The Book of the Twelve Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Vetus Testamentum, Supplements) 9004423249, 9789004423244

Citation preview

The Book of the Twelve

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Editor in Chief Christl M. Maier Editorial Board H.M. Barstad – N. Calduch-Benages – D.M. Carr – L.C. Jonker J. Joosten – G.N. Knoppers † – S.L. McKenzie – C.A. Newsom M. Nissinen – W.T. van Peursen – H. Spieckermann – N. Wazana Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 9 Editors Craig A. Evans Peter W. Flint †

volume 184

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

The Book of the Twelve Composition, Reception, and Interpretation Edited by

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Jakob Wöhrle

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia, 1969– editor. | Wöhrle, Jakob, editor. Title: The Book of the Twelve : composition, reception, and interpretation / edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Jakob Wöhrle. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 0083-5889 ; volume 184 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2020005054 (print) | LCCN 2020005055 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004423244 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004424326 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Minor Prophets—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1560 .B573 2020 (print) | LCC BS1560 (ebook) | DDC 224/.906—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005054 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005055

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0083-5889 isbn 978-90-04-42324-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-42432-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface ix Abbreviations  x Notes on Contributors xvii Introduction 1 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Jakob Wöhrle

Part 1 General Topics 1 The Book of the Four 15 Jakob Wöhrle 2 The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus 38 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 3 The Completion of the Book of the Twelve 65 James D. Nogalski 4 A Prophetic Anthology Rather than a Book of the Twelve 90 Tchavdar S. Hadjiev

Part 2 Issues in Interpretation 5 Hosea in the Book of the Twelve 111 Jörg Jeremias 6 Joel in the Book of the Twelve 124 Ruth Ebach 7 Amos in the Book of the Twelve 139 Jason Radine

vi 8 Obadiah in the Book of the Twelve 151 Anna Sieges and Nicholas R. Werse 9 Jonah in the Book of the Twelve 164 John Kaltner, Rhiannon Graybill, and Steven L. McKenzie 10 Micah in the Book of the Twelve 176 Rainer Kessler 11 Nahum in the Book of the Twelve 186 Daniel C. Timmer 12 Habakkuk in the Book of the Twelve 201 Michael H. Floyd 13 Zephaniah in the Book of the Twelve 214 Walter Dietrich 14 Haggai in the Book of the Twelve 225 Martin Leuenberger 15 Zechariah in the Book of the Twelve 238 Rüdiger Lux 16 Malachi in the Book of the Twelve 255 Karl William Weyde

Part 3 Textual Transmission and Reception History 17 The Book of the Twelve at Qumran 271 Russell E. Fuller 18 The Book of the Twelve in the Septuagint 286 Barry Alan Jones 19 The Targum of the Book of the Twelve 305 Gudrun E. Lier

Contents

Contents

20 The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve 325 Simone Rickerby 21 The Book of the Twelve in Early Jewish Literature 352 Frank Ueberschaer 22 The Book of the Twelve in Jesus and the New Testament 385 Craig A. Evans 23 The Lives of the Prophets and the Book of the Twelve  415 Anna Maria Schwemer 24 The Book of the Twelve in the Rabbinic Tradition 441 Mark Leuchter

Part 4 The Theology of the Book of the Twelve 25 Judgment and Grace in the Book of the Twelve 469 Ruth Scoralick 26 Kingship in the Book of the Twelve 489 Marvin A. Sweeney 27 Geography in the Book of the Twelve 507 Mark J. Boda 28 First Fruits Rites in the Book of the Twelve 532 Roy E. Garton 29 The Nations in the Book of the Twelve  554 Anselm C. Hagedorn 30 Exile in the Book of the Twelve 581 John Kessler Index of Ancient Sources 613 Index of Authors 625

vii

Preface In the last two decades, research on the Book of the Twelve has shown that this corpus is not just a collection of twelve prophetic books. It is rather a coherent work with a common history of formation and, based upon this, with an overall message and intention. The individual books of the Book of the Twelve are part of a larger whole in which they can be interpreted in a fruitful manner. The Book of the Twelve: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation offers a state-of-the-art compendium, which explores different aspects regarding the formation, interpretation, and reception of the Book of the Twelve as a literary unity. It contains thirty essays on the Book of the Twelve in four parts: 1. General Topics; 2. Issues in Interpretation; 3. Textual Transmission and Reception History; and 4. The Theology of the Book of the Twelve. This is the ninth volume in the series Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature (FIOTL), which appears in the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (VTSup). The purpose of the FIOTL series is to explore the prehistory, contents, and themes of the books of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, along with their transmission and reception in Jewish and Christian traditions. The editors wish to thank several people. First, we offer sincere thanks to all the contributors to the volume: the high quality of this compendium is entirely due to their scholarly insight and diligence. Secondly, we are strongly indebted to Dr Amy Erickson, University of Aberdeen, who painstakingly improved the English language of the contributions, Dorothea Julia von Böhlen, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, who did much of the formal editing of the volume, Desiree Zecha and Mona Bürger, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, who compiled the indices, and Markus Hauff, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, who compiled the List of Abbreviations. Thirdly, we express our deep gratitude to Prof. Christl M. Maier and Prof. Craig A. Evans for their enthusiastic acceptance of this volume and their continuous support of the FIOTL volumes. Finally, we are most grateful to the team at Brill Academic Publishers, including Liesbeth Hugenholtz and Dirk Bakker, for their guidance and assistance in guiding this project to production. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

University of Aberdeen, Scotland

Jakob Wöhrle

Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany

Abbreviations For terms, sigla, and abbreviations for titles of ancient texts, see The SBL Handbook of Style. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. AB Anchor Bible (Commentary Series) ABD  Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library ABS Archaeology and Biblical Studies AcBib Academia Biblica ACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie AcT Acta Theologica AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review AnBib Analecta Biblica ANEM Ancient Near East Monographs/Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries ArBib The Aramaic Bible AS Aramaic Studies ASNU Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis ASV American Standard Version ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BE Biblische Enzyklopädie BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie

Abbreviations BHQ  Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Adrian Schenker et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004– BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Bib Biblica BibEnc Biblical Encyclopedia BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series BibSem The Biblical Seminar BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BJS Brown Judaic Studies BK Bibel und Kirche BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament BLS Bible and Literature Series BN Biblische Notizen BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BWA(N)T Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism CTR Criswell Theological Review CurBR  Currents in Biblical Research (formerly Currents in Research: Biblical Studies) CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies DBY The Darby Bible DCH  Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J.A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014

xi

xii

Abbreviations

DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DDD  Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995 DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DNP  Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996– DRev Downside Review DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EBib Études bibliques EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EstBib Estudios Bíblicos ESV English Standard Version ET English Translation(s) ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses ETR Études théologiques et religieuses ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FSBP Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes GAT Grundrisse zum Alten Testament GNS Good News Studies HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HB Hebrew Bible HBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel HBS Herders Biblische Studien HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HThKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IECOT International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IEKAT Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Int Interpretation ITC International Theological Commentary JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

Abbreviations JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JOTT Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics JPS Jewish Publication Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSem Journal of Semitics JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ  Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament KJV King James Version LAI Library of Ancient Israel LD Lectio Divina LEC Library of Early Christianity LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies LXX Septuagint MdB Le Monde de la Bible MT Masoretic Text NAC New American Commentary NCB New Century Bible NEchtB Neue Echter Bibel NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NLT New Living Translation NovT Novum Testamentum NRSV New Revised Standard Version NSKAT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament

xiii

xiv

Abbreviations

NT New Testament NTS New Testament Studies NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OIS Oriental Institute Seminars OL Old Latin OT Old Testament OTE Old Testament Essays OTL Old Testament Library OTS Old Testament Studies PHSC Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts PL Patrologia Latina. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 217 vols. Paris 1844–1864. PNTC Pelican New Testament Commentaries PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies PzB Protokolle zur Bibel RAC  Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by Theodor Klauser et al. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950– RB Revue biblique RBL Review of Biblical Literature REAug Revue des études augustiniennes ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevQ Revue de Qumran RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998–2007 RIBLA Revista de interpretación bíblica latino-americana RlA  Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– RPP  Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz et al. 14 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2007–2013 RSV Revised Standard Version RTL Revue théologique de Louvain SB Sources bibliques SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

Abbreviations

xv

SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SEÅ Svensk exegetisk årsbok SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series SSEJC Studies in the Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica STBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SubBi Subsidia Biblica TA Tel Aviv TAVO Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients TB Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974–2006 Text Textus THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971–1976 TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TP Theologie und Philosophie Transeu Transeuphratène TRE  Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. 36 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–2004 TS Theological Studies TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism TThSt Trierer theologische Studien TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift TU Texte und Untersuchungen UTB Uni-Taschenbücher VC Vigiliae Christianae VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Vulg. Vulgate

xvi

Abbreviations

WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WO Die Welt des Orients ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Notes on Contributors Mark J. Boda Professor of Old Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Canada. Walter Dietrich Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Universität Bern, Switzerland. Ruth Ebach Research Assistant of Old Testament at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. Craig A. Evans Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University, United States. Russell E. Fuller Professor of Biblical Studies at University of San Diego, United States. Roy E. Garton Temporary Full-time Lecturer at Baylor University, Waco, United States. Rhiannon Graybill Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Millard Professor of Religion at Rhodes College, Memphis, United States. Tchavdar S. Hadjiev Lecturer in Old Testament Study and Hebrew at Belfast Bible College, United Kingdom. Anselm C. Hagedorn Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at Universität Osnabrück, Germany. Jörg Jeremias Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany.

xviii

Notes on Contributors

Barry Alan Jones Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Campbell University Divinity School, Buies Creek, United States. John Kaltner Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Virginia Ballou McGehee Professor of Muslim and Christian Relations at Rhodes College, Memphis, United States. John Kessler Professor of Old Testament at Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada. Rainer Kessler Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany. Mark Leuchter Professor of Jewish Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, United States. Martin Leuenberger Professor of Old Testament at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. Gudrun E. Lier Senior Lecturer at University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Rüdiger Lux Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Universität Leipzig, Germany. Steven L. McKenzie Professor of Religious Studies, Spence L. Wilson Senior Research Fellow at Rhodes College, Memphis, United States. James D. Nogalski Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Baylor University, Waco, United States. Jason Radine Associate Professor of Religion and Department Chair at Moravian College, Bethlehem, United States.

Notes on Contributors

xix

Simone Rickerby Honorary Fellow of the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) at University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, and Honorary Postdoctoral Associate at University of Divinity, Melbourne, Australia. Anna Maria Schwemer Adjunct Professor of New Testament Emerita at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. Ruth Scoralick Professor of Old Testament at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. Anna Sieges Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Gardner-Webb University, Boiling Springs, United States. Marvin A. Sweeney Professor of Hebrew Bible at Claremont School of Theology, United States. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Reader in Hebrew Bible at University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Daniel C. Timmer Professor of Biblical Studies for the PhD Program at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, United States, and Professeur d’Ancien Testament at Faculté de théologie évangélique, Montréal, Canada. Frank Ueberschaer Professor of Old Testament at Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. Nicholas R. Werse Graduate Writing Coordinator at Baylor University, Waco, United States. Karl William Weyde Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo, Norway. Jakob Wöhrle Professor of Old Testament at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany.

Introduction Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Jakob Wöhrle Since ancient times, the Book of the Twelve was transmitted and read as a literary unity. While the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were each written on an individual scroll, the ancient manuscripts, e.g. from Qumran, always combined the books of the Twelve on one scroll.1 Additionally, Jesus Sirach already considered this collection to be a coherent unity, as indicated by his reference to “the Twelve” (Sir 49:10), and so did the Rabbis and other ancient authors.2 The ancient authors, however, explained the compilation of the Book of the Twelve on a single scroll with pragmatic reasons.3 The Rabbis thought that the short prophetic books of the Twelve were collected on one scroll so that they would not get lost—a popular view until the recent past. In the course of the critical examination of the Hebrew Bible, however, scholars soon became aware that the individual books of the Twelve show significant similarities. Some of the books begin with comparable headings. Additionally, the individual books attest to remarkable cross-references, from thematic connections up to longer word-for-word correspondences. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century such observations led to the first tentative attempts to reconstruct the formation of the Book of the Twelve and, on this basis, to explain the current form of the Twelve not just as a collection of twelve self-standing books, but instead as the result of a long-term redactional development. Already Heinrich Ewald (1867) and Carl Steuernagel (1912) suggested that the books of the Twelve were collected in several steps with an early collection comprising at least the books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, and with the integration of Zechariah 9–14 and the book of Malachi at the end of this process.4 Beyond these early approaches, Roland Emerson Wolfe (1933) developed a four-step model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve, comprising an initial two-prophets-collection of the books of Hosea and Amos, to which were added the books of Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah in a second step, and the books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah in a third one, with the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi 1  Cf. Fuller, “The Twelve.” See also Fuller’s article in this volume (Chapter 17). 2  Cf. Nogalski, Precursors, 2–3. 3  Cf. Nogalski, Precursors, 3–4. 4  Ewald, Propheten, 1:74–82; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 669–672.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_002

2

Tiemeyer and Wöhrle

gaining entrance into the collection in a fourth and final step.5 Additionally, according to his view, the growing corpus underwent several overall redactional revisions, which affected several books at the same time. For example, an “Anti-Neighbour Editor” added words against the neighbouring nations and a “Day of the Lord Editor” brought into the collection the bulk of words about the day of Yhwh. These early approaches concerning an overall model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve did not yield significant influence, however. It took until the turn of the millennium for a group of scholars to take up anew the research on the formation of the Book of the Twelve and to develop new models. First and foremost, it was James D. Nogalski (1993) who presented a comprehensive and well-founded model for the overall formation of the Book of the Twelve.6 Nogalski analyzed the last and the first chapters and thus the closing and the opening sections of the individual books. In doing so, he demonstrated that especially in these closing and opening sections the individual books of the Book of the Twelve were closely connected. Nogalski further highlighted the many extant cross-references between these sections. Even more, based on a redaction critical analysis of the individual sections, he demonstrated that these cross-references were the result of conscious redactional processes by which the individual books were secondarily connected to or integrated into larger collections. On this basis, Nogalski developed a three-step model according to which, at first, two precursors of the later Book of the Twelve were made—the Book of the Four comprising the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah and the Haggai–Zechariah corpus. At a later stage these two, smaller early collections were combined and several further books were added. Due to the important function of the book of Joel for this collection, Nogalski called it the “Joel-oriented layer.” Finally, the book of Jonah was added to the collection. Only a few years after Nogalski and already influenced by his approach, Aaron Schart (1997) presented a second overall model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve.7 Schart investigated the matter from two angles. He began by examining the headings of the individual books of the Twelve, which led him to a first grouping of the books. He then presented a redaction critical analysis of the book of Amos and connected the individual layers of the book of Amos to the groups of books with comparable headings. On this basis, 5  Wolfe, “Editing.” 6  Nogalski, Precursors; idem, Processes. 7  Schart, Entstehung.

