of David in 2 Sam 6:12–19). There it was shown that authorial intent must account for the contrast of the sacrifices offered by the two kings, for this was specifically done to legitimize David’s reign over Saul’s. This contrast sheds light on the present issue of obedience and sacrifice. Saul offered the same burnt offering (‫ ) ָהע ָֹלה‬and intended to offer the same peace offerings (‫ ) ַה ְשּׁ ָל ִמים‬in 1 Sam 13:9–10 that David offers up in 2 Sam 6:17, yet Saul is reprimanded and David is vindicated. What is the distinguishing factor between the two kings and their offerings? Both were at war with the Philistines (Saul offered up the sacrifice prior to battle, and David after). In both cases the concept of obedience (and disobedience) is expressly noted in the text. Samuel rebukes Saul before Saul could even offer the peace offering. Samuel states to Saul in 1 Sam 13:13: “You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commands of YHWH your God.” In contrast, when David asks YHWH how he should deal with the Philistines, the text is clear regarding how David followed YHWH’s commands and the result of that obedience in 2 Sam 5:25: “David did just as YHWH commanded him, and he struck down the Philistines from Geba all the way to Gezer.” 213 Hence, 450F

It is also interesting to note that this contrast is spoken by two different voices in the text. In Saul’s case, the words of rebuke regard213

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

183

obedience is not separate from worship—instead, obedience is the logical prerequisite to legitimate worship. Noth is correct to assert that when it comes to the topic of worship, Dtr is focused on illegitimate sacrifice rather than proper cultic practices. While this could support an anti-sacrifice mentality on the part of Dtr, there are two points that mitigate Noth’s contention. First, that Dtr is focused on illegitimate worship rather than proper practices does not necessitate a dichotomy. Instead, one can understand the two concepts as two sides of the same coin. True, there is a difference between excluding improper worship and prescribing proper sacrifice. However, it is also true that excluding deviant forms of worship is part of proper cult practice. Regardless, not emphasizing proper worship still does not engender an “anti-worship” mentality; at best it is an argument from silence. Second, sacrifice is still very much a part of the DH, though not necessarily because it was part of Dtr’s source material. In the example of the sacrifices of Saul and David above, the concept of sacrifice is intricately and therefore inextricably tied to obedience—a concept that Noth says is characteristic of Dtr. If obedience were tied to sacrifice in the source material, this might very well have resonated with, rather than originated from, Dtr. Or, if one attributes these passages to Dtr, then one would need to incorporate both obedience and sacrifice into Dtr’s theology. Hence, Noth was correct in his observation that obedience is of primary importance. Regardless of whether this is because obedience and sacrifice are tied together in the source material and therefore acceptable to Dtr, or because Dtr understood the connection between obedience and sacrifice in his own theology, neither limits the role of sacrifice—at least to the extent that Noth limits it. Notwithstanding, obedience is a primary theme both in the DH and in the rest paradigm, as Noth rightly argues. However, obedience should not be divorced from worship and sacrifice, but instead be seen as a prerequisite to proper and legitimate ing Saul’s disobedience come from Samuel’s mouth. In David’s, the anonymous narrator describes David’s obedience.

184

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

cult practices. This is also the case with the connection between obedience and rest. Obedience to the law, specifically abstinence from idol worship, is a requirement for rest as well. This allows for a connection between sacrifice and rest, which is a significant assertion of this study. It has already been shown that cultic objects are often “rested” using ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2). Beyond this, the rest motif is expressed in coordination with obedience and sacrifice. Starting from Deut 12, rest and inheritance are to be given to Israel and then the place of worship is to be chosen. Later in Judges, disobedience and the lack of loyalty lead to periods of unrest. Not only are the earlier periods of ‫ שׁקט‬only brief intervals of respite but also toward the end of the book there is even a lack of ‫שׁקט‬. For Saul and David, obedience is the prerequisite for ‫נוח‬-rest, which only David enjoys. Solomon also finds ‫נוח‬-rest, which brings the reader of the DH to the stateָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest in 1 Kings 8:56 and the lavish account of sacment of ‫נוּחה‬ rifice in the temple thereafter. This is precisely why 1 Kings 8:56 is so crucial to both the rest motif and the DH itself. This verse is exactly the point in the text where everything comes together. It is the final component to be fulfilled in the promises of Deut 12:8–11. 214 The Israelites already have their inheritance in the land and rest from enemies, but now the Israelites are granted ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest. Exactly what this ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest means will be discussed shortly. For now, all the parts have come together for the first time. Further, possibly even more important than the arc from Deuteronomy to Kings is the actual evolution of the notion through the DH. There are successive stages of rest that start from the end of Joshua, through a decline in Judges and a renewal in the books of Samuel, to the final peak in 1 Kings 8:56. As stated previously, 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18] brings forth echoes from Josh 21:44 with the use of ‫ ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬. The statement in 1 Kings 8:56 is also reminiscent of Josh 21:44–45 using almost identical phrases.

214

Laansma, I Will Give You Rest, 27.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

185

1 Kings 8:56:

‫לֹא־נָ ַפל ָדּ ָבר ֶא ָחד ִמכֹּל ְדּ ָברוֹ ַהטּוֹב ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר ְבּיַ ד מ ֶֹשׁה ַﬠ ְבדּוֹ‬ Josh 21:45:

‫ל־בּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫לֹא־נָ ַפל ָדּ ָבר ִמכֹּל ַה ָדּ ָבר ַהטּוֹב ֲא ֶשׁר־ ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ Together, both 1 Kings 5:4 and 8:56 virtually reconstruct the state of affairs set forth in Josh 21:44. The failures recorded in Judges along with the failure of the first monarch have essentially been wiped away, and a new dawn has come. In 1 Kings 8:56 lies the point of intersection between the key themes already explored above: obedience, sacrifice, ‫נוח‬ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest: 1) in 1 Kings 8, the theme of obedience in rest, and ‫נוּחה‬ Solomon’s prayer precedes 1 Kings 8:56, as well as the account of sacrifices thereafter. This is neither an accident nor mere reverence on behalf of Dtr in the original use of the temple. The DH is already clear on the association between the two; 2) proper obedience leads to Israel’s ‫נוח‬-rest, which is outwardly expressed through sacrifice. Only when loyalty and true obedience are behind the sacrifice is it acceptable; 3) once ‫נוח‬-rest is granted to Israel after prolonged obedience (conquering the land of inheritance allotted), there are two natural outcomes stated in Deut 12:8–11 and frequently in the DH: a) the ability to live in the inherited land without attack from enemies, which makes the ָ ‫ ; ְמ‬and b) the ability and opportunity land a place of rest, a ‫נוּחה‬ to build a temple. The temple is now the one true place of sacrifice and worship according to the final reading of the DH. The ָ ‫ ְמ‬is also the place of YHWH’s creation of a temple in Israel’s ‫נוּחה‬ ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬, and 1 Kings 8:56 serves to help coalesce the two locales. There is nothing explicit in 1 Kings 8 describing the temple as ָ ‫ ְמ‬. YHWH’s ‫נוּחה‬ Along with the likelihood that ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬represents Israel’s place of rest, there are four factors that support the probability ָ ‫ ְמ‬also represents a temple—God’s place of rest. The that ‫נוּחה‬ first factor is the background of the concept of a temple. It is well known that a temple in the ancient world represented the residence of a deity. This has also been shown in the Mesopotamian chapter of this study; the temple is the place of a deity’s rest and sleep, and offering sacrifices “rests” the heart of the deity.

186

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The second factor is the background of 1 Kings 8:56 in Deut 12:9–11. It was noted at the beginning of this chapter that in Deut 12:9–11 the use of the article with the words ‫ ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬, and ‫ ַה ָמּקוֹם‬signifies a geographic connection. While the results of the present study stand contrary to Braulik’s contention that entering ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬in Deut 12:9 exclusively meant a procession into a temple, it did not mean that the idea of a procession into a temple is excluded. Furthermore, it was noted that there was indeed a strong tie between the three words, and ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬being entered into in Deut 12:9 signifies entry into both the land (which is the inheritance) and the temple. In all probability the same is happening in 1 Kings 8:56. The third factor is the context of 1 Kings 8:56—the dedication of the newly built temple. The verse’s placement in the conָ ‫ ְמ‬to the temple. Prior text of the dedication concretely ties ‫נוּחה‬ to 1 Kings 8:56, Solomon offers a long prayer dedicating the temple, and thereafter the text depicts the sacrifice of offerings in the temple. Despite the strong contextual ties, 1 Kings 8:56 itself is somewhat ambiguous: “Blessed be YHWH, who has givָ ‫ָבּרוּ� יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ְמ‬ en a resting place to his people Israel” (‫נוּחה‬ ‫) ְל ַﬠמּוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. It is YHWH who gives ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬to his people. After ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬and ‫ ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬, and therefore all, Deut 12:9 promises both ‫נוּחה‬ ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬with it, projecting an image of a land of rest for Israel. However, while the resting place is given to Israel, the text is not explicit as to who would be at rest. This ambiguity may have been intentional. Israel now enjoys rest in the land, but in doing so they are able to build a temple and sacrifice in it, giving rest to whom it is dedicated—the owner of the place or rest. The final factor is that there is some evidence outside of the DH that YHWH’s place of rest has been construed as a temple at various times in Israel’s history. Psalm 132:8 records: “Arise ָ ‫) ִל ְמ‬, you and the ark of your YHWH, to your resting place (�‫נוּח ֶת‬ might.” The context of Ps 132 is clearly the temple, which links temple and rest together. Similar to Ps 132, in Ps 95 YHWH’s voice is projected in the first person, and YHWH states as a ָ ‫) ְמ‬. There is much warning: “they shall not enter my rest” (‫נוּח ִתי‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in this instance refers to a discussion and debate whether ‫נוּחה‬ temple. Some maintain it means land, some the temple, and others both. Given the scope of this study it is not possible to enter this debate in Ps 95, but there does seem to be good rea-

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

187

son to acknowledge that there is a dual representation. While arriving at their respective conclusions differently, Hofius and ָ ‫ ְמ‬in Ps 95 refers to both the land and the Braulik agree that ‫נוּחה‬ temple. 215 As such, this can only support the notion of a dual concept in 1 Kings 8:56. On many different levels, 1 Kings 8:56 is a key verse in the DH. In the final form of the DH, it brings closure to the promises laid out in Deut 12:9–11. It also acts to complete the successive stages depicted by the milestones of rest in Israel’s history as understood by Dtr. On a thematic level, it brings the four concepts of obedience, sacrifice, rest, and temple together, analogous to a Venn diagram where 1 Kings 8:56 is the intersection of all four. 452F

The Challenge to a Deity’s Sleep: 1 Kings 18:27

While the word “sleep” (‫ )יָ ֵשׁן‬probably does not have a role in the program of rest set out in Deut 12, ‫ יָ ֵשׁן‬in 1 Kings 18:27 may have a connection with the concept of rest as has been described in the Mesopotamian chapter of this study, and is therefore briefly explored here. It was demonstrated that there are several facets to rest in the ML, and the first is “rest as a symbol of divine authority.” In this category, a deity rested because the deity could—there is no rebellion or disruption to the deity. A resting deity is symbolic of perfect loyalty between the deity and his subjects. Accordingly, cries for the deity to arise mean impending uprising and revolt. Elijah taunts the prophets of Baal for the lack of response to the prophet’s cries. He famously states: ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫י־א‬ ֱ ‫אמר ִק ְראוּ ְבקוֹל־גָּ דוֹל ִכּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַב ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם וַ יְ ַה ֵתּל ָבּ ֶהם ֵא ִליָּ הוּ וַ יּ‬ ‫אוּלי יָ ֵשׁן הוּא וְ יִ ָקץ׃‬ ַ ‫י־ד ֶר� לוֹ‬ ֶ ‫י־שׂיג לוֹ וְ ִכ‬ ִ ‫הוּא ִכּי ִשׂ ַי� וְ ִכ‬

Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 2, 11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970); and Georg Braulik, “Gottes-Ruhe—Das Land oder Tempel? Zu Psalm 95:11,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn (eds. Ernst Haag and Frank L. Hossfeld; BTP; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987). 215

188

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE At noon, Elijah mocked them, and he said, “cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is urinating, or defecating, or travelling. Perhaps he is sleeping and should be awakened.” 216

Amid the mocking language used by Elijah, it is easy to neglect the last line as simply part of the taunt. In the Mesopotamian chapter of this study, “sleep” was found to be synonymous with rest, and perhaps the similarity exists here as well. Elijah’s comment “he is a god” is rather pointed, and it challenges the very essence of the deity’s existence. If the results of the analysis in the ML chapter are correct, then the statement by Elijah reveals more than just a taunt, but also an understanding of the meaning of a deity’s sleep and rest. In this instance, a cry to awake is all the more appropriate, for the contest on Mount Carmel is a direct challenge to the authority of the gods being invoked: YHWH and Baal. In this statement, Elijah is implying that if Baal were a true god, he would arise to answer the plea by the prophets, for it is the responsibility and obligation of the deity when there is rebellion. The deity should not be able to sleep, and perhaps in an angry, sleep-deprived grumble (such as Erra), the deity should quell the rebellion. The overall passage obviously attempts to put YHWH forth as the supreme deity. What is often unnoticed is that Elijah’s taunt is probably more than just hypothetical. There may be a theological concept behind the statement “perhaps he is sleeping.” Deities should not be able to sleep when their authority is challenged.

Judges Revisited: 2 Kings 11:20

After the rest-statement in 1 Kings 8:56, a considerable number of events are narrated in the books of Kings before a rest-term is used again in 2 Kings 11:20—and even more since the last use �‫ ִשׂ ַי‬is translated as “urinating,” following Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Mock of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27,” CBQ 50 (1988): 414–417. Rendsburg documents the uncertainty with which scholarship has translated �‫שׂ ַי‬, ִ and asserts well that the word means “urine” due to the word’s Arabic cognates, and the formation of a hendiadys with ‫( ִשׂיג‬excrement). 216

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

189

of ‫ שׁקט‬in Judg 18:27. The ultimate goal of rest is achieved with the construction of the temple and the possession of the land of inheritance. Thus, the use of ‫ שׁקט‬in 2 Kings 11:19b–20 is unexpected: ‫אָרץ וְ ָה ִﬠיר ָשׁ ָק ָטה וְ ֶאת־‬ ֶ ‫ם־ה‬ ָ ‫ל־ﬠ‬ ַ ‫ל־כּ ֵסּא ַה ְמּ ָל ִכים׃ וַ יִּ ְשׂ ַמח ָכּ‬ ִ ‫וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ַﬠ‬ ‫ֲﬠ ַת ְליָ הוּ ֵה ִמיתוּ ַב ֶח ֶרב ֵבּית ֶמ ֶל�׃‬ He sat on the throne of the kings. Then all the people of the land rejoiced and the city had respite; they had slain Athaliah by the sword at the king’s house.

The people rejoice after the enthronement of Joash, and although Athaliah’s execution is already recorded in 1 Kings 11:16, the last line of 1 Kings 11:20 reiterates the account of her death. Hence, the statement that the city had respite (and not the land) is couched between statements of the enthronement and dethronement of Joash and Athaliah, respectively. On the one hand, the post-temple use of ‫ שׁקט‬is out of place. Except for 2 Kings 11:20, the term is only used in the narratives describing the pre-temple era. In Joshua–Judges, the term functions as provisionary rest; in Judges it protects the use of the ‫נוח‬-rest formula in Josh 21:44. On the other hand, this use of ‫ שׁקט‬post-temple can also be very appropriate given its context. In 2 Kings 11:17, Jehoiada the priest facilitates two covenants: one between YHWH, the king, and the people; and a second between the king and people. Thereafter in 2 Kings 11:18, the people destroy Baal’s temple, its priest, and the cultic articles. Hence, the establishments of covenants and subsequent reform help to understand why ‫ שׁקט‬is used in 2 Kings 11:20. The people are again in an obedient and covenantal relationship with YHWH. Notwithstanding, this one post-temple instance of ‫ שׁקט‬is difficult to explain with much certainty, especially given the limited data. Of course, the nation is in political and spiritual decline by this point in the narrative, and previous instances of ‫ שׁקט‬served to portray the decline of Israel in Judges. A respite from war necessarily means that unrest precedes it. Thus, it is only tentatively suggested that the term—reminiscent of the Judges era—is used again in 2 Kings 11:20 to tacitly imply that another cycle of rest/unrest is upon Israel.

190

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The Resting of Foreign Deities in Samaria: 2 Kings 17:29

The text of 2 Kings 17:24–40 narrates the resettlement of Samaria after the Assyrian exile. The newly transplanted inhabitants do not worship YHWH and lions are sent to kill the inhabitants (2 Kings 17:25). Upon hearing the news, the king of Assyria orders some of the exiled Israelite priests to return to Samaria in order to teach the inhabitants how to worship YHWH (2 Kings 17:28). Despite this action, 2 Kings 17:29 records: ‫�היו וַ יַּ נִּ יחוּ ְבּ ֵבית ַה ָבּמוֹת ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠשׂוּ ַהשּׁ ְֹמר ֹנִ ים גּוֹי‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְהיוּ ע ִֹשׂים גּוֹי גּוֹי ֱא‬ ‫יהם ֲא ֶשׁר ֵהם י ְֹשׁ ִבים ָשׁם׃‬ ֶ ‫גּוֹי ְבּ ָﬠ ֵר‬ But every nation still made its own gods, and they rested (them) in the shrines of the high places that the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities in which they dwelled.

The text that follows (2 Kings 17:32–40) is explicit about the syncretistic practices of the inhabitants of Samaria, repetitively stating that the inhabitants would worship their own gods alongside YHWH. After a long absence of any theologically significant rest-statements following 1 Kings 8:56 (and 2 Kings 11:20) in the DH, it is striking that a rest-statement is made in this passage. The syncretism portrays the spiritual decline of Israel and the rest motif expresses the same decline. Instead of resting the cultic vessels of YHWH, foreign gods are rested in the shrines of the high places. The subtle expression of rest hints at the degradation of the overall arc of rest in the DH, leading to, perhaps, a need for an expression of hope in like manner.

The “Hope” of Being Laid to Rest: 1 Kings 13:29–31; 2 Kings 23:18

1 Kings 13 is a complex passage. The text narrates the story of “a man of God” who obediently prophesies against Jeroboam and the altar built in Bethel, but in his later disobedience (due to “an old prophet” who both lies and speaks YHWH’s proclamations) is subject to punishment and is killed by a lion. The old man prophesies that the priests of the foreign cult practices at the altar of Bethel will themselves be offered on the same altar

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

191

by Josiah. Lemke has persuasively laid out a case for both the purpose of the story as well as its structural affinity with the overall DH. 217 Based on the structure of 1 Kings 13, the narrative divides well into two parts: 1) the interaction between the man of god and Jeroboam; and 2) the interaction between the man of God and the old Prophet. As Lemke puts it, the dominant motifs based off these two sections are: “a polemic against the cultic establishment of Jeroboam and a discursive narrative about the importance of obedience to the divine word.” 218 While there are those who choose to elevate one theme over the other in order to have a single, dominant theme, Lemke appropriately states, “there is no law, however, that says that a story can only have one major theme.” 219 These two themes resonate precisely with Noth’s original understanding of Dtr’s stance against foreign cultic practices and obedience to YHWH’s commands. Fortunately, there are more than themes that connect 1 Kings 13 and the entire structure of the DH. Lemke finds that six phrases in 1 Kings 13 are also in the other key passages that are distinctly deuteronomistic. 220 Hence, there are both thematic and lexical affinities between 1 Kings 13 and the central passages known to shape the DH. If so, it seems rather plausible that 1 Kings 13 is an integral part of the structure of the DH, and in turn it would not be a surprise that ‫ נוח‬is found three times in this story, once in each of the verses from 29–31. Twice the verb (hiphil (2)) is used to denote the body of the man of God being placed; the first on a donkey to transport the body, the second into his grave. The third instance is used in the imperatival form Werner E. Lemke, “The Way of Obedience: 1 Kings 13 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Magnalia Dei, The Might Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in memory of G. Ernest Wright (eds. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 301–326. 218 Lemke, “The Way of Obedience,” 306. 219 Lemke, “The Way of Obedience,” 306. 220 These six phrases are “cities of Samaria”; “priests of the high places”; “shrines of the high places”; “To rebel against the mouth of the Lord”; “to keep the commandment”; “to turn from/return by the way.” 217

192

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

as the prophet commands his sons to bury his own body next to the man of God. Wolff, in his essay regarding the “kerygma” of the DH, adds another theme to Noth’s already accepted set of themes of obedience to the laws of YHWH and abolishment of foreign cult practices: repentance and hope. 221 Wolff’s main and poignant question, which by its own virtue demands only one answer, is: “one can only ask why an Israelite of the sixth century B.C. would even reach for his pen if he only wanted to explain the final end of Israel’s history as the righteous judgment of God.” 222 Further, Wolff argues that the major passages comprising the structure of the DH also render an understanding of a hope for the future. This is because there has always been judgment by YHWH, but at the same time God has also always persisted with his people. The pivotal passage is in Solomon’s prayer of temple dedication (1 Kings 8:46–53). In the dedication, Dtr’s focus is on a temple that has been destroyed to those in exile; and yet there is a call to repentance and the promise of restoration and hope if such a course of action were to be taken. Hence, the theme of hope is embedded throughout the structure of the DH, just as obedience and disdain for improper cult practices are; and just as rest is tied to the latter two themes, it is most likely connected to hope as well. When viewed in this way, the “resting” of the man of God at a sacred burial site may capture a deeper meaning. The man of God prophesies against a disobedient act against Jeroboam and is then disobedient himself. This leads to the ultimate and final punishment—death. The irony abounds in this story: the very one proclaiming a word of judgment found judgment first. Moreover, the old prophet is quite paradoxical since he takes it upon himself to find the man of God, entices him to stay by lying to him, and then actually pronounces the judgment for the Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (eds. Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff; trans. Frederick C. Prussner; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), 83–100. 222 Wolff, “The Kerygma,” 84. 221

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

193

very act that the old prophet enticed the man of God to do. Long describes the passage and its purpose well: The narrator seems to lodge his point in the ironic relation between his thematic structure and the reader’s expectations for narrative events. We expect one thing and get another. We suspect one motivation, and then become unsure. The actions issue one point: the word of Yahweh stands— unwittingly affirmed by a deceiver of a prophet (the Bethelite) and maintained by the man of God, the deceived one (the Judahite). Oracle, sign, disobedience, even punishment and death all attend to the divine word. It is as though God’s word triumphs over all obstacles—over the king who naturally resisted its implications for the cult at Bethel; over the Judahite man of God who disobeyed his commission, and paid with his life; over the Bethelite prophet, who sought to deceive, and perhaps even undermine the commission of the oracle-giver. 223

It is astounding that the vocabulary of “rest” is used to bury the body of the old man. Could this imply that there still remains a future and final rest for Israel, even after all of the cycles of judgment and after Solomon’s temple’s construction? As final as the man of God’s punishment is, it is possible that the vocabulary used to describe his burial might indicate some light of hope, if hope is indeed one of the underlying themes of the DH. It is even more striking that ‫ נוח‬is used again when the prophecy of the man of God is fulfilled in 2 Kings 23:1–27. Verses 17–18 are easily overlooked in this passage. Josiah finds the monument of the old man that predicted the very cult reform campaign that Josiah is on at the moment. All the other graves are overturned and their bones burned on the altar, but when told of the monument and prophecy of the man of God, Josiah makes a statement using the technical formulation of ‫נוח‬ hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬: ‫ ַהנִּ יחוּ לוֹ ִאישׁ אַל־יָ נַ ע ַﬠ ְצמ ָֹתיו‬. In light of the syncreBurke Long, 1 Kings: with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 146. 223

194

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

tistic cult practices recorded in 2 Kings 17:29, it may be fitting (or even compulsory) that the DH moves towards its conclusion with this small expression of hope.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Martin Noth’s Original Thesis

Noth’s work in ÜgS produced a paradigmatic model that identified key passages as characteristically deuteronomistic; McCarthy added 2 Sam 7 to the paradigm. When these key passages identified by the Noth-McCarthy model 224 are examined with the various expressions of rest as presented in this study, one finds strong associations: Noth-McCarthy

Rest-statement

Josh 1:11–15

Josh 1:13, 15

Josh 12

Josh 11:23; 14:15

Josh 23

Josh 21:44; 22:4; 23:1

Judg 2:11–23

Judg 2:23; 3:1

1 Sam 12

1 Sam 10:25 225

2 Sam 7

2 Sam 7:1, 11

1 Kings 8:14–61

1 Kings 8:56

2 Kings 17:7–23

2 Kings 17:29

There is a rest-statement either in or adjacent to the passages identified by the Noth-McCarthy paradigm. This must be more than coincidence. Indeed, if rest, as expounded in this study, is a feature of Dtr’s theology, then rest should be added to the list of characteristic motifs of any foundational notion of a “deuteronomist,” whether Noth’s Dtr, DtrG, Dtr1, or beyond. The manner in McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 131, 137–138. 1 Samuel 10:25 records the anointing of Saul. According to McCarthy (“II Samuel 7 and the Structure,” 135), 1 Sam 12 is a rejection of that very kingship. 224 225

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

195

which a rest-statement is expressed usually reflects the state of Israel’s obedience, and therefore one might even view the rest motif as intertwined with the central motif of Noth’s Dtr: obedience. Moreover, given the likely cohesiveness of most of the reststatements in the DH, it makes one consider whether the many rest-statements outside of the Noth-McCarthy passages in the DH are also deuteronomistic, especially since many have posited much more than Noth had first proposed. Indeed, much of Noth’s Dtr has been abandoned in one way or another through the adaptation/revision of Noth’s theory, and often justifiably so. However, owing to Noth, most would still agree that there is at least some unity of style within this corpus and that there are literary elements that support some level of cohesiveness, even if one were to abandon a “deuteronomistic” history altogether. Thus, this study has only generically referred to a Dtr, purposefully avoiding the labeling of texts or layers with various versions of a Dtr in order to speak in broad terms, since the purpose of this work is to identify theological aspects of the rest motif rather than distinguish compositional layers. Moreover, this synchronic study naturally gives primacy of place to Deuteronomy, and situates it in a manner where influence runs from Deuteronomy toward Kings. However, this does not mean that observations from this analysis are incompatible with theories that propose the direction of influence the other way, from Kings toward Deuteronomy—although some of the results of this study may make it more difficult to read in that direction and may require accommodations to be made. For example, it would seem more natural to suppose that the promise of rest in Deut 12 would be the precursor to the fulfillment of in 1 Kings 8:56, but this does not mean that, compositionally speaking, one could not envisage a scenario where the result is presupposed in the promise—it would just have to be well explained. Another example is the observation that Deut 13 is likely assumed in Judg 19–20, where it appears that deuteronomic law was applied to Gibeah and the Benjaminites. But again, some might contend that laws in Deuteronomy were written to legitimize the actions in Judges, although it seems less likely. Hence, this analysis in no way calls to question theories such as those from Würthwein and Auld, but it does present some ques-

196

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

tions that should be considered. One also wonders, given the foregoing analysis, if in the complexity of revisions since Noth a few too many aspects of Noth’s theory have been abandoned too quickly. Some of these, at least for this study of the rest motif, have proven useful.

Gerhard von Rad’s Conception of a Deuteronomistic Rest

Returning to von Rad’s work that initially engendered the discussion of a deuteronomistic concept of rest, von Rad stated that ָ ‫ ) ְמ‬equally well in “one could speak of divinely given rest (‫נוּחה‬ the case of Joshua, David, and Solomon.” 226 He may have been ָ ‫ ְמ‬is given only to only partially correct. To be more precise, ‫נוּחה‬ Israel in 1 Kings 8:56, not Joshua, David, and Solomon. In Josh 21:44, Israel is given ‫נוח‬-rest using the hiphil (1) form, not ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest. Joshua only receives rest indirectly, because Josh 21:44 states that rest is given to Israel as a collective (“to them” ‫)וַ יָּ נַ ח יְ הוָ ה ָל ֶהם‬. David and Solomon are given rest (2 Sam 7:1; 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]), but those rest-statements are also made with ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1). Further, the problem of Israel’s three distinct “broken pieces” of rest may only be a perceived problem. The ָ ‫ ְמ‬extends unbroken from Deut 12:9 arc of the promise of ‫נוּחה‬ through 1 Kings 8:56. Israel does receive ‫נוח‬-rest in Joshua’s era, and Israel as a recipient is not directly said to receive ‫נוח‬-rest again. David and Solomon, however, do receive ‫נוח‬-rest as the representatives of Israel, but this likely highlights the importance of the Davidic kingly line.

Cycles of Rest

Although rest is officially given to Israel only once (‫נוח‬-rest in Josh 21:44), and there is only one fulfillment of the promise of a ָ ‫ ְמ‬-rest in 1 Kings 8:56), many cycles of rest are place of rest (‫נוּחה‬ depicted within the overarching framework of rest in the DH using alternative rest-words. The cycle is best depicted in Judg226

Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

197

es, where Israel’s spiral of spiritual decline coincides with cycles that include rest and unrest. Recently, Way has even argued that the entire literary structure of Judges is constructed as a ring composition. 227 Israel’s failure, punishment, and subsequent plea for deliverance are all part of the cycle that temporarily lead to a respite from war (‫)שׁקט‬, only for the cycle to start over again. After Gideon (fourth major judge of the six), the periods of ‫שׁקט‬rest disappear, and the cycles deteriorate; the sequence of cycles forms one large downward spiral in the book. Notably absent within the Judges cycles is any expression of divine rest or unrest. After the ultimate expression of rest in Solomon’s dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:56), rest-statements are almost absent through the end of the DH, even though the annals record numerous wars and periods of strife. Conspicuously, ‫ נוח‬is used in 2 Kings 17:29 to describe the placing of idols in shrines, and the idols of the foreign gods are worshiped in syncretistic fashion. This is conceivably a subtle indication of the disintegration of Israel’s rest. In a similar manner, a faint signal of hope may be offered in the narrative of the DH thereafter by statements of rest in 1 Kings 13:28–31 and 2 Kings 23:18 that describe the corpse of the old man who proclaims judgment against the altar at Bethel. In the final rest-statement of the DH, the technical formula of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬is used in a peculiar and uncharacteristic manner. In previous uses, YHWH is the subject and Israel, David, and Solomon are the recipients. Upon discovering the old man’s corpse during his campaign of cultic reform, Josiah states: “Let him rest. No man will disturb his bones” (‫ַהנִּ יחוּ לוֹ‬ ‫) ִאישׁ אַל־יָ נַ ע ַﬠ ְצמ ָֹתיו‬. There is no subject (although people are implied) and the object is the old man, who had both proclaimed YHWH’s judgment and also received punishment for his disobedience of YHWH’s command. As the obedience/disobedience of Kenneth C. Way, “The Literary Structure of Judges Revisited: Judges as a Ring Composition,” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (eds. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy L. Erickson and John H. Walton; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 247–260. 227

198

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

the kings of Israel and Judah are described in the book of Kings, the command to leave the corpse of the old man undisturbed stands in juxtaposition and quietly offers hope.

Features of the Rest Motif in the Deuteronomistic History

The Dual Aspects of ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬

‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬represents both the land and the temple. In Deut 12:9, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬is not concretely identified as the temple, and is more closely correlated to ‫ ַָה ָא ֶרץ‬, which is the space in which YHWH ָ ‫ ְמ‬is also portrayed as would provide rest. At the same time, ‫נוּחה‬

the temple in 1 Kings 8:56 and the dedication of the temple. Perhaps purposefully, the text is ambiguous as to whom the place of rest actually belongs. The temple is certainly YHWH’s ָ ‫ ְמ‬is given to the peoresting place—his sacred space—but, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫) ָבּרוּ� יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַתן ְמ‬. The two uses of ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ ple (‫נוּחה ְל ַﬠמּוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ in Deut 12:9 and 1 Kings 8:56 serve as a promise and fulfillment of rest, as well as a pair of bookends to the thematic arc of rest in the DH corpus. As land, ‫ ְמנוּ ָחה‬is therefore well connected with ‫נַ ֲח ָלה‬. In Deut 12:10, ‫ ַָה ָא ֶרץ‬also has strong ties to ‫ ַהנַּ ֲח ָלה‬, ָ ‫ ַה ְמּ‬as the double indiwhich in Deut 12:9 is coupled with ‫נוּחה‬ ַ ‫נוּחה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ד־ﬠ ָתּה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אתם ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫א־בּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל‬. Inrect objects of ‫בוא‬: ‫ל־הנַּ ֲח ָלה‬ ָ ‫( ְמ‬as both land and temple) are inexdeed, ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬, ‫נַ ֲח ָלה‬, and ‫נוּחה‬ tricably tied together.

The ‫ נוח‬Rest Formula as the Divine Provision of Rest

When YHWH is the subject in a phrase constructed with ‫נוח‬ hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬, the formulation expresses a state or condition of divinely bestowed rest. In the DH, YHWH is said to have given rest to: a) Israel in Josh 21:44; 228 b) David in 2 Sam 7:1; 229 and 465F

228 229

Josh 22:4 and 23:1 reflect back on to Josh 21:44. 2 Sam 7:11 is a future promise of rest.

46F

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

199

c) Solomon in 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]. 230 This state of rest is primarily from foreign invasion. All three verses include “from round about” (‫ ) ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬and some expression of an enemy (‫ אֹיֵ ב‬in Josh 21:44 and 2 Sam 7:1; ‫ ָשׂ ָטן‬in 1 Kings 5:8). The divinely bestowed rest from enemies is for obedience and worship.

Alternate Rest-Words as the Expression of “Unofficial” Rest or Unrest

Beyond ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬and ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬, ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) 231 are also used to reflect the condition of Israel’s rest. The purpose of using these alternate rest-words is to preserve the technical formulation of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬. The method of using alternate ַ ‫ ָמ‬and ‫ )רגע‬previews the same words for rest in Deut 28:65 (�‫נוֹ‬ method that is applied in Joshua and Judges. Not only does Deut 28:65 preview the method but, as part of the curses of Deuteronomy, it also foreshadows the decline of Israel’s rest. Israel’s rest is not directly stated to be taken away. Instead, ‫נוח‬ hiphil (2) is used to describe the rest of foreign nations for the purpose of testing Israel, symbolically representing Israel’s unrest (Judg 2:23; 3:1). Furthermore, it is not recorded in the DH that Israel receives YHWH’s “official” rest repeatedly. Rather, ‫ שׁקט‬is employed to reflect temporary respites from war. David and Solomon are given rest, but using the two kings as recipients of rest allows a portrayal of Israel’s rest without directly stating it again.

Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15; 2 Sam 7:11 follow the technical formulation, but are forward looking and do not express a present or previous state of rest. 231 ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) in this category is used to describe the rest of foreign nations for the purpose of testing Israel, and therefore symbolically representing Israel’s unrest (Judg 2:23; 3:1). 230

200

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

‫ נוח‬Hiphil (2) and the Resting of Cultic and Political Representations

Usually translated as “to place” or “to set,” ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) is used to rest cultic objects (e.g., the vessels for the temple, the ark of the covenant, and the stone tablets within the ark). This is particularly the case in Samuel and Kings leading up to the construction of the temple. It is not stated in the DH that YHWH is given rest, but instead the ark—a representation of YHWH—is rested. The ambiguity seems purposeful, and may be due to an aversion on the part of the author to state that YHWH’s subjects ever touch YHWH or actually place him anywhere. Further, it avoids repeating any impression that YHWH is rested again (which would imply that YHWH was in a state of unrest). The “constitution” of the monarchy (‫ ) ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַה ְמּ ֻל ָכה‬in 1 Sam 10:25 is also rested (before YHWH), and perhaps this symbolizes the subjugation of the monarchy under YHWH.

Comparisons with Mesopotamian Literature Rest as Divine Rule

Divine otiositias was proposed in this study to be a symbol of divine authority and rule in the ML. Of the texts surveyed, only Atrahasis opened with a deity at rest (Enlil is sleeping in his temple), which is soon disturbed. Enuma Elish, also well known as the Babylonian Epic of Creation, portrays an ongoing process of creation leading many to compare it to creation accounts in the HB. Recently, Flynn has presented an alternative emphasis for Enuma Elish that allows comparisons to the HB beyond Genesis: The real focus of the poem is a unique expression of Marduk in the form of a warrior king, responsible for creation and his rising to a new, elevated status. Recognizing Marduk’s

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

201

kingship as the primary focus of the poem re-orientates comparative opportunities towards the Hebrew Bible. 232

Nonetheless, creation is certainly a major focus in Enuma Elish, and perhaps the two themes, creation and kingship, are conducive for each other especially when exploring the concept of rest as divine rule. There is only one rest-statement in the DH that might be categorized as an expression of divine rule. Joshua 3 captures a re-birth of Israel as the nation crosses the Jordan into the promised land. YHWH’s title as “the Lord of all the earth” and the miracle of Jordan’s waters stopping weld together creation and exodus themes in the text. It is in this context that Josh 3:13 records: “when the soles of the feet of the priests carrying the ַ ‫ ) ְכּ‬in the waters.” The text is careful not to express ark rest (�‫נוֹ‬ that YHWH’s disposition is affected. The qal infinitive construct is employed instead of the hiphil, and the soles of the feet of the priests carrying the ark are what rest. Hence, it is ambiguous in the text as to the precise object that is rested, and this is consistent with the way other rest-statements are used to describe the placement of ark (1 Sam 6:18) and other various cultic items. The ambiguity may indeed be intentional. Beyond the above, the evidence is too limited to invite further comparison. Creation and sabbath references outside the DH in the HB may lead to stronger connections between the HB and ML with respect to this category, but are unfortunately beyond the scope of this study.

Noise and the Disruption of Rest: Ḫubūru, Rigmu, and ‫זעק‬

In the ML, noise acts as a disrupter of divine rest. As an expression symbolizing the outcry of indignation and the supplication of suffering or oppressed beings, the ḫubūru and rigmu of either the lower gods or human beings provoke a divine response. Noise could be an expression of rebellion, or a lament caused by Shawn W. Flynn, YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel (VTSup 159; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 93. 232

202

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

overpopulation, but in any case the primary aspect of noise is some form of outcry. The outcries of Israel under distress and oppression in the book of Judges are comparable to the expressions of noise in the ML. However, the cries of Israel do not symbolize rebellion but rebelliousness, which is the cause of the oppression and therefore outcry. Further, YHWH is not portrayed as a deity seeking a solution for his restlessness. Instead, YHWH’s focus is on bringing his people into an obedient relationship. Plagues and famine are used as oppressive solutions to reduce the clamor of noise in Atrahasis, but YHWH prescribes oppression in order to lead Israel to repentance, which causes more outcry. Rather than equate the audible aspects of ḫubūru/rigmu and ‫זעק‬, perhaps the common denominator between the two concepts is the act of disobedience. Rebellion (disobedience) is noisy in the ML, and while the Israelites are not portrayed as clamorous, they are disobedient which then causes their plea for deliverance.

The Divine Provision of Rest

In the ML, there is a difference in the kind of rest given depending on whether it is provided to other deities or to human beings. When a higher-ranking deity gives rest to lower ranking deities, it is a rest from labor, and the toil and labor of the lower gods are subsequently placed on humankind. This is the case in Enuma Elish 233 and Atrahasis. 234 Rest from labor is not given to human beings in the ML. Rest to humans is described in The VassalTreaties of Esarhaddon as rest from military conflict, but there is only limited evidence since the rest statement is located in the curses section and only implies that the provision of (non-)rest is by the gods. 235 It is the rest from war, however, that is most prominent in the DH. The statements that Israel (or a king of Israel) achieves YHWH’s rest all contain some aspect of rest from enemies or adversary round about, and the rest-cycles in Enuma Elish, VI 6–8. Atrahasis, I v 237–243. 235 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 637–639. 233 234

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

203

Judges are firmly rooted in the idea of rest from oppressive enemies. Thus, there are strong contrasts between the ML and the DH/HB. Perhaps the most intriguing comparison lies in the purpose for which rest is given within a covenantal context. It the DH rest from enemies is rest for obedience and worship. In The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, the covenant curses (of the gods) warn of impending unrest that would result if the ordinances of the treaty were not kept. 236 Likewise, in Judges the disobedience of the Israelites leads to oppression, which is forewarned in Deuteronomy. After Israel’s deliverance through a judge, the land rests from war. Proper obedience to covenants and treaties leads to rest.

The Return of Rest to the Deity

Although much more explicit and well-attested in the ML, both corpora contain aspects of cultic activity that return rest to the deity who initially provides rest. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon record construction activities and it is reflected in the texts that the construction of the temple and the worship inside it appeases the gods. The most direct statement of protection from, for the purpose of appeasement is found in the inscriptions of the temples of Ebaradurgara, Ekur, and Eanna, which state: (the one who) recognized their power, (the one) over whom (the gods) extended their eternal protection in order to appease (nu-uḫ-ḫu) their divine heart(s) and set their mind(s) at rest. 237

Perhaps intentionally, the provision of rest to YHWH is tacitly implied in the DH. While the Israelites are not portrayed as giving rest to YHWH, cultic vessels—and more importantly, the ark that is a representation of YHWH—are rested (“placed”). Hence, while the notion of giving rest to a deity is comparable

236 237

The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 637–639. Esarhaddon, 128 5b–6; 130 10b–12; 133 11b–13.

204

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

between the DH and ML, there is also a stark difference in the way it is expressed.

The Temple as a Resting Place

Of course, the building of a temple is intimately tied to the provision of (a) rest(ing place) to a deity. The idea that a temple is the resting place of a god seems to have been a prevalent view across the ANE, not just in Mesopotamia and Israel. In Enuma Elish, Marduk’s temple is built, as well as the shrines of the lower gods who build Marduk’s temple. 238 The lower gods also find rest in the shrines they build for themselves. 239 In the DH, the ָ ‫ ְמ‬. YHWH gives ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬to Israel temple is synonymous with ‫נוּחה‬ (1 Kings 8:56), but it was noted above that there is some level of ָ ‫ ְמ‬actually symbolizes. The land and equivocality as to what ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫— ְמ‬the former as the place of Israel’s inhabtemple are both ‫נוּחה‬ itation and inheritance, and the latter as YHWH’s resting place inside the temple. In both sets of texts, temple building is a response to divinely provided rest. Rest from enemies provides the opportunity to build the temple.

Future Aspects

The cycles of rest portrayed in the ML are inherently indefinite because a “final” rest is neither pledged nor achieved; the cycles are perpetually ceaseless, particularly in The Poem of Erra. This inevitably leads to a hope for an ultimate state of rest. In contrast, rest is promised in Deut 12:9–10 (2 Sam 7:11), and fulfilled in stages (Josh 21:44; 2 Sam 7:1) leading to an ultimate expression of rest with the construction of the temple in 1 Kings 8:56. The cycles of rest/unrest in Judges are most comparable to the cycles of rest in the ML, but the cycles of rest in the DH come to an end with the climax of the fulfillment in building of the temple. Nonetheless, there appears to be a faint expression of a hope of rest in 2 Kings 23:18, which may be appropriate 238 239

Enuma Elish, VI 59–64. Enuma Elish, VI 67–68.

3. REST IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

205

and necessary given the unstable political environment of Israel and the experience of foreign oppression following the construction of temple.

The Chosen One

The king’s dual function as both the vice-regent of a deity and the ruler over his people provides interesting parallels between the ML and the DH, because in many respects rest seems to be mediated through a king. Of course, the king is named as the builder of the place of rest, but the actual appointment to the task of building the temple appears to be significant. The selection of Esarhaddon as the builder of the temple is a repeated idea in his Royal Inscriptions and there is some association of his selection with the appeasement of the gods. In the DH, David’s request to build a temple is denied because David was not asked to build one. The “who” question proves to be important (2 Sam 7:5): “Are you the one who will build a house for me to dwell?” ִ ֶ‫אַתּה ִתּ ְבנ‬ ָ ‫) ַה‬. Thereafter, a son of David is chosen (‫ה־לּי ַביִ ת ְל ִשׁ ְב ִתּי‬ to build the temple instead. Furthermore, kingship evidently affords a priestly function. Esarhaddon held the title of priest and offered sacrifices within the temple. David and Solomon do not bear the title but both offer sacrifices. As kings, both David and Solomon are the only individuals along with Israel said to receive rest from YHWH with the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula, and as representatives of the people, giving rest to the king is essentially giving rest to the nation. Hence, the notion of a chosen king to build the temple may very well be significant, and perhaps even more so in Chronicles.

CHAPTER FOUR.

REST IN CHRONICLES A rest of love and generosity, a rest of truth and faith, a rest of peace and tranquility, quiet and secure, a perfect rest in which You delight. Kedushat Hayom

INTRODUCTION

Those investigating the Books of Chronicles are offered an extraordinary opportunity to compare Chronicles with Samuel and Kings due to the overlapping coverage in both sets of texts. It allows the critic to compare and contrast various viewpoints in different traditions. Knoppers writes: By the time the author of Chronicles wrote, much of the literature that we associate with the Hebrew Bible was already written. Chronicles draws extensively upon these rich literary traditions. Given the Chronicler’s indebtedness to a variety of older biblical writings, one could make the case that his own work synthesizes several traditional perspectives. 1

It is Knoppers’ last point that is central to this study of the concept of rest in Chronicles and its comparison with the DH (and the ML). Does the Chronicler understand, adopt, or modify the concept of rest as it has been presented in this study of the conGary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 66. 1

207

208

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

cept in the DH? There are some preliminary considerations that need to be explored, which will then be followed by an analysis of each rest-statement following the order of its presentation in the text of Chronicles in order to develop an interpretation of the Chronicler’s understanding of the concept of rest.

The Title of Chronicles

The Hebrew title ‫“( ִדּ ְב ֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים‬the events of the days”) refers to a single work in the Hebrew canon, which is known to us today as 1–2 Chronicles. This Hebrew phrase is common in Kings, used to refer to “annals” or “chronicles” of events, usually of kings. 2 Jerome likely started the tradition of calling the books “Chronicles” in the fifth century, when he referred to the books as the chronikon. 3 In the Septuagint, the book is divided into two parts and given the title παραλειπομενῶν (“the things left over”), which reflects how Chronicles was viewed by many as secondary to Samuel–Kings and supplemental in character. Williamson notes: Such a name is clearly misleading, however, for it obscures the fact that Chronicles also repeats much material from Samuel and Kings, and more importantly, it fails to do justice to the Chronicler’s own positive purpose which he had in writing and which has determined his selection and arrangement of the material.” 4

‫ ִדּ ְב ֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים‬is used in 1–2 Kings a total of 33 times. Hugh G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 3. 4 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 4. 2 3

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

209

Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah 5

By the nineteenth century, there appeared to be a consensus of thinking that the texts of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were related, “because they manifested a unity of language, style, and content.” 6 Consequently, Zunz contended that there was a unity of authorship, arguing that the Chronicler was the author of both books instead of Ezra. 7 Independently, Movers also came to the conclusion that the texts were unified, 8 and thereafter the unity of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah was “adopted almost unanimously.” 9 Hence, the books are often referred to as the Chronicler’s History. As argued by some biblical scholars at the beginning of the twentieth century, there does appear to be some commonality in literary style, vocabulary, syntax, and, to a certain extent, theological conceptions. 10 Moreover, the doublet at the end of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra show that there was some effort to either divide or join the two. Even if the doublet shows an attempt to join the two (at presumably an earThere is considerable debate over the unity of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, and there is not an established consensus. Hence, coverage of the topic is beyond the scope of this chapter. Only a very brief summary of the history of the issue and an outline of the major positions are presented. For a balanced and in-depth discussion of the modern history of this debate, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 72–89 and R. K. Duke, “Chronicles, Books of,” DOTHB, 161–181. 6 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 72. 7 Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832). 8 Frank Karl Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in das alte Testament (Bonn: T. Habicht, 1834). 9 Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 3. 10 See Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik Vergleichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (BZAW 16; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909) and Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 27–36. 5

210

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ly date, given the extant textual witnesses), the attempt itself shows that there were those who recognized the affinities. While the consensus for the better part of the twentieth century was that the books were unified, 11 Japhet 12 and Williamson 13 spearheaded a challenge against the unity of the books. As the two attempted to separate Chronicles from Ezra– Nehemiah, their work also broke down the prevailing consensus that viewed the books as a unity. Ironically, the very types of argument that bolstered the position of a unified work were the same kinds that Japhet and Williamson used to dispute that very unity. Japhet writes: Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah constitute two different works by two different authors. Not only do they illustrate an array of small and large differences—in language, style, literary method, etc.—and express different and often opposite views about central issues of biblical history and theology, but when considered in their totality they represent two varieties of biblical historical writing during the PersianHellenistic period. 14

Since Japhet and Williamson, while many continue to view the books as separate, there are some, such as Blenkinsopp 15 and Haran, 16 who defend its unity. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 72, states: “Noth considered the basic unity of the Chronicler’s work (Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah) to be so obvious that he felt little need to defend it at any length. Noth simply proceeded to discuss matters of compositional technique, later additions, and ideology. Noth’s facile approach to the authorship of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah was commonplace in the last century, but it would be highly unlikely today.” 12 Sara Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968): 330–371. 13 Hugh G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 14 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 4. 15 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 47–54. 11

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

211

In the current discussion, the positions of most specialists can generally be grouped into five categories: 1) single authorship whereby Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah is a unified text by the same author; 2) single authorship of Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah as two separate works by the same author; 3) separate authorship of the two separate works, Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah; 4) a Chronistic school or tradition that produced all three works; and 5) multiple redaction theories that explain the congruities and incongruities of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah. 17 The question remains whether Ezra–Nehemiah is pertinent to the discussion of rest in Chronicles, and therefore the DH. The only occurrence of a rest-word in Ezra–Nehemiah (including the ָ ‫ ְמ‬and ‫שׁקט‬ Aramaic portions) is in Neh 9:28 (‫)נוח‬. Indeed, ‫נוּחה‬ are not present in Ezra–Nehemiah. While no conclusion is drawn from this limited evidence, it is nonetheless appropriate in light of this that the focus of this analysis remains on Chronicles only.

Parallel Rest-statements between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History

This chapter explores the rest-statements within Chronicles in the order of their appearance in the text. However, it should be noted that there are only two parallel texts between the DH and Chronicles in which both have a rest-statement. The more significant of the two is found in Solomon’s temple dedication prayer (1 Kings 8:56 and 2 Chr 6:41). 18 It was noted in the DH chapter that 1 Kings 8:56 is the climax of the progression of rest in the DH, and that Solomon’s speech (1 Kings 8) is an important part of Noth’s DH model. Hence, special attention is given in this present chapter to 2 Chr 6:41. Also of importance are the parallel accounts of Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7 and 1 Chr 17. While there are no rest-statements in 1 Chr 17, it was noted above that Menaḥem Haran, “Explaining the Identical Lines at the End of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra,” BRev 2 (1986): 18–20. 17 For a full and detailed discussion of these five categories, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 72–99. 18 The other is found in 2 Kings 11:20 and 2 Chr 23:21. 16

212

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

2 Sam 7 is of penultimate importance (to 1 Kings 8:56) in the DH rest paradigm. The absence of rest in 1 Chr 17 was cause for attention in the 2 Sam 7 section above, and also warrants further scrutiny in this chapter. All the other rest-statements in both the DH and Chronicles do not have a direct parallel between the two corpora of texts. While Chronicles generally covers the same events as 2 Samuel through 2 Kings, a few short narrative texts sparsely spread out through the genealogy lists at the beginning of Chronicles correlate with texts in the DH that precede 2 Samuel. 19 Within these genealogies, there are two rest-statements in 1 Chr 4:40 and 6:31, but they do not have a parallel in the DH.

REST IN CHRONICLES

The verb ‫ נוח‬occurs 11 times in Chronicles. 20 There are three noun derivatives of ‫ נוח‬that appear a total of four times in ָ ‫( ְמ‬twice); 21 �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫( ָמ‬once); 22 and �‫נוֹ‬ ַ (once). 23 ‫שׁקט‬ Chronicles: ‫נוּחה‬ 24 occurs six times as a verb and once as a noun (‫) ֶשׁ ֶקט‬. 25 Hence, the sum total of these rest-words is 22. There are two within the 11 instances of ‫ נוח‬that refer to “the stationing of horses”; 26 these two are not included in this analysis. 502F

For example, 1 Chr 4:25–27 and Josh 19:2–8. See Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco: Word, 1986), 65, and Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 30. 20 1 Chronicles 16:21; 22:9, 18; 23:25; 2 Chr 1:14; 4:8; 9:25; 14:5– 6; 15:15; 20:30. 21 1 Chronicles 22:9; 28:2. 22 1 Chronicles 6:16. 23 2 Chronicles 6:41. 24 1 Chronicles 4:40; 2 Chr 13:23; 14:4, 5; 20:30; 23:21. 25 1 Chronicles 22:9. 26 2 Chronicles 1:14; 9:25. The use of ‫ נוח‬describe the stationing of horses may be a technical use of the term. 19

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

213

A Land at Rest: 1 Chronicles 4:40

1 Chronicles 4:40 sits in the context of the genealogy list of Simeon, and describes the eastward expansion by the clan: ‫ן־חם‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ֵלוָ ה ִכּי ִמ‬ ְ ‫אָרץ ַר ֲח ַבת יָ ַדיִ ם וְ שׁ ֶֹק ֶטת‬ ֶ ‫וַ יִּ ְמ ְצאוּ ִמ ְר ֶﬠה ָשׁ ֵמן וָ טוֹב וְ ָה‬ ‫ַהיּ ְֹשׁ ִבים ָשׁם ְל ָפנִ ים׃‬ They found rich, good pasture, and the land was very broad, at rest and ease, for the former inhabitants before (them) were from Ham.

As others have noted, 1 Chr 4:40 is reminiscent of Judg 18:7, where the Danites attack the inhabitants of Laish. 27 Embedded in both verses are rest-statements (‫ שׁ ֶֹק ֶטת‬describing the land in 1 Chr 4:40, and ‫ שׁ ֵֹקט‬referring to the inhabitants in Judg 18:7). It was noted in the previous chapter that there is a subtle hint of objection in Judg 18, and within the rest motif in the DH it was likely that there was some intention to portray the Danites as the “rest-disturbers,” as opposed to a people at rest or even at unrest (via outside attack). In contrast, no such undertones exist in 1 Chr 4:40. Instead, the narrative is descriptive of the expansion of territory due to the mounting pressure of a growing population faced with finite resources. According to Myers, there is “no religious motive expressed.” 28 Japhet explains that the reason for the expansion during peacetime is related to economic circumstances, and the incident “is a graphic example of armed expansion as an outlet Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Books of the Chronicles, (trans. Andrew Harper; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873), 102: “The description of the Hamite inhabitants, ‫וּשׁ ֵלוָ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ שׁ ֶֹק ֶטת‬, reminds us of the inhabitants of the ancient Laish.” So too, Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 145–46: “The expansion to the west, vv. 39–41, dated to the time of Hezekiah in v. 41, resembles the attack on the city of Dan in the book of Judges: the land in both cases is “broad of hands” (Judg 18:10 and 1 Chr 4:40), and the people attacked are quiet and unsuspecting. See also the section on Judg 18:7 in the DH chapter. 28 Myers, I Chronicles, 31. 27

214

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

for accumulating economic pressure.” 29 Hence, unlike Judg 18:7, there is little probability that there is a theological purpose regarding the use of a rest-statement in 1 Chr 4:40. Even though there are distinct linguistic parallels between Judg 18:7 and 1 Chr 4:40, a theological parallel is not distinguishable, nor does there appear to be any significance to the use of ‫ שׁקט‬in this instance.