Introduction

3

Schart presented a six-step model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve. According to his view, at first, the books of Hosea and Amos were combined. Subsequently, a Deuteronomistic redaction added the books of Micah and Zephaniah to a Book of the Four. The collection was then supplemented by the books of Nahum and Habakkuk, the books of Haggai and Zechariah, the books of Joel and Obadiah, and, finally, the books of Jonah and Malachi. The third, and for the time being last, overall model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve was presented by Jakob Wöhrle (2006/2008).8 Beyond Nogalski and Schart, Wöhrle built his model on a redaction critical analysis of every individual book of the Twelve. On this basis, he demonstrated that each individual book, at a given point in its gradual textual development, testified to comparable redactional growth. This insight lead to the conclusion that, from that certain point onwards, each book partook in a larger whole: the growing Book of the Twelve. In detail, Wöhrle developed an eight-step model, according to which, at first, the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah were combined to form a Book of the Four. Additionally, the books of Haggai and Zechariah were combined to form a small Book of the Two. At a later date, the redactors of the “Joel corpus” detached the book of Hosea from the Book of the Four, and replaced it with the book of Joel as the new opening section. The redactors of the “Foreign Nations corpus I” then combined the extant Joel corpus and the Haggai–Zechariah corpus, added the books of Nahum and Deutero-Zechariah, and reworked the whole collection towards a new focus against all the nations. After a subsequent redaction, which inserted a few words promising the restoration of the Davidites, the redactors of the “Foreign Nations corpus II” added the books of Obadiah and Malachi and supplemented the extant Book of the Twelve with new oracles against concrete peoples such as the Phoenicians or the Edomites. The redactors of the “Salvation-for-the-Nations corpus” inserted several new words that promised a new salvific future for the nations. The redactors of the “Grace corpus” integrated the book of Jonah and added several passages that take up the grace formula known from Exod 34:6. In one final step, the book of Hosea was readded to the collection. Although these current models for the formation of the Book of the Twelve differ in many respects and invite more work to reconstruct the complicated literary development of this collection, it is possible to note some major points of agreement. First, all current models for the formation of the Book of the Twelve act on the assumption that, at the beginning, two early collections emerged, which can be seen as the literary kernels of the collection: the Book 8  Wöhrle, Sammlungen; idem, Abschluss.

4

Tiemeyer and Wöhrle

of the Four comprising the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah and the Haggai–Zechariah corpus. Second, the book of Joel is of major significance for the later development of the Book of the Twelve. Third, the book of Jonah gained entrance only at a very late stage of the Twelve’s formation and is thus of crucial importance for the current form of the collection. Fourth, certain themes determine the redactional development of the collection: first and foremost the relationship to foreign nations, but also topics such as kingship, land, exile, or grace. In current research on the Book of the Twelve, some scholars like Ehud Ben Zvi, Martin Beck, or Tchavdar S. Hadjiev remain critical of such reconstructions of the Twelve’s formation if not against reading the Book of the Twelve as a coherent whole at all.9 Apart from such critical voices, however, research on the formation and intention of the Book of the Twelve has become a wellestablished field within the scholarship on the Hebrew Bible.10 In recent years, in the wake of the new models for the formation of the Book of the Twelve, a growing number of studies on individual aspects have emerged, be it on certain precursors of the Book of the Twelve like the Book of the Four or the Haggai–Zechariah corpus, or on the formation of a certain book in the context of the Book of the Twelve, or on certain topics within the Book of the Twelve.11 Against this background, the current volume gives an overview of the current state of debate about the Book of the Twelve. The 30 articles in this companion fall into four categories (Parts 1–4). The four articles in Part 1 address overarching methodological and redaction critical issues germane to either the whole Book of the Twelve or significant parts thereof. Jakob Wöhrle (Chapter 1) opens the volume with a discussion of the so-called “Book of the Four,” namely the earliest collection of books in the Twelve that consisted of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. Wöhrle evaluates the theories pertaining to the existence of such a core collection and argues that they rest firmly on two grounds: the similar headings of the four books and the existence of dtr. additions in all four books. He further postulates that this “Book

9  Ben Zvi, “Hypothesis”; idem, “Characters”; Beck, Tag Yhwhs; Hadjiev, “Zephaniah.” See also Hadjiev’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 4). 10  See, for example, the collected volumes Redditt and Schart, Threads; Albertz et al., Perspectives; Di Pede and Scaiola, Book of the Twelve; Fabry, Books of the Twelve Prophets. 11  Cf., among many, for the Book of the Four Werse, Book of the Four; for the Haggai– Zechariah corpus Hallaschka, Haggai; for the formation of certain books within the Book of the Twelve Zapff, Studien; Radine, Book of Amos; and for certain topics within the Book of the Twelve Scoralick, Gottes Güte; Roth, Israel; Schwesig, Rolle; Hagedorn, Die Anderen.

Introduction

5

of the Four” conveys marked criticism of the cultic and political leadership of Israel and Judah and, in this way, serves as counter-testimony to 1–2 Kings. In a similar manner, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (Chapter 2) addresses the other early collection, namely the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. She begins by surveying the shared aspects that hold these ten chapters together (e.g. shared dating formulas, shared themes) and assesses the theories that seek to explain this affinity. She then discusses the structure and redactional unity of the individual texts of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. She finally investigates their gradual growth: first within the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus and later within the Book of the Twelve. James D. Nogalski’s article (Chapter 3) is centred on the other end of the process: Zechariah 9–14. Was this text, often considered to contain the very last material to be added to the Book of the Twelve, written to supplement an original collection of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 or a broader one that contained also Malachi (either in their present or earlier forms)? Nogalski first appraises a range of key theories and then discusses the ways that the textual allusions in Zech 9–14 and Mal 3:22–24 emphasize the authoritative character of the Torah and the Prophets. Tchavdar S. Hadjiev (Chapter 4) offers an appropriate counter-voice to these theories. His discussion contemplates the readers’ perspective: were the books in the Twelve intended to be read as individual units or as part of a larger whole? To clarify the situation, Hadjiev reviews the manuscript traditions that present the Book of the Twelve as a single scroll, as well as the comparative evidence that the Isaiah scroll constitutes. He further scrutinizes the claim of thematic, structural, and stylistic cohesion across the Twelve. Ultimately, Hadjiev favours the notion of seeing the Twelve as an anthology that can, but need not, be read as a unity. The twelve articles in Part 2 (Chapters 5–16) correspond to the individual books in the Twelve. All the articles explore the role of the relevant book within its larger context of the Book of the Twelve. Jörg Jeremias (Chapter 5) draws attention to Hosea’s position as the first book in the Twelve and how it, together with Zechariah and Malachi, serves as a frame around it. He also discusses its relationship with Amos and Micah, as well as how its proximity to Joel in the Twelve influences the reading of both books. Throughout he explores the gradual development of the book and the historical situations that gave rise to its various parts. Ruth Ebach (Chapter 6) opens her article on Joel with a succinct discussion of its structure, before turning to its literary development. Ebach emphasizes its schriftgelehrte character and how its use of textual allusions, parallels, and

6

Tiemeyer and Wöhrle

quotes connects it with the surrounding material in the Twelve. She concludes with a discussion of the hermeneutical and theological roles of Joel in the Twelve. Jason Radine’s article on Amos (Chapter 7) traces its relationship with Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah and outlines the arguments for and against a shared dtr. redaction. Radine further investigates the thematic affinity of the final part of Amos (9:11–15)—often considered a later addition—with Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. In his view, the Amos epilogue was composed to bring the book into closer dialogue with the growing Book of the Twelve. The article on Obadiah by Anna Sieges and Nicholas R. Werse (Chapter 8) examines its lexical and thematic ties with the rest of the Twelve. Their discussion focuses on its strong parallels with Amos, Micah, Joel, and Malachi. Their investigation reveals that although Obadiah is likely the result of a diachronic composition progress, its two main parts (1–14, 15b versus 15a, 16–21) display similar patterns and interact with the same texts. The study by John Kaltner, Rhiannon Graybill, and Steven L. McKenzie (Chapter 9) reviews the role of Jonah in the Twelve, with special attention to Jonah 4:2 and its affinity with Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18–20; Nah 1:2b, 3a; Mal 1:9a. They also assess the idea of a fixed collection of the Twelve by exploring the significance of Jonah’s shifting position in the MT, the LXX, and the Qumran scrolls. They finally stress the difference between Jonah and the rest of the Twelve in its view of the nations. In his essay on Micah (Chapter 10), Rainer Kessler alternates between a synchronic and a diachronic approach. When reading the MT of the Twelve synchronically, the central position of Micah emphasizes the difference between the destruction of Samaria and the future significance of Jerusalem; when reading the Twelve diachronically, not only redactional additions but also textual allusions contribute to its integrated character within the Twelve. Daniel C. Timmer (Chapter 11) commences his study of Nahum with a detailed survey of recent theories pertaining to its diachronic development as a book and as part of the Twelve. Turning to synchronic perspectives, he explores the relationship of Nahum with Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jonah (and Exod 34:6–7). In both perspectives, God’s covenant relationship with Israel and the fate of the nations stand in focus. Michael H. Floyd (Chapter 12) examines the role of Habakkuk within the Twelve from many angles. First he discusses Habakkuk’s inclusion into the Twelve; second he investigates its link with Nahum; third he explores its thematic affinity with the rest of the Twelve; and fourth he highlights its understanding of cultic practices. The remainder of his study addresses methodological issues germane to synchronic and diachronic readings of Habakkuk within the Twelve.

Introduction

7

In the first half of his essay (Chapter 13), Walter Dietrich examines the position of Zephaniah, alongside Nahum and Habakkuk, in the Twelve. He further outlines its three-part-structure and its textual links to the rest of the Twelve. In the second half, Dietrich analyses the incorporation of Habakkuk into the gradually growing Book of the Twelve, as well as into the larger corpus of Israelite prophetic literature. Martin Leuenberger (Chapter 14) offers a detailed discussion of the structure and textual history of Haggai, before turning to its place and function in the Twelve, as well as its redaction history. Leuenberger also surveys its core topic and underscores its theological interpretation of the socio-economic situation in Yehud, the role of the temple, the significance of Zerubbabel, and the judgement of the nations. Rüdiger Lux (Chapter 15) begins his study on Zechariah by discussing the significance of the three superscriptions in Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1, as well as those in Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1, for determining the redaction history of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. He then explores the ways that the various parts of Zechariah address issues salient to the post-monarchic period. Lux concludes by considering the gradual growth of Zechariah, both as part of the Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 corpus and of the Twelve. Concluding Part 2, Karl William Weyde (Chapter 16) opens his article on Malachi by emphasizing the written aspect of Malachi (and Zech 9–14). Weyde further stresses its unique genre (divine statement—a quotation of the addresses—an elaboration of the divine statement), as well as its marked use of textual allusions from a broad spectrum of texts. He closes with a brief discussion of Malachi’s function as the conclusion of the Book of the Twelve. In Part 3, the next eight articles look at the Book of the Twelve in a diverse range of textual traditions as well as its early reception history. Russel E. Fuller (Chapter 17) explores to what extent it is possible to speak of a Book of the Twelve in the material from the Judean Desert (Qumran, Naḥal Ḥever, and Wadi Murabbaʿat). He first determines that the earliest name of the collection was “the Twelve” or “the Twelve Prophets.” He then evaluates whether the available textual evidence supports understanding this collection as a coherent body of texts. In his view, even though the material was considered one book, this book was treated as an anthology of twelve individual compositions. Along similar lines, Barry Alan Jones (Chapter 18) examines the witnesses to the Twelve in the Greek translation (LXX). Jones surveys the manuscript evidence for LXX Twelve—Vaticanus (B), Alexandrinus (A), Sinaiticus (S), evidence from the Judean Desert—and considers what they can tell us about the transmission of the Twelve as a collection. Notably, he argues that the manuscript evidence supports an early collection of Hosea, Amos, and Micah. He

8

Tiemeyer and Wöhrle

ends with a discussion of the structural, stylistic, and theological characteristics of LXX Twelve. Gudrun E. Lier’s article (Chapter 19) on the Twelve in the Jewish Aramaic Targum Jonathan investigates its chronological development. Lier maintains that whereas the individual interpretations have their roots in Second Temple literature, its final redaction took place in the fourth century ce. Lier also examines how the various revisions of Tg. Jonathan reflect the development of rabbinic theological concepts, yet also how it shaped rabbinic Judaism. She finally also assesses the relationship between Tg. Jonathan and other rabbinic literature. Simone Rickerby (Chapter 20) looks at the Latin versions of the Twelve. The first half of her essay discusses the various Latin textual traditions, the extant manuscripts, the variations between them, and their possible origin in a Jewish context. Rickerby also examines Jerome’s translations of the individual books (the Vulgate) and his familiarity with earlier Latin, Greek, and Hebrew traditions. The second half focuses on textual issues associated with the Latin text of the Twelve, as well as inner Latin lexical variations and their relationship with Greek readings. Frank Ueberschaer (Chapter 21) explores the ways that early Jewish literature interacted with the Twelve and what this interaction can tell us about the perception of the Twelve as a textual unity. In particular, he investigates the allusions to the Twelve in Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 3 Maccabees, and Enoch. He contends that although none of these allusions prove that the Twelve was perceived as a cohesive book, the reference in Sir 49:10 to “the twelve prophets” suggests that it was seen as a literary unit. Craig A. Evans (Chapter 22) considers the quotations and allusions to the Twelve in the New Testament. Among other things, he highlights the significance of Mal 3 for shaping the NT discourse about John the Baptist, Hosea in apocalyptic sayings, Zechariah in the Passion accounts, Micah in the Infancy Narrative, Joel and Amos in Acts, Habakkuk in Hebrews and the Pauline Epistles, and the Jonah narrative in the synoptic Gospels. Anna Maria Schwemer (Chapter 23) examines the use of the Twelve in the “Lives of the Prophets” (Vita Prophetarum). She addresses issues of content, structure, and literary character of the material as a whole, before delving into the depictions of the twelve individual prophets. In each case, she demonstrates how and by what means Liv. Pro. supplement the biblical text. Schwemer concludes with considerations about the relationship between Liv. Pro. and Ben Sira. Concluding Part 3, Mark Leuchter (Chapter 24) studies the references to the Twelve in rabbinic traditions. He commences by looking at the concept of

Introduction

9

prophecy among the Rabbis, and notes their preference for treating the material in the Twelve as an anthology of independent prophetic texts. He subsequently progresses systematically through the key rabbinic sources—with focus on the Babylonian Talmud—and observes how the Rabbis treated the Twelve on par with yet also distinct from the rest of the prophetic literature. The final six articles (Chapters 25–30) explore themes that run through many, if not all, of the books in the Twelve. Ruth Scoralick (Chapter 25) probes the theme of judgement and grace in the Twelve. In particular, she analyses how God’s willingness to turn from his wrath in Exod 32–34 (34:6–7) functions as “background theology” to the depictions of divine punishment and love in Hosea, Joel, and Amos. She further stresses how judgement and grace are rarely opposites; they rather stand in a dialectic relationship. In Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, for example, judgement of the oppressor means grace for Israel. Marvin A. Sweeney (Chapter 26), advancing systematically through the Twelve, looks at the descriptions of kingship. The discussion of monarchs in Hosea, for example, focuses on their uses and misuses of political alliances, whereas the discourse on monarchs in Amos centres on the relationship between Israel and Judah. Micah condemns the kings of both countries yet is also able to envisage an ideal Davidic monarch, while Zephaniah exhorts the people of Judah to follow Josiah’s reforms. Finally, Haggai and Zechariah concentrate on the post-monarchic roles of the House of David. In the first half of his essay (Chapter 27), Mark J. Boda summarizes the conceptualization of land in the Twelve. Speaking of its geo-ecological aspects, the land and its fertility are God’s gifts to Israel and rural imagery often presents an ideal counterpart to the violence of urban life. Looking more at its geo-political aspects, land often symbolizes restoration. In the second half, Boda analyses the construction of geo-political space in the Twelve, with focus on Israel’s relationship with the nations, and highlights the differences between the eighth and the sixth century material. The following two essays delve deeper into the topics of fertility and foreign nations. Roy E. Garton (Chapter 28) investigates the concept of “first fruits” in the Twelve to shed light on the intersection between the fertility of the land and the cultic realm. He surveys key texts in the Torah that speak of first fruit rites, and then addresses how these rituals are conceptualized in the Twelve, with focus on Hos 2, Joel 1–2, and Haggai. He establishes that the observance of these rituals manifests a dynamic and polyvalent tradition. Anselm C. Hagedorn (Chapter 29) examines the relationship of Israel with its political neighbours as depicted in the Twelve and contends that the “nations” often serve as “the Other” against which Israel defines itself. Hagedorn also