The Resting of the Ark: 1 Chronicles 6:31 [MT 6:16]

Japhet notes that the introductory material in 1 Chr 6:16–17 is “in fact a summary of 1 Chron. 15.1–16.43, which describes the actual appointing of the three singers to their tasks, first on a provisional basis and then permanently.” 30 The idea of transition from provisional to permanent can also be applied to the transition toward a central and permanent place of worship, highlighted by the final resting of the ark. Keil and Delitzsch comַ ‫“( ִמ ְמּ‬after the resting of the ark”) ment that the phrase ‫נוֹ� ָהאָרוֹן‬ describes a period of transition: “from the time that the ark of the covenant, which in the præ-Davidic time had been carried about from one place to another, had received a permanent resting-place on Zion, and had become the centre of the worship ַ ‫ָמ‬ instituted by David.” 31 The Chronicler employs the noun �‫נוֹ‬ (“resting place”) to describe the temple as the resting place of

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 124. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 156. 31 Keil and Delitzsch, The Books of the Chronicles, 125. Keil and Delitzsch further state: “It denotes here the tent which David had erected upon Mount Zion for the ark of the covenant, because from its containing the ark, and by the institution of a settled worship in it (cf. xvi. 1–7 ff.), it thenceforth took the place of the Mosaic tabernacle, although the Mosaic sanctuary at Gibeon continued to be a place of worship till the completion of the temple (1 Kings iii. 4; 2 Chron. i. 3),— ‘till Solomon built the house of Jahve in Jerusalem,’ into which the ark was removed, and to which the whole of the religious services were transferred” (125). 29

30

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

215

the ark in 1 Chr 6:31 [MT 6:16], but in a manner that makes a direct translation of the verse into English somewhat unwieldy: ‫נוֹ� ָהאָרוֹן׃‬ ַ ‫י־שׁיר ֵבּית יְ הוָ ה ִמ ְמּ‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱﬠ ִמיד ָדּוִ יד ַﬠל־יְ ֵד‬ These are the ones whom David put in charge over the service of song in the house of YHWH, after the rest(ing place) of the ark.

The preposition ‫ ִמן‬on �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬is probably temporal (“after”). If so, the preposition calls for a verb to follow, but a noun follows instead. In any case, the main concern for this study is that the ark has a resting place, regardless of whether this is because the ark is rested in the temple, or simply because the house of YHWH is the resting place. According to Knoppers, in using �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬, the verse harks back to rest language that is affiliated with Dtr: The formulation is indebted to the “rest” theology of the Deuteronomist. By (re-)presenting the roving Ark as needing a fixed home, the Deuteronomist implies that this sacred artifact served only a penultimate role until a “place” (māqôm) for it could be built (1 Kgs 8:21). The Ark is thus suitably honored and preserved for posterity, but it plays no continuing role except as part of a larger permanent structure. Conversely, by presenting the Temple as enduring, the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler portray its cultus as definitive for succeeding generations. When the Ark journeys to Jerusalem in the time of David (1 Chr 13:1–14; 15:1–16:1) and is subsequently placed in the Temple during Solomon’s reign (2 Chr 5:1–14), it has fulfilled its purpose. 32

Hence, both Dtr and the Chronicler share a common theology regarding the centrality of the temple. The ark reaches its final resting place in the temple, and ‫נוֹ� ָהאָרוֹן‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ְמּ‬becomes subsumed by—and synonymous with—the house of YHWH. It was noted in the DH chapter that in 1 Kings 8:56 there is some level of ambiKnoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 422. See also Keil and Delitzsch, The Books of the Chronicles, 125. 32

216

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ ְמ‬, whether it is the guity in the portrayal of the temple as ‫נוּחה‬ inheritance of the people or YHWH’s resting place in the temple. There is less ambiguity in 1 Chr 6:31 [MT 6:16]; the ark, which is representative of YHWH, has a resting place in the temple. It is not a foreign concept to associate the ark and YHWH with each other—and, moreover, that the two share the same ָ resting place. Psalm 132:8 also expresses the same idea: ‫קוּמה‬ � ֶ‫אַתּה וַ ֲארוֹן ֻﬠזּ‬ ָ �‫נוּח ֶת‬ ָ ‫“( יְ הוָ ה ִל ְמ‬Rise up YHWH, to your resting place, you and the ark of your might”). Strengthening the connection between Ps 132 and Chronicles is the quotation of Ps 132:8 in 2 Chr 6:41. 33 Nevertheless, because 1 Chr 6:16 is embedded—and almost hidden—in the long genealogical lists that start Chronicles, it is difficult to ascertain the origin of the thought behind the use of a rest-term in 1 Chr 6:31. The lack of contextual clues leads to various possibilities, whether the use of �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָמ‬is an echo from the DH, the Psalms, the DH via the Psalms, or even from another text available to the Chronicler that is not extant today. The “Non-Resting” of Other Nations: 1 Chronicles 16:21

1 Chronicles 15–16 records the arrival of the ark in Jerusalem, into the tent that David had pitched for it (1 Chr 16:1). As David commits the Levitical priests to minister before the ark, he quotes the first third of Ps 105 (Ps 105:1–15 = 1 Chr 16:8–22), and it is in the context of the psalm quotation that the reststatement in 1 Chr 16:21 is made (Ps 105:14): ‫יהם ְמ ָל ִכים׃‬ ֶ ‫יּוֹכח ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ַ ַ‫א־הנִּ ַי� ְל ִאישׁ ְל ָﬠ ְשׁ ָקם ו‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ He did not rest (allow) anyone to oppress them; he rebuked kings because of them.

The use of Ps 132 by the Chronicler will be discussed in further detail in the appropriate section below, 2 Chr 6:41. 33

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

217

With the exception of the change from ‫ ָא ָדם‬in the psalm to ‫ְל ִאישׁ‬ in Chronicles, 1 Chr 16:21 and Ps 105:14 are identical. 34 The use of a rest-term in 1 Chr 16:21 is similar to the manner in which rest-terms are employed in Judg 2:23 and Judg 3:1, where foreign nations are “rested” (left alone) in order to test Israel. In both 1 Chr 16:21 and Ps 105:14, no one is “rested” (allowed) to oppress them. While the rest-statement in Chronicles is used in a similar manner as in Judges, there are two major differences. First, both the time period and the people benefiting from either the resting or non-resting of the foreign nations are different (Israelites versus the patriarchs). Second, in Judges the foreign nations are being rested to test Israel, but in Ps 105:14 and 1 Chr 16:21, the foreign nations are not rested such that they could not oppress the Israelites. Because 1 Chr 16:21 is part of a long quotation from a psalm, it is difficult to distinguish whether the inclusion of the rest-statement from the psalm were intentional or not. Of course, one can speculate that the rest-statement in Ps 105:14 was a factor for the Chronicler to include the psalm (or even end the use of the psalm quotation at Ps 105:15 to include the reststatement in Ps 105:14), but there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. At this point, what can be said is that the inclusion of the rest-statement in the psalm did not cause the Chronicler to omit the psalm or amend it to omit the rest statement. Evidently, there was not a major contradiction in the quoted portion of the psalm that prevented its use. 510F

The Shift of Emphasis from David to David’s House: 1 Chronicles 17

With only minor variances, the entire chapter of 1 Chr 17 stands parallel to the entire chapter of 2 Sam 7 (Nathan’s Oracle). There are two rest-statements in 2 Sam 7 (7:1, 11), but both are While ‫ ָא ָדם‬is preserved in the Leningrad Codex, the BHS notes that some manuscripts use ‫ ִאישׁ‬and a few, along with 1 Chr 16:21, use ‫ל ִאישׁ‬. ְ It is unlikely that there is any significance to this variance. 34

218

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

absent in 1 Chr 17. Below is a comparison of the portions of 1 Chr 17 that are missing the rest-statements present in 2 Sam 7. 1 Chr 17:1

‫וַ יְ ִהי ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יָ ַשׁב ָדּוִ יד ְבּ ֵביתוֹ‬ When David was settled in his house… ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִכּי־יָ ַשׁב ַה ֶמּ ֶל� ְבּ ֵביתוֹ וַ יהוָ ה ֵהנִ ַי�־לוֹ ִמ ָסּ ִביב ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ָביו‬

2 Sam 7:1

When the king was settled in his house, and YHWH gave him rest from all his enemies round about…

‫ה־לּ� יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ֶ‫וּביִ ת יִ ְבנ‬ ַ �‫ת־כּל־אוֹיְ ֶבי� וָ אַגִּ ד ָל‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ְכנַ ְﬠ ִתּי ֶא‬ 1 Chr 17:10b

I will subdue all your enemies, and I declare to you; and YHWH will build you a house.

‫ה־לּ� יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫י־ביִ ת יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂ‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲהנִ יח ִֹתי ְל� ִמ ָכּל־אֹיְ ֶבי� וְ ִהגִּ יד ְל� יְ הוָ ה ִכּ‬ 2 Sam 7:11b

I will give you rest from all your enemies; and YHWH declares to you that YHWH will make you a house.

While some contend that the rest-statements in 2 Sam 7 are secondary based on the absence of the rest-statements in 1 Chr 17, it has been contended above that the rest-statements in 2 Sam 7 are original. 35 If the rest-statements in 2 Sam 7 are indeed original, the question must be asked as to why the Chronicler did not retain the rest-statements in 1 Chr 17. This question becomes especially relevant in light of 1 Chr 16:21, where the Chronicler quotes Ps 105, but does not remove the rest-statement in the psalm. Furthermore, later in 1 Chr 22:9, it appears that the Chronicler acknowledges God’s promise of rest to David in 2 Sam 7:11. In 1 Chr 22:8–9, David recounts YHWH’s response to his request to build a temple, stating that he was disqualified because he “shed much blood and waged ָ ‫) ְמ‬, many wars,” but that his son would be a man of rest (‫נוּחה‬ YHWH would give his son rest (‫)נוח‬, and Israel would enjoy peace (‫ ) ָשׁלוֹם‬and respite (‫ ) ֶשׁ ֶקט‬during his son’s reign. In other 35

See the section on 2 Sam 7:1, 11 in the DH chapter.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

219

words, it appears that the Chronicler understood that there was a promise of ‫נוח‬-rest given to David, which heightens the significance of the absence of it in 1 Chr 17. Myers suggests the omission by the Chronicler was not accidental, but rather it was removed because of the Chronicler’s concern for the chronological flow of the narrative. In 1 Chr 16, the ark is brought to Jerusalem, and the omitted statement “when Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies round about” from 1 Chr 17 would have implied a lapse of time between the arrival of the ark and David’s desire to build a temple. 36 Japhet also maintains that the Chronicler removed the reststatements from his Vorlage, but argues that the motivation for the omission stemmed not from chronological concerns, but from the Chronicler’s own historical views: In Samuel, David is seen as saying that the time has come for establishing a permanent centre for the worship of the Lord, in conformity with the demands of Deut. 12. For the Chronicler, however, the “rest” alluded to in Deuteronomy as the necessary condition for the building of the Temple will be achieved only at the time of Solomon: ‘He shall be a man of peace (MT “rest”). I will give him peace (MT “rest”) from all his enemies round about’ (I Chron. 22.9). The description does not, therefore, suit the time of David and must be omitted (cf. further on v. 10). Consequently, ‘house’ remains as the only focus of the verse. 37

Japhet correctly observes that the promise of rest shifts to Solomon in Chronicles, and that the focus of the oracle remains on David’s house instead of David himself. 1 Chronicles 22:9 captures the Chronicler’s transfer of the promise’s focus. While this verse is examined more closely in the next section below, 1 Chr 22:9 reads:

36 37

Myers, I Chronicles, 125–126. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 328.

220

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Behold, a son will be born to you. He will be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name will be Solomon, and I will give peace and respite unto Israel in his days.

It seems most likely that the Chronicler’s Vorlage of the Nathan Oracle in 1 Chr 17 is 2 Sam 7, for there is not another promise of rest to a son of David elsewhere in the HB. Given that the Chronicler clearly knows of the Nathan Oracle, it is quite unlikely that the Chronicler would include the Oracle in his annals and yet acquire the promise of rest in 1 Chr 22:9 from another source. It was noted in the previous chapter that in following the rest motif in the DH, 2 Sam 7 is penultimate to the true apex in 1 Kings 8:56, where Solomon declares that YHWH has given rest to Israel after his prayer dedicating the temple. In 1 Chr 17, the importance of Solomon over and above his father David is even more pronounced as both David’s rest and the promise of his rest are not mentioned. Moreover, the manner in which restwords are attributed to Solomon in 1 Chr 22:9 is unparalleled throughout the HB. Indeed, the house of David is emphasized in 1 Chr 17 as well as the selection of one of David’s sons to build the temple, under whose reign is to be the establishment of an eternal throne (1 Chr 17:11–12).

The Man of Rest: 1 Chronicles 22:9

1 Chronicles 22–29 has no parallel in the HB. According to Braun, 1 Chr 22, 28–29 are “of unexcelled importance for understanding these books.” 38 While there is much discussion as to what extent chapters 23–27 are of the Chronicler’s own hand or that of a later reviser, with regard to 1 Chr 22, Japhet states,

Roddy Braun, “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976): 581. 38

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

221

“ch. 22—as a whole or in its major part—is usually regarded as ‘Chronistic.’” 39 Furthermore, Williamson observes: Whether or not the Chronicler received any of his narrative material from earlier tradition, it cannot be denied that the chapters as we now have them are his own composition. This applies both at the level of language and style and…at the level of broader theological structure and motifs. 40

If chapter 22 were original to the Chronicler, the reststatements in 1 Chr 22:9 take on even greater significance. The Chronicler is indebted to Ps 105 for the rest-statement in 1 Chr 16:21, and the absence of a rest-statement in 1 Chr 17 is only noticed because of 2 Sam 7. While there is no known direct source, the Chronicler does not produce this unparalleled work ex nihilo. Regarding 1 Chr 22, Knoppers writes: The author has employed different biblical materials, rearranged them according to his own purposes, and added his own contributions. The result is a work that clearly reflects the author’s own priorities and themes. 41

Hence, in 1 Chr 22:9 one can appreciate the Chronicler’s unique perspective of rest that was derived from earlier tradition(s). The Chronicler’s application of rest in 1 Chr 22:9 marks the ideological summit of the Chronicler’s understanding of rest: ‫חוֹתי לוֹ ִמ ָכּל־אוֹיְ ָביו ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬ ִ ִ‫נוּחה וַ ֲהנ‬ ָ ‫נוֹלד ָל� הוּא יִ ְהיֶ ה ִאישׁ ְמ‬ ָ ‫ה־בן‬ ֵ ֵ‫ִהנּ‬ ‫ִכּי ְשׁ�מֹה יִ ְהיֶ ה ְשׁמוֹ וְ ָשׁלוֹם וָ ֶשׁ ֶקט ֶא ֵתּן ַﬠל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְבּיָ ָמיו׃‬ Behold, a son will be born to you. He will be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 392. See also Knoppers, I Chronicles 10– 29, 783: “Given the allusions to or citations of prestigious texts, the clear signs of the Chronicler’s own style, and the late linguistic usage evident throughout the chapter, one can say that this chapter represents a Chronistic composition.” 40 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 152. 41 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 783. 39

222

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE his name will be Solomon, and I will give peace and respite unto Israel in his days.

It is difficult to overstate how extraordinary 1 Chr 22:9 is with regard to rest. It not only has the most instances of rest-words in one verse in the HB but also it has four different rest-words: ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬, ‫חוֹתי‬ ִ ִ‫ ֲהנ‬, ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬, and ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקט‬. There is little doubt that the Chronicler viewed these terms of rest as related to the name of Solomon itself. Japhet explains: The word-play ‘Solomon’ (šelōmōh)—‘peace’ (šālōm) is not found elsewhere in the Bible…here in Chronicles the connection becomes essential. Solomon’s very name, assigned to him by God before his birth, has its root in peace, the predetermined nature of his kingship. 42

Japhet expounds the paronomasia of the name and connects it theologically to the notion that Solomon’s kingdom will be characterized by peace. Indeed, there is far more than paronomasia regarding the use of rest-words in this verse. Two significant developments are revealed in 1 Chr 22:9. First, there is a melding of different aspects of rest (represented by the various words for rest as defined in this study of the DH). Second, there is a shift in the promise of rest from a spatial focus (the temple and the land of inheritance) to a relational focus (YHWH, King Solomon, and Israel). Both these developments are explored below. The joining of four different rest-words in 1 Chr 22:9 is ָ ‫ ְמ‬represents the temple unique to the Chronicler. In the DH, ‫נוּחה‬ located in the land of inheritance, but in 1 Chr 22:9, Solomon is ָ ‫) ִאישׁ ְמ‬. This phrase appears to described as “a man of rest” (‫נוּחה‬ be in direct contrast with 1 Chr 22:8, where David is said to be disqualified to build the temple because he “shed much blood

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 398. See also Knoppers, I Chronicles 10– 29, 775, regarding the “pun” on the name Solomon. 42

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

223

ָ ‫ ְמ‬with a perand fought many wars.” 43 Further, the use of ‫נוּחה‬ son is the first signal of a greater emphasis on person over space. Solomon himself embodies rest—and, perhaps he is the channel through which rest is bestowed onto Israel. The latter half of 1 Chr 22:9 further describes that both peace (‫ ) ָשׁלוֹם‬and respite (‫ ) ֶשׁ ֶקט‬are promised to Israel. After the title of rest is given to Solomon, the promise of rest is refreshed using the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formulation. It is noteworthy that the first-person-perfect verb form is used ִ ִ‫)וַ ֲהנ‬, for the only other time the first-person form of ‫ נוח‬is (ֺ ‫חוֹתי לו‬ used in the DH and Chronicles is in the promise of rest to David ִ ִ‫ )וַ ֲהנ‬in the Nathan Oracle (2 Sam 7:11). 44 Of course, the (�‫חוֹתי ְל‬ promise of rest to David is not recorded in the Chronicler’s version of the Oracle in 1 Chr 17. One must then consider if the promise has been re-presented to Solomon in 1 Chr 22:9, given that the Oracle in Chronicles focuses on the house of David. The use of ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in 1 Chr 22:9 is interesting, and somewhat surprising. Of course, there is an overlap of ideas between ‫ָשׁלוֹם‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬/‫)נוח‬, but in the DH the two do not come into and rest (‫נוּחה‬ close contact, except for the fact that Solomon’s name means peace and he receives ‫נוח‬-rest. Otherwise, ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬does not play a major role in the DH rest motif. In 1 Chr 22:9, it is likely that Solomon’s name provided a rather appropriate opportunity for the Chronicler to (re-)apply his understanding of rest to Soloָ ‫) ִאישׁ ְמ‬. Through Solmon, the man of peace (and now also ‫נוּחה‬ omon, Israel is to enjoy both peace and respite. The use of ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקט‬in 1 Chr 22:9 is also interesting, but may only be a surprise to some biblical exegetes. As stated previously, many do not include the root ‫ שׁקט‬when exploring the concept of rest in the DH. However, ‫ שׁקט‬plays a vital role in the 520F

The reasons for David’s “disqualification” is another unique development in Chronicles. For a detailed discussion of the related issues, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 772–775. 44 This may further strengthen the argument that the reststatements in 2 Sam 7 are original, and that the Chronicler intentionally removed the rest-statements from his Vorlage in order to accentuate the promise’s fulfillment in Solomon. 43

224

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ ְמ‬rest motif, in that ‫ שׁקט‬expresses temDH within the ‫נוח‬/‫נוּחה‬ porary periods of rest in order not to repeat stating that Israel is given ‫נוח‬-rest (Josh 21:44). Periods of ‫ שׁקט‬are given in Judges when the Israelites return to an obedient relationship with YHWH. Hence, 1 Chr 22:9 lends support that ‫ שׁקט‬should be considered part of the DH rest-paradigm—at least the Chronicler thought that to be the case. Moreover, as is explored later in this chapter, ‫ שׁקט‬is used in Chronicles with some frequency after the building of the temple, whereas ‫ שׁקט‬is used only once after the completion of the temple in the DH (2 Kings 11:20). Indeed, the use of ‫ שׁקט‬in 1 Chr 22:9 may foreshadow the ‫ שׁקט‬periods that are described later in Chronicles, especially in conjunction with ‫נוח‬. In the DH, the promise of rest is primarily spatial in nature—temple, land, and inheritance. The promise of rest from foreign military conflict provides the requisite opportunity, including the time to build, as well as both human and natural resources. The apex of rest in the DH is 1 Kings 8:56 (the dedication of the temple), where temple/sacrifice and land/inheritance converge. While these features still remain in Chronicles, the emphasis of the promise shifts from sacred space to a person in 1 Chr 22:9. There is little doubt that Chronicles still portrays rest as the temple 45 and from foreign invaders. 46 One does wonder, however, about the use of the name Israel instead of the word “land” to denote the recipient of peace and respite (‫) ָשׁלוֹם וָ ֶשׁ ֶקט‬. In the DH, the land had ‫—שׁקט‬which the name Israel encompasses—but also implicit in 1 Chr 22:9 are the nation and the people of the nation. Moreover, that Israel is said to receive peace and respite in his days—during Solomon’s reign—further qualifies the boundaries of rest under King Solomon, the man of rest. In one sense, there is a stress on this promise that rest (‫ )שׁקט‬to the people/land is mediated through the rest of the king—a concept that may prove to be significant See 1 Chr 6:31 [MT 6:16] above. Obviously, the latter half of 1 Chr 22:9 expresses rest from foreign invaders. 45 46

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

225

in the latter uses of ‫ נוח‬and ‫ שׁקט‬in Chronicles. 47 In contrast, Dtr does not attach rest to a person as a quality or characteristic of that person in the manner of the Chronicler in 1 Chr 22:9 with ‫ ִאישׁ ְמנוּ ָחה‬. This is a distinct development beyond the DH. Why this shift in Chronicles? The temple had already been destroyed. The land had been sieged and its citizens deported. With the loss of their promised inheritance, the people had to elevate their expectation and hope beyond something that had already been lost once before. The people of Israel had to ask and answer the question, “where did we go wrong?” The temple and its cult were still important, but these were now part of a greater structure of—and emphasis on—an obedient and personal relationship to YHWH through a monarch. The emphasis on King Solomon in 1 Chr 22:9 necessarily recalls how the selection of a temple builder is a prominent feature in the ML. The comparison was already noted in the DH chapter, where the Nathan Oracle provided a glimpse of the selection feature of rest in the ML, since a son of David is chosen over David himself. In 1 Chr 22:9, the selection of a provider of rest as the builder of the temple as well as the monarch through whom rest is to be enjoyed by Israel brings this aspect of selection into a broader view. Further, 1 Chr 22:9–10 is well connected to the Nathan Oracle in 1 Chr 17 (and therefore 2 Sam 7). Knoppers presents three elements in 1 Chr 22:10 that are presented in reverse order of 1 Chr 17:12–13: 48

See sections below on the occurrences of rest starting from 2 Chr 14:1 [MT 13:23] and beyond. 48 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 776. 47

226

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE 1 Chronicles 17:12–13

Chronicles 22:10

a. I shall establish his throne forever

c. He, he will become my son

c. and he will be a son to me

a. And I shall establish the throne of

b. I, I shall be a father to him,

b. and I shall become his father.

his dominion over Israel forever.

Knoppers suggests that the inversion connects the two passages: “by reversing the sequence of the three clauses in 17:12–13, the author calls attention to the fact that he is quoting this source.” 49 Moreover, in 1 Chr 17:11 the Chronicler adds the phrase “who will be one of your sons” (�‫ ) ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְהיֶ ה ִמ ָבּנֶ י‬after the ִ ‫וַ ֲה ִק‬ statement “I will raise up your offspring after you” (‫ימוֹתי ֶאת־‬ �‫אַח ֶרי‬ ֲ �‫ )זַ ְר ֲﬠ‬in 2 Sam 7:12. The addition of “one of your sons” brings the selection of Solomon into sharper focus. Therefore, the selection of a temple builder in 2 Sam 7 is more defined in 1 Chr 17, which in turn is fulfilled by 1 Chr 22:9–10.

Israel’s Rest: 1 Chronicles 22:18

1 Chronicles 22:17–19 recounts the semi-private address to the officials of Israel, in contrast to the prior private conversation between David and Solomon (1 Chr 22:6–16), and the public speech given to all Israel later in 1 Chr 28–29 (1 Chr 28:1, 8). 1 Chronicles 22:17 is an alleged doublet of 1 Chr 23:2 and 1 Chr 28:1, which leads some to conclude that 1 Chr 22:17–19 is a secondary insertion, 50 although others argue based on more detailed contextual evidence that the passage is indeed appropriate

Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 776. Martin Noth, The Chronicler’s History (trans. Hugh G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 31– 32, n. 2; Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: J C. B. Mohr, 1955), 151–152; Rudolf Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 95–96; Braun, 1 Chronicles, 221–222. 49 50

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

227

in its context. 51 Despite the debate whether 1 Chr 22:17–19 is secondary, this work focuses on how rest-statements are situated in the present form of Chronicles, and in particular how they contrast with the final form of the DH in order to discern the overall similarities and differences. 1 Chronicles 22:18 asks a rhetorical question that assumes the granting of rest to Israel by YHWH: ‫יכם ִﬠ ָמּ ֶכם וְ ֵהנִ ַי� ָל ֶכם ִמ ָסּ ִביב ִכּי נָ ַתן ְבּיָ ִדי ֵאת י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ֲהלֹא יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫אָרץ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה וְ ִל ְפנֵ י ַﬠמּוֹ׃‬ ֶ ‫אָרץ וְ נִ ְכ ְבּ ָשׁה ָה‬ ֶ ‫ָה‬ Is not YHWH your God with you, and has he not given you rest from round about? For he has given the inhabitants of the land into my hand, and the land has been subdued before YHWH and before his people.

According to Japhet, “the phrases used in v. 18 are all taken from the conventional terminology of the conquest…These phrases have close affinities with verses like Deut. 12.10; Josh 21.44; Exod. 23.31; Num. 32.22; Josh. 18.1,” 52 and also that “neither the accumulation of terms and phrases from the ‘conquest’ milieu nor the shift in their application…are results of accident or carelessness.” 53 It has also been observed above that in 1 Chr 22:9 there is a similar method of combining different aspects of rest from various biblical texts in order to consolidate them concisely into a short statement. The phrase “rest from round about” (‫ ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬+ ‫ )נוח‬is found three times in the DH and is used to make a statement of rest to Israel (Josh 21:44), David (2 Sam 7:1), and Solomon (1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]). These three rest-statements are missing in Chronicles: a) the Chronicler’s history does include most of Joshua–1 Samuel and therefore would not have a parallel passage; b) as already noted, the rest-statement in 2 Sam 7:1 is reSimon J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 182; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 157; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 401–402. 52 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 402. 53 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 403. 51

228

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

moved in 1 Chr 17; and c) the rest-statement in Solomon’s letter to King Hiram (1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]) is also missing from the Chronicler’s version of the letter to Hiram in 2 Chr 2:3–10. It is somewhat peculiar that just prior in 1 Chr 22:9 Solomon is promised a future rest, but already in 1 Chr 22:18 there is a past statement of rest. However, when following the narrative of Chronicles, it has yet to be stated that Israel has been granted rest of any kind, and if the Chronicler adheres in some measure to the DH paradigm of rest, one would anticipate a rest-statement at a point before the construction of the temple is recorded in the text, but after the promise had been made (or, refreshed from Deut 12:10). Given the events that are narrated up to this point in Chronicles, Japhet is correct to state that the focus of David’s speech in 1 Chr 22:18 “is therefore a historicaltheological explanation that the time was ripe for building the temple.” 54 In light of the preparations for the construction of the temple, it is appropriate—and even necessary—that a reststatement be made prior to building a deity’s place of rest. Indeed, 1 Chr 22:18 describes the gift of rest in military terms. Thus, the verse does speak to the opportunity that the absence of military conflict provides. However, because the statement is presented as a rhetorical question, one can infer that the implication of the question demands a particular response. A temple should be built because YHWH has provided rest. 1 Chronicles 22:19 immediately following states: ‫וּבנוּ ֶאת־‬ ְ ‫יכם וְ קוּמוּ‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ַﬠ ָתּה ְתּנוּ ְל ַב ְב ֶכם וְ נַ ְפ ְשׁ ֶכם ִל ְדרוֹשׁ ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫וּכ ֵלי ק ֶֹדשׁ ָה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ת־ארוֹן ְבּ ִרית־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֲ ‫ִמ ְק ַדּשׁ יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא� ִהים ְל ָה ִביא ֶא‬ ‫ַל ַבּיִ ת ַהנִּ ְבנֶ ה ְל ֵשׁם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ Now, set your heart and your soul to seek YHWH your God. Rise and build the sanctuary of YHWH God to bring the ark of the covenant of YHWH and the holy vessels of God to the house built for the name of YHWH.