10

Tiemeyer and Wöhrle

explores the role of Assyria, the special significance of Edom (e.g. Obadiah), the curious absence of polemic against Babylon, the lack of direct address against Egypt, and the role of Persia. Finally, Hagedorn reflects on the theological development from concrete judgement of specific nations to universal judgement throughout the Twelve. John Kessler’s essay on “exile” (Chapter 30) brings the volume to a close. Kessler notes that exile partakes in the broader theme of “Exile-Diaspora-Return” and emphasizes its inherent connections with Israel’s sin and God’s punishment. He then proceeds systematically through the Twelve and analyses those passages that speak of exile (Hos 11; Joel 4; Amos; Obadiah; Micah; and Zechariah). He concludes by stressing the diversity of the exile traditions, their focus on Zion and their corresponding lack of focus on the Babylonian golah. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer et al. eds. Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag Yhwhs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Is the Twelve Hypothesis Likely from an Ancient Reader’s Perspective?” Pages 47–96 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books. Edited by idem and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Remembering Twelve Prophetic Characters from the Past.” Pages 6–36 in The Book of the Twelve—One Book or Many? Edited by Elena Di Pede and Donatella Scaiola. FAT II,91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Di Pede, Elena and Donatella Scaiola. eds. The Book of the Twelve—One Book or Many. FAT II,91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Ewald, Heinrich. Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1867–1868. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. ed. The Books of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets—Major Theologies. BETL 295. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Fuller, Russell E. “The Twelve.” Pages 221–318 in Qumran Cave 4. X: The Prophets. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis.” Pages 325– 338 in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 531. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Introduction

11

Hagedorn, Anselm C. Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel. BZAW 414. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2011. Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Radine, Jason. The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah. FAT II,45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Redditt, Paul L. and Aaron Schart. eds. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Scoralick, Ruth. Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HBS 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Steuernagel, Carl. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912. Werse, Nicholas R. Reconsidering the Book of the Four: The Shaping of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah as an Early Prophetic Collection. BZAW 517. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2019. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wolfe, Rolland E. “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve.” ZAW 53 (1935): 90–129. Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1997.

Part 1 General Topics

∵

Chapter 1

The Book of the Four Jakob Wöhrle 1 Introduction In the last decades, much work has been done to reconstruct the formation of the Book of the Twelve. Various models have been developed presenting illuminating insights into redactional processes, which led to certain precursors of the Book of the Twelve and, finally, to the Book of the Twelve in its current shape. Due to the complex outline of the Book of the Twelve, the different models deviate from each other in several regards. However, one point of agreement exists among the major models for the formation of the Book of the Twelve: there was an early precursor of the Book of the Twelve, which comprised the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. A growing number of scholars sees this so called “Book of the Four” as the earliest kernel of the Book of the Twelve, upon which all further redactional stages were built. This article gives an overview of current research on this Book of the Four. At first, it presents a short history of research, which treats the discovery of the Book of the Four as well as critical voices against the Book of the Four hypothesis. Second, it gives important insights into the formation of the Book of the Four. Third, it treats the intention of this corpus. 2

History of Research

2.1 The Discovery of the Book of the Four Already in 1912, Carl Steuernagel in his “Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament” presented the idea that the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah once formed a common collection, a Book of the Four.1 For this assumption, Steuernagel referred to an important observation. These four books, different from the other books of the Book of the Twelve, have similar headings. All of their headings begin with the term ‫דבר‬. The headings of the books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah even begin with the same phrase ‫דבר יהוה אׁשר היה‬ 1  Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 669–670.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_003

16

Wöhrle

‫אל‬. The book of Amos has at least the comparable phrase ‫דברי עמוס … אׁשר חזה‬. Additionally, the headings of these four books all contain the same kind of dating formula, by which the message of the individual book is associated with the reign of certain kings of the Northern and the Southern Kingdom. Thus, according to Steuernagel, the comparable headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah speak for the assumption that these four books once built a common collection. With this assumption, Steuernagel was way ahead of his time. It took until the year of 1993 when James D. Nogalski in his epochal monograph “Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve” again put forward and now comprehensively elaborated the idea of a Book of the Four comprising the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah.2 Like Steuernagel, Nogalski based this idea on the common features within the headings of the individual books. But beyond Steuernagel, Nogalski also pointed to the fact that previous research had detected redactional passages in these four books, which, in a broader sense, can be called Deuteronomistic. According to Nogalski, these dtr. passages show common features such as, for example, the remnant motif in Amos 9:7–10; Mic 6; Zeph 3:12–13. Additionally, some of these dtr. passages can be understood much better in the context of such a Book of the Four than in the context of the individual book. For example, Mic 1:5–7, a judgment oracle against Samaria, does not really fit the context of the book of Micah, which is otherwise solely directed against Judah. But within the Book of the Four, it could well be understood as a transitional passage, consciously set between the books of the Northern prophets Hosea and Amos and the Southern prophets Micah and Zephaniah. Thus, according to Nogalski, the headings as well as the dtr. passages strongly favour the assumption that a global redaction worked on all four books and connected them to a Book of the Four. In the wake of Nogalski, several other scholars took up the idea of such a Book of the Four. At first, Aaron Schart in his book “Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs” from 1998, comprehensively elaborated the thesis of such a Book of the Four.3 Like Nogalski, Schart points to the common features in the headings of these four books as well as to the dtr. additions within these books—although Schart (considering the difficulties with the phenomenon of Deuteronomism) does not speak of “Deuteronomistic” passages or a “Deuteronomistic” corpus, but calls the Book of the Four the “D-Korpus” instead. Going beyond Nogalski, Schart describes in more detail, which passages trace back to the editors of this “D-Korpus.” Additionally, he 2  Nogalski, Precursors, esp. 84–89, 176–178. 3  Schart, Entstehung, esp. 156–233.

The Book of the Four

17

thoroughly explains the intention of this collection. According to Schart, the Book of the Four describes and explains the downfall of, at first, the Northern Kingdom (Hosea and Amos) and then also the Southern Kingdom (Micah and Zephaniah). Time and again it points to the cultic and social misbehavior of the people that led to these catastrophes. But, finally, it also awaits a new beginning for a remnant of the people (Zeph 3:11–13). Building upon the insights of Nogalski and Schart, I myself in my book “Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches” from 2006 further developed the thesis of a Book of the Four.4 Beyond previous research, I presented a detailed redaction critical analysis of the individual books and so I defined anew and precisely the extent of the so-called dtr. redactions in these books. Additionally, I showed that the dtr. redactions within the individual books show close connections to the books of Kings. In particular, the dtr. redactions of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah demonstrate affinity with those parts of the books of Kings that describe the epoch mentioned in the heading of the individual prophetic book. Thus, the Book of the Four is closely related to the books of Kings. On closer inspection, however, it can even be read and understood as a prophetic counter-concept to the books of Kings. Besides these monographic studies and in the wake of these studies, the idea of a Book of the Four comprising the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah found its way into several further studies, textbooks, and encyclopedia articles.5 The thesis of such a Book of the Four is now one of the headstones of all research on the formation of the Book of the Twelve. Many scholars see the Book of the Four, together with the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus, as the earliest nucleus of the growing Book of the Twelve. However, despite this growing consensus, some critical voices have also risen that challenge the existence of a Book of the Four. The next chapter shall give the main arguments of such critics. 2.2 Critique of the Book of the Four Although the Book of the Four hypothesis has gained increasing acceptability in Old Testament scholarship, some scholars fundamentally and considerably criticize this hypothesis. Ehud Ben Zvi opposed the idea of such a corpus from

4  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 51–284; cf. idem, “Future.” 5  See, for example, Albertz, Exilszeit, 164–185; idem, “Exile,” 232–251; Jeremias, “Propheten­ bücher,” 1714; Macchi, “Douze petits prophètes,” 381; Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch, 366; Corzilius, Michas Rätsel, 48; Dietrich, “Propheten,” 395–397; Schmid, “Hintere Propheten,” 375; Zenger, “Zwölfprophetenbuch,” 633, et al.

18

Wöhrle

the very beginning.6 Other scholars like Martin Beck,7 Tchavdar S. Hadjiev,8 Jason Radine,9 and Roman Vielhauer10 followed his critique. In a recent article, Christoph Levin even wrote an obituary for the Book of the Four.11 The criticism of these scholars is directed against both pillars of the hypothesis. For them, the similarities between the headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah do not suffice to assume that these four books once built a common collection.12 On the contrary, the differences between the books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah beginning with the phrase ‫דבר יהוה‬ and the book of Amos beginning with the phrase ‫ דברי עמוס‬speak against the assumption that these headings trace back to one and the same redaction, that would have connected these books to a Book of the Four. Additionally, the book of Joel, like the books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, has a heading that begins with the phrase ‫דבר יהוה‬. However, no one regards this book as being part of the collection. The second and main line of criticism concerns the so called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, upon which the whole Book of the Four hypothesis is built. The opponents of this hypothesis emphasize that these texts cannot really be called “Deuteronomistic.”13 According to their view, the language and the thought of these passages differs significantly from classic dtr. texts like the Deuteronomistic History. This claim begins with the headings of the Book of the Four. These headings have nothing in common with texts generally held to be dtr. The opening phrase ‫ דבר יהוה‬is rather reminiscent of the phrase ‫ויהי דבר יהוה‬, which is rarely documented in DtrH, but, for example, about 50 times in the book of Ezekiel.14 Furthermore, not only the headings but also other texts, which the proponents of the Book of the Four hypothesis ascribe to the redactors of the corpus, cannot be called dtr. in the strict sense of the word. As Ben Zvi points out,15 6  Ben Zvi, “Deuteronomistic Redaction.” For his general critique on current research on the overall formation of the Book of the Twelve, see also idem, “Twelve Hypothesis,” and idem, “Characters.” 7  Beck, Tag Yhwhs, esp. 71–73, 118–122. 8  Hadjiev, “Zephaniah.” See also his essay in this volume (Chapter 4), 90–108. 9  Radine, “Redaction.” 10  Vielhauer, “Hosea.” 11  Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch.” 12  Ben Zvi, “Deuteronomistic Redaction,” 250–253; Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 222–225; see also Rudnig-Zelt, “Genese,” 359. 13  Ben Zvi, “Deuteronomistic Redaction,” 240–244; Beck, Tag Yhwhs, 120; Radine, “Redaction,” 294–296; Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” 326–328; Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 222–225. 14  Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 222–225, following Lohfink, “Bewegung,” 319. 15  Ben Zvi, “Deuteronomistic Redaction,” 241.

The Book of the Four

19

from the list of typical dtr. phrases, gathered by Moshe Weinfeld,16 only one phrase is found within the texts ascribed to the redactors of the Book of the Four (‫ ;לקח מוסר‬Zeph 3:2, 7). Thus, according to his view, these texts do not show a specific dtr. character. They rather represent the common language of their time. Additionally, some scholars also refer to differences regarding the intention and theology of the books ascribed to the Book of the Four on the one hand and of the DtrH on the other. For example, the condemnation of Jeroboam I is essential to the DtrH, but not to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah.17 Moreover, while DtrH describes the condemnation of the people because of their rejection of Yhwh, Hos 3:1 emphasizes Yhwh’s enduring love despite the people’s misbehavior.18 Finally, the critics of the Book of the Four hypothesis argue that the so called dtr. passages of the individual books are not really interrelated with each other.19 For example, Mic 5:9–13 as well as Zeph 1:4–6 predict the destruction of illegitimate cultic items. However, none of these cultic items is mentioned in both texts; they rather condemn completely different issues. The critics of the Book of the Four hypothesis thus indeed present thoughtprovoking arguments against it. Their arguments have to be considered in the following presentation of the hypothesis. 3

The Formation of the Book of the Four

As shown before, in the context of the short history of research, the Book of the Four hypothesis is mainly based on two observations: first, the similarities between the headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, and second, the so called dtr. additions to these books. Both observations shall now be treated in more detail. 3.1 The Headings As has long been seen, the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah begin with comparable headings.20 The headings of these books read as shown in Table 1.1. 16  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 398–404. 17  Radine, “Redaction,” 294–296. 18  Vielhauer, “Hosea,” 60–62. 19  Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” 328–332. 20  See for the following also Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 33–39.

20 table 1.1

Hos 1:1 Amos 1:1

Wöhrle The headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah

‫אשר היה אל־הוׁשע בן־בארי‬ ׁ ‫דבר־יהוה‬

‫בן־יואש מלך ישׂ ראל׃‬ ׁ ‫בימי עזיה יותם אחז יחזקיה מלכי יהודה ובימי ירבעם‬ ‫דברי עמוס‬

‫אׁשר־היה בנקדים מתקוע‬ ‫אׁשר חזה על־יׂשראל‬ ‫בן־יואש מלך ישׂ ראל‬ ׁ ‫בימי עזיה מלך־יהודה ובימי ירבעם‬

Mic 1:1

‫ׁשנתים לפני הרעׁש׃‬ ‫אשר היה אל־מיכה המרׁשתי‬ ׁ ‫דבר־יהוה‬ ‫בימי יותם אחז יחזקיה מלכי יהודה‬

Zeph 1:1

‫אׁשר־חזה על־ׁשמרון וירוׁשלם׃‬ ‫אשר היה אל־צפניה בן־כוׁשי בן־גדליה בן־אמריה בן־חזקיה‬ ׁ ‫דבר־יהוה‬

‫יאשיהו בן־אמון מלך יהודה׃‬ ׁ ‫בימי‬

The headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah thus show two common features. The first one is the generic term at the beginning of the headings. All headings begin with the term ‫דבר‬. The books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah even begin with the identical phrase ‫דבר יהוה אׁשר היה אל‬. The book of Amos begins with ‫דברי עמוס‬. This common feature is noteworthy, since among the books of the Book of the Twelve only the book of Joel shows a comparable heading with the generic term ‫דבר‬. However, since the heading of the book of Amos slightly differs from the headings of the books of Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, the critics of the Book of the Four hypothesis are right that this observation does not suffice to assume that these four books indeed once formed a common collection. Remarkable, however, is the second feature, which now all of these headings have in common.21 They all contain the same kind of dating formula, by which the message of the book is connected with the reign of certain kings of the Northern and Southern Kingdom. On closer inspection, the dates given in the individual books are closely related (Table 1.2). Noteworthy is, at first, the heading in Hos 1:1. Here, the reign of the kings of Judah goes far beyond the reign of the Northern King Jeroboam. On a historic level, this does not make any sense. However, on a literary level, the kings mentioned in Hos 1:1 correspond exactly to the kings mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Mic 1:1 together. Thus, the intertextual relationship between these three 21  Nogalski, Precursors, 85–86; Schart, Entstehung, 42–46; Albertz, Exilszeit, 167; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 33–38.

21

The Book of the Four table 1.2

Israel Judah

Dates in the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah

Hosea

Amos

Jeroboam II (787–747) Usiah (773–736) Jotham (756–741) Ahas (741–725) Hezekiah (725–697)

Jeroboam II (787–747) Usiah (773–736)

Micah

Jotham (756–741) Ahas (741–725) Hezekiah (725–697)

Zephaniah

Josiah (639–609)

books speaks for the assumption that a redactional hand consciously connected these books by the headings and especially by the dating formulas within the headings. Not only are the headings of the books of Hosea, Micah, and Amos closely related with each other, the same is true also for the heading of the book of Zephaniah. First, the book of Zephaniah, probably against its original historical setting,22 is set in the time of Josiah. This affinity connects the book of Zephaniah with the preceding books with comparable headings: the book of Zephaniah is dated to the time of the reformer Josiah in the same way as the books of Hosea and Micah are dated to the time of the reformer Hezekiah.23 Second, the heading of the book of Zephaniah mentions a four-generation long list of his forefathers. A list of forefathers with such a depth is very rarely documented in the Old Testament. Interestingly enough, however, the list of Zephaniah’s ancestors ends with a person called Hezekiah. And this again could be taken as a literary connection to the preceding books with the same headings, since the books of Hosea and Micah mention king Hezekiah at the end of the dating formulas.24 22  For the date of the primary layer of the book of Zephaniah, see Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 223–224. 23  Thus already Nogalski, Precursors, 86–87; Schart, Entstehung, 44–45. 24  Nogalski, Precursors, 86.

22

Wöhrle

Thus, all in all, the headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah do not only show comparable features, they are also closely related to each other. Especially the observation that the kings mentioned in Hos 1:1 correspond to the kings mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Mic 1:1 together strongly speaks for the fact that the headings trace back to one and the same hand, since this phenomenon can hardly be explained on a historic level. The slightly different form of the heading in Amos 1:1, then, must likely be explained in that an earlier heading beginning with the phrase ‫ דברי עמוס‬already existed so that the redactors of the Book of the Four just added the dating formula to this extant heading.25 A comparable process is visible at the beginning of the book of Hosea. Here, an earlier heading stands in Hos 1:2 and the redactors of the Book of the Four added their new heading in front of it. The headings of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah are thus indeed an important piece of evidence that these books once formed a common collection: a Book of the Four. Against this background, the second line of argument, the so-called dtr. additions to these four books, become significant and shall now be treated in detail. 3.2 The Dtr. Additions It has long been proposed that the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah all underwent a redaction, which, in a broader sense, can be called “Deuteronomistic.”26 This assumption is mainly based on the observation that in these books secondary additions become visible, which show close terminological relationships to the book of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History or the dtr. passages of the book of Jeremiah. As shown before, the proponents of the Book of the Four hypothesis argue that the dtr. additions within the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah trace back to one and the same redaction, which by adding these passages combined the four books to a common collection, the Book of the Four. The critics of this hypothesis, however, strongly oppose this assumption. They argue that these passages do not bear real dtr. features. Additionally, they argue that the additions to the individual books show significant differences and thus cannot be attributed to one and the same redactor. 25  Wolff, Joel und Amos, 147; Mays, Amos, 18–19; Jeremias, Amos, 1–2; Schart, Entstehung, 51; Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 229–230. 26   The theses concerning dtr. additions in the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah are much older than the Book of the Four hypothesis. Cf., for example, for the book of Hosea Yee, Composition; Nissinen, Prophetie; for the book of Amos Schmidt, “Deuteronomistische Redaktion”; for the book of Micah Jeremias, “Deutung”; for the book of Zephaniah Seybold, Satirische Prophetie.

23

The Book of the Four table 1.3

Dtr. additions

Dtr. additions in the Book of the Four

Hosea

Amos

Micah

Zephaniah

1:1 3:1–4, 5* 4:1abα, 10, 15 8:1b, 4b–6, 14 13:2–3 14:1

1:1* 2:4–5, 9–12 3:1b, 7 4:13* 5:11, 25–26 7:10–17 8:5, 6b, 11–12 9:7–10

1:1, 4–6, 13b 1:1, 5b–7, 9, 12b 2:1–2, 3*, 4–6, 5:9–13 6:2–4a, 9aα, 10–15 8–9a 3:1–4, 6–8a, 11–13

A detailed analysis of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah leads to the dtr. additions to these books as given in Table 1.3.27 The dtr. additions to the book of Hosea are thus mainly concerned with the worship of other gods and idolatry (Hos 3:1–5*; 8:4b–6; 13:2–3). In the book of Amos, the dtr. passages criticize the rejection of the prophetic message (Amos 2:11–12; 7:10–17; 9:10), they accuse Judah because of the denial of divine commandments (2:4–5), and finally they announce the downfall of Israel (7:17; 9:7–10). In the book of Micah, at first, Mic 1:5b–7 again announces the downfall of Samaria. At the end of the book of Micah, Mic 5:9–13 predicts a purifying judgment that will affect military and cultic institutions, and Mic 6:2–15* condemns the inhabitants of Jerusalem because of their economic offences. In the book of Zephaniah, the dtr. addition Zeph 1:4–6 again predicts a purifying judgment that concerns the cultic life. In Zeph 2–3*, at first, the people is summoned to seek Yhwh and humility (2:1–3*), and after some words against foreign nations (2:4–9*), judgment is announced against the upper class, who have not sought Yhwh (3:1–8*). According to the last dtr. addition, only a poor and humble people will survive this judgment (3:11–13). Overlooking these so called dtr. additions to the individual books, the critics of the Book of the Four hypothesis are, at least at first sight, correct. Compared, for example, to the dtr. additions to the book of Jeremiah, these passages are not dtr. in the strict sense of the word, i.e. they do not really speak the traditional language known from the book of Deuteronomy. Instead, the dtr. character of these passages is rather general. Additionally, the additions to the individual books are indeed thematically diverse. For example, only the 27  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 59–240.

24

Wöhrle

additions to the book of Amos criticize the rejection of the prophetic word. The subject of poverty is restricted to the additions to the book of Zephaniah. The announcements of a purifying judgment in Mic 5:9–13 and Zeph 1:4–6 indeed do not refer to one identical issue that shall be destroyed. The more general dtr. character, as well as the diverse thematic profile of the additions to the individual books, however, does not speak against the Book of the Four hypothesis, since it can be shown that the additions to the individual books have one remarkable characteristic in common: they are all closely related to the books of Kings and, especially, to those passages of the books of Kings that deal with the same period of time that is mentioned in the heading of the individual book.28 At first, the additions to the books of Hosea and Amos, dated to the time of Jeroboam II, reflect on the downfall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17. The additions to the book of Hosea criticize the veneration of foreign gods and idolatry, and this is one of the main reasons that 2 Kgs 17 gives for the downfall of the Northern Kingdom. Additionally, the dtr. additions to the book of Hosea and 2 Kgs 17 are connected by several literary cross-references: ‫אלהים‬ ‫( אחרים‬Hos 3:1 // 2 Kgs 17:7); ‫( מצבה‬Hos 3:4 // 2 Kgs 17:10); ‫( עגל‬Hos 8:5, 6; 13:2 // 2 Kgs 17:16); ‫( ויעׂשו להם מסכה‬Hos 13:2 // 2 Kgs 17:16).29 Besides the books of Hosea and 2 Kings the last phrase ‫ ויעׂשו להם מסכה‬is documented just once more in the whole Old Testament (Deut 9:12). This strongly speaks for the assumption that the additions to the book of Hosea are literarily dependent upon 2 Kings 17. The critique of foreign gods within the dtr. additions of the book of Hosea was thus formulated with knowledge of and as a parallel to the reflection about the downfall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17. The dtr. additions to the book of Amos lead to comparable observations. The central accusation within these additions is the people’s rejection of the prophets (Amos 2:11–12; 3:7; 7:10–17; 8:11–12; 9:10).30 This has an important parallel in 2 Kgs 17. According to 2 Kgs 17:13–14 Yhwh sent prophets to the people, but the people did not listen to them. Additionally, Amos 3:7 and 2 Kgs 17:13, 23 are connected by the same phrase ‫עבדיו הנביאים‬. The close connection to the books of Kings also helps to explain why only the dtr. additions to the book of Amos, but not the dtr. additions to the

28  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 255–271. 29  Thus among the dtr. additions to the book of Hosea (see Table 1.3 above) only the small additions in Hos 4:1abα, 15; 8:14; 14:1 do not show literary cross-references to 2 Kgs 17. 30  Among the dtr. additions to the book of Amos (see Table 3.1 above) only Am 2:4–5; 5:11, 25–26; 8:5, 6b do not deal with the topic of prophecy.

The Book of the Four

25

subsequent books of Micah and Zephaniah, condemn the rejection of prophecy. Subsequent to 2 Kgs 17, the books of Kings also do not condemn this offense. In the book of Amos, however, not only the dtr. additions concerning the rejection of prophecy show close connections to 2 Kgs 17. The same is also true for Amos 2:4–5, a judgment oracle against Judah, which condemns the people’s unwillingness to keep Yhwh’s commandments. This oracle is closely related to 2 Kgs 17:13–15, a text that, although in a context that explains the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, also speaks of Judah, and condemns the people’s disobedience to the law. Additionally, Amos 2:4–5 and 2 Kgs 17:13–15 show several catchword-connections: ‫הלך אחרי ;מאס ;אב ;תורה ;חק)ה( ;ׁשמר ;יהודה‬. These words are documented together in the whole Old Testament only in these two passages. This, again, strongly speaks for the assumption that the so called dtr. additions to the book of Amos are literarily dependent upon 2 Kgs 17. Besides the words against the rejection of prophecy and the word against Judah, the dtr. additions to the book of Amos show further connections to 2 Kgs 17. Amos 7:11, 17; 9:8 predict the exile of the Israelite people with the same phrase as 2 Kgs 17:23: ‫יגלה מעל אדמתו‬.31 Amos 2:10; 3:1b; 9:7 refer to the Exodus with the verb ‫ עלה‬hiphil as does 2 Kgs 17:7.32 Thus, both the dtr. additions to the book of Hosea and the dtr. additions to the book of Amos show close connections to 2 Kgs 17. They are closely related to and thus in all likelihood literarily dependent upon the reflection about the downfall of the Northern Kingdom in this chapter. Comparable observations can be made in the books of Micah and Zephaniah. The so called dtr. additions to the book of Micah, which according to its heading is dated to the time from Jotham to Hezekiah, are, at first, again connected to the reflection about the downfall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17 but also to the account about the reign of king Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18. In Mic 1:5b–7 the dtr. redactors added a word against Samaria accusing the people of cultic misbehavior. This word is again connected to 2 Kgs 17. It predicts the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, it explains this downfall with cultic matters, and by doing so it uses the term ‫( פסיל‬Mic 1:7) that is also documented in 2 Kgs 17:41. The dtr. addition in Mic 5:9–13 envisages a purifying judgment that will affect both cultic and military institutions. This fits the first years of the reign of king Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18, which relates to the reform of Hezekiah 31  Besides Amos 7:11, 17; 9:8 and 2 Kgs 17:23, this phrase is only documented in 2 Kgs 25:21 // Jer 52:27. 32  Note that DtrH usually describes the Exodus event with ‫ יצא‬hiphil. In 2 Kgs only 2 Kgs 17:7, 36 use the term ‫ עלה‬hiphil.

26

Wöhrle

(2 Kgs 18:1–7) and to the military campaign of Sennacherib against the cities of Judah (2 Kgs 18:13–16).33 According to 2 Kgs 18:4 Hezekiah removes—besides the bronze serpent—‫ מצבה‬and ‫ ;אׁשרה‬and exactly these two items are also mentioned in Mic 5:12, 13. According to 2 Kgs 18:13 Sennacherib conquered all the fortified cities (‫ )עיר בצור‬of the land; this corresponds to the destruction of cities and fortresses (‫ )מבצר ;עיר‬in Mic 5:10. Thus, the purifying judgment in Mic 5:9–13 relates perfectly to the first two events in the reign of Hezekiah according to 2 Kgs 18. The same holds true for the dtr. additions in Mic 6. Mic 6:10 asks if there are still treasures (‫ )אוצר‬in the house of the wicked. This could well be understood as a reference to 2 Kgs 18:14–16, according to which Hezekiah, in order to pay tribute to the Assyrians, accesses the treasures (‫ )אוצר‬of the king’s house. Mic 6:14 predicts that excrements (‫ )יׁשח‬shall be in the midst of the people.34 This could refer to the report of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 18:17– 37, in the context of which the Assyrian commander Rabshakeh talks about men sitting on the roof, “eating their own dung (‫ )חרא‬and drinking their own urine” (2 Kgs 18:27). Thus, also the dtr. additions in the book of Micah are closely related to the books of Kings. Particularly, the dtr. additions in Micah are again closely related to those passages within Kings that refer to the time mentioned in the heading of the book. The same applies to the dtr. additions to the book of Zephaniah. According to its heading, Zephaniah is dated to the time of Josiah; and the dtr. additions in this book show clear connections to the account of the reign of Josiah and the subsequent report about the downfall of Judah and Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 22–25. Zeph 1:4–5, as has often been seen, is thoroughly, even word-by-word, connected to the report about Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 22–23:35 ‫המקום הזה‬ (Zeph 1:4 // 2 Kgs 22:16, 17, 19, 20); ‫( בעל‬Zeph 1:4 // 2 Kgs 23:4, 5); ‫( כמרים‬Zeph 1:4 // 2 Kgs 23:5); ‫( כהנים‬Zeph 1:4 // 2 Kgs 23:8, 9, 20); ‫( גג‬Zeph 1:5 // 2 Kgs 23:12); ‫צבא‬ ‫( הׁשמים‬Zeph 1:5 // 2 Kgs 23:4, 5); ‫( מלכם‬Zeph 1:5 // 2 Kgs 23:13). Thus, Zeph 1:4–5 predicts nothing other than a cultic cleansing as it happened, according to 2 Kgs 22–23, in the course of Josiah’s reform. 33  Already Willis, “Authenticity,” 365, saw the connection between Mic 5:9–13 and the events described in 2 Kgs 18. However, Willis explained this connection on a historic level (Mic 5:9–13 as stemming from the eighth century prophet Micah) and not on a literary level as a reference to the books of Kings. 34  For the interpretation of ‫ יׁשח‬on human excrements, cf., for example, Ben Zvi, Micah, 155; Kessler, Micha, 273. 35  Seybold, Satirische Prophetie, 84–85; Albertz, Exilszeit, 172, et al.