The rest in 1 Chr 22:17–19 not only provides opportunity but also the rightful occasion to reciprocate the reception of rest by 54

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 402.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

229

constructing a resting place to the deity who first provided rest. 55 Since the inhabitants of the land are at rest, one should wholly seek YHWH—an inward act that is outwardly expressed by building YHWH’s sanctuary. This act of reciprocation is comparable to both the DH and the ML, and perhaps more to the latter. Braun observes that the seemingly odd placement of the rest-statement in 1 Chr 22:18 may actually be characteristic of the Chronicler’s method: Chronicles adopts this motif of rest and temple-building for his own and adapts it to his own more precise understanding of the relationship between rest and temple and of the role of David and Solomon in the divine plan. Passages that ascribed rest to David are omitted…the fact that 1 Kgs 5:17–19 and 1 Kgs 8:54–61 do not occur in Chronicles cannot in any sense be said to be due to the writer’s lack of interest in them or disagreement with them, but must be due to his admittedly unusual practice of omitting certain passages which can be shown to have the greatest significance for him and giving expression to their thoughts in more detailed fashion elsewhere. 56

Despite the differences in placement of rest-statements in Chronicles, the Chronicler appears to have an appreciation of a theology of rest in the DH, and the variation in placement supports the Chronicler’s ideology behind these annals. One should not relegate the Chronicler’s theology of rest simply as a disintegration of the concept of rest over time: That this would be is not an indication of how far the theological concept of rest has degenerated by the time of the Chronicler’s writing (contra von Rad), but of how the Chronicler understands the workings of divine justice. 57 The temple as YHWH’s resting place is emphasized in Chronicles. See the sections on 1 Chr 28:2 and 2 Chr 6:41 below. 56 Braun, 1 Chronicles, 224. 57 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 781. 55

230

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Before concluding this section, brief mention should be made of the ark and holy vessels in 1 Chr 22:19. While there is no description of the setting down (or resting) of either the ark or vessels, the pairing of the two in this verse is noteworthy. It was observed in the DH chapter that when the ark or cultic vessels are placed, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) could be employed, but not exclusively. 58 Stylistic variation may indeed account for the use of ‫נוח‬, but in 1 Chr 22:19, both are to be brought into the temple— the place of rest. That the temple is the resting place of both the ark and YHWH is abundantly clear in 1 Chr 28:2 and 2 Chr 6:41. Furthermore, similar to 1 Kings 7:47, cultic vessels are placed inside the temple using ‫ נוח‬in 2 Chr 4:8. Hence, a restword is frequently associated with both the ark and cultic vessels. These aspects are further developed later in Chronicles and explored in more detail below.

The Transition toward a Permanent Dwelling: 1 Chronicles 23:25

Similar to 1 Chr 22:18, 1 Chr 23:25 makes the statement that YHWH has given rest to his people, although it is not posed as a rhetorical question: ‫ירוּשׁ ַל� ַﬠד־‬ ָ ‫�הי־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְל ַﬠמּוֹ וַ יִּ ְשׁכֹּן ִבּ‬ ֵ ‫אָמר ָדּוִ יד ֵהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ִכּי‬ ‫עוֹלם׃‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ For David said, “YHWH, the God of Israel, has given rest to his people, and he dwells in Jerusalem forever.”

Much of what is presented above regarding 1 Chr 22:18 applies to 1 Chr 23:25 and need not be repeated here. Beyond proper response/reciprocation and occasion/opportunity, three features of 1 Chr 23:25 are relevant to the rest motif in Chronicles. First, the use of “rest to his people” is new thus far in Chronicles. While subtle, the use of the title “God of Israel” and the pronominal suffix on “people” together suggests a more distinct emphasis on an intimate relationship within the framework 58

For the ark, see 1 Sam 6:18. For cultic vessels, see 1 Kings 7:47.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

231

of rest in Chronicles. This relational phrasing lends support to the observation that 1 Chr 22:9 is relational in character. The relational aspect in 1 Chr 22:18 is further revealed by the question, “Is not YHWH your God with you?” This question is less explicit than the statement in 1 Chr 23:25—YHWH is “with” in 1 Chr 22:18, but “dwells in Jerusalem” in 1 Chr 23:25, heightening the expression of relationship in the latter. Second, the phrase “and he dwells in Jerusalem forever” is also new in relation to rest in Chronicles. The focus in the DH is on Israel’s rest and the achievement of it. 1 Kings 8:56 hinted ָ ‫ ְמ‬is YHWH’s place of rest, but it is equivocally stated. that ‫נוּחה‬ In contrast, the dwelling of YHWH in the temple is much more prominent in Chronicles (see 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 6:41). While the notion is less pronounced in 1 Chr 23:25, it is the first clue that this new feature of YHWH’s dwelling will be further developed and presented in Chronicles. 59 Certainly, the context of 1 Chr 23:25 and the description of the transition of the Levites from their position as transporters of the tabernacle to their place of service in the temple further portrays the transition from temporary to permanent housing for the ark, and underscores the statement of YHWH’s eternal dwelling in Jerusalem. 60 Further53F

536F

Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles, 161–162) and Knoppers (I Chronicles 10–29, 813) both note characteristics of the Priestly writer in the use of ‫שׁכן‬, although the former suggests a Priestly origin and the latter only notes the similarities. While it is true that in there are shared characteristics with the Priestly writer in 1 Chr 23:25, the idea that YHWH resides in his resting place—the temple—is well attested in 1 Chr 28:2 and 2 Chr 6:41. Furthermore, 1 Chr 23:25 has strong ties with the rest-statement in 1 Chr 22:18, which many have contended is original to the Chronicler (see 1 Chr 22:18 above). 60 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 419: “The evident conclusion is that all the Levitical functions of Num. 3–4 have terminated. This serves as a theological basis for the justification and promotion of certain aspects of the cultic system. The Deuteronomistic idea, together with the Deuteronomistic terminology, is applied to a cultic-legal situation within the Chronicler’s different understanding of the ‘conquest’ and with the broader cultic consequences than envisaged in Deuteronomy.” 59

232

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

more, it is appropriate that YHWH is only shown to be dwelling in Jerusalem and not a temple, for at this point in the narrative the temple had not yet been built. Third, the juxtaposition of the people’s rest and YHWH’s dwelling in Jerusalem is the first indication that the people’s rest coincides with YHWH’s rest. The latter is more fully developed in later passages, where the temple is clearly defined as the temple and YHWH’s place of rest (e.g., 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 6:41). This combination of ideas in 1 Chr 23:25—the people’s rest and YHWH’s rest—was pointed out by von Rad: The expectation is that now at last Yahweh will rise up and come to his resting-place amidst his people Israel; and in [Ps 95] the Chronicler found in a remarkable way precisely the authority he needed in order to build upon the notion of “rest” for the nation the further hope that Yahweh would come to dwell among his people. There is an excellent example of this combination of the two ideas in I Chron. XXXIII. 25. 61

Indeed, this concept of a shared place of rest in Ps 95 and in 1 Chr 23:25 is adopted by later traditions, the best example of which is in the Epistle to the Hebrews 3–4.

The House of Rest: 1 Chronicles 28:2

The announcement to the officials of Israel in 1 Chr 22:18 is refreshed in 1 Chr 28:2 in the context of a wider, public audience: ‫ם־ל ָב ִבי‬ ְ ‫אַחי וְ ַﬠ ִמּי ֲאנִ י ִﬠ‬ ַ ‫אמר ְשׁ ָמעוּנִ י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ל־רגְ ָליו וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ָקם ָדּוִ יד ַה ֶמּ ֶל� ַﬠ‬ ‫ינוֹתי‬ ִ ‫�הינוּ וַ ֲה ִכ‬ ֵ ‫נוּחה ַל ֲארוֹן ְבּ ִרית־יְ הוָ ה וְ ַל ֲהד ֹם ַרגְ ֵלי ֱא‬ ָ ‫ִל ְבנוֹת ֵבּית ְמ‬ ‫ִל ְבנוֹת׃‬ Then King David rose to his feet and said, “Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of YHWH and the footstool of our God. I made preparations for construction.” 61

Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 98.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

233

The outstanding feature of rest brought to light by 1 Chr 28:2 is the use of the phrase “house of rest” (‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ) ֵבּית ְמ‬to describe the temple. The concept of the temple as a resting place is frequently implied and serves as an undertone in many rest-statements, but now it is fully emboldened through the use of the phrase. ָ ‫ ) ִאישׁ ְמ‬in 1 Chr 22:9, the phrase ‫ֵבּית‬ Like “man of rest” (‫נוּחה‬ ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬is a hapax legomenon in the HB. What is previously described as the land of inheritance in the DH (and only hinted at as the temple) is now definitively attached to Solomon and the temple. The notion that the temple is a resting place is not new to the Chronicler. Noticed by numerous commentators, 62 1 Chr 28:2 has tangible connections with Psalm 132:7–8 and Isa 66:1: 1 Chr 28:2

Ps 132:7–8

Isa 66:1

House of (‫)בּית‬ ֵ

His dwelling (‫נוֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)מ ְשׁ ְכּ‬ ִ

House (‫)בּיִ ת‬ ַ

Resting place (‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫)מ‬ ְ

Your resting place (�‫נוּח ֶת‬ ָ ‫)מ‬ ְ

My resting place (‫נוּח ִתי‬ ָ ‫)מ‬ ְ

For the ark (‫)ל ֲארוֹן‬ ַ

Ark (‫)ארוֹן‬ ֲ

For me (‫)לי‬ ִ

Footstool of (‫ַ)רגְ ֵלי‬

His footstool (‫ַ)רגְ ָליו‬

My footstool (‫ַ)רגְ ָלי‬

While the connection to Ps 132 is clear, the slight variances are sometimes a challenge to explain. For example, Ps 132:8 describes both YHWH and the ark entering the resting place, but 1 Chr 28:2 only depicts the entrance of the ark. Japhet interprets this variance to mean that the temple is the resting place for the ark only, purposely contradicting Ps 132: “The close affinity of this verse to Ps. 132 gives it a polemic edge: it is the ark, and not the Temple which is God’s footstool; and the Temple itself is a place of rest, not for God but for the ark.” 63 However, if one E.g., Braun, 1 Chronicles, 270; Scott W. Hahn, The Kingdom of God as Liturgical Empire: A Theological Commentary on 1–2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 59; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 486–487; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 926; Myers, I Chronicles, 190; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 179–180. 63 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 487. 62

234

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

follows Japhet’s interpretation, one will inevitably encounter the fact the Chronicler cites Ps 132 again, quoting Ps 132:8–10 in 2 Chr 6:41–42: 64 ֶ ‫�הים ְל‬ ִ ‫קוּמה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה‬ � ֶ‫אַתּה וַ ֲארוֹן ֻﬠזּ‬ ָ 65�‫נוּח‬ And now arise O YHWH God, to your resting place, you and the ark of your might (2 Chr 6:41a)

Despite changes that are made by the Chronicler to Ps 137:8–10 in the quotation, the Chronicler retains “you and the ark of your might” in 2 Chr 6:41. Moreover, it is YHWH specifically that is called upon to enter into his “resting place” in the first half of the verse; the ark is only added to “you” (YHWH) in the second half. This weakens the conclusion that omitting YHWH in 1 Chr 28:2 is polemic. Indeed, the ark frequently represents YHWH, and distinguishing between the two poses challenges. Williamson also connects 1 Chr 28:2 to Ps 132, but states, “the theme of rest is not used here in the way that is common in these chapters (see especially on 22:9), but rather in terms of God finding rest among his people, precisely as in the Psalm.” 66 It is true that the concept of a house of rest for YHWH is a new development in Chronicles, but 1 Chr 28:2 might not be the first instance of it. 67 1 Chronicles 23:25 expresses that YHWH dwells in Jerusalem amongst his people who are at rest, but this verse The quotation of Ps 132:8–10 is explored in further detail below in the 2 Chr 6:41 section. 65 �‫נוּח ֶת‬ ָ ‫ ִל ְמ‬in Ps 137:8 is replaced by the related form �‫נוּח‬ ֶ ‫ ְל‬in 1 Chr 6:41 (either the Infinitive Construct of ‫ נוח‬or the noun �‫)נוֹ‬. ַ One is hard-pressed to find any significance for the change. Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 602–603) postulates that the use of “arise O YHWH” may associate the verse with Num 10:35–36, where the invocation “arise O YHWH” is also used, but in order to scatter enemies and not to a resting place. The Infinitive Construct is used in Num 10:36 to denote the resting of the ark (‫)וּבנֻ חֹה‬. ְ This contention is very plausible. 66 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 180. 67 Actually, it is only “somewhat” new because, as noted in the DH chapter, there were subtle hints of the temple as YHWH’s resting place in 1 Kings 8:56. 64

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

235

may have not been considered due to its possible Priestly origin. 68 1 Chronicles 23:25 is often attributed to the Priestly writer because of the use of ‫שׁכן‬, which is very characteristic of the Priestly source. However, the noun form of ‫ ) ִמ ְשׁ ְכּנו ָֺתיו( שׁכן‬is used in Ps 132:7; it is equally plausible that the Chronicler sourced the word from the psalm, especially because Ps 132 must have had a measure of influence on the Chronicler, since the psalm is quoted twice in Chronicles (1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 6:41– 42) and also alluded to in 1 Chr 23:25. The idea of YHWH’s rest is not foreign to the HB. Psalm 95 has been classified as a Hymn, 69 and evokes a background of temple imagery in its verses of praise. Speaking in the first person, YHWH warns in the last line of the psalm (95:11b): “They ָ ‫ל־מ‬ ְ ‫) ִאם־יְ בֹאוּן ֶא‬. The Targum of Ps shall not enter my rest” (‫נוּח ִתי‬ 95:11 elaborates as to what rest refers, recording: “They shall not enter my house of rest” (‫)אם יעלון לנייח בית מקדשׁי‬. This change to “house of rest” is frequently made in the Targumim. 70 Thus, later traditions also viewed the temple as YHWH’s resting place, and his house of rest. The concept of YHWH’s resting place possibly had its beginnings in 1 Kings 8:56. The notion becomes more visible in 1 Chr 23:25 as YHWH is shown to dwell eternally amongst his people who are at rest in Jerusalem. In 1 Chr 28:2, the concept has reached categorical development with the ָ ‫ ֵבּית ְמ‬. use of ‫נוּחה‬

The Resting of ‫ ֻשׁ ְל ָחנוֹת‬: 2 Chronicles 4:8

The construction of the temple and the fabrication of its furnishings are narrated in 2 Chr 3–4. These two activities are also recorded in 1 Kings 6 and 1 Kings 7:13–50, respectively. In this context of temple construction, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) is used to “place” tables (‫ ) ֻשׁ ְל ָחנוֹת‬in the temple in 2 Chr 4:8:

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 161–162. Bernard Anderson, Out of the Depths (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), 222. 70 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 926. 68 69

236

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE ‫יכל ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ִמיָּ ִמין וַ ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ִמ ְשּׂמֹאול‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֻשׁ ְל ָחנוֹת ֲﬠ ָשׂ ָרה וַ יַּ נַּ ח ַבּ ֵה‬ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ִמזְ ְר ֵקי זָ ָהב ֵמאָה׃‬ Then he made ten tables, and he rested five on the right and five on the left in the temple. He also made 100 basins of gold.

It was noted in the 1 Sam 6:18 section above that the use of ‫נוח‬ hiphil (2) could be stylistic variation, although explanations were offered for its use in the DH. 71 In 2 Chr 3–4, ‫ נתן‬is used five times to describe the placement of a temple vessel or furnishing. 72 The hiphil of ‫ קום‬is used to describe the setting up of pillars (2 Chr 3:17), and is a more appropriate verb to portray such an action. No other verbs (besides ‫ נוח‬in 1 Chr 4:8) are used to record the placement of any cultic object in 2 Chr 3–4. This then, raises a question as to why the Chronicler used ‫ נוח‬only in this one instance to place the tables inside the temple instead of the consistently applied ‫נתן‬. As a recapitulation of 1 Kings 7:13–50, our focus is drawn to the use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) to describe the vessels (‫ ) ַה ֵכּ ִלים‬as “left unweighed” in 1 Kings 7:47. 1 Kings 7:48–50 provides a description of these vessels, and appearing within this list is “the goldַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ en table on which is the bread of presence” (‫ת־ה ֻשּׁ ְל ָחן ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָליו‬ ‫) ֶל ֶחם ַה ָפּנִ ים זָ ָהב‬. Also included in 1 Kings 7:48–50 are the lamp stands and basins, but ‫ נתן‬is used in 2 Chr 4:6–7 to place these vessels. While there is an initial connection between the use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) to rest all the vessels in 1 Kings 7:47 and the tables in 2 Chr 4:8, one is still left searching for the reason for the exclusive use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) for the tables in 2 Chr 4:8. The connection of rest to the golden table for the bread of presence in 1 Kings 7:48 helps one to further investigate the tables in 2 Chr 4:8 in conjunction with the bread of presence. Indeed, this leads to 2 Chr 4:19, which records: 547F

See also the DH sections above on Josh 4:8; 6:23; Judg 6:18, 20; 1 Kings 7:47; 8:9. 72 2 Chronicles 3:16 (twice); 4:6, 4:7, 4:10. 71

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

237

‫�הים וְ ֵאת ִמזְ ַבּח ַהזָּ ָהב‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ֵכּ ִלים ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּית ָה ֱא‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ְשׁ�מֹה ֵאת ָכּ‬ ‫יהם ֶל ֶחם ַה ָפּנִ ים׃‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה ֻשּׁ ְל ָחנוֹת וַ ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the house of God; the golden altar, the tables with the bread of presence on them…

The Chronicler connects the ten tables in 2 Chr 4:8 with the table(s) for the bread of presence in 2 Chr 4:19. The bread of presence on the tables clearly establishes a connection to the golden table for the bread of presence in 1 Kings 7:48. 73 This link may suggest the reason for the use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) to place the tables in 2 Chr 4:8. The bread of (the) presence (‫ ) ֶל ֶחם ) ַה( ָפּנִ ים‬is an offering that is to be set on the table before/in the presence of (‫) ְל ָפנַ י‬ YHWH continually (Ex 25:30), hence the name of the offering. Beyond this, there also appears to be an association between the bread of presence and the presence of YHWH himself. Gane writes: There is in the “bread of the presence” ritual (Lev. xxiv 5–9) a positive redefinition of bread-laying by linking the bread to the Sabbath, and thus to creation. It is suggested, therefore, that the bread represents the concept that YHWH is Israel’s resident Creator-Provider who, unlike other ancient Near-Eastern deities, acknowledges no dependence upon human food. 74

Furthermore, the instructions for making the tables (Ex 25:23– 30) appear immediately after the instructions for the ark (Ex Although what was originally one table is now ten, and the tables are not said to be made of gold. Williamson points out that the Chronicler is well aware of the singular table for the bread of presence, citing 2 Chr 13:11; 29:18 (1 and 2 Chronicles, 212). There is no denial though, of a connection between the tables in 2 Chr 4 and 1 Kings 7:48. The change to the ten may indicate that there were ten tables in the second temple. See Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 566–567. 74 Roy Gane, “‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence,” VT 42 (1992): 179. 73

238

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

25:10–22). Also, according to Ex 25:27–28, rings are to be affixed to the tables to hold the poles used to carry the table—as with the ark (Ex 25:12–13). 75 The tables are to be carried and moved from place to place in the same way as the ark, which is also described in the DH to be placed with ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2). Hence, the association with the presence of YHWH, the rings that are attached to the table to carry the table with the ark, and the use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) to carry the ark in the DH, may provide a basis for the use of ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) to place the tables in 2 Chr 4:8.

The Temple of YHWH’s Rest: 2 Chronicles 6:41

2 Chronicles 6:12–40 records Solomon’s dedication of the temple, and the Chronicler follows his Vorlage from 1 Kings 8:22–53 “remarkably closely.” 76 At 2 Chr 6:40, “the Chronicler draws the substance of this verse from his Vorlage again before departing from it radically at the close of the prayer.” 77 This departure is also occasioned by the quotation of Ps 132 (again), in place of 1 Kings 8:56–61. The rest-statement in 1 Kings 8:56 is exchanged with the rest-statement from the quotation of Ps 137:8–10. 2 Chronicles 6:41–42 reads: ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫אַתּה וַ ֲארוֹן ֻﬠזֶּ � כּ ֲֹהנֶ י� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ �‫נוּח‬ ֶ ‫�הים ְל‬ ִ ‫קוּמה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה‬ ‫אַל־תּ ֵשׁב ְפּנֵ י‬ ָ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫שׁוּﬠה וַ ֲח ִס ֶידי� יִ ְשׂ ְמחוּ ַבטּוֹב׃ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫יִ ְל ְבּשׁוּ ְת‬ ‫יחי� זָ ְכ ָרה ְל ַח ְס ֵדי ָדּוִ יד ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ�׃‬ ֶ ‫ְמ ִשׁ‬ And now, arise O YHWH God, to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. Let your priests, O YHWH God, be clothed with salvation, and let your saints rejoice in goodness. O YHWH God, do not reject your anointed ones; remember the steadfast love for David your servant.

The instructions for lampstands are also provided in Ex 25:31– 49, after the instructions for the ark and tables (no other instructions for items are recorded before the instructions for the tabernacle starting at Ex 26:1). The lampstands do not have rings. 76 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 217. 77 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 220. 75

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

239

Psalm 132:7–8 is clearly alluded to in 1 Chr 28:2, but Ps 132:8– 10 is now fully quoted by the Chronicler with only slight variations. The notion of “a house of rest,” or YHWH’s resting place, has already been explored above in the 1 Chr 28:2 section. Here, other aspects beyond—but associated with—YHWH’s resting place are explored. Von Rad is correct to state: “The remarkable thing, however, is that…in a quite new sense, the essential feature of which is not that the nation finds rest, but that God finds rest among his people!” 78 While new in Chronicles and fully developed in 2 Chr 6:41, the notion that YHWH dwells among his people is initially hinted at in 1 Chr 6:31 [MT 6:16] (the resting of the ark), foreshadowed in 1 Chr 23:25 (YHWH dwells in Jerusalem), and previewed in 1 Chr 28:2 (house of rest). Indeed, that both YHWH and the ark are mentioned in 2 Chr 6:41, but only the ark is referred to in 1 Chr 23:25, may be due to the development of the concept, rather than a theological differentiation. Perhaps, this progression in the development of a concept is a method of the Chronicler. Not only is the concept of YHWH’s resting place in the temple gradually advanced but also other aspects of rest. 1 Chronicles 22:9 combines four different restwords in a manner never before seen. Then, Israel is already said to have obtained rest in 1 Chr 22:18, and the concept is reiterated in 1 Chr 23:25 (via allusion to Ps 132:7–8). 1 Chronicles 23:25 is important because the concept of the people’s rest is joined with YHWH’s presence in Jerusalem. Later in Chronicles, ‫ נוח‬and ‫ שׁקט‬are joined together, further developing the concept of ‫ נוח‬and ‫שׁקט‬-rest in Chronicles (2 Chr 14:1–7). 79 There are differences between Ps 132:8–10 and the quotation of it in 2 Chr 6:41–42. Various scholars have offered some explanation, but before considering those, the two texts are compared below. Given the poetic nature of Ps 132, syllable counts exhibiting meter are included: 5F

78 79

Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97–98. 2 Chronicles 6:41–42 and others are explored below.