The Book of the Four

27

Against this background, it is also clear why the dtr. additions announcing a purifying judgment in Mic 5:9–13 and Zeph 1:4–5 do not mention the same objects. This difference does not speak against the Book of the Four hypothesis, as the critics of this hypothesis assert. Rather it stems from the fact that, corresponding to the date in the individual heading, the dtr. additions to the book of Micah refer to the report of Hezekiah’s reign in 2 Kgs 18, while the dtr. additions to the book of Zephaniah refer to the report of Josiah’s reign in 2 Kgs 22–23. Similar are the findings among the rest of the dtr. additions to the book of Zephaniah. The unusual expression ‫ יום אף יהוה‬together with the phrase ‫חרון‬ ‫ אף יהוה‬in Zeph 2:2 can well be understood as an allusion to 2 Kgs 23:26, according to which Yhwh did not turn from his ‫ חרון אף‬due to the misdeeds of Manasseh.36 Finally, Zeph 3:11 says that Yhwh will remove the proud exultant ones using the same verb ‫ סור‬that 2 Kgs 24:3 uses for the deportation of the people. In this context, Zeph 3:12 predicts that Yhwh leaves (‫ )ׁשאר‬only a poor and humble people (‫ )עם עני ודל‬that will survive this judgment. Likewise 2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12 records that the Babylonians left (‫ )ׁשאר‬the humble of the land (‫)דלת הארץ‬. Remarkably, the words ‫ ׁשאר‬and (‫ דל)ה‬are found together besides Zeph 3:12; 2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12 only in texts depending upon the report in 2 Kgs, namely Jer 39:10; 52:15, 16. This affinity again shows that the dtr. additions to the book of Zephaniah were written in knowledge of and in close relation to the account in the books of Kings. The so-called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah thus have indeed one important characteristic in common. They all refer to the books of Kings and particularly to those parts of the books of Kings that report about the time mentioned in the headings of the individual prophetic book. Table 1.4 gives a summarizing overview of the cross-references between the dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah and the books of Kings. This large number of cross-references between the so-called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah and the books of Kings cannot be a coincidence.37 It rather speaks for the assumption that one and 36  Remarkably, ‫ חרון אף‬is found in the books of Kings only in 2 Kgs 23:26. 37  Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 223, however, opposes the view that the close connection between the so-called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah and the books of Kings suffice to assume the existence of a Book of the Four. Levin counters: “Absichtsvolle Querverweise finden sich im Alten Testament überall.” This is surely correct. However, it is and remains significant that the so-called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah do not only very generally refer to some

28

Wöhrle

table 1.4 Cross-references to the books of Kings

Hosea

Worship of other gods and idolatry (2 Kgs 17)

‫אלהים אחרים‬ ‫מצבה‬ ‫עגל‬ ‫ויעׂשו להם מסכה‬ Amos

Hos 3:1 Hos 3:4 Hos 8:5, 6; 13:2 Hos 13:2

2 Kgs 17:7 2 Kgs 17:10 2 Kgs 17:16 2 Kgs 17:16

Rejection of the prophetic message (2 Kgs 17)

‫עבדיו הנביאים‬

Amos 3:7

2 Kgs 17:13, 23

Accusation against Judah (2 Kgs 17)

‫יהודה‬ ‫שׁמר‬ (‫חק)ה‬ ‫תורה‬ ‫אב‬ ‫מאס‬ ‫הלך אחרי‬

Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4 Amos 2:4

2 Kgs 17:13 2 Kgs 17:13 2 Kgs 17:13, 15 2 Kgs 17:13 2 Kgs 17:13 2 Kgs 17:15 2 Kgs 17:15

Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7

2 Kgs 17:7

Exodus (2 Kgs 17)

‫ עלה מארץ מצרים‬hi.

Downfall of Israel (2 Kgs 17)

‫יגלה מעל אדמתו‬

Micah

Amos 7:11, 17 (cf. 9:8)

2 Kgs 17:23

Downfall of Israel (2 Kgs 17)

‫ׁשמרון‬ ‫פסיל‬

Mic 1:5, 6 Mic 1:7

2 Kgs 17:1, 5, 6 2 Kgs 17:41

29

The Book of the Four table 1.4 Cross-references to the books of Kings (cont.)

Reform of Hezekiah and campaign against Judah (2 Kgs 18:1–16)

‫ מבצר ;עיר‬// ‫עיר בצור‬ ‫מצבה‬ ‫אׁשרה‬

Mic 5:10, (13) Mic 5:12 Mic 5:13

2 Kgs 18:13 2 Kgs 18:4 2 Kgs 18:4

Siege of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:17ff)

‫אוצר‬ ‫ יׁשח‬// ‫חרא‬

Mic 6:10 Mic 6:14

2 Kgs 18:15 2 Kgs 18:27

Zephaniah Reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23)

‫המקום הזה‬ ‫בעל‬ ‫כמרים‬ ‫כהנים‬ ‫גג‬ ‫צבא הׁשמים‬ ‫מלכם‬ ‫חרון אף‬

Zeph 1:4 Zeph 1:4 Zeph 1:4 Zeph 1:4 Zeph 1:5 Zeph 1:5 Zeph 1:5 Zeph 2:2

2 Kgs 22:16, 17, 19, 20 2 Kgs 23:4, 5 2 Kgs 23:5 2 Kgs 23:8, 9, 20 2 Kgs 23:12 2 Kgs 23:4, 5 2 Kgs 23:13 2 Kgs 23:26

Downfall of Judah (2 Kgs 24–25)

‫סור‬ ‫ׁשאר‬ )‫דל(ה‬

Zeph 3:11 Zeph 3:12 Zeph 3:12

2 Kgs 24:3 2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12 2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12

the same hand brought in the dtr. additions into these books. These crossreferences, together with the common features in the headings of the books, random parts of the books of Kings. The dtr. additions within the individual books rather consequently refer to those parts of the books of Kings that fit to the date in the heading of the individual book. This common feature of the dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah then strongly suggests that one and the same hand is responsible for these additions and that they were added in order to combine these books to a common collection, the Book of the Four.

30

Wöhrle

suggest that such a global redaction combined these books to a common collection, a Book of the Four. The critique of the Book of the Four hypothesis thus hits an empty target. Surely, the opponents of this hypothesis are correct that the so called dtr. additions to the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah are not dtr. in the strict sense of the word and that the additions to the individual books show significant differences. But both points of criticism do not speak against the Book of the Four hypothesis. They rather can be explained by the concrete way in which the redactors of this Book of the Four worked. Since their additions refer to the books of Kings, these additions have a certain kind of dtr. shape without being real dtr. And since the additions to the individual books refer to different parts of the books of Kings, these additions to the individual books differ from each other. But exactly in this way, by consciously referring to the account of the books of Kings, the redactors of the Book of the Four shaped a coherent work with a distinct intention. This shall be shown in the following section. 4

The Intention of the Book of the Four

The redactors of the Book of the Four assembled earlier prophetic books (the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah), added new headings to these books, in which they connected the subsequent prophetic message to a certain time of the history of Israel and Judah, and added several new words to these books, which closely relate to the account of the specific time in the books of Kings. By doing this, they created a new work, the Book of the Four, with a specific outline and intention.38 For understanding the intention of this Book of the Four, it is, at first, remarkable that the redactors dated the individual books to such periods of time which the books of Kings present in a rather positive way. They dated the books of Hosea and Amos to the time of Jeroboam II of Israel. Among the kings of the Northern Kingdom, which the books of Kings all present rather negatively, Jeroboam II is a minor exception. According to 2 Kgs 14:25–27, Yhwh assisted Jeroboam during his reign with the restoration of the Northern Kingdom. Moreover, the redactors of the Book of the Four dated the books of Micah and Zephaniah to the time of Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah, whom, especially because of their cultic reforms, the books of Kings present in a very positive light. 38  See for the following also Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 275–282.

The Book of the Four

31

However, within the Book of the Four, the time of these kings is not presented in such a positive light at all. According to the Book of the Four, the time of Jeroboam II, of Hezekiah and even the time of Josiah are portrayed as times of ongoing misbehavior within the people, especially, within the upper classes. Already this observation leads to an important conclusion. Although the Book of the Four consequently refers to the books of Kings, the Book of the Four is not just a kind of prophetic parallel to the books of Kings. On the contrary: the Book of the Four rather presents a conscious counter-concept to the books of Kings. This becomes evident already in the book of Hosea. In the book of Hosea, the redactors of the Book of the Four added words against the veneration of foreign gods (Hos 3:1) or against idolatry (Hos 3:4; 8:4b–6; 13:2–3). Noteworthy is, for example, the following word added in Hos 13:2: And now they keep on sinning. They made a molten image for themselves, idols according to their understanding from their silver, all of them the work of craftsmen. To them ‘sacrifice,’39 they say. Men kiss calves. With such additions to the book of Hosea, the redactors of the Book of the Four agree with the critique against the cultic misbehaviour of the people as it is documented also in the books of Kings. However, by integrating this critique into the earlier book of Hosea with its harsh words against social and political misdeeds, the Book of the Four also counters this one-sided view onto the history and the fate of the Northern Kingdom within the books of Kings, which evaluate this history and fate only on the basis of cultic criteria.40 The same holds true for the subsequent book of Amos. The redactors of the Book of the Four took up, for example, the critique against rejecting the prophets from the books of Kings (Amos 2:11–12; 7:10–17; 8:11–12; 9:10). Remarkable is, for example, the addition in Amos 2:11–12: 11 And I raised up prophets from your sons and Nazirites from your young men. Is it not so, o Israelites? Oracle of Yhwh. 39  Read with LXX ‫זִ ְבחּו‬. 40  Regarding the intention of the books of Kings (and DtrH in general), see, for example, Albertz, Exilszeit, 210–231.

32

Wöhrle

12 But you made the Nazirites drink wine, and commanded the prophets: You shall not prophesy. Thus, again, the redactors of the Book of the Four agree to some extant with the message of the books of Kings. They also see the rejection of prophecy as one of the reasons for the downfall of the Northern Kingdom. However, since such a critique is here integrated into the earlier book of Amos, the rejection of prophecy criticized at this place can now only refer to the message of this book with its comprehensive judgment oracles against the social and cultic misbehaviour of the people. In the book of Micah, the redactors of the Book of the Four refer to the reign of king Hezekiah. But they do this in Mic 5:9–13 in the form of a judgment oracle: 9 And it shall be in that day, oracle of Yhwh: I will cut off your horses from your midst and I will destroy your chariots. 10 I will cut off the cities of your land, and I will tear down all your fortresses. 11 I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no soothsayers. 12 I will cut off your images and your Mazzeboth from your midst, and you will not bow down again to the work of your hands. 13 I will root out the Asherim from your midst and I will destroy your cities. This judgment oracle refers to the destruction of Mazzeboth and Asherim. However, different from the books of Kings, it does not present this as a merit of king Hezekiah. It rather attributes the destruction of such cultic installations directly to Yhwh and thus—together with the destruction of cities and fortresses as they have happened in the course of Sennacherib’s campaign—it presents all this as divine judgment. The same holds true for the book of Zephaniah. As Mic 5:9–13 alludes to the reform of Hezekiah, the addition brought in by the redactors of the Book of the Four in Zeph 1:4–6 now clearly alludes to the reform of Josiah: 4 And I will stretch out my hand against Judah and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and I will cut off from this place the remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests,

The Book of the Four

33

together with the priests, 5 and those who bow down on the roofs to the host of heaven, and those who bow down, who swear to Yhwh and swear to ‘Milcom’41 6 and those who turn away from Yhwh, who do not seek Yhwh and do not inquire of him. Every object mentioned here in Zeph 1:4–6 alludes to the account of the Josianic reform in 2 Kgs 22–23. But again, this addition to the book of Zephaniah does not describe the destruction of illegitimate cultic issues as an effort of King Josiah. It rather describes this as divine judgment. In the subsequent parts of the book in Zeph 1:7–18, which were already part of the primary layer, this judgment is connected with faults in the house of the king and the rest of the upper classes. Thus, compared to the books of Kings, the Book of the Four draws a very different picture of the time of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and of the reasons that led to the downfall of these kingdoms. According to the Book of the Four not only cultic, but also social and political issues, especially from the part of the upper classes, caused Yhwh to intervene and to condemn, at first, the people of the North and then also the people of the South. However, the Book of the Four differs from the books of Kings not only in its depiction of the reasons that led to the downfall of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, its view upon the further history of the people strikes a new path.42 The last word of the Book of the Four, added by the redactors of the collection, stands in Zeph 3:11–13 and reads as follows: 11 In that day, you will not be ashamed of all your deeds, by which you rebelled against me. For then I will remove from your midst your proud exultant ones, and you will not be haughty any more on my holy mountain. 12 And I will leave in your midst a people poor and humble (‫)עם עני ודל‬, and they will take refuge in the name of Yhwh. 41  Read ‫ ; ִמ ְלּכֹם‬cf., for example, Seybold, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, 95. 42  Regarding the often-discussed question whether according to the books of Kings (and DtrH in general) the history of the people has come to an end with the Babylonian exile or whether this work is open for a new future for the people, see, for example, Albertz, Exilszeit, 230–231.

34

Wöhrle

13 The rest of Israel will not do wrong and will not speak a lie. And a deceitful tongue will not be found in their mouth, for they will pasture and lie down, and no one frightens them. According to Zeph 3:11–13 the “proud exultant ones” and thus the members of the upper classes accused in the preceding judgment oracles of the book will be removed from God’s people. For them, there is no hope in the future history of God’s people. The “rest of Israel,” who will survive the judgment, will rather consist of a “poor and humble people” (‫)עם עני ודל‬. Thus, according to the Book of the Four, the poor population left by the Babylonians—whom 2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12 mentions only casually and disparagingly—are the only and true remnant of God’s people. The Book of the Four thus indeed presents the history of the monarchic time in a rather different light than the books of Kings. For the Book of the Four, the monarchic time was a time of continuous cultic, but also political and social misdeeds for which mainly the members of the upper classes were responsible. There was thus no future for these members of the upper classes in the people of God. With the downfall first of the Northern and then of the Southern Kingdom they experienced God’s righteous judgment. The poor people of the land, the remainees of the Babylonian exile, are the only remnant of God’s people. Against this background, the Book of the Four could well be traced back to exactly these circles: namely the remainees of the Babylonian exile. With the Book of the Four, the remainees present a counter concept to the books of Kings, which at all likelihood can be traced back to the exiled upper classes. With their Book of the Four, they give reason to the downfall of the Northern and the Southern Kingdom, they explain the condemnation of the upper classes, and they present themselves as the only true remnant of the people. 5 Conclusion The Book of the Four hypothesis is one of the headstones, if not the headstone, of recent research on the Book of the Twelve. Despite the critique in more recent research, there is enough evidence to assume that the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah were once combined in such a Book of the Four. The similar headings of these four books as well as the so called dtr. additions within these books strongly speak for such an assumption. On closer reading, the Book of the Four can be understood as a counterconcept to the books of Kings that can be traced back to the remainees of the Babylonian exile. Different from the books of Kings, the Book of the Four

The Book of the Four

35

describes the monarchic time as a time of continuous cultic, social, and political misbehavior, especially from the side of the upper classes. This misbehavior first led to the downfall of the Northern and then of the Southern Kingdom. Out of this judgment only the poor and humble, the remainees of the Babylonian exile, were left. According to the Book of the Four, they are now the only remnant of the people of God. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’” Pages 232–251 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag Yhwhs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among ‘The Twelve’? A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah.” Pages 232–261 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Is the Twelve Hypothesis Likely from an Ancient Reader’s Perspective?” Pages 47–96 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books. Edited by idem and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Remembering Twelve Prophetic Characters from the Past.” Pages 6–36 in The Book of the Twelve—One Book or Many? Edited by Elena Di Pede and Donatella Scaiola. FAT II,91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Corzilius, Björn. Michas Rätsel: Eine Untersuchung zur Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches. BZAW 483. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Dietrich, Walter. “Die Hinteren Propheten.” Pages 283–480 in Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Edited by idem et al. Theologische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis.” Pages 325– 338 in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 531. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Jeremias, Jörg. “Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der Exilszeit.” ZAW 83 (1971): 330–354. Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Amos. ATD 24,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1995.