240

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE 2 Chronicles 6:41–42

Total

Syl

22

8

� ֶ‫אַתּה וַ ֲארוֹן ֻﬠזּ‬ ָ

14

�‫נוּח‬ ֶ ‫�הים ְל‬ ִ ‫קוּמה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה‬

25

10

‫וַ ֲח ִס ֶידי� יִ ְשׂ ְמחוּ ַבטּוֹב׃‬

15

‫שׁוּﬠה‬ ָ ‫�הים יִ ְל ְבּשׁוּ ְת‬ ִ ‫כּ ֲֹהנֶ י� יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

25

11

‫זָ ְכ ָרה ְל ַח ְס ֵדי ָדּוִ יד ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ�׃‬

14

�‫יחי‬ ֶ ‫אַל־תּ ֵשׁב ְפּנֵ י ְמ ִשׁ‬ ָ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

72

29

Total

Syl

Colon B

Syl

Colon A

43

Psalm 132:8–10

Colon B

Syl

Colon A

9

�‫נוּח ֶת‬ ָ ‫קוּמה יְ הוָ ה ִל ְמ‬ ָ

17

8

‫אַתּה וַ ֲארוֹן ֻﬠזֶּ �׃‬ ָ

18

9

‫וַ ֲח ִס ֶידי� יְ ַרנֵּ נוּ׃‬

9

‫שׁוּ־צ ֶדק‬ ֶ ‫כּ ֲֹהנֶ י� יִ ְל ְבּ‬

17

9

‫יח�׃‬ ֶ ‫אַל־תּ ֵשׁב ְפּנֵ י ְמ ִשׁ‬ ָ

8

�‫ַבּ ֲﬠבוּר ָדּוִ ד ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ‬

52

26

26

The Chronicler’s version is obviously longer (72 versus 52 syllables). Easily noticeable is the balance and brevity of the Psalter’s version; it is compact and concise, with syllabic symmetry at both the colon and line levels. The sequence of the syllable counts by colon is 9-8-9-9-8-9, which puts the strophe in chiastic structure; the syllable count of each line also reveals the same: 17-18-17. In contrast, the Chronicler’s version is less symmetric and lacks balance. Colon A is longer than colon B for each line, and the syllable count for each colon varies, repeating only once. Of course, the change in genre from poetry to narrative could alone suffice to account for the variances between the two. The Chronicler was not confined to poetic and artistic devices, and as such was unconstrained to make additions or modify Ps 132. Beyond the change in genre, scholars have offered explanations for the variances between the two texts, some of which are

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

241

minor in significance. 80 The Chronicler replaces �‫ַבּ ֲﬠבוּר ָדּוִ ד ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ‬ (“for the sake of your servant David”) from the psalm with ‫זָ ְכ ָרה‬ �‫“( ְל ַח ְס ֵדי ָדּוִ יד ַﬠ ְב ֶדּ‬remember the steadfast love for David your servant”), and, moreover, moves the colon to the end of the line, inverting the two colons. Williamson asserts that the change in wording from the psalm, and particularly the inclusion of ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬, “must be regarded as an allusion to Isa. 55:3b (‘and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast sure love for David’).” 81 Regarding the inversion of the colons, Kalimi has demonstrated that the re-ordering of phrases is a typical citation technique of the Chronicler: 57F

The exploitation of this technique apparently stems primarily from an author-copyist’s natural need to vary a text without altering its contents. Furthermore, adducing a text in chiastic order renders the copyist’s active intervention in the text he is copying more prominent. 82

Another significant variance, albeit slight, is the change ֶ ‫ ְמ ִשׁ‬to the plural �‫יחי‬ ֶ ‫ ְמ ִשׁ‬in Chronicles. from the singular �‫יח‬ Dillard comments: “Your anointed ones” is potentially a reference to the priests mentioned immediately before. However, it would appear better to refer it to David and Solomon: the singular of Ps 132:10 which clearly referred to a king has been made plural in Chronicles to embrace both kings. Cf. the similar expan-

Beyond the variances discussed here, there are other less significant changes: a) the Chronicler spells David as ‫ ָדּוִ יד‬instead of ‫ ָ;דּוִ ד‬b) the Chronicler inserts ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬twice and adds ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬to the one instance of ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬in the psalm; c) �‫נוּח‬ ֶ ‫ ְל‬in Chronicles replaces �‫נוּח ֶת‬ ָ ‫;ל ְמ‬ ִ d) Chronicles states ‫ יִ ְשׁ ְמחוּ ַבטּוֹב‬instead of ‫ ;יְ ַרנֵּ נוּ‬and e) Chronicles uses ‫שׁוּﬠה‬ ָ ‫ ְת‬instead of ‫צ ֶדק‬. ֶ 81 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 220. So too Jacob M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; Garden City: Double Day, 1965), 38. 82 Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 232. See also page 253. 80

242

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE sion from a singular referent (David, 1 Kgs 8:66) to both David and Solomon (2 Chr 7:10). 83

This pluralization to include David and Solomon is certainly plausible, since there is an emphasis on the continuity of David and Solomon in Chronicles. 84 If so, a further possibility is that the use of the plural may include even more kings beyond David and Solomon, for later kings are attributed rest in direct contrast to the DH. 85 2 Chronicles 6:41 is one of only two parallel passages between the DH and Chronicles that have a rest-statement in both corpora. 86 1 Kings 8:56 serves as the ultimate expression and fulfillment of rest in the DH. In this all-important verse, the Chronicler does not follow his Vorlage, but instead chooses to insert the psalm. Myers writes: “Since this conclusion is missing in the Kings parallel, the writer must have included it for a specific purpose.” 87 One possible purpose, offered by Japhet, is that Ps 137:8–10 was inserted instead of 1 Kings 8:56–61 in order to give the Chronicler’s version a more formal conclusion: The Chronicler here provides his own conclusion for the prayer. Quite uncharacteristically, he does not compose his Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 51. 84 With regard to the continuity of David and Solomon, particularly the construction of the temple, see Peter B. Dirksen, “Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of 1 Chronicles 22.8,” JSOT 70 (1996): 56, n. 9: “The reason for his (David’s) disqualification as the temple builder apparently did not affect his doing all the preparations. The result is that David and Solomon actually form a unity with regard to the building of the temple, for after the preparations by David, Solomon only has to execute the plans, with all materials and workers at hand. This is as far as the Chronicler could go in view of the one undeniable fact that Solomon was the actually temple builder.” 85 I.e., Asa and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 14–20), see related sections below. 86 1 Kings 8:56 and 2 Chr 6:14; 2 Kings 11:20 and 2 Chr 23:21. 87 Myers, II Chronicles, 37. 83

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

243

own passage but employs a segment of an existing psalm—a procedure followed elsewhere only in 1 Chron. 16.7– 36…Moreover, the psalm gives the conclusion a more elevated form than the parallel prose of I Kings 8. 88

Furthermore, the psalm quotation serves as a conclusion that refreshes the introduction of the dedicatory prayer, where ‫ֶח ֶסד‬ and ‫ ַﬠ ְב ְדּ� ָדוִ יד‬are also employed (2 Chr 6:14 and 6:16, respectively). De Vries likewise makes this connection: Suddenly the casuistic review is broken off with a concluding plea for divine attention, v. 40. The poetic HYMN OF ENTRANCE in vv. 41–42, seemingly far less suitable than DtrH’s original conclusion in 1 Kgs 8:50ff., has likely been chosen because it quotes (with some freedom) from Ps 132:8–10 because its closing request, “Remember thy steadfast love for David thy servant.” It can be justified only by ChrH’s desire to make an inclusio with the first petition of vv. 14–17. 89

Thus, the reason for the use of the psalm is multi-faceted. ָ ‫ ְמ‬in 1 From a perspective focused on rest, the use of ‫נוּחה‬ Kings 8:56 affords a very fitting opportunity for the Chronicler ָ ‫ ְמ‬in 1 Kings 8:56 is amto quote Ps 132. 90 The meaning of ‫נוּחה‬ biguous, because it can refer to both the fulfillment of the promise of a land of inheritance and YHWH’s resting place in the temple. 2 Chronicles 6:41 may serve to help elaborate the dual aspect in 1 Kings 8:56, as well as emphasize the temple as YHWH’s resting place over against the land of inheritance. Compared to the DH, the concept of inheritance and the land associated with it is relatively muted in Chronicles. The term “inheritance” (‫ )נַ ֲח ָלה‬appears only three times in Chronicles. The first instance in 1 Chr 16:18 is borrowed from Ps 105, since the Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 601. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 260. 90 While not discernible, it cannot be ruled out that the theology of Ps 132 is based in part on 1 Kings 8:56, and therefore led to 2 Chr 6:41. 88 89

244

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

term appears in the middle of a quotation of Ps 105. The next two instances (2 Chr 6:27; 10:16) are direct quotations from the Chronicler’s Vorlage, 1 Kings (8:36 and 12:16, respectively). Of course, from the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, the temple would quite naturally take precedence over the land of inheritance. The quotation of Ps 132 also provides an opportunity to compare the rest-statement in 2 Chr 6:41 to the ML. The call to ָ ) evokes imagery from both the HB and the ML. “arise” (‫קוּמה‬ Japhet accurately detects these background echoes and offers a very plausible interpretation: The title “the ark of thy might” still preserves some ancient connotations of the ark as the emblem of Israel’s wars, and the invocation “Arise, O Lord” derives from the original battle cry, as preserved in Moses’ proclamation whenever the ark set out: “Arise, O Lord, and let thy enemies be scattered” (Num. 10.35). A certain paradox is thus created by this literary borrowing: God is called forth with the same old formula, “arise,” not now to war or wandering but to “his resting place.” 91

Thus, there is both comparison and contrast with other parts of the HB and the ML. The call for a deity to arise appears in The Poem of Erra, where the mighty warrior god is weary, but unable to sleep. The world is described as being in chaos, and Erra, although exhausted, is called upon to arise and kill the “Darkheaded”—humankind, whose noise is unbearable—thus putting a destructive end to the disorder. 92 In this context, Japhet rightly points out the paradox that 2 Chr 6:41 creates. YHWH is now portrayed as arising to his rest in the temple and not to war. Perhaps, 2 Chr 6:41 may also serve to bring the cycle of rest back to the deity’s initial rest, given that YHWH finds rest in the temple—a place of worship that expresses loyalty, allegiance, and obedience. 91 92

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 603. The Poem of Erra, I 13–19; I 41–44.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

245

Asa’s Reform, Part I: 2 Chronicles 14:1; 14:5–7 [MT 13:23; 14:4–6] 93

The Chronicler adds a line to his Vorlage (1 Kings 15:8) at 2 Chr 14:1: 94 1 Kings 15:8:

‫אָסא ְבנוֹ‬ ָ ��‫ם־אב ָֹתיו וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ְבּ ִﬠיר ָדּוִ ד וַ יִּ ְמ‬ ֲ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַכּב ֲא ִביָּ ם ִﬠ‬ ‫ַתּ ְח ָתּיו׃‬ Abijam slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David. Then his son Asa reigned in his place. 2 Chr 14:1 [MT 13:23]:

‫אָסא ְבנוֹ‬ ָ ��‫ם־אב ָֹתיו וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ְבּ ִﬠיר ָדּוִ יד וַ יִּ ְמ‬ ֲ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַכּב ֲא ִביָּ ה ִﬠ‬ ‫אָרץ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים׃‬ ֶ ‫ַתּ ְח ָתּיו ְבּיָ ָמיו ָשׁ ְק ָטה ָה‬ Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David. Then his son Asa reigned in his place; in his days the land had respite for ten years. 95

The English Translations [ET] enumerate 2 Chr 13:23 as 14:1, and therefore the MT versification is one lower for 2 Chr 14. 2 Chronicles 15 resumes the parallel versification. Due to the many references to 2 Chr 14 in this section, chapter and verse numbers are coordinated with the ET for clarity and consistency. When appropriate, reference to the MT versification is provided alongside the ET versification. 94 There is much debate over the composition of the text narrating Abijah’s reign. Indeed, the opinions are wide-ranging, with multiple mediating positions; almost every pundit has their own position. See Wilhelm Rudolf, “Der Aufbau der Asa-Geschichte,” VT 2 (1952): 367– 371; Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) and “A Comparison of the Chronological Data of Israel and Judah,” VT 4 (1954): 185–191; Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 122–125, and “The Reign of Asa (2 Chr 14–16): An Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method,” JETS 23 (1980): 207–218; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 255–258; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 704–705; De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 296–307. 93

246

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The additional phrase is reminiscent of the rest-statements in Judges, where ‫ שׁקט‬refers to the temporary provision of rest from war. While the respite in 2 Chr 14:1 is suitable in the context because it describes a temporary respite in Asa’s reign (after Abijah’s victory over Jeroboam and before the resumption of war with the Cushites), in the DH ‫ שׁקט‬appeared mainly in Joshua–Judges, and only once after the construction of the temple (2 Kings 11:20). Hence, the post-temple use of the term in 2 Chr 14:1 seems inappropriate. Yet, ‫ שׁקט‬is used twice more in 2 Chr 14:5–6 [MT 14:4–5]: 2 Chr 14:5 [MT 14:4]: ‫ת־ה ַח ָמּנִ ים וַ ִתּ ְשׁקֹט ַה ַמּ ְמ ָל ָכה ְל ָפנָ יו׃‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָבּמוֹת וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫הוּדה ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ﬠ ֵרי י‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ ַסר ִמ ָכּ‬ He removed the high places and the incense altars from the cities of Judah, and the kingdom had respite under him. 2 Chr 14:6 [MT 14:5]: ‫ין־ﬠמּוֹ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ַבּ ָשּׁנִ ים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ִכּי־‬ ִ ‫אָרץ וְ ֵא‬ ֶ ‫י־שׁ ְק ָטה ָה‬ ָ ‫יהוּדה ִכּ‬ ָ ‫צוּרה ִבּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ֶבן ָﬠ ֵרי ְמ‬ ‫ֵהנִ ַי� יְ הוָ ה לוֹ׃‬ And he built fortified cities in Judah, for the land had respite. There was no one at war with him in these years, for YHWH gave him rest.

Further confounding matters, the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula is used at the end of 2 Chr 14:6 [MT 14:5] above, and again at 2 Chr 14:7:

Italics indicate points of departure from 1 Kings 15:8. Abijam in 1 Kings is spelled Abijah in 2 Chronicles. Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles, 249–250) suggests the change may be due to the positive image of the king in Chronicles in contrast to the negative image in Kings, and thus the endings may refer to different deities: The Canaanite god “Yam” in Abijam, and YHWH in Abijah. 95

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

247

2 Chr 14:7 [MT 14:6]:

‫וּמגְ ָדּ ִלים ְדּ ָל ַתיִ ם‬ ִ ‫חוֹמה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָﬠ ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה וְ נָ ֵסב‬ ֶ ‫יהוּדה נִ ְבנֶ ה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אמר ִל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫�הינוּ ָדּ ַר ְשׁנוּ וַ יָּ נַ ח‬ ֵ ‫אָרץ ְל ָפנֵ ינוּ ִכּי ָד ַר ְשׁנוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫עוֹדנּוּ ָה‬ ֶ ‫יחים‬ ִ ‫וּב ִר‬ ְ ‫ָלנוּ ִמ ָסּ ִביב וַ יִּ ְבנוּ וַ יַּ ְצ ִליחוּ׃‬ And he said to Judah, “Let us build these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars. The land before us is still ours, for we have sought YHWH our God. We have sought him and he has given rest to us round about.” So they built and they prospered.

Hence, ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬appear a total of five times in 1 Chr 14:1–7. Given the distribution of rest-terms in the DH, the use of either ‫ שׁקט‬or the ‫ נוח‬rest formula post-temple in 2 Chr 14 could be viewed as inapposite. However, Knoppers rightly asserts: That the time of sanctuary construction should follow the establishment of national security does not preclude Israel’s enjoyment of subsequent times of peace. If rest from one’s enemies is linked in some fashion to the broader issues of loyalty and obedience, then such rest should be available to Israel in a variety of periods. 96

Moreover, these rest-statements in 2 Chr 14 shed light on 1 Chr 22:9, which then becomes less perplexing, and all the more significant. The use of four different rest-words in 1 Chr 22:9 was unexpected in this study, but further inspection revealed the theological undercurrents that may have engendered the unique and bold rest-statement(s) in the verse. The combination of ‫שׁקט‬ and ‫ נוח‬in 2 Chr 14 provides a window to understand 1 Chr 22:9 with greater clarity. Indeed, the rest-statements in 2 Chr 14 may be adhering to the structure of 1 Chr 22:9. One might even call 1 Chr 22:9 programmatic when it comes to the concept of rest in Chronicles, much in the same manner that Deut 12:8–10 is programmatic for rest in the DH. It was noted above in reference to 1 Chr 22:9 that there is a shift from the spatial to the relational. In the DH, the land is 96

Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 781.

248

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

given ‫ שׁקט‬from war, but people (whether Israel or monarchs) are given ‫נוח‬-rest. In 1 Chr 22:9, the proper noun “Israel” is used to describe the recipient of ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקט‬instead of the land, perhaps functioning as a bridge between the people of Israel and the nation in the land. Similarly, in 2 Chr 14 the land and the kingdom (‫ ) ַה ַמּ ְמ ָל ָכה‬are given ‫שׁקט‬. Thus, the uses of ‫ שׁקט‬and the ‫ נוח‬rest formula serve to bring the two aspects of rest together in 2 Chr 14. In 2 Chr 14:7 King Asa says to the people: “The land before us is still ours, for we have sought YHWH our God. We have sought him and he has given rest (‫ )נוח‬to us round about.” Further strengthening the association between 1 Chr 22:9 and 2 Chr 14 are the uses of ‫ שׁקט‬in conjunction with ‫“( ְבּיָ ָמיו‬in his days” or “during his reign”) in both texts. In 1 Chr 22:9, ‫ ְבּיָ ָמיו‬circumscribed the boundaries within which rest is bestowed. Here too, the same qualification is made: “In his days the land had respite for ten years.” The ten-year timeframe further restricts the ‫שׁקט‬-statement in 1 Chr 14:1 [MT 13:23], since Asa reigned for much longer than ten years. The use of ‫ְבּיָ ָמיו‬ may reveal a connection between the reign of the king and the rest of the people/land. In the DH, obedience to YHWH is a prerequisite for rest. Obedience is largely determined by the people, of which the king is representative. In Chronicles, however, it appears that the obedience of the king is emphasized, and the people would enjoy rest because of the king’s obedience. The Chronicler inserted the ‫ שׁקט‬rest-statement immediately before the often-used phrase to describe a good king: “Asa did what was good and upright in the eyes of YHWH his God.” The text continues to narrate the activities of Asa’s cultic reform, which are the actions that lead up to the multiple rest-statements in 2 Chr 14:5–7. In Judges, the people cry out and YHWH provides a deliverer, but in 2 Chr 14, the respite Israel enjoys is a direct benefit from the obedient actions of the king: “He removed the high places and the incense altars from the cities of Judah, and the kingdom had respite under him” (2 Chr 14:5). Williamson also connects the use of ‫ שׁקט‬in 1 Chr 14 with Judges: The phrase is reminiscent of the one used in Judges where it applies, following some deliverance, to the period before the next rebellion of Israel against God which inevitably brings foreign oppression as its judgment. However much God may

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

249

be regarded as having taken up his ‘resting place’ in Israel with the housing of the ark in the temple (6:41–42), the people’s own enjoyment of rest remains an incentive for faithfulness which can all too easily be lost. 97

Given this correlation with Judges and also the use of ‫שׁקט‬, it is possible that the Chronicler is characterizing the post-Solomonic era as a period similar to the Judges era, but reframing it to suit a monarchic chronicle. Further investigation of the remaining texts in Chronicles is needed to substantiate this hypothesis.

Asa’s Reform, Part II: 2 Chronicles 15:5, 15

If 1 Chr 22:9 is indeed programmatic, one would also expect to find some significance with the term ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬. 2 Chronicles 15:5 employs the term, although in the negative sense of unrest or disquietude: ‫ל־יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יּוֹצא וְ ַל ָבּא ִכּי ְמהוּמֹת ַרבּוֹת ַﬠל ָכּ‬ ֵ ‫וּב ִﬠ ִתּים ָה ֵהם ֵאין ָשׁלוֹם ַל‬ ָ ‫ָה ֲא ָרצוֹת׃‬ In those times, there was no peace for the traveler coming and going, for there were great disturbances over all the inhabitants of the lands.

This verse, and 2 Chr 15:6 after it, both describe a period when there is no safety, and nations and cities are in constant battle and conflict. But, this period of unrest appears to contradict, to a certain extent, the reform narrated in 2 Chr 14. 2 Chronicles 15:3 states that Israel is without the true God, a teaching priest, and the law. Indeed, chapter 15 may be a further elaboration of the reform narrated in chapter 14. 2 Chronicles 14 is largely influenced by the Kings account (although greatly expanded). 98 Also, portions of 2 Chr 15 parallel and expand upon the reform recorded in 2 Chr 14. According to Williamson, “it suited the Chronicler to develop the portrayal already presented in Kings Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 259. The Chronicler’s account is nearly triple that of Kings (from 16 verses to 47 in Chronicles). Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 115. 97 98

250

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

of the reform starting much earlier, and to use this alternative version of it as description of its continuation and successful conclusion.” 99 In this second reformation (or re-narration of the first), rest is again given to Israel using the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula in 2 Chr 15:15: ‫ל־רצוֹנָ ם‬ ְ ‫וּב ָכ‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ָב ָבם נִ ְשׁ ָבּעוּ‬ ְ ‫בוּﬠה ִכּי ְב ָכ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְשּׁ‬ ַ ‫הוּדה ַﬠ‬ ָ ְ‫וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְמחוּ ָכל־י‬ ‫ִבּ ְק ֻשׁהוּ וַ יִּ ָמּ ֵצא ָל ֶהם וַ יָּ נַ ח יְ הוָ ה ָל ֶהם ִמ ָסּ ִביב׃‬ All Judah rejoiced over the oath, for they swore with all their hearts, and they sought him earnestly. And he was found by them, and he gave them rest round about.

Regardless of whether 2 Chr 14 and 2 Chr 15 are from different sources, the rest-statements in 2 Chr 14:7 [MT 14:6] and 2 Chr 15:15 are consistent. In fact, the two rest-statements may perhaps even be in coordination with each other. 2 Chronicles 14:7 states: “We have sought (‫ )דרשׁ‬him and he has given rest to us round about,” whereas 2 Chr 15:15 records: “they sought him earnestly (‫ )בקשׁ‬and he was found (‫ )מצא‬by them, and he gave them rest round about.” YHWH is sought in 2 Chr 14:7, but in 2 Chr 15:15 YHWH is both sought and found. Many of the details of Asa’s war against the King Baasha of the Northern Kingdom and Asa’s final years in 2 Chr 16 are taken from 1 Kings 16:16–24. In the Chronicler’s account, there is a distinct tone of disapproval of Asa’s actions not found in Kings (2 Chr 16:7–10, 12)—thus, there is also a duality of positive and negative in the Chronicler’s account of Asa, and the expressions of rest follow the duality. 2 Chronicles 16:9 states: ‫ם־ל ָב ָבם ָשׁ ֵלם ֵא ָליו‬ ְ ‫אָרץ ְל ִה ְת ַחזֵּ ק ִﬠ‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫ִכּי יְ הוָ ה ֵﬠינָ יו ְמשׁ ְֹטטוֹת ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫נִ ְס ַכּ ְל ָתּ ַﬠל־זֹאת ִכּי ֵמ ַﬠ ָתּה יֵ שׁ ִﬠ ְמּ� ִמ ְל ָחמוֹת׃‬ For YHWH’s eyes roam to and fro throughout the earth to strengthen the hearts wholly devoted to him. You have acted foolish about this. Indeed, from now on you will have wars. 100 99

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 269. Emphasis mine.

100

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

251

While Asa’s reign is generally characterized as positive, and he is not shown to turn to foreign idols, the end of his reign is still marked by actions that show a lack of dependence on YHWH, the result of which is war, or unrest. The Chronicler’s account of Asa’s reign has an inordinate number of rest-statements, both positive and negative. This naturally raises the question as to why so many rest-terms are used in Asa’s reign, especially compared to Solomon’s reign. Solomon is the “man of rest” and king par excellence. Japhet also notices this disparity: This is an interesting phenomenon. The title of ‘a man of rest’, in whose reign peace and quiet will prevail (I Chron. 22.9), is given in Chronicles to Solomon. In the actual description of Solomon’s reign, however, Chronicles does not make a single reference to the realization of this potential; all the passages which feature this idea, like I Kings 4.21–22 [MT 5.4–5]; 5.4 [MT 5.19]; 8.56, are for one reason or another not found in the Chronicles text. By contrast, ‘peace’ is a persistent theme during the greater part of Asa’s reign, repeated for Jehoshaphat in 17.10; 20.29–30. 101

Chronicles does not record that Solomon faced opposition or adversaries, unlike 1 Kings 11:14–25. Moreover, the kingdom’s division is attributed more to Rehoboam rather than Solomon in the Chronicler’s account. 102 As the kingdom(s) fall(s) into war and strife—and idolatry—Asa’s cultic reformation and reorientation toward YHWH provide the appropriate opportunity in the text to display the Chronicler’s theology of rest. The duality of Asa’s reign with respect to rest enables further advancement of the program of rest established in 1 Chr 22:9. The disintegration of the divided nation both politically and spiritually allows for a new era of rest to be presented, which is not available in the account of Solomon’s reign. Furthermore, the negative actions of Asa at the end of his reign also provide the opportunity to exhibit unrest, reengaging the cycle 101 102

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 705. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 238.

252

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

of rest in Chronicles. The possibility of the start of a new cycle of rest was suggested above with the construction of the temple—YHWH’s resting place—in 2 Chr 6:41. The cycle of rest spirals downward thereafter, only to be reinstated in 2 Chr 14 with Asa’s reform and lost again in 2 Chr 16. Hence, the cycles of rest in Chronicles post-temple are more akin to the cycles present in Judges than the era of kings narrated in the DH, at least when it comes to the rest.

Jehoshaphat—YHWH Has Judged: 2 Chronicles 19:1; 20:30

Asa’s son Jehoshaphat succeeds his father to the throne of Judah in 2 Chr 17:1. The long account of Jehoshaphat’s reign spans more than four chapters in Chronicles, much of which is unparalleled in the DH. Jehoshaphat is given only an introduction and conclusion to his reign in Kings (1 Kings 15:24 and 1 Kings 22:41–50), and is otherwise only mentioned in conjunction with King Ahab of Israel (1 Kings 22). In Chronicles, according to Williamson, “much new material is introduced which makes of Jehoshaphat one of the major kings of the Chronicler’s narrative.” 103 As it is in Kings, the Chronicler’s account of Jehoshaphat is generally positive of his reign. However, 2 Chr 19:1–4, which is unparalleled in Kings, offers mixed commentary about Jehoshaphat’s allegiance with King Ahab. Initially, 2 Chr 19:1 states: ‫ירוּשׁ ָל�׃‬ ָ ‫ל־בּיתוֹ ְבּ ָשׁלוֹם ִל‬ ֵ ‫הוּדה ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫הוֹשׁ ָפט ֶמ ֶל�־י‬ ָ ְ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב י‬ Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, returned to his house in peace, to Jerusalem.

This could be just a simple statement that Jehoshaphat returns safely from the battle he had fought in support of Ahab. But, since the phrase is not found in Kings, there is at least some intent by the Chronicler to show that Jehoshaphat survives the conflict unharmed, in contrast to Ahab who is killed. 103

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 278.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

253

Thereafter, Jehoshaphat meets Jehu, the son of Hanai. The Hebrew is unclear whether Jehu or Hanai bears the title of “seer” (‫) ַהחֹזֶ ה‬, but nevertheless it is Jehu who offers judgment in 2 Chr 19:2–3: ‫הוֹשׁ ָפט ֲה ָל ָר ָשׁע‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶל� י‬ ַ ‫אמר ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ן־חנָ נִ י ַהחֹזֶ ה וַ יּ‬ ֲ ‫ל־פּנָ יו יֵ הוּא ֶב‬ ָ ‫וַ יֵּ ֵצא ֶא‬ ָ ‫וּלשׂ ֹנְ ֵאי יְ הוָ ה ֶתּ ֱא ָהב‬ ְ ‫ַל ְﬠזֹר‬ ‫וּבזֹאת ָﬠ ֶלי� ֶקּ ֶצף ִמ ִלּ ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה׃ ֲא ָבל ְדּ ָב ִרים‬ ‫ינוֹת ְל ָב ְב� ִל ְדר ֹשׁ‬ ָ ‫אָרץ וַ ֲה ִכ‬ ֶ ‫ן־ה‬ ָ ‫י־ב ַﬠ ְר ָתּ ָה ֲא ֵשׁרוֹת ִמ‬ ִ ‫טוֹבים נִ ְמ ְצאוּ ִﬠ ָמּ� ִכּ‬ ִ ‫�הים׃‬ ִ ‫ָה ֱא‬ And Jehu, son of Hanai, the seer, went out to meet him. And he said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate YHWH? Because of this, wrath is upon you from YHWH. However, good things are found in you, for you purged the Asheroth from the land and have set your heart to seek God.”

Like his father Asa, there is a duality of judgment on Jehoshaphat. It is well known that the Chronicler disfavors Northern Israel, and thus he does not include the annals of the northern kings despite their inclusion in the Books of Kings. Hence, the negative commentary provided through Jehu concerning Jehoshaphat’s involvement in the north aligns with the Chronicler’s views. Yet, as a major king in Chronicles, 104 the negative judgment upon Jehoshaphat is somewhat mitigated. The duality found in Asa’s reign and now Jehoshaphat’s, conveniently provides further opportunity to recognize a cycle of rest. By attaching negative comment to the battle fought with Ahab (found also in 1 Kings 22), an event is now available to cast in a negative light, beyond statements of whether or not a king “walked in the ways of his father” (2 Chr 20:32–33). It allows the rest motif to bend downward—and, a subsequent return to a state of rest through proper obedience. The text of 2 Chr 20:30 records:

104

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 278.

254

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE ‫�היו ִמ ָסּ ִביב׃‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ָפט וַ יָּ נַ ח לוֹ ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫וַ ִתּ ְשׁקֹט ַמ ְלכוּת י‬ So the kingdom of Jehoshaphat had respite, and his God gave him rest round about.

The rest-term ‫ שׁקט‬is used again in conjunction with the ‫נוח‬ hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula, similar to 2 Chr 14:5–7 [MT 14:4–6]. The kingdom has ‫שׁקט‬-rest, as does Asa’s kingdom in 2 Chr 14:5. In addition to the ‫ נוח‬formula, “round about” is employed in 2 Chr 20:30, as it is in 2 Chr 14:7. Although with Asa, ‫נוח‬-rest is given “to us” (‫ ) ָלנוּ‬whereas only Jehoshaphat is given rest. It is likely that only Jehoshaphat is given rest because “the people did not set their hearts on the God of their fathers” (2 Chr 20:33). Hence, three rest-terms are used in the narrative of Jehoshaphat’s reign; ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬in 2 Chr 20:30, and ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in 2 Chr 19:1. These three are also used in Asa’s reign, as well as three of the four rest-terms used with Solomon in 1 Chr 22:9. It is possiָ ‫ ְמ‬became a ble that by the time of the Chronicler’s writing, ‫נוּחה‬ technical term describing the temple (“house of rest” in 1 Chr ָ ‫ ְמ‬appears only twice in Chronicles, with the other 28:1). ‫נוּחה‬ instance of it characterizing Solomon as “the man of rest” in 1 Chr 22:9, but this is in the context of his selection as the builder of the temple. There is almost certainly a literary word play with the name Jehoshaphat, which means “YHWH has judged.” In 2 Chr 19:4–11, Jehoshaphat is said to have instituted cultic reform through the appointment of regional judges. 105 While the pun on the name may be little more than coincidence, from a literary point of view the act of installing judges is—regardless of the historicity—reminiscent of the book of Judges. Indeed, the theology represented in Chronicles, and in particular the portrayal of kings post-Solomon, emphasizes the conditionality of blessing. Conditionality naturally lends itself to cycles of blessing and The discussion of the historicity of this account and whether or not it is anachronistic is beyond the scope of this study. See the detailed treatment of the subject by Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 770–774. 105

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

255

curses, which the book of Judges epitomizes. Duke touches upon this aspect of conditionality in the Chronicler’s theology: The Chronicler illustrates a characteristic of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel in which Israel’s fate never was sealed. Reversals in Israel’s state of blessing or ruin could and did take place from generation to generation. If the king and people were suffering the consequences of forsaking God, and they humbled themselves and sought God, then they could be restored. But if they were experiencing the blessings of God and they forsook God, then they would face disaster. 106

Duke’s characterization of the Chronicler’s theology sounds remarkably similar to the general understanding of the book of Judges. In Judges, the term ‫ שׁקט‬is used to mark provisional periods of rest after a return to obedience by the people. It is a separate notion from the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula, but serves to function within the DH paradigm of rest in order to describe the periods of respite after implied unrest. This then, allows the state of rest declared by the ‫נוח‬-rest formula to remain valid. In Chronicles, however, ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬are intimately joined. Kings and people enjoy ‫נוח‬-rest, while lands and kingdoms receive ‫שׁקט‬-rest, but both under the reign of a king. The combining of these two aspects of rest thus follows the framework established in 1 Chr 22:9. From a literary standpoint, the consistent use of ‫ שׁקט‬in Chronicles and the installation of judges during Jehoshaphat’s reign may function to shade the depiction of the monarchic period closer to the era of the judges.

‫שׁקט‬-Cycles Revisited: 2 Chronicles 23:21

Almost the exact same line from 2 Kings 11:20 is found in 2 Chr 23:21: 107 ‫ת־ﬠ ַת ְליָ הוּ ֵה ִמיתוּ ֶב ָח ֶרב׃‬ ֲ ‫אָרץ וְ ָה ִﬠיר ָשׁ ָק ָטה וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ם־ה‬ ָ ‫ל־ﬠ‬ ַ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְמחוּ ָכ‬ Duke, DOTHB, 172. The verb ‫“ שׂמח‬to rejoice” is made plural and �‫ ֵבּית ֶמ ֶל‬and is removed from the Chronicler’s Vorlage. 106 107

256

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE Then the people of the land rejoiced, and the city had respite. Athaliah was killed by the sword.

The one instance of ‫ שׁקט‬in the post-temple portion of the DH is in 2 Kings 11:20, which has already been explored in the DH chapter. It was tentatively suggested that this use of ‫ שׁקט‬might have been a subtle signal of a re-entrance into a period similar to the Judges era. This subtle notion along with the faint glimmer of hope offered at the end of the DH might function together to portray a state of conditionality, for the provision of ‫שׁקט‬ would only be offered after a state of unrest. Of course, the construction of the temple portrays a stable kingdom, but in light of the ensuing battles and conflict there is already a need in the DH to point to a future hope. Hence, as Dtr reached the limits of the history narrated in the DH, there were concluding aspects that required resolution. Rest is achieved in 1 Kings 8:56, but in reality the Israelites were experiencing something very different. Indeed, the accounts of warfare contradict the notion of a state of rest and require an explanation and subsequent offer of hope. The uncharacteristic application of ‫שׁקט‬-rest to the monarchic era in the DH may have provided an opportunity—it “opened the door,” so to speak—to (re)consider that the ultimate rest-statement in 1 Kings 8:56 may not be so unshakable after all. The ongoing wars allow for a state of conditional and provisional ‫שׁקט‬-rest typical of the Judges era to be reinstated, but instead under the auspices of a monarchy. Although speculative to some degree, it is possible that 2 Kings 11:20 afforded the Chronicler an avenue to combine, rework, and expand the ‫נוח‬-rest and ‫שׁקט‬-rest of the DH into his own annals. Given the data presented thus far, it is plausible that from the Chronicler’s post-exilic point of view, a re-entry into the promised land— perhaps a more spiritual one—was needed, and the return to an era similar to that of the judges in the DH was intended. The cycles of rest and unrest, the aspects of obedience and devotion to YHWH, the crying out in dependence to YHWH, are all conducive to the theology of Chronicles. The returned exiles cross the river Jordan once again to forge a new history.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

257

Hezekiah, the Second Solomon: 2 Chronicles 32:22

The importance of King Hezekiah in Chronicles is widely recognized. The “scholarly consensus” 108 concurs with Japhet: “The space which the Chronicler has devoted to Hezekiah’s story is one way of expressing that Hezekiah is the greatest Judean monarch after David and Solomon.” 109 The debate is not over Hezekiah’s importance, but rather whether the Chronicler portrays Hezekiah as a second David or a second Solomon. 110 Of course, a mediating position is available—Throntveit suggests that Hezekiah is both a second David and a second Solomon. 111 Since Hezekiah is so significant in Chronicles, one would expect to see a rest-statement applied to Hezekiah or his reign, but a rest-term cannot be found in the MT manuscripts. The LXX (and Vulgate), however, records “and he gave them rest” in 2 Chr 32:22 (καὶ κατέπαυσεν αὐτοὺς). The MT of 2 Chr 32:22 is: ‫רוּשׁ ַל� ִמיַּ ד ַסנְ ֵח ִריב ֶמ ֶל�־אַשּׁוּר‬ ָ ְ‫יּוֹשׁע יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־יְ ִחזְ ִקיָּ הוּ וְ ֵאת י ְֹשׁ ֵבי י‬ ַ ַ‫ו‬ ‫וּמיַּ ד־כֹּל וַ יְ נַ ֲה ֵלם ִמ ָסּ ִביב׃‬ ִ YHWH saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib, king of Assyria; and from the hand of all others. And he guided them round about (on every side). 112

According to Curtis, the Hebrew of the MT is “most awkward, if not impossible.” 113 The editors of the BHS suggest a textual erMark A. Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (JSOTSup 371; eds. M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie and Gary N. Knoppers; London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 105. 109 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 912. 110 For a concise summary of the salient points, and further reference of literature, see Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah,” 108– 116. 111 Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah,” 117–118. 112 Emphasis mine. 113 Curtis, The Books of Chronicles, 490. 108

258

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ror, and that the proper reading should be ‫ וַ יָּ נַ ח ָל ֶהם‬instead of ‫וַ יְ נַ ֲה ֵלם‬, making the translation “and he gave them rest round

about.” Most commentators also suggest this amendment. 114 Except for 2 Chr 32:22, 2 Chr 32:20–24 follows the general structure and order of topics in 2 Kings 19:35–20:1. Hence, 2 Chr 32:22 is unique to the Chronicler, and therefore it is either an intentional expansion or from another source. There are many aspects of Hezekiah’s account in Chronicles that one could provide as a reason for the rest-statement (such as the cultic reform in 2 Chr 29 or the successful rebuffing of Sennacherib in 2 Chr 32). But this is precisely the problem: with so many reasons to make a rest-statement, why attribute only one to Hezekiah, especially if he is considered to be the second David and/or Second Solomon? King Josiah, the last of the Chronicler’s major kings, is also attributed rest only once. Accordingly, this portion of the analysis continues in conjunction with Josiah’s reign below. 590F

Rest in Peace: 2 Chronicles 34:28

Sourced from 2 Kings 22:20, 2 Chr 34:28 is part of Huldah’s prophetic response to King Josiah: ‫א־ת ְר ֶאינָ ה‬ ִ ֹ ‫ל־ק ְבר ֶֹתי� ְבּ ָשׁלוֹם וְ ל‬ ִ ‫ל־אב ֶֹתי� וְ נֶ ֱא ַס ְפ ָתּ ֶא‬ ֲ ‫ִהנְ נִ י א ִֹס ְפ� ֶא‬ ‫ל־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה וְ ַﬠל־י ְֹשׁ ָביו וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ ַ ‫ֵﬠינֶ י� ְבּכֹל ָה ָר ָﬠה ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ֵמ ִביא ַﬠ‬ ‫ת־ה ֶמּ ֶל� ָדּ ָבר׃‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace. And your eyes will not see all the calamity I will bring on this place and on its inhabitants. And they brought back word to the king.

Huldah’s response in 2 Chr 34:28 is recorded almost verbatim from 2 Kings 22:20. The only slight changes are: 1) “therefore” Braun, 1 Chronicles, xxxix; Curtis, The Books of Chronicles, 490. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 254; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 991–992; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 457; Myers, II Chronicles, 187; Martin J. Selman, 2 Chronicles (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994) 514; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 385. 114

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

259

(‫ ) ָל ֵכן‬leads the sentence in Kings, but is removed in Chronicles; 2) “unto (‫ ) ַﬠל‬your fathers” in Kings is changed to “to (‫ ) ֶאל‬your fathers” in Chronicles; and 3) the Chronicler adds “and on its inhabitants” (‫)וְ ַﬠל־י ְֹשׁ ָביו‬. Little can be said about the use of ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in 2 Chr 34:28 because it is borrowed directly from the book of Kings. No other king in the Books of Kings or Chronicles is offered or stated to be “gathered to your grave in peace.” There is some discussion whether Josiah’s death in battle negates this prophecy. If so, the contradiction lends support that Huldah’s prophecy is older than the event of Josiah’s death, and is therefore authentic. 115 However, Dillard persuasively argues that the prophecy need not be seen in contradiction in the first place: 591F

It will not suffice to suggest that Huldah’s original prophecy was unfulfilled or in error. This would have been anathema to the compilers of Kings who repeatedly use the fulfillment of prophetic pronouncements to confirm the efficacy of the prophetic word (Deut 18:14–22); it is hardly probable that such a lapse could escape editorial excision in Kings, much less also survive the Chronicler. A more natural understanding does not require literary critical effort. The compilers of Kings and Chronicles apparently understood the first half of Huldah’s prophecy (going to grave in peace) as defined by the second half (not seeing the destruction of Jerusalem). 116

In the end, one cannot know the Chronicler’s intention with any certainty as to why this verse is retained; the Chronicler may simply be preserving his Vorlage. One also cannot know if, in the Chronicler’s view, this verse continued to serve his literary and theological purposes and therefore was left essentially intact. In either case, from an overarching point of view of the rest motif in Chronicles, there is a noticeable decline in the number of rest-statements towards the end of Chronicles—and, more importantly, there is a successive decline in the number of rest-statements recorded in the accounts of each “major” king. 115 116

See John Priest, “Huldah’s Oracle,” VT 30 (1980) 366–368. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 281–282.

260

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The account of Asa’s reign includes six rest-statements, Jehoshaphat’s includes three, and Hezekiah’s includes only one. If ‫ָשׁלוֹם‬ in 2 Chr 34:28 should be counted toward the Chronicler’s paradigm of rest, then both Hezekiah and Josiah are given only one rest-statement. If there were no intent by the Chronicler to subsume the ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in his rest-paradigm—but rather the term were simply caught up along with the use of the source material— then the lack of some form of rest to Josiah is all the more astonishing, especially considering the major reform undertaken by Josiah. One is hard-pressed not to recall the decline of reststatements in Judges that followed the decline of Israel’s spiritual relationship with YHWH and the increasing unrest that Israel experiences toward the end of the book of Judges. Indeed, one of the most devastating events in Israel’s history is recorded soon after the account of Josiah’s reign: the fall of Jerusalem in 2 Chr 36:15–21. The discussion above brings the addition of the phrase “and on its inhabitants” in 2 Chr 34:28 into greater focus. Pursuant to the discussion of whether the rest-statement in 2 Chr 34:28 is left intact intentionally, the inclusion of “and on its inhabitants” must have been intentional and purposeful. The rather benign explanatory expansion of the calamity on “this place,” and perhaps, “the place” (Deut 12:11) extends also to the people of the place. This highlights the spatial versus relational differences between Kings and Chronicles. With this small addition, the Chronicler reminds the reader that more than the national land is devastated by the exile; the people of the nation are also forever affected by it.

The Sabbath of the Land: 2 Chronicles 36:21

The fall of Jerusalem is recorded at the end of Chronicles, and 2 Chr 36:20–21 are the last two verses of the Chronicler’s annals before the doublet of Cyrus’ decree, which is repeated at the beginning of Ezra–Nehemiah. 2 Chronicles 36:20–21 records: ��‫ד־מ‬ ְ ‫וּל ָבנָ יו ַל ֲﬠ ָב ִדים ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ל־בּ ֶבל וַ יִּ ְהיוּ־לוֹ‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ֶח ֶרב ֶא‬ ַ ‫וַ יֶּ גֶ ל ַה ְשּׁ ֵא ִרית ִמ‬ ‫אָרץ ֶאת־‬ ֶ ‫ד־ר ְצ ָתה ָה‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְלכוּת ָפּ ָרס׃ ְל ַמלֹּאות ְדּ ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הוּ ַﬠ‬ ‫יה ָכּל־יְ ֵמי ָה ַשּׁ ָמּה ָשׁ ָב ָתה ְל ַמלֹּאות ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה׃‬ ָ ‫תוֹת‬ ֶ ‫ַשׁ ְבּ‬

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

261

He took into exile those who escaped from the sword to Babylon. And they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of YHWH from Jeremiah, until the land restored its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it rested, to fulfill seventy years.

The concept of sabbath has not been the focus of this study. However, ‫ שׁבת‬as either a noun or a verb is used only 12 times in Chronicles, but twice in 2 Chr 36:21 (once each as a noun and a verb), and given the importance of 2 Chr 36:21 to the overall book of Chronicles, it seems appropriate to discuss ‫שׁבת‬ in 2 Chr 36:21 briefly. The fulfillment of the 70 years garners heavy discussion in scholarship, and Williamson notes: “this phrase has been almost endlessly discussed.” 117 Despite the debate, there is a consensus that there are obvious connections between 2 Chr 36:20–21, Jeremiah, and Leviticus. The reference to “the word of YHWH from Jeremiah” in the verses brings the 70 years in Jer 25:11– 14 and 29:10 into view, and the phrase depicting servitude “to him and his sons” links with Jer 27:6–7. The desolation and the restoration of the land’s sabbath years in 2 Chr 36:20 is a clear allusion to Lev 26:33–35. Most of the discussion of this verse revolves around two topics: 1) the future view that the land will enjoy a sabbath rest for 70 years, and therefore the corollary that there is an intimation of hope because the exile is not permanent; 118 and 2) the past view of restoration, or “making up,” of sabbaths. The deduction is, if the sabbath year is to be prescribed every seven years, then the 70 years of sabbath rest multiplied by seven years would equal 490 years, and would therefore “restore” history to that point in time. The second of these two topics may be meaningful for this study of rest in Chronicles. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 417. See also the same for a selected bibliography of the literature on the topic. 118 While the exile only lasted 50 years, the time between the destruction of the first temple and construction of the second is 70. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 418. 117

262

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

By applying the number of years that the Chronicler attributes to the reigns of kings in his annals, Williamson suggests that the 490 years may point to the beginning of David’s reign (474 years prior). The uncertain number of years of Solomon’s reign would account for the difference, and therefore the beginning of David’s reign would be 490 years precisely. This is a very reasonable and plausible deduction. Apart from the chronology set forth by the Chronicler, Curtis views the 490 years to extend back to ca. 1076 BCE, which would then refer to a time just before the monarchic period— the end of the Judges era. 119 The argument that the 490 years may represent a timespan that refers back to the Judges era is often noted but dismissed without discussion. However, given the data above and the possible connections between Chronicles and Judges, perhaps Curtis’ contention should not be so readily set aside without further consideration. Indeed, it is a possibility that the Chronicler wished to portray a re-entrance into a land of promise and hope. Whether the 490 years refers to the beginning of David’s reign or to the end of the Judges era, in either case there is a rather distinct picture that begins to form: Israel is ready to enter a new land, under a new reign. Dillard reflects on this perspective: From the vantage of the restoration, the seventy years of sabbatical rests prepared the land for the returnees; it allowed time for recuperation…One overarching concern of the Chronicler has been the question of the continuity of the restoration community with the past: “on the other side of exile and judgment, are we as a people still the particular object of God’s favor?” In his tracing the history of the universe from Adam (1 Chr 1:1) to approximately his own day, the Chronicler is answering that question with a ringing affirmation. He is saying in effect, “God has loved us from the foundation of the world; we are a prepared people brought to a prepared land. It is a new day.” 120 119 120

Curtis, The Books of Chronicles, 524. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 301–302.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

263

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS The Development of Rest from the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles

It is true that there is a development of the concept of rest from the DH to Chronicles—and, at first glance, the various aspects of rest in the DH are joined together in a way that would suggest there is a deterioration of the concept. For example, in the DH the ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ ל‬formula is applied only to Israel, David, and Solomon, but in Chronicles, as von Rad observes, it is given “from time to time to pious kings.” 121 However, upon detailed scrutiny, the concept may not have “swung away from the real deuteronomic conception of ‘rest’” 122 as much as von Rad may have envisaged. First, the application of the ‫נוח‬-rest formula to later pious kings is not incongruous with the use of the formula in the DH. Indeed, there is only one true rest given to Israel (Josh 21:44) in the DH. However, it was noted in the DH chapter that the rest given to David and Solomon thereafter is not separate from Israel’s rest, but rather the two kings were an extension of Israel in their function as monarchs of the nation. Even though reststatements are not made with later kings in the DH, the use of rest-terms with later pious kings in Chronicles is conceptually harmonious with the DH, 123 and further extends the emphasis on David to the Davidic line. In fact, the Chronicler may even apply rest-statemetns more frequently than von Rad cites (Asa and Jehoshaphat), 124 since it is highly likely that Hezekiah is given rest in 2 Chr 32:22, and Josiah is offered ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in 2 Chr 34:28. Second, the notions that the people and YHWH rest concurrently 125 and that the resting places of each intersect are not en597F

598F

Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97. Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97. 123 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 781. 124 Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97. 125 Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 98. 121 122

264

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ָ ‫ ְמ‬in 1 Kings tirely new in Chronicles. In the DH, the use of ‫נוּחה‬ 8:56 is, in the view of this study, intentionally ambiguous in order to encompass both the land of inheritance and the temple. Moreover, that the people’s rest preceded the construction of YHWH’s place of rest is only implied, since the only true statement of it is in Josh 21:44. While Ps 95 (and therefore Heb 3) may have a more fully developed interpretation that the resting place of the people and YHWH are the same, in Chronicles it is—as in the DH—an implied notion, and is not directly stated (1 Chr 22:18; 23:25). Third, the use of the various rest-terms (‫נוח‬, ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬, ‫שׁקט‬, and ‫ ) ָשׁלוֹם‬is unquestionably different in Chronicles from the DH. However, in the majority of the uses, the Chronicler applies the terms in a fashion similar to their usage in the DH. For example, ‫ שׁקט‬is still given to the land (or kingdom) and still denotes temporary respite. The ‫נוח‬-rest formula is given only to people (including kings), and ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) is still used to rest cultic objects (2 Chr 4:8). Despite the similarities, there are distinct differences. The most notable difference is the use of new rest-words that did not play a significant role in the DH. Peace (‫ ) ָשׁלוֹם‬is a major development in Chronicles. The term is used in the accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah. In all likelihood, the uses of ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬with kings correlate with its use with Solomon in 1 Chr 22:9. Significant Aspects of the Chronicler’s Theology of Rest

While there is a development—and not a deterioration—of the concept from the DH to Chronicles, intrinsic to any development is the manifestation of distinct characteristics when contrasted with the original concept. As demonstrated in this chapter, the concept of rest in Chronicles does indeed exhibit notable aspects that can be deemed characteristic of the Chronicler and/or his method. Some of the more significant aspects are summarized below.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

265

The Programmatic Nature of 1 Chronicles 22:9

One examining the concept of rest in Chronicles in comparison with the DH can initially be confounded at the apparent miscellany of rest-statements and their diverse uses. However, close examination reveals that the various aspects of rest are interlaced such that there is a substantial level of cohesion. The cornerstone that acts as the foundation and controls many of the instances of rest is 1 Chr 22:9. Indeed, it is programmatic, in a similar manner that Deut 12:8–10 is programmatic for the concept in the DH. The four rest-terms in 1 Chr 22:9 are thereafter applied to four major kings: Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. In contrast to the DH, ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬are intimately joined. The use of both terms in 2 Chr 14:6 [MT 14:5] (Asa) and 2 Chr 20:30 (Jehoshaphat) is made feasible by the use of both in 1 Chr 22:9. The two terms still carry distinct meanings: kings and people enjoy ‫נוח‬-rest, land and kingdoms receive ‫שׁקט‬-rest—but both within the reign of a king. The phrase “in his days” in 1 Chr 22:9 qualifies the peace and respite to Solomon’s reign, and the same qualification of his “in his days” is repeated with Asa in 2 Chr 14:1 [MT 13:23]. The combining of ‫ שׁקט‬and ‫ נוח‬thus follows the framework established in 1 Chr 22:9. The same is likely true for the uses of ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in the accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah.

The Chronicler’s Method of Incremental Development

Because of the programmatic nature of 1 Chr 22:9, the reader is able to see how aspects of this verse are implemented in later passages. One method that the Chronicler employs is to reveal parts of a theological concept gradually in order to join them together at various points in the narrative, and thereby develop a full depiction of it over the span of the text. The best example of this is the Chronicler’s development of the concept of YHWH’s presence. The data presented above regarding 1 Chr 22:9 showed that with the selection of Solomon there is a shift in focus from the spatial to the relational when compared with the DH. The emphasis in the DH is the promise of rest through the land of inheritance. In 1 Chr 22:9, however, the promised rest is medi-

266

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

ated through a king. “In his reign,” Israel (not land) will have

‫שׁקט‬-rest. 1 Chronicles 22:9 therefore sets a relational backdrop

for the incrementally presented emphasis that YHWH’s presence, and indeed his rest is with his people. Only nine verses later in 1 Chr 22:18, David states to his leading officials: “Is not YHWH your God with you, and has he not given you rest from round about?” 126 YHWH is “with” his people, but precisely how he is “with” them remains undefined in the verse. Nonetheless, YHWH’s presence leads to the natural corollary in David’s next question, that YHWH has given his people rest round about. Thereafter, in 1 Chr 23:25 David is not shown to be speaking, but rather his words are remembered and recounted: “For David said, ‘YHWH, the God of Israel, has given rest to his people, and he dwells in Jerusalem forever.’” This is the only instance of the phrase “rest to his people,” and together with the title “God of Israel,” the two continue the relational notion, and in the second half of the verse, the concept of YHWH’s presence becomes more fully defined: “he dwells in Jerusalem forever.” The words “YHWH with” is now given a space, which is located in Jerusalem. Of course, at this point in the narrative the temple had not yet been built. David’s instructions to his leading officials (1 Chr 22:17– 19) are now rebroadcast to a public audience, and in 1 Chr 28:2 he says: “Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of YHWH and the footstool of our God.” By calling the temple a “house of rest,” the concept of YHWH’s presence is further elaborated. YHWH’s presence will be in the temple, and there he will rest. It is true that in this instance only the ark is shown to be in the temple, 127 however, YHWH’s presence is certainly represented by the ark: The image of the ark, God’s footstool, resting in the Temple affirms that YHWH is actually present…According to Chron126 127

Emphasis mine. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 487.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

267

icles, then, the Temple represents, first and foremost, God’s actual presence in the midst of His people. Whatever happens there happens “before Him”—“to His face.” 128

Any questions raised by the portrayal of only the ark in 1 Chr 28:2 are answered by the quotation of Ps 132 again in 2 Chr 6:41: “And now arise O YHWH God, to your resting place, you and the ark of your might.” The invocation to arise is offered to ָ ‫ ֵבּית ְמ‬and YHWH and his ark. The idea of the temple as ‫נוּחה‬ YHWH’s rest therein is now fully developed. Solomon, the ‫ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ ֵבּית ְמ‬, and invites ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬, has built and dedicated YHWH’s ‫נוּחה‬ him to dwell amongst his people.

Shifts in Emphases

Certain shifts are noticeable with the development of the concept from the DH to Chronicles. While shared elements remain in both corpora, some elements are more accentuated in one than the other. One major shift is the change in focus from David to Solomon. While there is already a focus on Solomon as the chosen temple builder in the DH, the emphasis becomes even more pronounced in Chronicles. David, the man of war, is not stated to be given rest in Chronicles. This is most prominent in 1 Chr 17. The two rest-statements in the parallel account of Nathan’s Oracle from 2 Sam 7 are missing in 1 Chr 17. Indeed, Japhet is correct to assert that the focus of the oracle remains on David’s house instead of David himself: “This idiom is a major theme in the Chronicler’s theology; it represents the final expression of peace and well-being which very few kings in the history of Israel—conspicuously not David—achieved.” 129 A second shift mentioned frequently in this chapter is the transition from the spatial to the relational. The emphasis on relationship already present in 1 Chr 22:9 is reinforced and expounded on in 1 Chr 22:10: “He will build a house for my name, and he will be my son and I will be his father.” Moreover, the Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 62. 129 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 991–992. 128

268

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

infrequent mention of “inheritance” (‫ )נַ ֲח ָלה‬restrains the concept in Chronicles. This shift to the relational is well explained by the Chronicler’s post-exilic perspective and the reality that the inheritance had already been lost once before. A third shift in emphasis is the modification of the understanding of rest from military invasion as an opportunity to build a temple (1 Kings 5:3–5), into a reason for which a temple should be built. The letter to Hiram from Solomon in 1 Kings 5:3–5 [5:17–19] states the reason David could not build the temple: wars surrounded him. This is juxtaposed with statement that Solomon now enjoys rest from the enemies surrounding him, and is therefore able to build the temple. In contrast, the rhetorical questions presented to the officials in 1 Chr 22:18 presents Israel’s rest slightly differently. The rhetorical questions, “Is not YHWH your God with you, and has he not given you rest from round about?” are used by David as a call to build the temple, which is made clear in 1 Chr 22:19: “Rise and build the sanctuary of YHWH God to bring the ark of the covenant of YHWH and the holy vessels of God to the house built for the name of YHWH.” The rest given to Israel in the DH afforded an opportunity to build the temple. It provided the requisite elements needed to undertake a massive building project: time, physical and human resources, and most importantly, freedom from foreign invasion. Of course, these are still necessary to build the temple in Chronicles, but the emphasis is now on the aspect of response to the provision, the proper occasion to build the temple, rather than the opportunity. While more recent theories have proposed that the DH and Chronicles are competing, contemporary historiographies, this investigation has been carried out under the conventional framework that the DH, or at least some form of it, is the Chronicler’s Vorlage. However, the results of this study do not necessarily preclude or contradict those who propose that the two are competing historiographies, even if the results make it more difficult. At least from a view of comparing the respective theologies of rest, many of the observations presented here, such as these shifts of emphases, naturally lend themselves to support a DH that is earlier than Chronicles. But, one could make the argument that the rest motif is a core part of the DH, such that it was part of what Person would understand as an early redaction

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

269

of the DH that served as a common source for the two historiographies, 130 or perhaps even embedded earlier, in the texts that were used to compose the common source.