36

Wöhrle

Jeremias, Jörg. “Prophetenbücher.” RGG4 6: 1708–1715. Kessler, Rainer. Micha. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–235. Lohfink, Norbert. “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” Pages 313–382 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by Walter Groß. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. “Les douze petits prophètes.” Pages 379–382 in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Thomas Römer et al. Le monde de la bible 49. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2004. Mays, James L. Amos: A Commentary. OTL. London: Westminster John Knox, 1969. Nissinen, Martti. Prophetie, Redaktion und Fortschreibung im Hoseabuch: Studien zum Werdegang eines Prophetenbuches im Lichte von Hos 4 und 11. AOAT 231. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Radine, Jason. “Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Book of the Four and the Origins of Israel’s Wrongs.” Pages 287–302 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by James D. Nogalski et al. BZAW 433. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Rudnig-Zelt, Susanne. “Die Genese des Hoseabuches: Ein Forschungsbericht.” Pages 351–386 in Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels: Festschrift für Peter Weimar zur Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres. AOAT 294. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Schmid, Konrad. “Hintere Propheten.” Pages 313–412 in Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments. Edited by Jan C. Gertz. UTB 2745. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 2016. Schmidt, Werner H. “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theologischen Unterschieden zwischen dem Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler.” ZAW 77 (1965): 168–193. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament: Grundzüge der Geschichte Israels und der alttestamentlichen Schriften. UTB 2146. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 2005. Seybold, Klaus. Satirische Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Zefanja. SBS 120. Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1985. Seybold, Klaus. Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ZBK.AT 24,2. Zürich: Zürcher, 1991.

The Book of the Four

37

Steuernagel, Carl. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912. Vielhauer, Roman. “Hosea in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 55–75 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by James D. Nogalski et al. BZAW 433. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University, 1972. Willis, John T. “The Authenticity and Meaning of Micah 5 9–14.” ZAW 81 (1969): 353–368. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos.; Am.; Mic.; Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 58 (2008): 608–627. Wolff, Hans W. Joel und Amos. BKAT 14,2. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975. Yee, Gale A. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation. SBLDS 102, Atlanta, GA: SBL, 1987. Zenger, Erich. “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 630–709 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by Christian Frevel. Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. 9th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016.

Chapter 2

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 1 Introduction Although speaking of a scholarly consensus potentially invites trouble, it is nevertheless fair to say that most scholars view Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 as a distinct redactional unity. In fact, the notion of a booklet containing Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 is one of the oldest redaction critical theories in the research of the Book of the Twelve.1 Although the text itself acknowledges multiple authors—the prophets Haggai and Zechariah—the overarching structuring of the material invites readers to approach it as a single whole. This cohesion is emphasized not only by the fact that the various sections are assigned a date in the early years of King Darius’s reign (presumably Darius I, giving a date around 520 bce, see further below) but also by the structural similarities of the dating formulas themselves. Furthermore, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 conveys, at least to a certain degree, thematic consistency due to the occurrence of shared motifs throughout the text: the same dramatic personae, namely Joshua and Zerubbabel, appear across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, and many of the individual pericopae focus on the shared topic of temple building. In this essay, we shall explore the key aspects that hold these ten chapters together, as well as what keeps them apart. In parallel, we shall look at the various redaction critical models that have sought to account for both the similarities and the differences by postulating schemes of series of redactions and of gradual textual growth. 2

The Dating Formulas

The eight dating formulas in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, positioned unevenly across the textual corpus, lend the corpus a sense of cohesion but, in parallel, also point towards its history of gradual growth. The book of Haggai contains five dating formulas (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, and 20) and the book of Zechariah contains another three (Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1) (Table 2.1). 1  See, e.g., Schart, Entstehung, 256–257; Wöhrle, “Formation.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_004

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus table 2.1

39

The dating formulas in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8

Passage

Formula

Hag 1:1 Hag 1:15b Hag 2:1 Hag 2:10 Hag 2:18 Hag 2:20 Zech 1:1 Zech 1:7

‫בׁשנת ׁשתים לדריוׁש המלך בחדׁש הׁשׁשי ביום אחד לחדׁש‬ ‫ביום עׂשרים וארבעה לחדׁש בׁשׁשי בׁשנת ׁשתים לדריוׁש המלך‬ ‫בׁשביעי בעׂשרים ואחד לחדׁש‬ ‫בעׂשרים וארבעה לתׁשיעי בׁשנת ׁשתים לדריוׁש‬ ‫מיום עׂשרים וארבעה לתׁשיעי‬ ‫בעׂשרים וארבעה לחדׁש‬ ‫בחדׁש הׁשמיני בׁשנת ׁשתים לדריוׁש‬ ‫ביום עׂשרים וארבעה לעׁשתי־עׂשר חדׁש הוא־חדׁש ׁשבט בׁשנת‬ ‫ׁשתים לדריוׁש‬ ‫ויהי בׁשנת ארבע לדריוׁש המלך היה דבר־ה׳ אל־זכריה בארבעה‬ ‫לחֹדׁש התׁשעי בכסלו‬

Zech 7:1

The dating formulas are very similar, yet some minor differences exist. First, Zech 1:7 (Shevet) and Zech 7:1 (Kislev) contain the (Babylonian) name of the month. While this may be a matter of style, it may also indicate that a different hand was responsible for the dates in Zech 1:7 and 7:1. Secondly, Hag 2:10, 18, and 20 date events to the ninth month, whereas Zech 1:1 dates the events to the eighth month of what is presumably the same year (Darius’s second year of reign). While this chronological overlap in itself is no problem, this arrangement, whereby Zech 1:1–6 is assigned chronological precedence, nevertheless suggests that someone wished to emphasize the priority of the message in Zech 1:1–6 up and against that in Hag 2:10–19, 20–23. These dating formulas raise two interconnected questions. First, do these dates reflect the historical date of the following textual sections? As we shall discover, one group—consisting predominantly of English speaking scholars—accepts the dates in the two books as by and large reliable. As a result, they assume a relatively simple development of the text and accordingly date the greater part of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 to the early Persian period. Secondly, were these dating formulas written by the same hand as the ensuing material or are they redactional in character? If the latter, are we talking about one redactor responsible for them all or, as possibly indicated by the differences in form, a series of editors? As we shall see, another group— chiefly but not limited to German scholars—detect a longer text-historical development with several consecutive editions of the material in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. While the earliest layers may indeed stem from the early

40

Tiemeyer

Persian period, subsequent layers betray later situations. According to this latter view, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 is lent cohesion by the dating formulas that appear throughout the material, yet these same dating formulas betray redactional activity. Scholars have long noted the structural affinity between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 created by the dating formulas and, on this basis, argue for common or at least overlapping redactional schemes. Klostermann proposed already in 1896 that the shared characteristic of the detailed dating formulas in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 testify to an early collection of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8. In Klostermann’s view, there was no need to postulate a separate editor; the prophet Zechariah was responsible not only for the material in Zech 1–8 but also for adding the chronological framework to his own and to the work of the prophet Haggai.2 In contrast, several more recent scholars have attributed significance to the slight difference between the dating formulas in the two texts and, in conjunction with other perceived differences, favour two different redactors. Rudolph, for example, argues for the priority of the dating formulas in Zechariah. He begins by highlighting the problem with the aforementioned chronological overlap between the last section in Haggai and the first section in Zechariah (Zech 1:1–6). In his view, it is unlikely that two prophets, who never acknowledge one another in their writings, were active at the same time. Thus, rather than two contemporaneous prophets, we are more likely dealing with two consecutive ones. As to the relative chronology of the final form of the texts of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 respectively, Rudolph maintains that the dating formulas in the latter are, in fact, the earliest. According to Rudolph, Haggai’s followers wished at a later stage to stress the chronological priority of Haggai’s message regarding the temple building and thus inserted dates—earlier than those in Zech 1–8—into the text of Haggai. We are thus, according to Rudolph, seeing the works of two different authors, each of them responsible for one set of dating formulas.3 Lux also notes the significance of the 24th day of the ninth month, mentioned three times in Haggai (2:10, 18, and 20), as well as the chronological overlay between this date and the one in Zech 1:1, dated earlier to the eighth month. In his view, the date in Zech 1:1 was added to convey the impression that the events of the 24th of the ninth month were the result of the (prior)

2  Klostermann, Geschichte, 213. He is followed by many more recent scholars (see further below). 3  Rudolph, Haggai, 46–47.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

41

call to repentance.4 Looking at the wider redaction of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, Lux postulates an early collection of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8*. In that collection, the reader progressed systematically from the earthly (Hag 2:20–23) to the heavenly (Zech 1:7–6:15) changes that God would generate.5 The redactor responsible for bringing these chapters together also added the dating formulas in Zech 1:7 and 7:1 (i.e. the ones with the names of the months).6 A subsequent redactor then composed the material in Zech 1:1–6 and 7:7–14.7 Following suit, Wöhrle maintains that the differences between the dating formulas attested in the book of Haggai and the ones in Zechariah 1–8 are germane to understanding the various redactions that the two sets of texts underwent. In contrast to Rudolph, however, Wöhrle assigns priority to the dating formulas in Haggai. He argues that the so-called Word Redaction (RW) (see further below) attached Zech 1–8* to the already existing book of Haggai. To link the two textual corpora and to create a larger Haggai–Zechariah corpus, RW composed the dating formula in Zech 1:1 (as well as the ones in Zech 1:7 and 7:1) that resembled the already existing one in Hag 2:10, 18, and 20. Wöhrle thus does not see any original “two-book redaction.” Rather, in his view, Zech 1–8* was added to an already existing and redacted book of Haggai. By adding the dating formula in Zech 1:1, RW created the impression that the temple building depended upon the people’s repentance (cf. Rudolph): the people heard the sermon (Zech 1:1–6) and, as a result, laid the foundation of the temple (Hag 2:10–19). RW thus aligned the theology of Haggai with the tenets of the Deuteronomistic theology. The temple no longer constituted the reason for God’s return; rather the people’s repentance brought about the building of the temple (and God’s return). Pola, also having noted the interlocking character of the dating formulas in the Haggai–Zechariah corpus, maintains that the shorter formula in Zech 1:1 is a later addition whereas the longer one in Zech 1:7 is original. In his view, Zech 1:1, as well as verses 2–6, was added to the earlier vision report. Its shorter form indicates its subordinate character (to Zech 1:7); it is not a sign of originality.8 In parallel, Pola challenges the commonly held view that the chronological framework in Haggai is secondary. In his opinion, this view stems rather from the difficulty in harmonizing the material in Haggai with that in Ezra 1–6 than from any discrepancy within the book of Haggai itself. 4  Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 5–8. 5  Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 10–11. 6  Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 22–23. 7  Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 24–25. 8  Pola, Priestertum, 43.

42

Tiemeyer

The chronological framework provides structure to the text of the Haggai– Zechariah corpus in the same way that the dating formulas in the book of Ezekiel do. What we consequently have, according to Pola, is a well-integrated text where the chronological references in Haggai are primary insofar as they were written by the same circle as the one responsible for the rest of the book of Haggai.9 Floyd concurs with Pola’s last point. He expresses scepticism towards our ability to distinguish redactional material from source material and therefore advocates abandoning the endeavour. In fact, separating the framework from the oracles may cause readers to miss “the whole point of the story.”10 In the particular case of Haggai, Floyd highlights the lack of clear transitions from narrative to prophetic speech. There is little in terms of a shift in linguistic structure, perspective, and diction to justify differentiating between the two types of material.11 In addition, the superscriptions in Haggai differ markedly from those in other prophetic books: they form complete sentences and, as such, report communication of prophecies. They are furthermore well integrated with the ensuing oracles through grammatical connections to the degree that readers cannot easily determine whether the narrator or the prophet is speaking (e.g. 1:2).12 For Floyd, this kind of ambiguity may be the result of the literary compositional process that is “characterized by the deliberate mixing of perspectives than as a result of a tradition-historical process.”13 Expressed in terms of form-criticism, the changes between narrative and oracle is a feature of the literary genre of Haggai, and the reasons for these changes should be sought in the literary conventions that govern that genre.14 Tollington, who also regards the dating scheme as the result of a later compiler wishing to refocus Haggai’s message, emphasizes its theological import. She suggests that the date in Hag 1:15 (24th of the last month) symbolizes the turning point that coincides with the end of the year.15 The next date in Hag 2:1 (21st of the seventh month) falls during the festival of Succoth, thus creating a link to the memory of the people’s time in the wilderness prior to entering the Promised Land. Remembering God’s past faithfulness offers hope for the future and encouragement for the community to believe that they will yet again

9  Pola, Priestertum, 40–42. 10  Floyd, “Narrative,” 479. 11  Floyd, “Narrative,” 481–482. 12  Floyd, “Narrative,” 476–478. 13  Floyd, “Narrative,” 483. 14  Floyd, “Narrative,” 487. 15  Tollington, “Readings,” 201.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

43

have a temple and a monarch, and receive future blessings.16 Finally, looking at the last dates in Hag 2:10, 20 (24th day of the ninth month), Tollington highlights its significance during the Maccabean era when, in 164 bce, this was the date before the rededication of the temple, later commemorated by the Hanukkah celebration. Rather than postulating a Maccabean date of this formula, however, Tollington argues that the description in 1 Macc 4:36–51 of the programme of cleansing and rebuilding depends on Haggai.17 Yet again, a few scholars, most prominently Kessler, maintain that the similarities, as well as the differences, between the dating formulas in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 do not imply that the two books were redacted together. Rather, according to Kessler, these formulas reflect the scribal customs of the time. It is therefore equally reasonable to argue that Zechariah was written after Haggai and that Zechariah 1–8 was written “to complement the text of Haggai.”18 To support the chronological priority of Haggai, Kessler appeals to Lemaire’s claim that formulas without reference to months are more common in earlier (e.g. Ezekiel) than in later (e.g. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) texts.19 The insights reached by the studies of the dating formulas across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 have wide-ranging repercussions for our understanding of the gradual growth of this material. In this section, we shall look at a wide range of models that seek to explain the affinity and the divergence of these ten biblical chapters. This issue covers two distinct approaches. As we have already observed, some scholars treat Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 as two distinct units. Accordingly, they postulate two independent redactional processes up and until the final stage when the two units were combined. Other scholars maintain that Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 never existed independently from one another and thus propose a series of redactions that span the entire corpus of 10 chapters. Yet other scholars fall somewhere in between these two extreme views: they detect early independent compilations of Haggai and Zechariah that were fused together before reaching their final form and then supplemented with additional redactional layers. Common to most of them, however, is the idea, hinted at above, that the last oracles in Haggai (2:20–23) and the first oracle in Zechariah (1:1–6) are among the latest material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 and thus pivotal for determining the date of their final redaction.