Cycles of Rest

One major development in Chronicles is the reemergence of rest cycles post-Solomon. The cycles are not absent in the DH—the cycles are well attested in Judges—but they are virtually absent in Kings. Indeed, 1 Kings 8:56 portrays the provision of rest as final, even though wars and strife are recorded in the DH thereafter. The one use of ‫ שׁקט‬in 2 Kings 11:20 may be a small acknowledgement of this reality. It is possible, but perhaps not demonstrable, that the Chronicler found the authority he needed in 2 Kings 11:20 (parallel in 2 Chr 23:21) to renew the cycles of rest post-Solomon. The application of rest-statements to certain kings is more than “a gift which God grants from time to time to pious kings.” 131 Each of these pious kings—Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah—undertakes some measure of cultic reform. The reform reestablishes the relationship with YHWH through worship, the center of which is the temple and YHWH’s house of rest. In so doing, the natural consequence is that it prompts and perpetuates new cycles of rest. Inherent in the concept of rest is unrest, and when the two concepts join together, a cycle is formed. 607F

The Cycles of Rest in Judges and Chronicles

Related to the cycles of rest in Chronicles, the most speculative observation—but perhaps the most significant—is that the cycles of rest evoke imagery from the Judges era; this period is not included in the Chronicler’s annals. Indeed, the theology of generational disobedience, retribution, and restoration is shared Raymond F Person Jr., The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (SBLAIL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 18. 131 Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 97. 130

270

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

between Judges and Chronicles. The circumstances of both time periods lend themselves to a similar hope. In both eras, the people sought to establish a national identity. Hence, the conditions leading to the building of both the first and second temples were conducive to cycles of rest. At the end of both books, spiritual and political decline necessarily pointed the nation to the future. No conclusions are drawn in this study with regard to any literary dependence, and further research is required to explore whether there are enough connections to recast 2 Chronicles as a second Judges. But, from a perspective that focuses on rest, it is sufficient to say that there are conceptual affinities between the two books.

A Hope for the Future

There is considerable disagreement about whether there are eschatological and messianic features in Chronicles. In particular, the quotation of Ps 132:8–10 in 2 Chr 6:41–42 has prompted much debate, especially because of the phrase “anointed ones” in 2 Chr 6:42 (singular in Ps 132:10). Von Rad calls this quotation a “messianic invocation,” 132 and Myers maintains similar conclusions. 133 In opposition, Japhet strongly denies any messianic or eschatological aspects in all of Chronicles. In direct response to von Rad, Japhet writes: It is worth mentioning at this point that although the book of Chronicles abounds with quotations from the entire Bible and whole verses are frequently quoted verbatim, not one verse in Chronicles exhibits a real dependence on a clearly messianic biblical passage. The messianic content of Psalm 132 remains open to discussion, but whatever the significance of the psalm as a whole, it is clear that the quotation appearing in Chronicles has no messianic import—it simply relates the installation of the ark as an historical event (2 Chr 6:41–42). Chronicles does not contain the least sugges132 133

Von Rad, “There Remains Still,” 98. Myers, II Chronicles, 38.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

271

tion of prophetic literature’s key eschatological texts…All those who argue that Chronicles is an eschatological text arrive at their conclusions the same way—by inference. 134

Japhet’s objections are correct in some respects. It is true that many of the arguments that seek messianic and/or eschatological undertones are inferential. At the same time, many arguments related to Chronicles, and indeed other the biblical works of historiography, are based on inference. The idea that there is a future hope of redemption in Chronicles is also largely deduced by inference. 135 Perhaps the balanced and therefore mediating approach by Williamson is a more suitable characterization of Chronicles: As with the Chronicler’s work as a whole, [2 Chr 6:41–42] cannot be termed “messianic” in its full sense, but it certainly suggests that, contrary to those commentators in whose view the promise is exhausted with the completion of the temple, he does rather see an abiding validity for the Davidic line, and that the temple building has confirmed, not absorbed, this hope. 136

There may not be any direct statements of eschatological promises in Chronicles, but the implicit offer of a future hope exists. Adding to the evidence of this hope, the cycles of rest in Chronicles naturally propel the concept of a future hope. The decreasing number of rest-statements toward the end of Chronicles creates a desire and hope for another cycle—perhaps a final cycle of rest—since the second temple must have been in the Chronicler’s immediate view. Japhet, Ideology, 388. See also Preuss, TDOT 9:285, who states: “Despite the importance of ‘rest’ in Israelite spirituality, it is interesting to note that it never appears as an aspect of eschatological hope.” 135 E.g., Japhet, Ideology, 384–393. Japhet writes (392): “Yet, despite their focus on the here and now, all these features are directed towards the future. Through them, the writer expresses his hopes for the future and confidence that his hopes will be fulfilled.” 136 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 221. 134

272

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Comparisons with Mesopotamian Literature The Chosen Temple Builder, Reemphasized

The notion of Solomon’s selection as the temple builder is also present in the DH, and the comparison of his appointment to the ML has already been explored in the DH chapter. The selection of Solomon as the temple builder in 1 Chr 22:9–10 is quite powerful, and has no parallel in the DH. Indeed, it may be more comparable to Esarhaddon and the ML: The god Aššur, king of the gods, truly looked on my good deeds and his heart became joyful, his mood shone. He blessed me with a blessing of long days and named me as the builder of the temple. I, together with my nobles (and) the people of my land, held a celebration in the courtyard of Ešarra for three days. I appeased the heart of his great divinity and placated his mood. 137

In 1 Chr 22:9, Solomon is specifically named. Furthermore, four different rest-terms are connected with his name, and those four are attributed to him and his reign. The relational aspects in 1 Chr 22:10 (“he will be my son and I will be his father”) in conjunction with the rest-statements in 1 Chr 22:9 serve to express divine relationship within the paradigm of rest in Chronicles. This too is comparable with the ML, where the paradigm of rest is fundamentally rooted in relationship to a deity. Notable is the fact that a statement of YHWH’s appeasement is still absent in the HB, although the construction of the “house of rest” implies the idea.

The Invocation to Arise

As noted in the above section on 2 Chr 6:31, calls to “arise” ָ ) are not uncommon in the HB or ML. However, the call (‫קוּמה‬ for YHWH to arise is absent in the DH, especially in conjunction with rest. In the ML, the call for a deity to arise in relation to 137

Esarhaddon, 57 vii 17–34.

4. REST IN CHRONICLES

273

rest is an invocation to arise from sleep/rest, and to quell unrest. 138 However, in 2 Chr 6:41 the invocation is: “And now, arise O YHWH God, to your resting place, you and the ark of your might.” Not only is YHWH reigning in his resting place but also he is at peace with his people; YHWH arises to his temple in the midst of his people, and not to war. This, as Japhet points out, is in direct contrast with the ML. 139

Rest after Reform

In the DH, because David is already considered a pious king, the promise of rest to him in the Nathan Oracle (2 Sam 7:11) does not necessitate cultic reform. Thus, the next rest-statement to a king is with Solomon in 1 Kings 5:4 [MT 5:18]. A reformation is not required, but instead rest from foreign incursion created an opportunity to build the temple. The cycles of rest in Chronicles revolve around the actions of the king, and in particular their ability to enact cultic reform. Rest is given to the kings, people, and land after cultic reform. In the ML, the civil war between Ashurbanipal and his brother is recorded in The Rassam Cylinder (sixth campaign). According to the text, Shamash-shum-ukin prevented his brother Ashurbanipal from giving food offerings to the gods, and also “plotted evil” against the temples. 140 After his brother is killed by the gods, Ashurbanipal continues to exact punishment on his brother’s cohorts and kills them as funerary offerings. The text then continues to record Ashurbanipal’s cultic reform: Through the work of the purification priests, I cleansed their sanctuaries, I purified their filthy streets. Their furious gods and their angry goddesses I quieted (ú-ni-iḫ) with offerings and prayers. I restored their regular offerings which had become too little, as in distant days. 141 The Poem of Erra, I 13–19; I 41–44. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 603. 140 Ashurbanipal, Cylinder A, III 111–117. 141 Ashurbanipal, Cylinder A, IV 86–91. 138 139

274

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

The appeasement (resting) of the gods is preceded by the cultic reform. Again, there is not an example of the appeasement of YHWH in the HB, but instead YHWH grants rest to the king and his people after cultic reform. Despite this difference, the overall cycles of rest in Chronicles compare reasonably well with those in the ML, and in particular with Ashurbanipal.

A Future Hope

It was proposed in the ML chapter that the ceaseless cycles of rest in the ML inevitably engendered a longing or hope for a final cycle and ultimate state of rest. In this respect, the theological aspects of rest in Chronicles are closer to the ML than the DH. In Judges, there is a decrease in the number of reststatements that follow the spiritual decline of nation, but this is in anticipation of the construction of the (first) temple in Kings, and thus the cycle is essentially concluded in 1 Kings 8:56. In contrast, while a temple is also anticipated, by virtue of the placement of the cycles of rest after Solomon’s temple, the conclusion to the cycles of rest is not available in Chronicles. Even the period of sabbath years in 2 Chr 36:21 expects a future reentrance into the land. Hence, a hope for a future rest exists in Chronicles, one that will be fulfilled after the restoration of the land’s 70 sabbath years.

CHAPTER FIVE.

CONCLUSION You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you. Augustine, Confessions

Since detailed and comprehensive conclusions are presented at the end of each chapter, offered here are brief concluding remarks on some overarching themes and significant features of rest, as well as some points of further inquiry that may assist future research on the topic.

CONCLUSORY REMARKS Rest, Defined

What is rest? In the ML, the divine provision of rest to another deity is rest from labor. Human beings, however, are not offered this kind of rest from the gods. Indeed, very little is recorded in the ML that depicts a divine provision of rest of any kind to human beings. The only hint of rest to humans from a deity that was found came in the form of a curse in a treaty with Esarhaddon: the gods would allow the unrest of politico-military oppression for breaking the treaty. 1 This aspect of rest is similar to the rest found in the DH and Chronicles, where rest is also from warfare and conflict with enemies. These battles are defensive in 1

The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, viii 637–639.

275

276

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

nature, while those that are offensive, such as to expand borders, are not considered unrest. Of course, one main difference is that Esarhaddon’s treaty is between human beings, but the covenant in Deuteronomy is between YHWH and Israel directly. The divine provision of rest from enemies in the HB has a specific purpose: rest from enemies is rest for worship and obedience. This is also borne out practically since rest from war is required in order to have the time and resources to build a temple of rest, in which worship takes place and loyal obedience is pledged. Thus, the state of rest (or unrest) is a strong indicator of the state of Israel’s divine relationship. Unrest is caused by disobedience, and in the DH unrest has the further purpose of “testing” Israel’s loyalty (Judg 3:1).

Expressions of Rest

In the DH, specific rest-statements have particular purposes. The technical formulation, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (1) + ‫ל‬, is used sparingly and means rest from enemies. It carries with it a more permanent sense, while ‫ שׁקט‬denotes temporary periods of respite from military conflict and oppression. When used with inanimate objects, ‫ נוח‬hiphil (2) depicts the resting (setting down) of items that have cultic associations. This might express something similar to the appeasement (resting) of a deity’s heart in the ML, however, it does so without stating that YHWH can be given rest as such, and therefore upholds that his rest was (or can be) ever disָ ‫ ְמ‬, is the temple, specifiturbed once established. The noun, ‫נוּחה‬ cally in the land of inheritance. This temple is the place of God’s rest, but since it is located in Israel’s land of rest, it acts as the intersection of divine and human rest. In Chronicles, these various rest-words often mean the same things, but they are applied in ways that paint a different theological expectation. Rest in the DH is singular, permanent, spatial, and fulfilled, while in Chronicles rest can be many, transient, relational, and eschatological. The placement of these words at different parts of the narrative from the DH draws the reader’s attention away from a physical temple and land toward a proper relationship with YHWH, and the emphasis shifts from David himself to his house. The meanings and functions of these

5. CONCLUSION

277

Hebrew rest-terms are controlled by programmatic passages in each corpus: Deut 12:8–12 and 1 Chr 22:9.

Cyclical Nature of Rest

One remarkable feature of rest is its cyclical nature. In the ML, rest earmarks what Walton calls “the great symbiosis.” Offerings appease the gods, but deities are unable to rest or sleep when “noise” is created by lament (humans) or rebellion (lower gods). The disruption of divine rest creates cycles of rest. That deities are susceptible to noise and can be caused unrest by people is a view decidedly not shared in Israelite literature. This is prominently featured in 1 Kings 18:20–40, and Elijah’s taunt is given even greater polemic edge when viewed with an understanding of the underlying clash of opposing theologies of rest. YHWH’s rest cannot be affected by people: he can be neither given rest nor disturbed of his rest. Of course, cycles of rest also exist in the HB, but they do not involve God’s rest. The portrayal of YHWH is vastly different from the tired and angry Erra in The Poem in this regard. Cycles of rest and unrest are only of the people’s own, caused solely by disobedience. Even in the DH, where the achievement of rest is primarily viewed as a one-time promise and fulfilment, cycles of rest are still present, mostly in Judges and stamped by ‫שׁקט‬. The most striking feature of rest in Chronicles is the way it portrays a new dawn of rest and a new opportunity for a right relationship with YHWH. The Chronicler reorients the reader back to a time before the golden age of the monarchy by shaping the rest motif at the end of the narrative to resemble the book of Judges. Thus, the latter portions of Chronicles and Judges share a unique element: both are concerned with the coming changes in the political landscape and express rest and unrest accordingly.

Eschatological Rest

War and peace inherently intertwine, oscillating back and forth like seasons. In the throes of these cycles, the ancients seem to express a desire for finality—an ultimate rest, and these texts, both biblical and extra-biblical, exhibit a distinct longing for a final rest. Eschatological elements are present in Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and The Poem of Erra. In Israelite literature, similar

278

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

elements are discernable in Chronicles, but they are less conspicuous in the DH. It is true that an actual “eschaton,” or separate future age, is not clearly visible in any of the three corpora of texts surveyed in this study. However, the cycles of rest naturally engender a hope for a different future—perhaps a final, ultimate cycle of rest. Even the DH may have hinted at a future hope towards the end of Kings. Williamson summarizes well how smaller elements of a future rest in Chronicles developed later into an eschatology: First, the resting place for the ark has become the final one of the temple itself. This marks an important development over the theme of rest which played such a vital role in the preparations for temple building in David’s reign…In order for the temple to be built in the first place, “rest” in terms of peace from war were a necessary precondition; now conversely the temple has itself become a resting-place for God. The use of the Psalm at this point [2 Chr 6:41–42] thus marks a decisive turning point in the religious history of the nation. The later history is to show that such a peak did not last, and that it was lost to later generations. But we may suggest it provided a pattern of what can only be called an eschatological rest, in which this passing glory would be replaced with permanent dwelling of God amongst his people; cf. Ezek. 48:35; Heb. 4; Rev. 21:3. 2

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

While this study treated the concept of rest in a broad array of literature, there are certainly more bodies of literature in which the concept could be explored, which in turn may provide insight into even more potential connections between the various corpora, and indeed within each corpus itself.

2

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 220.

5. CONCLUSION

279

ANE Concept of Rest

This study presented a focused inquiry into Akkadian words for rest in the ML. These texts served as suitable interlocutors not only because Akkadian is a cognate Semitic language with Hebrew but also because of the contact Israel had with Mesopotamian civilizations. However, as noted in the ML chapter of this study, Batto has already conducted a limited amount research on the topic in the Canaanite tradition of El and the Egyptian text The Theology of Memphis. 3 Further research is required to explore other bodies of ANE literature and time periods, which may establish a broader notion of rest in the wider ANE beyond the ML and HB surveyed in this study.

The Book of Ruth

The book of Ruth is interesting in that three different rest terms are used in this short book. 4 The historical setting of Ruth coincides well with the DH, but it is not considered part of the DH. Given the uses of rest in Ruth and the chronological overlap, it may be possible that there are tangible aspects of the rest motif in the DH that may help to illuminate various theological features in Ruth.

The Books of Judges and Chronicles

This study has found several affinities between Judges and Chronicles that have not been previously discovered. Indeed, any further association between the two, whether of literary dependence or otherwise, requires further research. Other possible shared themes should be explored in both texts to evaluate whether there are more connections beyond rest. As pointed out Batto, “The Covenant of Peace,” 187–211, and “The Sleeping God,” 153–177. 4 Ruth 1:9 = ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫;מ‬ ְ 3:1 = �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫;מ‬ ָ 3:18 = ‫שׁקט‬. Interestingly, ‫ נוח‬and ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬are not used in Ruth; the former is reserved for Israel, David, and Solomon in the DH, and the latter joins the paradigm of rest in Chronicles. 3

280

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

by this study, the two eras narrated by Judges and Chronicles portray Israel in similar circumstances, such as the journey from a foreign land of oppression toward a promised land. Elements related to the (re-)entrance of a land of promise should prove to be a fruitful starting point for further inquiry.

The Prophetical Books

Isaiah 66:1 was explored in conjunction with Chronicles, and the theology of rest with regard to YHWH’s house (or lack of a proper one) may be helpful to trace how the motif may have developed over time. Furthermore, four prophetical books have frequent rest-statements, as well as the use of multiple restwords. 5 Isaiah has the most, with 26 instances of a rest-term: ‫=נוח‬14; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫= ְמ‬4; ‫=שׁקט‬7; �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫= ָמ‬1. Jeremiah contains 11: ‫=נוח‬3; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫= ְמ‬2; ‫=שׁקט‬6. There are 17 rest-words in Ezekiel: ‫=נוח‬14; ‫=שׁקט‬3 (‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬is absent). Zechariah is interesting, because it has three different rest-terms in the relatively short text: ‫=נוח‬2; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫= ְמ‬1; ‫=שׁקט‬1. The frequent use of various restterms may indicate that a broader understanding of rest could be present in the above prophetical books.

The Psalms

One helpful aspect of the Psalms is that they provide different elements of theology encapsulated in prayers, songs, and poems that together comprise a corpus that covers an extensive amount of Israelite history. By their very nature and genre, the Psalms not only capture the theology present at the time of the composition but also uniquely promulgate the theology contained within them through hymn and song. Psalms 95, 105, and 132 Isaiah: ‫נוח‬: 7:19; 11:2; 14:1, 3, 7; 23:12; 25:10; 28:2, 12; 30:32; 46:7; 57:2; 63:14; 65:15; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫מ‬: ְ 11:10; 28:12; 32:18; 66:1; ‫שׁקט‬: 7:4; 14:7; 18:4; 30:15; 32:17; 57:20; 62:1; �‫נוֹ‬ ַ ‫מ‬: ָ 34:14. Jeremiah: ‫נוח‬: 14:9; 27:11; 43:6; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫מ‬: ְ 45:3; 51:59; ‫שׁקט‬: 30:10; 46:27; 47:6; 47:7; 48:11; 49:23. Ezekiel: ‫נוח‬: 5:13; 16:39, 42; 21:22; 22:20; 24:13; 37:1, 14; 40:2, 42; 42:13, 14; 44:19, 30; ‫שׁקט‬: 16:42, 49; 38:11. Zechariah: ‫נוח‬: 5:11; 6:8; ‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫מ‬: ְ 9:1; ‫שׁקט‬: 1:11. 5

5. CONCLUSION

281

have already been explored in this study, but only to the extent they were connected to Chronicles. Indeed, these three psalms are critical to an understanding of rest in Chronicles—and, later traditions also draw upon the rest-theology found in the psalms to express their interpretation and understanding of rest. Beyond the three psalms, potentially significant rest-statements appear in: Ps 23:2; 76:9; 83:2; 94:13; 116:7; 119:121; 125:3. 6

The Targumim

In general, the Targumim provide a unique platform to explore biblical material. The Targumim are more than translations; they provide running commentary within the translations, free to express and explain the scriptures they are translating. As such, the Targumim are less restricted from capturing interpolating comments than other translations such as the LXX or Peshitta. If one is able to discern the theology of a translator in various translations of biblical texts, then the Targumim should prove all the more helpful to understand how the targumists comprehended various concepts in the HB. The notion of a house of rest is indeed a feature in many of the Targumim, 7 and this has even been helpful to resolve tensions related to rest in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8

The New Testament

While Matt 11:28–30 and Heb 3–4 have been studied extensively from various viewpoints, perhaps the understanding of rest in the HB and ML offered in this study can serve as a helpful resource. Indeed, the divine relationship portrayed by rest, especially in later periods when rest is mediated through a king, may MT versification. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 926. 8 Daniel E. Kim, “Jewish and Christian Theology from the Hebrew Bible: The Concept of Rest and Temple in Hebrews, the Targumim, and the Old Testament,” in Hebrews in Contexts (eds. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 31–46. 6 7

282

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

shed light on the offer of rest in Matt 11:28–30, and that a new, divine kingship is proposed. This study strengthens Laansma’s contention that “the promise is shaped by the fact of the earthly ministry of the humble king, the son of David,” 9 and provides evidence from the HB to explore even further elements of the promise not yet considered (e.g., the cycles of rest and unrest in relation to the easy yoke of kingship for the weary and heavy burdened). The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes Ps 95 in Heb 3:7–11. ָ ‫( ְמ‬LXX: κατάπαυσις). The juxtaposition of Psalm 95:11 uses ‫נוּחה‬ the psalm quotation with the concept of sabbath in Heb 4 has caused many to maintain that the exegetical method of the author of Hebrews was “far-fetched.” 10 More recently, some have compared the exegetical method to midrashic techniques and have found the author’s exegesis to be less fanciful. 11 However, one may find the Chronicler’s method of applying reststatements helpful to understand the concept(s) of rest in Hebrews. The Chronicler already combines earlier meanings of different rest-words centuries before the author of Hebrews. Beyond the Ps 95 quotation in Heb 3, the sabbath concept in Heb 4 is often studied in connection with Gen 2:2 and Is 66:1. 2 Chronicles 36:21 is not usually explored, but the 70 years of sabbath rest that the land enjoys in 2 Chr 36:21 may actually be the rightful starting point because of its connection to the ‫נוח‬-rest formula and the overall paradigm of rest in Chronicles. Indeed, 2 Chr 36:21 provides a foundation to understanding an “entry” into a land of sabbath rest—a rest that is needed due to the cycles of rest and unrest depicted by ‫ נוח‬and ‫שׁקט‬. In this same ָ ‫ ) ְמ‬and his house of rest book are YHWH’s resting place (‫נוּחה‬ ָ ‫) ֵבּית ְמ‬. Thus, the elements, though joined together “confus(‫נוּחה‬ ingly” in Heb 3–4 are already found to be coherent in ChroniLaansma, I Will Give You Rest, 250. See George B. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CJT 7 (1959): 44, for a summary of previous opinions that the author’s exegesis was “far-fetched.” 11 See George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CBR 1 (2003): 271–294. 9

10

5. CONCLUSION

283

cles: YHWH’s rest, sabbath rest, and the people’s entry into a land of rest. In fact, the Chronicler brings together even more aspects of rest than in Hebrews (i.e., ‫) ָשׁלוֹם‬. The author’s exegetical method may not be so far-fetched after all. All things considered, rest is not only represented by cycles but also it has developed over time, from texts that describe the earliest period of history in creation, through the Israelite historical annals of the first millennium BCE, to even the furthest conception of history portrayed as a future eschaton in the NT. Indeed, the rest motif is theologically robust and pervasive in biblical history—it has gone from rest to rest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Arnold A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 11. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986. Andreasen, Niels-Erik. “Recent Studies of the Old Testament Sabbath: Some Observations.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 453–469. ———. The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 7. Missoula: SBL, 1972. Augustine, Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Barker, Paul A. “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee.” Pages 695– 706 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Batto, Bernard F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 187–211. ———. “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty.” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–177. Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004. Ben-Barak, Zafira. “The Mizpah Covenant (I Sam 10 25).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1979): 30–43. Ben Zvi, Ehud. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox, 2006. Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary 7. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996. 285

286

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Biggs, R. D. “Conception, Contraception, and Abortion in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 1–13 in Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Edited by Andrew R. George and Irving L. Finkel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra–Nehemiah. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary 6. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999. Boling, Robert G. Judges. Anchor Bible 6A. New York: Doubleday, 1975. Boling, Robert G. and G. Ernest Wright. Joshua. Anchor Bible 6. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Botterweck, G. Johannes et. al. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Braulik, Georg. “Deuteronomy and the Birth of Monotheism.” Pages 99–130 in The Theology of Deuteronomy. Translated by Ulrika Lindbald. North Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 1994. ———. “Gottes-Ruhe–Das Land oder Tempel? Zu Psalm 95:11.” Pages 33–44 in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Edited by Ernst Haag and Frank L. Hossfeld. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. ———. “Some Remarks on the Deuteronomistic Conception of Freedom and Peace.” Pages 87–98 in The Theology of Deuteronomy. Translated by Ulrika Lindbald. North Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 1994. Braun, Roddy. 1 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 14. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986. ———. “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 581–590. Butler, Trent C. Joshua. Word Biblical Commentary 7. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Cagni, Luigi. L’Epopea Di Erra. Studi Semitici 34. Rome: Istituto Di Studi Del Vicino Oriente, 1969. ———. The Poem of Erra. Sources from the Ancient Near East 1, 3. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977. Caird, George B. “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Canadian Journal of Theology 7 (1959): 44–51.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Childs, Brevard S. “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 279–292. ———. Review of James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language. Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961): 374–377. ———. “The Etiological Tale Re-Examined.” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 387–397. Conroy, Charles. “Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kgs 16,34 in Its Immediate Literary Context,” Biblica 77 (1996): 210–218. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274–289 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonzo Madsen. The Books of Chronicles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910. De Pury, Albert, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi, eds. Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. De Vries, Simon J. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Forms of Old Testament Literature 11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dillard, Raymond B. 2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 15. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987. ———. “The Reign of Asa (2 Chr 14–16): An Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980): 207–218. Dirksen, Peter B. “Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of 1 Chronicles 22.8.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70 (1996): 51–56. Duke, Rodney K. “Chronicles, Books of.” Pages 161–181 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005.

288

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Dyke, Jonathan E. The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler. Biblical Interpretation Series 33. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Exum, J. Cheryl. “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 410–431. Finkelstein, J. J. “Hebrew ‫ חבר‬and Semitic ḫbr.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956): 328–331. Firth, David. 1 & 2 Samuel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009. Flynn, Shawn W. YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 159. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1–9.” The Biblical Archaeologist, 40 (1977): 147–156. Gane, Roy. “‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 179–203. Gelston, Anthony. “A Note on II Samuel 7:10.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972): 92–94. Gleason, Randall C. “The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11.” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000): 281–303. George, A. R. “The Poem of Erra and Ishum: A Babylonian Poet’s View of War.” Pages 39–71 in Warfare and Poetry in the Middle East. Edited by Hugh Kennedy. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2013. Goldingay, John E. “Chronicles, Books of.” Pages 185–186 in New Bible Dictionary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall et al. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1996. Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Graham, Matt Patrick. The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Locust Valley: J. J. Augustin, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–294. Hahn, Scott W. The Kingdom of God as Liturgical Empire: A Theological Commentary on 1–2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Hallo, William W., ed. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. Haran, Menaḥem. “Explaining the Identical Lines at the End of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra,” Bible Review 2 (1986): 18–20. Hawk, L. Daniel. “Joshua, Book of.” Pages 563–575 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Hendel, Ronald S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 13–26. Hess, Richard S., and David T. Tsumura, eds. I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Hofius, Otfried. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, 11. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970. Horbury, William A. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jacobson, Thorkild. “The Eridu Genesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 100 (1981) 513–529. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. ———. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

290

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

———. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 330–371. Jarick, John. 1 Chronicles. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Jobling, David. “What, If Anything, Is 1 Samuel?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 (1993): 17–31. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody, 1985. Kalimi, Isaac. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. ———. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God. Translated by R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sandberg. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Keil, Carl F. and Franz Delitzsch. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Translated by James Martin. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869. ———. The Books of the Chronicles. Translated by Andrew Harper. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873. Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. “The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology.” Orientalia 41 (1972): 160–77. Kim, Daniel E. “Jewish and Christian Theology from the Hebrew Bible: The Concept of Rest and Temple in Hebrews, the Targumim, and the Old Testament.” Pages 31–46 in Hebrews in Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. ———. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. ———. 1 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 10. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1–9. Anchor Bible 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003. ———. I Chronicles 10–29. Anchor Bible 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

———. “Prayer and Propaganda.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 229–254. ———. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Vol. 1 of Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies: Harvard Semitic Monographs 52. Atlanta: Scholars, 1993. Knoppers, Gary N. and J. Gordon McConville, eds. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Knudtzon, J. A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1915. Repr. 1 vol. in 2, Aaalen: Otto Zeller, 1964. Kramer, Samuel N. History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts Recorded in History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1956. ———. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Kropat, Arno. Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik Vergleichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909. Laansma, Jon C. “I Will Give You Rest”: The “Rest” Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Lambert, W. G. “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 287–300. Lambert, W. G. and A. R. Millard. Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Leichty, Erle. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Leithart, Peter J. A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003. Lemke, Werner E. “The Way of Obedience: 1 Kings 13 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 301–326 in Magnalia Dei, The Might Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976.

292

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Long, Burke. 1 Kings; with an Introduction to Historical Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Loretz, Oswald. “The Perfectum Copulativum.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961): 294–296. Machinist, Peter. “Rest and Violence in the Poem of Erra,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 221–226. Matthews, Victor H. Judges and Ruth. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980. ———. II Samuel. Anchor Bible 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. McCarthy, Dennis J. “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 131–138. McConville, J. Gordon. “The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship.” Themelios 22 (1997): 3–13. Melville, Sarah C. “Ashurbanipal.” Pages 360–368 in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Moore, George F. Judges. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press, 1987. ———. Review of W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood,” Biblica 52 (1971): 51–61. Movers, Frank Karl. Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in das alte Testament. Bonn: T. Habicht, 1834. Mrozek, Andrzej and Silvano Votto. “The Motif of the Sleeping Deity.” Biblica 80 (1999): 415–419. Mueller, E. Aydeet. The Micah Story: A Morality Tale in the Book of Judges. Studies in Biblical Literature 34. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Myers, Jacob Martin. I Chronicles. Anchor Bible 12. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965. ———. II Chronicles. Anchor Bible 13. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Niditch, Susan. Judges: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Translation of Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943. Oden, Robert A. Jr. “Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1–11.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981): 197–216. Oppenheim, A. L. et. al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956–. Ota, Michiko. “A Note on 2 Sam 7.” Pages 403–407 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World. Ancient Israel and its Literature 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. ———. The Deuteronomistic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Studies in Biblical Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Petersen, David L. “The Yahwist on the Flood.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 438–446. Pettinato, Giovanni. “Die Bestrafung des Menschengeschlechts durch die Sintfult.” Orientalia 37 (1968): 165–200. Pressler, Carolyn. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Priest, John. “Huldah’s Oracle.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980) 366–368. Pritchard, James B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1969. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy. Translated by Dorothea Barton. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. ———. “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception.” Pages 94–102 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated

294

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966. Rendsburg, Gary A. “The Mock of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 414–417. Richter, Sandra L. “Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 219–230 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005. Roberts, J. J. M. Review of Bernard Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. The Journal of Religion 75 (1995): 102. Robinson, Gnana. Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. ———. “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 32–42. ———. The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 21. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988. Römer, Thomas, ed. The Future of the Deuteronomistic History. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Roth, Wolfgang. “The Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-Critical Study.” Biblical Research 21 (1976): 5–14. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Chronikbücher. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 21. Tübingen: J C. B. Mohr, 1955. ———. “Der Aufbau der Asa-Geschichte.” Vetus Testamentum 2 (1952): 367–371. Schearing, Linda S. and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Schneider, Tammi J. Judges. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000. Selman, Martin J. 1 Chronicles. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994. ———. 2 Chronicles. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Simoons-Vermeer, Ruth E. “The Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation.” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 21 (1974): 17–34. Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Smend, Rudolf. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad. Edited by Hans W. Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. Smith, Henry P. The Books of Samuel. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1904. Soden, Wolfram von. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–1981. ———. “Als die Götter (auch noch) Mensch waren.” Orientalia 38 (1969): 415–432. Soggin, Alberto. Joshua. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. ———. Judges. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Staples, W. E. “Epic Motifs in Amos.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25 (1966): 106–112. Streck, Maximilian. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1916. Talon, Phillipe. Enūma Eliš. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts IV. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005. Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Throntveit, Mark A. When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 93. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

296

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Way, Kenneth C. “The Literary Structure of Judges Revisited: Judges as a Ring Composition.” Pages 247–260 in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus. Edited by Bill T. Arnold, Nancy L. Erickson and John H. Walton. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Wiggermann, Frans A. M. “Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 1857–1870 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson et al. 4 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1995. Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976. Williamson, Hugh G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. “Eschatology in Chronicles.” Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977): 115–154. ———. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. ———. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ———. “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 351–361. ———. “The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles.” Pages 305–318 in Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World: Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Edited by A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnus Press, 1983. Willis, Timothy M. “‘Rest All Around from All His Enemies’ (2 Samuel 7:1b): The Occasion for David’s Offer to Build a Temple.” Pages 129–147 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Wiseman, Donald J. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958. Wolff, Hans Walter. “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historical Work.” Pages 83–100 in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. Edited by Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff. Translated by Frederick C. Prussner. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. Wong, Gregory T. K. Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Wray, Judith H. Rest as a Theological Metaphor in The Epistle to The Hebrews and The Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 166. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Würthwein, Ernst. “Erwägungen zum sog. Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Eine Skizze.” Pages 1–11 in Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 227. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. Yoder, Perry B. and Willard M. Swartley, eds. The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies. Translated by Walter Sawatsky. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832.

INDEX INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis

Leviticus

1–11

25

7:15

8:4

94

24:5–9

39:16

95

2:2 19

3, 14, 282

16:23

146

26:33–35

16:24

16:33

16:34

17:4

94

100

19:9

94

94

17:7 32

32:22

238

237

25:30

237

26:1

10:36

238

25:23–30

25:31–49

231

115, 116, 244

94

227

25:27–28

10:35

10:35–36

23:31

25:12–13

261

94

100

25:10–22

3–4

94

20:10

20:11

237

Numbers

Exodus 16:23

94

94

234

94, 234 94

112, 123

227

Deuteronomy

238

3:10

123

3:18

113

3:12–20

238

238

3:18–20

299

112

113

300

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

3:20

93, 113, 122,

5

100

5:10

5:14

9:26–29 10:8

10:8–9 10:9

12

12:4

12:4–28 12:8

12:8–9

12:8–10

12:8–11 12:8–12

12:8–14

12:8–24

12:8–32 12:9

104

12:9–11

159

12:9–12

100

147, 154 147

12:10

177, 179, 186, 187

103, 158

93, 98, 99,

101, 104, 110, 198, 199, 227,

10, 11, 104,

105, 106, 121,

159, 204

124, 125, 162,

147

228

122, 123, 150,

12:11

195, 219

12:12

99, 100, 147

105

12:13

107

105

101

98, 99, 105, 153 1

99, 247, 265

12:12–14 12:18

12:19

12:27

12:28

11, 125, 184,

12:29

98, 148, 277

12–16

185

104, 105 104

125

12:38 13

13:1–5

98, 99, 100,

101, 104, 260 104

100, 107

148

107

100, 104, 105, 109

102

100

107

148, 149, 150, 195

148

13:6–11

148

105, 110, 111,

13:12–18

148

196, 198

13:15

93, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104,

151, 180, 186, 12:9–10

121, 125, 133,

123, 199

179, 184, 187, 12:1–7

111, 119, 120,

101, 102, 103,

107, 109, 110,

13:12–14

13:13

13:16

14:27

148

148

149

149

147

INDEX

301

14:28

94, 106, 107,

1:11–15

194

14:29

147

147, 164

1:13

93, 111, 112,

15:4–5

108, 137, 140,

105, 109, 110

1:12–18

1:13–15

15:10

107

16:14

100, 148

18:1

147

1:23

143

2

16:11

17:18–20

100, 147, 148

163

18:14–22

259

20:15

143

20:10–15

1:15

1–11 3

3:3

25:19

93, 97, 102,

25:19–26:4

164

26:4

94, 106, 107,

3:16

147

4

26:1–2

26:10 26:11–13

107, 162, 199 102

108, 137, 140, 94, 106, 107, 108, 137

111, 152, 199

4:9

147

4:21

31:9

147, 154

Joshua 1:1–15 1:6–9

1:7–8

4:3 4:8

108, 109, 110,

1

3–4

148

28:65

31:25

3:13

4:10

4:21–24 6

123

113, 122, 194, 199

111

93, 111, 112,

113, 122, 194, 199 84

118, 119 114, 117 114, 201 154

94, 114, 115,

116, 137, 156, 201

115

118

114, 116

94, 114, 115, 116, 137

94, 114, 116, 137, 236 116

154

116

116

117

114, 119

6:12

87

6:24

117

10

118

84, 112 87

6:23 6:25

154

117, 236 117, 118

302

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

11

118

12

84, 194

13:1–6

119

11:23

12:1–24 13:7–33

118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 194 119

110, 119

14:6–12

121

14:12

121

14:7–8 14:15

15

15–19 18:1

19:2–8

121

118, 119, 120,

227

200, 212 121, 123 93, 105, 109,

118, 121, 122,

156, 162, 164,

170, 171, 177, 184, 185, 189, 194, 196, 198,

199, 204, 224,

22:3

170, 173, 176, 23:1

177, 194

93, 105, 122,

124, 125, 129,

162, 170, 171, 177, 194, 198

128

130, 131, 152,

22

125, 128, 133,

24

124, 125, 129,

21–23

105, 109, 124,

121

125

21:45

194, 198

127

21:43–45

21:44–45

124, 125, 129,

23:12–13

131

156

21:44

23

93, 122, 123,

131, 194

21:16

21:43–44

22:4

227, 263, 264

184

185

170, 176 123

105, 124

23:13

24:28–31 24:31

127

127

127

Judges 1:1

126

2–3

117

1:21 2

2:6–9

2:6–3:6 2:7

2:8

2:8-9 2:10

2:10–23 2:11

2:11–23 2:13

2:14

146 130 127

125

128

126

128

126, 128 126

128

84, 194 129

130

INDEX 2:17

125

2:20-21

125

2:20

2:20–23

2:20–3:1 2:21

2:22

2:23

3:11

8:28

126

10:14

13:2–24

138, 139, 140,

127, 150, 164,

13:5

138, 139, 140,

217

13:21–23

139

16:20

141

95, 117, 126,

13:2

95, 117, 126,

13–16

150, 164, 178,

16:26

127, 132, 144,

138, 141, 142

141 141

138

138, 140, 141

17:6

151

130, 132

18

142, 143, 213

276

134

17–18

18:1

18:7

142

151

130, 142, 143, 144, 213, 214

135

18:10

213

139

18:28

143

18:41

213

139

18:27

6:6

135

18:39–41

6:10

136

19

6:7–10

138

194, 199, 217,

130, 132

6:1–27

135

135

127, 144

127

5:31

6:1–17

130, 132

13

130, 132

6:1–6

10:10

117, 137

128

3:30

4:3

6:23

126

178, 194, 199, 3:1

303

135

130, 189

213

145, 149, 151

140

19:1

151

6:18

94, 135, 136,

19:18

148

6:20

94, 135, 136,

6:21

137

6:16–24

6:17–23

6:22

139

19:12

164, 236

19:20–21

164, 236

19:22

137

19:21

19:25

146

148

148

146, 148

146

304

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

19–20 20

20:2

20:12

144, 148, 149,

6:4

153

145, 149

6:11

154

150, 165, 195

148

148

20:12–13

147

20:17

148

20:15–17 20:25

148

148

6:8

6:14–15 6:15

6:17

6:18

20:43

93, 110, 144,

7

20:46

149

151, 152

7:2

20:48

21:25

23

145, 147, 150,

148, 149

151, 153 133

Ruth

8:6

8:7

8:9

8:11

3:18

279

9–10

4

4:1

4:5

4:6

4:17 5:1

5:2

5:10 6

9:16a 10

10:1

138, 141 156

154

154

154

154

154

154, 157, 164

155, 156, 201, 230, 236

156, 157 154

157

157

162

162

157

159

160

157

157, 162, 166

158, 159, 161

10:1a

160

10:7

161

10:1b 10:9

10:25

154

154

94, 153, 154,

157

279

1:1

154

8

1:9

1 Samuel

153, 154, 155

154

9

279

155

7:1

9:16

3:1

154

160

161

94, 153, 157,

158, 162, 163, 164, 194, 200

11

164, 175

11:14

164

11:12–15

164

INDEX 12

84, 166, 174,

13

166

13:9–10

13:9–13

13:9–14 13:13

13:14

194

182

25:9

95, 153

162, 166, 167,

177, 194, 196, 198, 199, 204,

164, 175

7:1b

159

7:1–16

165

7:5

2 Samuel

93, 129, 141,

171, 174, 175,

166, 175

164

267

168, 169, 170,

163, 182

15:21

31

7:1

182

165

24:6

223, 225, 226,

175

14:52 15

305

7:2

7:8–9a

7:8–16

7:9b–11

217, 218, 227

5, 167, 168,

173

172

154

205

173

166

173

5:1–5

174

5:17–25

174

166, 167, 168,

170

194, 198, 199,

174, 182

223, 273

5:6–12 5:25

6

6:11

6:12–19 6:17

6:21 7

174

7:11

93, 129, 141,

174, 182

169, 171, 175,

154

204, 217, 218,

174, 182

7:12

226

5, 11, 122,

7–8

169

168, 169, 172,

11:11

154

179, 182, 194,

14:17

93

175

7:18–29

153, 166, 167,

8

172

167, 169, 170

173, 176, 177,

13:28

211, 212, 217,

15:24

154, 156

16:21

95

218, 220, 221,

16:11

20:3

161

95

95

306 21:10

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE 95

1 Kings 214

4:24

137

5-8

5:1–6

5:3–4

8:21

8:22–53

3:4

4:21–22

8:14–61

8:36

84, 194 215

238

244

251

8:46–53

178

8:51

159

168, 170, 171

8:56

93, 122, 174,

177

8:50

8:54–61

192

243 229

5:3–5

268

179, 180, 184,

5:4

93, 122, 137,

188, 190, 194,

177, 179, 180,

198, 204, 211,

199, 227, 228,

224, 231, 234,

5:5

171

243, 251, 256,

5:17–18

167

8:56–61

235

8:66

5:3–6

5:8

171

185, 186, 187,

141, 162, 174,

195, 196, 197,

184, 185, 196,

212, 215, 220,

251, 273

235, 238, 242,

199

264, 269, 274

238, 242

229, 268

8:62

180

154

11:14–25

251

94, 178, 230,

11:20

189

236, 237

13

179, 180, 185,

13:29–31

8:4

156

15:24

252

8:14–53

180

18:20–40

277

5:17–19 6

6:19

7:13–50 7:47 7:48

7:48–50

8

8:9

235, 236

11:16

236

12:16

236

13:28–31

211, 243

15:8

94, 178, 236

16:16–24 18:27

242 189

244

190, 191 197

190

245, 246 250

137, 187, 188

INDEX 19:3

95

22:41–50

252

22

252, 253

2 Kings 2:15

307 6:16–17 6:31 6:41

215

8:2

189

14

189

14:1–7

247

211, 224, 242,

15:1–16:43

214

269

16

190

16:1-7

190

16:8–22

197

16:21

212, 216, 217,

258

17

168, 211, 212,

11:18

189

14:1

188, 189, 190,

15:1–16:1

246, 255, 256,

15–16

84, 194

16:1

190

16:7–36

94, 190, 194,

16:18

17:7–23

17:24–40 17:25

17:28

17:29 17:32–40

19:35–20:1 22:20

23:1–27

23:17–18 23:18

190

248 248

215

216

219

216

214

243 216

243

218, 221

217, 218, 219,

193

225, 226, 228,

193

220, 221, 223,

190, 197, 204

267

1:1

262

4:25–27

212

6:16

212, 216

4:40

150

258

1 Chronicles 4:8

234

95

163

11:20

216, 224, 239 156

11:12

11:19b–20

212, 214, 215,

6:59

13:1–14

11:17

214

236 212, 213, 214

17:1

167, 218

17:10b

218

17:11–12

220

17:11

17:12–13

22

22:6–16 22:8

226

225, 226

220, 221 226

222, 226

308 22:8–9 22:9

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE 172, 218

137, 212, 218,

219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224,

225, 227, 228,

231, 233, 234, 239, 247, 248, 249, 251, 254,

255, 264, 265,

266, 267, 272, 22:9–10

277

225, 226, 272

22:10

219, 225, 267,

22:17

226

22:17–19 22:18

272

226, 227, 228,

212, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 264, 266, 268

228, 230, 268

22-29

220

23:25

212, 230, 231,

23:2

226

232, 234, 235, 239, 264, 266

23–27

220

28:1

226, 254

28–29

28:2

28:8

220, 226

212, 229, 230,

231, 232, 233,

234, 235, 239, 266, 267

172

226

2 Chronicles 1:3

214

2:3–10

228

1:14

3:16 3:17 3–4 4

4:6

4:6–7 4:7 4:8

229, 266

231, 232, 239, 22:19

28:3

4:10 4:19 4:29

212

236 236

235, 236 237 236 236 236

94, 212, 230,

235, 236, 237, 238, 264 236

236, 237 236

5:1–14

215

6:14

242, 243

6:16

243

6:12–40

6:14-17

238

243

6:27

244

6:40

238, 243

6:31

6:41

272

211, 212, 216, 229, 230, 231,

232, 234, 238,

239, 242, 243,

INDEX

6:41a

6:41–42

244, 252, 267,

16:7–10

250

234

16:12

250

273

234, 235, 238,

239, 240, 243, 249, 270, 271,

6:42 7:10

9:25

10:16

13:7

13:11

13:23

14

309

16:9

17:1

17:10 19:1

242

19:4–11

254

270

212

244 148

19:2–3

20:29–30 20:30

237

20:32–33

245, 247, 248,

23:21

212, 245

249, 250, 252

20:33

14:1–7

239

32

14:5–7

14:6 14:7

14–20 15

15:3

15:5

15:6

15:15

16

252, 254

252

29

14:5–6

251

19:1–4

225, 245, 246,

14:5

252

278

14:1

14:4

250

265

212, 245

212, 246, 248,

29:18 32:20–24 32:22

253

251

212, 252, 253, 254, 265 253

254

211, 212, 242, 254, 255, 269 258

237 258

258

257, 258, 263

254

34:28

258, 259, 260,

245, 248, 254

36:15–21

260

246, 247, 248,

36:20–21

212, 246

246, 265 250, 254 242

245, 249, 250

249

249

249

212, 250

250, 252

36:20

36:21

263

261

261

260, 261, 26, 274, 282

Nehemiah 9:28

120, 211

310

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Psalms 2

2:2

2:6

2:8

23:2 76:9

78:71 83:2

94:5

94:13 95

132:8–10 159

159

159

159

281

159

14:33

281

Ecclesiastes

187, 232, 235,

7:9

159

10:4

94

235

243, 244, 280

105:15

217

119:121

281

216, 217

281

94, 281

186, 216, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 267, 270,

132:7–8

132:8

94

264, 280, 282

216

132:7

243

94

105:1–15

132

234, 238, 242,

2:18

216, 218, 221,

125:3

241, 270

234

3, 186, 187,

105

116:7

243, 270

Proverbs

281

235, 282

105:14

137:8–10

281

95:11

95:11b

132:10

137:8

234, 239, 240,

280

235

233, 239

186, 216, 233, 234

94

Isaiah 7:4

280

11:2

280

7:19

11:10 14:1

14:3

14:7 18:4

19:25

23:12

25:10 28:2

28:12

30:15

30:32 32:17

32:18

280

280

280

280

280

280

159

280

280

280

280

280

94, 280 280

280

INDEX

311

46:7

94, 280

37:1

280

57:2

280

38:1

280

55:3

57:20 62:1

63:14

65:15 66:1

241 280

280

94, 280

40:42

94, 280

280

233, 280, 282

27:6–7

261

30:10 43:6 45:3

46:27 47:6

47:7

48:11

49:23

51:59

Joel

261

2:17

280

Amos

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

16:42

280

22:20

24:13

44:30

280

280

21:22

42:14

48:35

5:13

16:49

42:13

261

Ezekiel 16:39

40:2

44:19

280

29:10

143

38:11

14:9

27:11

38:10–11

280

280

Jeremiah 25:11–14

37:14

280

5:7

280

94, 280

94, 280

94, 280

94, 280 278

159

94

Zechariah 1:11

280

6:8

280

5:11 9:1

94, 280 280

Matthew 11

11:28–29

14

4, 281, 28

280

Hebrews

280

3

2, 264, 282

3:7–4:13

4

280

280

3:7–11

282

312

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

3–4

4, 14, 232,

4

2, 278, 282

281, 282

Revelation 21:3

278

INDEX OF AUTHORS Anderson, A. A. 169, 235

Cagni, L. 43, 44, 46, 64,

Andreasen, N-E. 9

Childs, B. S. 95, 96, 116,

Anderson, B. 235 Augustine 275

Auld, A. G. 89, 90, 195 Barker, P. A. 100

Barr, J. 92, 95, 96

Batto, B. F. 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 75, 76, 77, 79, 279

Beale, G. K. 14, 55

Ben-Barak, Z. 157, 162, 163 Ben Zvi, E. 88

Bergen, R. D. 157

Caird, G. B. 282

Conroy, C. 91, 92

Cross, F. M. 83, 86, 88, 89, 125, 172, 191

Curtis, E. L. 209, 257, 262,

De Vries, S. J. 227, 243, 245 Delitzsch, F. 128, 213, 214, 215

Dietrich, W. 87, 88

Dillard, R. B. 241, 242, 245, 249, 258, 259, 262

Biggs, R. D. 38

Dirksen, P. B. 242

Block, D. I. 130, 131, 138,

Exum, J. C. 152

Blenkinsopp, J. 210

139, 140, 141, 142

Boling, R. G. 89, 114, 126, 128, 146

Bons, E. 142

Braulik, G. 101, 103, 105,

108, 109, 111, 124, 129, 133, 186, 187

Braun, R. 11, 14, 96, 120,

212, 220, 226, 229, 233, 258

Butler, T. C. 118, 119, 132, 137, 138, 143

Duke, R. K. 209, 255 Firth, D. 155, 156

Flynn, S. W. 200, 201

Foster, B. R. 8, 24, 36, 38, 40 Friedman, R. E. 89

Frymer-Kensky, T. 25

Gane, R. 237

Gelston, A. 173

George, A. R. 13, 38

Gordon, R. P. 156, 158, 159, 163, 166, 167

Graham, M. P. 257 Grayson, A. K. 16

INDEX Guthrie, G. H. 282 Hahn, S. W. 233

Haran, M. 210, 211

313 Kropat, A. 209

Laansma, J. C. 4, 5, 14, 96, 103, 105, 120, 184, 282

Hasel, G. F. 134, 135

Lambert, W. G. 14, 25, 27,

Heidel, A. 41

Leichty, E. 65, 66, 68, 71

Hofius, O. 4, 187

Lemke, W. E. 191

Hawk, L. D. 114 Hess, R. S. 25

Hurowitz, V. 14, 55, 57

Japhet, S. 209, 210, 213, 214, 219, 220, 221, 222, 227,

228, 231, 233, 234, 237, 242, 244, 245, 251, 254,

257, 258, 266, 267, 270, 271, 273

Jobling, D. 166

Johnson, B. 162

Kaiser, W. C., Jr. 2, 87, 93, 96, 132, 133

Kalimi, I. 241

Käsemann, E. 4

Keil, C. F. 128, 213, 214, 215 Kilmer, A. D. 25, 26, 29, 30, 33

Kim, D. E. 151, 281

Klein, R. W. 88, 155, 156,

158, 160, 161, 163, 213, 257, 258

Knoppers, G. N. 82, 84, 85, 87, 179, 180, 207, 209,

210, 211, 215, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 229, 231, 233, 235, 247, 257, 263, 281

30, 35, 61

Leithart, P. J. 165

Levenson, J. D. 89

Long, B. 193

Loretz, O. 173

Machinist, P. 14, 15, 44, 45, 50, 75, 77, 78

Madsen, A. A. 209, 257, 262 Mayes, A. D. H. 89

McCarter, P. K., Jr. 157, 158, 160, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

McCarthy, D. J. 166, 167,

172, 173, 174, 176, 194, 195

McConville, J. G. 7, 82, 85 McKenzie, S. L. 82 Melville, S. C. 72

Millard, A. R. 25, 27, 61

Moore, G. F. 88, 146, 191

Moran, W. L. 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36

Movers, F. K. 209

Mueller, E. A. 142

Myers, J. M. 212, 213, 219, 233, 241, 242, 258, 270

Nelson, R. D. 89

314

REST IN MESOPOTAMIAN AND ISRAELITE LITERATURE

Noth, M. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,

86, 87, 91, 112, 166, 172, 173, 176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 210, 211, 226

O’Connor, M. 126

Oden, R. A., Jr. 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Oppenheim, A. L. 15 Ota, M. 171

Peckham, B. 89

Soggin, A. 88, 112, 127, 136, 137, 142, 147

Soggin, J. A. 88

Spieckermann, H. 88

Streck, M. 72

Swartley, W. M. 9

Talon, P. 18, 24, 79 Thiele, E. R. 245

Throntveit, M. A. 257

Tsumura, D. T. 25, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162

Person, R. F. 90, 91, 268, 269

Veijola, T. 88

Pressler, C. 149

Walton, J. H. 5, 14, 15, 17,

Pettinato, G. 26, 31

Preuss, H. D. 93, 94, 271 Priest, J. 231, 235, 259

Pury, A. de 82, 83, 84, 85, 91 Rad, G. von 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 81, 87, 96, 97, 98, 111,

152, 196, 229, 232, 239, 263, 269, 270

Rendsburg, G. A. 188 Rendtorff, R. 89

Richter, S. L. 82

Robinson, G. 3, 9, 155, 158

Römer, T. 82, 83, 84, 85, 91 Roth, W. M. W. 88, 99, 100, 105, 109, 111, 122, 124, 125

Selman, M. J. 258 Ska, J-L. 6

Smend, R. 83, 86, 87, 88 Smith, H. P. 155

Soden, W. von 26, 31, 34

Waltke, B. K. 126

19, 20, 21, 33, 55, 57, 58, 74, 79, 80, 197, 277

Way, K. C. 197

Weippert, H. 89

Wellhausen, J. 82, 168

Williams, R. J. 161

Williamson, H. G. M. 208,

210, 221, 226, 227, 231, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238,

241, 245, 246, 248, 249,

250, 251, 252, 253, 258, 261, 262, 271, 278

Willis, T. M. 5, 103, 122, 123, 125, 169, 173

Wiseman, D. J. 54

Wolff, H. W. 87, 192

Wong, G. T. K. 131, 142, 143, 144

Woudstra, M. H. 115, 116, 118, 119, 120

INDEX Wray, J. H. 4

Wright, G. E. 114

Würthwein, E. 89, 90, 195

315 Yoder, P. B. 9 Zunz, L. 209