16  Tollington, “Readings,” 202–203. 17  Tollington, “Readings,” 205–208. 18  Kessler, Haggai, 57. 19  Kessler, Haggai, 48–49. See Lemaire, “Datation en Palestine,” 65–66.

44 3

Tiemeyer

The Growth of Haggai

The book of Haggai can easily be read as an independent book. The question here is, however, whether this book constitutes an authorial or a redactional unity. Although scholars differ widely on the final details pertaining to its gradual growth, most agree that the (aforementioned) dating formulas and the final oracle in 2:20–23 constitute later additions. Furthermore, several scholars do not consider the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel to be original. 3.1 Structure of the Book of Haggai The structure of the book of Haggai is shown in Table 2.2. table 2.2 The structure of the book of Haggai

Passage

Content

1:1a 1:1b

Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai, addressed to Zerubbabel and Joshua Report of the people’s speech Prophetic word formula to Haggai v. 4–6: Question and answer v. 7–11: Divine speech The response of the community, headed by Zerubbabel and Joshua Divine oracle uttered by Haggai Report of Yhwh’s actions Date formula Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai Divine oracle to Zerubbabel and Joshua v. 2: Address to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people v. 3: Speech about the temple v. 4–5: Speech about the Exodus v. 6: Speech about cosmic upheaval v. 7–9: Speech about cosmic upheaval and the temple Date formula Prophetic word formula to Haggai Report by Haggai about divine oracle about priestly ruling Report by Haggai about the situation following the beginning of the temple building v. 18bα: Date formula

1:2 1:3 1:4–11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 2:1a 2:1b 2:2–9

2:10a 2:10b 2:11–14 2:15–19

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

45

table 2.2 The structure of the book of Haggai (cont.)

Passage

Content

2:20 2:21–23

Date formula v. 21: Word addressed to Zerubbabel v. 22: Word about cosmic upheaval v. 23: Word address to Zerubbabel

3.2 The Redactional Unity of Haggai Ackroyd was among the first scholars to question the authorial unity of Haggai. Seeking to clarify its composition history, Ackroyd distinguished between the oracles that likely date to the prophet himself (although in his view probably not in their present form) and the non-oracular material. He then divided the latter material into two categories: 1) Material that relates directly to the oracles (1:12–14; 2:3–5, 11–14a); 2) Material that is of independent character, such as the dating formulas, the prophetic word formulas, and information about the addressees (1:1, 3, 15; 2:1–2, 10, 20–21a).20 On this basis, Ackroyd postulated a model of gradual growth: 1) The prophetic oracles were first delivered and transmitted orally.21 2) At one point, either the prophet himself or someone from his circle wrote the material about Zerubbabel and Joshua in Hag 1:12–14 and modified the material in 2:3–5 and in 2:11–14a.22 3) This initial collection was later supplemented with the dating formulas etc. The book of Haggai probably reached its final, present form 100–200 years after the prophet’s own ministry.23 Beuken follows Ackroyd insofar as he also identifies an early collection containing the prophet’s words. This collection of originally independent oracles (Hag 1:3–11, 12b; 2:15–19) was organized into what Beuken calls Auftrittsskizzen, i.e. sketch scenes.24 They present Haggai as a man—a farmer—in Judah whose main concerns were the difficult agricultural situation in the land and the rebuilding of the temple. In parallel, the lack of reference to the exile in these oracles suggests that Haggai was not part of the group of returning exiles; 20  Ackroyd, “Studies,” 166–173. 21  Ackroyd, “Studies,” 164, 174. 22  Ackroyd, “Studies,” 166–169, 174. 23  Ackroyd, “Studies,” 169–174. 24  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 184–229.

46

Tiemeyer

instead he was a representative of the indigenous Judahites, who sought to return to the way of life prior to the Babylonian onslaught in 586 bce.25 It follows that this early collection never refers to Zerubbabel and Joshua. At a later stage, this initial collection was redacted by the Chronist, whose work resulted in the present form of Haggai.26 (Likewise, the Chronist transformed the extant text of Zech 1–6,* thus creating the final form of Zech 1–8.) This redaction turned the earlier Auftrittsskizzen in Haggai into Episoden and, in doing so, also changed their overarching message. First, by adding references to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the redactor portrayed the restoration as the joint work of prophets and monarchs: the prophet offers divine words to the leaders of the community,27 and clarifies that just as the first temple was built by a son of David, so should the second temple.28 Secondly, and connected with the former point, the redactor emphasized the significance of prophecy in history: through Haggai’s words, God was able to mobilize Joshua and Zerubbabel to carry out the divine plans (Hag 1:12–14; Zech 1:6b; 7:7–14). Moreover, the prophet was able to keep the community on the right path and to teach them about ritual purity (Hag 2:1–9, 10–14).29 Thirdly, this redaction added the notion of covenant renewal: the people had sinned against God and thus broken the covenant but, after due repentance, they returned to him and the covenant could be renewed (Hag 2:4–5, cf. Zech 1:3; 7:13).30 Coggins, building on Beuken’s view, suggests that this Chronist editing of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 took place in the fifth century bce in the same (temple) circles that had edited Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah.31 Nogalski follows suit insofar as he also argues for a Chronist redaction of Haggai and emphasizes the differences between, on the one hand, the clearly Deuteronomistic material in the so-called “Book of the Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah) and, on the other hand, the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus.32 The idea of a Chronist redactor has been challenged by Mason. He begins his investigation by isolating Hag 1:1, 3, 12, 13a, 14, 15; 2:1–2, 10, and 20, i.e. the third person dating formulas, as well as the material about Zerubbabel and Joshua (except for the final oracle to Zerubbabel in 2:21–23 which he considers to be original), as the work of a later redactor. Given the lack of unease vis-à-vis 25  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 228–229. 26  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 27–83. 27  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 32, 334. 28  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 56. 29  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 332. 30  Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8, 334. 31  Coggins, Haggai, 29–31. 32  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 216, 221, 230, 236.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

47

the dual role of Joshua and Zerubbabel, it is in Mason’s view likely that the editorial additions were composed fairly shortly after Haggai’s oracles. Mason further highlights the affinity of these additions with Deuteronomy: the redactional material has a distinctive theology that emphasizes obedience to God’s words through the prophet (Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2) and addresses predominantly the leaders of the community. Moreover, the later editor uses the expression “the whole remnant of the people” (‫כל ׁשארית העם‬, Hag 1:12a, 14) to refer to a faithful nucleus. In contrast, the earlier material addressed the people as a single entity.33 Building upon especially Mason’s and Beuken’s work, Wolff envisages three stages of formation. His redaction critical scheme is informed by the perceived differences in language and ideology between the various parts of Haggai. Beginning with the matter of language, while the earlier Hag 1:12b–13 speaks of “the people,” the later Hag 1:12a and 14a (i.e. the work of the Haggai Chronist) speak of “the remnant of the people” (cf. Mason).34 Likewise, while the earlier material refers to Haggai as “Yhwh’s messenger” (1:13, ‫)מלאך ה׳‬, the additions made by the Haggai Chronist call him “the prophet” (1:1, 3, 12a; 2:1, 10, ‫)הנביא‬. Yet again, while the earlier textual units use the expressions “thus says Yhwh” (‫כה‬ ‫אמר ה׳‬, e.g. 1:2, 5) or “oracle of Yhwh” (‫נאם ה׳‬, e.g. 1:1, 13), the Haggai Chronist employs the phrase “the word of Yhwh through Haggai” (‫ביד חגי דבר ה׳‬, 1:1, 3; 2:1, 10, 20).35 Turning to matters of ideology, the earlier material does not distinguish between the people in the land and the returning exiles (e.g. 1:2, 12b, 13a),36 whereas the later redactional material introduces a distinction between the returning exiles (i.e. Joshua, Zerubbabel and the “remnant of the people”) and those who had remained in the land.37 – The first stage, which stems from the prophet himself, contains five sections (Auftrittsskizzen) in Hag 1:4–11; 2:3–9*, 14, 15–19*, 21b–23, as well as three sections in Hag 1:2, 12b–13; 2:11–13 that comment on the situation.38 – At the second stage, a redactor added what Wolff calls Wortereignisein­ führungen. These additions consist of introductions to the earlier material (1:1–3, 15a, 15b–2:2; 2:10, 21a) and of material containing dates, names of the recipients of the oracles, and other supplementary details (1:12a, 14a). That same redactor also added material to the already existing sections (2:3–9 33  Mason, “Editorial Framework,” 413–421; idem, Haggai, 8–10. 34  Wolff, Haggai, 4–5, 17–18. 35  Wolff, Haggai, 5. 36  Wolff, Haggai, 5. 37  Wolff, Haggai, 6. 38  Wolff, Haggai, 3–5.

48

Tiemeyer

and 2:15–19) such as the reference to Joshua in 2:4a, the opening word ‫ועתה‬ in 2:15a, and the date in 2:18b.39 – At an even later date, smaller details were added to complement the already existing text. Material was added to Hag 2:5aα (‫את הדבר אׁשר כרתי אתכם‬ ‫)בצאתכם ממצרים‬, Hag 2:17 was composed, the last two words in Hag 2:18 (‫ )ׂשימו לבבכם‬and the first four words in 2:19aβ (‫ )ועד הגפן והתאנה והרמון‬were written, and other material that exists only in the LXX of Haggai but not in the MT was created.40 Tollington follows suit, yet advocates a significantly earlier date for the penultimate form of Haggai and a significantly later date for the final form. Her starting point is the discrepancy between the indicated audience in Hag 1:2 (the people) and that in Hag 1:1 (Zerubbabel and Joshua). In her view, this redirection of the oracles towards Joshua and Zerubbabel, visible in Hag 1:1 and 2:2, 4, is the work of a later compiler. In fact, according to Tollington, if one removed all references to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the text of Haggai would present no problems.41 In more detail, Tollington detects a set of two original proclamations (1:2–11* and 2:3–9/1:13b; 2:11–19*, 21b–23).42 A few years later, the framework (1:1, 3, 12–13a, 14–15; 2:1b–2, 20–21a) was written by someone who was an ardent supporter of the temple and regarded Joshua and Zerubbabel as paramount to its rebuilding. Given the assumption that Zerubbabel disappeared prior to the completion of the temple, the framework of the book of Haggai was presumably composed very shortly after the ministry of Haggai the prophet.43 At an unknown later date, the gloss in Hag 2:5a was added.44 Significantly later during the Maccabean age, another redactor composed the dating formulas in Hag 2:1a, 2:10; and 2:18. These formulas re-contextualized the earlier prophecies in Hag 2:20–23 (including the date formula in 2:20 that originally referred back to the month mentioned in 1:15), in order to serve as a source of inspiration for the rededication of the temple in 164 bce and the ensuing celebration of Hanukkah.45 Taking a step back, all of the above-mentioned scholars treat the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel as later additions. The same is true for several other scholars who have written less comprehensive treaties on Haggai. Steck, for example, looking at Hag 1:1–15, argues for an original text of 1:3–11. It 39  Wolff, Haggai, 4, 42, 43, 53. 40  Wolff, Haggai, 4. 41  Tollington, Tradition, 19–23. 42  Tollington, Tradition, 19–23; eadem, “Readings,” 197–199, 207. 43  Tollington, Tradition, 19–23; eadem, “Readings,” 199–200, 207. 44  Tollington, “Readings,” 198, 207. 45  Tollington, “Readings,” 203–207.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

49

consists of two independent oracles in Hag 1:2, 4–8 and in 1:9–11 that stem from the prophet Haggai. In contrast, the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel in Hag 1:1 and 1:12–15 forms later editorial additions.46 As a result, it can be argued (although the argument is to a certain extent circular) that the original book of Haggai was anti-monarchic. 3.3 The Growth of Haggai in Its Wider Context In parallel with the above-mentioned suggestions that focus on the book of Haggai alone, scholars further explore how the editing of Haggai fits in with the editing of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. Several of these scholars (e.g. Sérandour, Albertz) agree with the aforementioned scholars that the dating formulas and the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel are treated as later additions. Sérandour postulates a single redaction of the material in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in the fifth century bce that emphasized the role of the leaders in the community. Speaking about Haggai in particular, Sérandour recognizes an original layer uttered by the prophet Haggai, which was addressed solely to the people. Around 450 bce a redactional layer, stretching across Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, was composed. It added the persons of Joshua and Zerubbabel to stress their significance in the temple building project.47 Albertz detects a more complex two-step redactional scheme of Haggai– Zechariah 1–8. The first redaction added Hag 1:1–3*, 13–15; 2:1–2, 4, 10, 20; and Zech 8:9–13 to the original documents. This redaction turned the text of Haggai into a temple building chronicle, thus emphasizing those parts of the prophecies that had already been fulfilled and, in parallel, marginalizing the other parts that had not (yet) been fulfilled (such as an independent Judah under a domestic king). The subsequent second redaction added Hag 2:5a; Zech 1:1–6; 6:15b; 7:1–8, 19. In Albertz’s view, this redaction is Deuteronomistic in language and theology and aims to align Zechariah with pre-exilic prophecy through its emphasis on the need for repentance and on establishing social justice for the fulfilment of God’s promises.48 More recent scholars have asked more widely how the redaction of Haggai fits in with the gradual growth and redaction of the Book of the Twelve. Beginning with Nogalski, he asked the pertinent question whether the Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 corpus was inserted into the growing Book of the Twelve in its current form or whether it underwent redaction once it had been brought 46  Steck, “Zu Haggai 1 2–11,” 355–379. 47  Sérandour, “Réflexions,” 76, 80. 48  Albertz, History, 2:454–455.

50

Tiemeyer

together with the “Book of the Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah). Overall, he detects very little editing on the level of its incorporation (into the Book of the Twelve) and thus suggests that Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 was initially transmitted as an independent corpus.49 In more detail, Nogalski explores the interplay between the material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 and other texts in the Twelve. Noting the affinity between Hag 1:1–11 and Zeph 3:18–20, he argues that the latter is a redactional addition that facilitates the transfer from Zephaniah to Haggai.50 He further detects affinity between Hag 2:17, regarded as a gloss, and Amos 4:9 (cf. also Joel 1–2 and redactional glosses in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah).51 Along similar lines, Nogalski highlights that the gloss in Hag 2:19 evokes the imagery of Joel 1–2.52 Likewise, “the parenthetical account” in Hag 2:22 about God’s cosmic upheaval, also likely to be a gloss, reverses the imagery in Joel 2:4–11 and shows affinity with the imagery of Obad 15–21.53 Taken together, Nogalski tentatively argues that these three glosses (2:17, 19, and 22) may be the work of the scribes who incorporated Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 into the Book of the Twelve.54 Nogalski likewise confirms the scarcity of redactional activity in Zech 1–8 associated with its incorporation into the Book of the Twelve.55 Although Zech 1:1–6 is clearly editorial in character, nothing indicates that it was composed at the level of the Book of the Twelve; rather it serves either as an introduction to Zech 1–8 or as a bridge between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8.56 Likewise, Zech 8:14–17 appears to be an inclusio with the beginning in Zech 1:2– 6, thus also being part of the redaction of Haggai–Zechariah 1–8.57 This lack suggests, in Nogalski’s view, that Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 circulated independently as a single corpus before being included into the growing body of the Twelve. A rare exception to this rule may be Zech 1:14b, 15 that, due to its negative assessment of the nations in conjunction with its affinity with Joel 2:18; Nah 1:2–8; and Zeph 1:18; 3:8b, may be the work of a later editor at the level of the Book of the Twelve.58 It is also possible that Zech 8:20–22, through its affinity with Mic 4:1–5, may reflect editorial work at the same level.59 49  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 221, 234–235. 50  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 219–221, 235. 51  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 226–228. 52  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 228–229. 53  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 230–233, 235. 54  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 235–236. 55  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 247, 255–257, 272. 56  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 247. 57  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 267. 58  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 250–255. 59  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 270–271.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

51

Wöhrle and Hallaschka, following in Nogalski’s footsteps, have suggested more complex redactional schemes. Their schemes, although differing from one another in the details, share three key features: 1) Both models maintain that the earliest material focused on the building of the temple. 2) Both models see the following three sets of texts are later additions, namely (1) the chronological formulas, (2) the oracle in Hag 2:10–14, and (3) the material in Hag 2:21b–22 (due to its perceived eschatological flavour). 3) Both models position the final redaction of Haggai within the context of the Book of the Twelve. Wöhrle proposes four distinct stages of growth, as well as a few individual additions (Hag 2:5aα, 17, 18bα):60 1) The earliest book of Haggai (1:2, 4–11, 12b, 13; 2:3, 4, 5*, 9, 15–16, 18*, 19, 23) aimed to motivate Zerubbabel to build the temple. It should thus be dated to around 520 bce.61 2) The so-called “Haggai Chronicle” consists of Hag 1:1, 3, 12a, 14–15; 2:1–4*, 10, 20, 21a. This redaction does not presuppose a finished temple, and it is likely that Zerubbabel was still alive.62 3) The oracle against the priests in Hag 2:10–14 appears to presuppose a rebuilt temple. The precise date for this oracle is, however, impossible to establish.63 4) A few passages (2:6–8, 21b, 22) were added even later in the so-called “Foreign Nation Redaction I,” a redaction that was carried out across the Book of the Twelve. These two passages convey a universal-eschatological tone, as well as a reinterpretation of the character of Zerubbabel, which is difficult to account for in the sixth century bce.64 Hallaschka, following suit, detects no less than six stages of growth in Haggai:65 1) The earliest layer (1:1*, 4, 8; 1:15b–2:1; and 2:3, 9a) focused on the building of the temple. It was composed around 520 bce.66

60  For a more comprehensive overview and critique, see my review in Tiemeyer, “Review of Jakob Wöhrle.” 61  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 313–317. 62  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 317–320. 63  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 320–321. 64  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 321. 65  For a more comprehensive overview and critique, see my review in Tiemeyer, “Review of Martin Hallaschka.” 66  Hallaschka, Haggai, 120–124.

52

Tiemeyer

2)

The blessing and curses in Hag 1:5–7 and 2:15–19* were added in 500 bce (Fluch-und-Segen-Bearbeitung).67 3) Shortly afterwards the narrative framework, which consists of the chronological formulas (1:1–3*, 12a, 14; 1:15a–2:2), was added.68 4) Hag 2:10–14 was written in the late Persian period, at the same time as the basic layer of Malachi.69 5) Hag 2:2–9*, 17–18* were added even later.70 6) Hag 2:20–23, which predicts the overturning of heaven and earth, was composed in the Hellenistic period.71 These two models offer a solution to the problem of address, noted by many scholars, in the opening section of Hag 1:1–4. While 1:1b addresses Zerubbabel and Joshua, 1:2 addresses “this people” in the 3m.sg., and 1:4 addresses them in the 2m.pl. Hallaschka’s model further targets the issue that verses 4 and 8, through their shared focus on the temple, appear to belong together. To solve this matter, Hallaschka postulates an original oracle in verses 4 and 8 that addressed the people. This oracle was later extended to include verses 5–7. Through language typical of covenant curses, these three verses clarify that the delay in building the temple had caused a crisis.72 Turning to matters of dating, Hallaschka’s proposal that Hag 2:10–14 was composed at the same time of the earliest layer of Malachi is informed by their shared critical disposition towards the priesthood. Along similar lines, Hallaschka’s dating of Hag 2:6–7 to the fifth century bce is due to its perceived similarity with Isa 60:5, 13, which, in turn, is informed by Steck’s dating of the latter passage.73 A rejection of the latter would accordingly change the date of the former. Finally, Hallaschka’s dating of Hag 2:20–23 to the time of Alexander the Great and the power struggle during the Diadochi stems from his view that Zerubbabel, like David, functions as a cipher for a future saviour. 3.4 Other Approaches Not all scholars have accepted the methodology of those trying to isolate the prophet’s message from that of later redactors. Kessler, for example,

67  Hallaschka, Haggai, 126–133. 68  Hallaschka, Haggai, 133–136. 69  Hallaschka, Haggai, 136–137. 70  Hallaschka, Haggai, 137–138. 71  Hallaschka, Haggai, 138. 72  Hallaschka, Haggai, 15–21. 73  Hallaschka, Haggai, 68, follows Steck, Studien, 101–102, in dating the germane Isaianic material to the fifth century.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

53

stresses the theological similarity between oracles and framework: both show Deuteronomistic influence and both display thoughts inherited from the priestly source.74 In his view, the dating formulas were added shortly after the actual delivery of the oracles. The resulting text is an interconnected unity that stems from the late sixth century bce.75 Floyd likewise emphasizes cohesion on syntactical and literary grounds and argues that, in contrast to many other prophetic texts, the chronological formulas in Haggai are well integrated in their literary context.76 Therefore, according to Floyd, it is inappropriate to treat Haggai’s introductions like superscriptions. In fact, if we strip these narrative introductions away in an attempt to reach some form of genuine prophetic prophecy, we miss “the whole point of the story.”77 The ambiguity that is created between the narrative elements and the oracular elements in the book are better explained as the result of a deliberate mixing of the perspective than as the result of a tradition-historical process.78 3.5 Summary Summing up, there are two ways of regarding Haggai. On the one hand, we can explore its very likely composite nature and gradual growth and focus on the way that the prophetic message has been reinterpreted in its various compositional stages. On the other hand, we can look at the final form and investigate the message that the final redactors sought to convey. Both are worthy endeavours and neither replace nor contradict one another. As to our ability to detect and isolate the work of the redactor, we are dealing with models that seek to explain the extant discrepancies in the text in the best possible manner. At times, we may not be able to discern the redactor’s hand, yet this, by itself, is not a reason to give up trying. 4

The Growth of Zechariah 1–8

The structure of the book of Zechariah is not easily defined. On the one hand, its overarching structure is delimited by a trio of dating formulas: 1:1–6; 1:7–6:15; 7:1–14:21. The concluding section in 7:1–14:21 is then divided into three parts by help of the opening formula “a burden/message of the word of Yhwh” (‫מׂשא‬ 74  Kessler, Haggai, 54–55. 75  Kessler, Haggai, 50–51, 55. 76  Floyd, “Narrative,” 474–477. 77  Floyd, “Narrative,” 479. 78  Floyd, “Narrative,” 483.

54

Tiemeyer

‫ )דברי ה׳‬that appears in 9:1 and 12:1, thus suggesting that chapters 7–8 are distinct from chapters 9–11 and chapters 12–14 respectively. In parallel, the expression ‫ מׂשא דבר ה׳‬in 9:1 and 12:1 connects Zech 9–11 and 12–14 with each other and also with Mal 1:1, which contains the similar but longer phrase ‫מׂשא דבר ה׳‬ ‫אל יׂשראל ביד מלאכי‬. On the other hand, this overarching structure is challenged by the results of source-criticism. Due to strong stylistic and thematic reasons, it has been deemed unlikely that the material in Zech 7:1–8:23 was written in the same time period and addressed the same issues as Zech 9:1–11:17 and 12:1– 14:21. As pointed out by Gonzalez, any reading which presupposes that one and the same prophet, in a single day (7:1), answered questions about fasting, made a massive proclamation concerning the international political situation, accomplished several sign acts, and made another proclamation concerning the relationship between Jerusalem and the nations, is not the easiest reading!79 As a result therefore, few scholars argue for common authorship of the book of Zechariah. In the present context, we shall focus on Zech 1–8 and its redaction history. Did some form of Zechariah ever exist as an independent text or was it always the continuation of Haggai? Furthermore, what redactional additions took place on the level of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus and what took place on the level of the Book of the Twelve?

4.1 Structure of Zechariah 1–880 The structure of Zechariah 1–8 is laid out in Table 2.3. table 2.3 The structure of Zechariah 1–8

Passage

Content

1:1 1:2–6 1:7 1:8–11 1:12–14aα, 14aβ–16, 17 2:1–2 2:3–4 2:5–8a

Date formula Oracular saying Date formula First visionary impression Oracular sayings Second visionary impression Oracular sayings Third visionary impression

79  Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14.” 80  For this structure, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions; eadem, Zechariah’s Vision Report.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

55

table 2.3 The structure of Zechariah 1–8 (cont.)

Passage

Content

2:8b, 9 2:10–11, 12–13a, 13b, 14, 15, 16, 17 3:1–5 3:6–10 4:1–6aα, 10b–14 4:6aβ–10a 5:1–2 5:3–4 5:5–11 6:1–7 6:8 6:9–15 7:1–3, 4–6, 7–14; 8:1–3, 4–8, 9–13, 14–17, 18–19, 20–23

Oracular sayings Oracular sayings Fourth visionary impression Oracular sayings Fifth visionary impression Oracular sayings Sixth visionary impression Oracular sayings Seventh visionary impression Eighth visionary impression Oracular sayings Oracular sayings Oracular sayings

4.2 The Redactional Unity of Zechariah Much of the debate regarding the composition history of Zechariah 1–8 concerns the relation between the individual eight vision accounts and the accompanying oracular material (sayings). Beginning with those scholars who distinguish between the two types of literature, I shall here discuss (in chronological order) Schöttler, Wöhrle, Hallaschka, and my own contribution. Schöttler speaks only about Zech 1–6 and connects his redactional scheme to neither the development of Haggai nor the Book of the Twelve. He postulates a complex five-stage-development:81 1) The basic layer contains a sequence of five vision accounts that depict situations that take place on earth. In these accounts, the Interpreting Angel is Zechariah’s interlocutor: a) Early versions of the first, third, fifth, seventh, and eighth visionary impressions (1:8*, 9a, 9bα, 10b, 11b/2:5–8/4:1, 2*, 3a, 4–6aα, 14*/5:5*, 6a, 8aα, 9*, 10, 11/6:1a, 2, 3*, 4aβ, 4b, 5aβ, 5b*, 7aα*, 7b). b) Two oracular statements offer explanatory comments (Zech 1:14/2:14).

81  Schöttler, Gott inmitten seines Volkes, 49–168. For a fuller evaluation of Schöttler’s redactional scheme, see Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 14–18.

56 2)

Tiemeyer

At the time of the re-dedication of the temple in 515 bce, the original sequence of five vision accounts was redacted to emphasize God’s role. a) Early versions of the second and fourth vision accounts were composed (2:3, 4*/3:1aα, 1b, 2aα, 2b, 3a, 4, 9bβ). These two accounts depict situations which take place in the heavenly realm and where God is Zechariah’s interlocutor. b) The extant fifth vision account was extended. The new material stresses God’s sovereignty (Zech 4:10*) and his care for the community in Zion (Zech 4:11, 12bβ). c) Oracular material was added to the first, third, and fifth vision accounts (Zech 1:15/2:11/Zech 4:6b). 3) At the time of Nehemiah in the middle of the fifth century bce, the vision report was redacted anew. The result was a sequence of eight vision accounts, with a double-vision (Zech 3–4) as its centre that focused on Zerubbabel and Joshua. This redaction also incorporated the notion of “the land of the North” into the existing sequence of seven vision accounts, and composed material which advocates the need of inner cleansing of the people of Yehud and the expulsion of idolatry. a) The first, second, fourth, seventh, and eighth vision accounts were extended (1:9bβ, 10a, 11a, 12–13/2:1–2*, 4b*)/3:1aβ, 5*, 6–7/5:5b, 6b, 7, 8aβ, 8b, 9aα*/6:3bβ, 4aα, 5aα, 5b*, 6, 7a*). b) The sixth vision account was added to the vision sequence (5:1, 3a, 4ab, 4b*). c) Three sets of oracular material (4:6aβ, 7, 10a/4:8–9/6:8) were added to the fifth and eighth vision accounts. d) The oracular material in Zech 2:10a, 12–13* was written. 4) In the end of the fifth century/beginning of the fourth century bce, another two sets of additions about Joshua were added. a) An initial set of addition (Zech 3:8aα, 9aα, 9bα/6:9, 10bβ, 11, 13a) depicts sign-acts that emphasize the high priestly power. b) These additions were later adjusted through the supplement of the motif of the “branch” (Zech 3:8aβ and 8b/6:12, 13b, 14aαb). 5) In the final redaction of Zech 1–6, taking place in the third century bce, the material in Zech 1:1–6 and 6:15b was added. This proposal agrees with many of the above-mentioned proposals vis-à-vis Haggai insofar as the material regarding Zerubbabel and Joshua are considered to form later additions. The obvious difficulty with Schöttler’s suggested scheme is his dating of the material about Joshua and Zerubbabel to a time long after the death of the two historical men bearing these names: why would anyone compose future prophecies concerning long dead persons?

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

57

At the other end of the spectrum, Wöhrle places the various textual strands in Haggai and Zechariah within the wider framework of gradual growth and successive redactions that he postulates for the Book of the Twelve.82 1) Wöhrle argues for an originally independent version of Zechariah’s vision report (1:8–6:8*) written around 520–515 bce. It consists of an early version of all the vision accounts, except for the fourth vision account (Zech 3). The temple plays no role in this early sequence. 2) Shortly afterwards, a redaction took place that reflected issues pertaining to the early post-exilic period, with focus on the temple building and the hopes centred on Zerubbabel. This redaction added oracular material to the fifth vision account (4:6a–9a, 10a), composed an early version of Zech 6:9–15 (6:9–13*), and wrote a set of oracles following the vision report (7:2–6/8:18–19a). 3) Soon after the building of the temple, the Joshua Redaction (RJ) took place. This redaction transformed the text by (1) de-emphasizing Zerubbabel and instead (2) highlighting Joshua’s role. It created an early version of the fourth vision account (3:1–8) and extended the oracle in Zech 6:9–13* through the addition of 6:14. 4) In the first half of the fifth century bce, the “Word Redaction” (RW) added strategically placed material that created a ring-structure around the vision report, such as the dating formulas (1:1, 7; 7:1), as well as other oracular material (1:2–6, 14–17; 2:10–14; 7:7–14; 8:1–5, 7–8, 14–17, 19b). This redaction encouraged the exiles to return, yet also preached that the people’s repentance was a precondition for God’s return. The composition of the three dating formulas (1:1, 7; 7:1) meant that, in the final form of the text, the foundation of the temple in Hag 2:10–19 ended up being chronologically later than the sermon in Zech 1:1–6, thus creating the impression that the building of the temple depended upon the people’s repentance (cf. above). According to Wöhrle, RW stems from a time when people were disillusioned because things had not happened in accordance with their expectations. This redaction thus endeavoured to inspire people to turn anew to God and to hope for his salvation.83 5) At one point after this, the historical situation changed and, as a result, the material in Zech 1–8 demanded updating to address the new concerns. At this point, Zech 1–8* was fused with the originally independent collection of oracles in Haggai in the so-called “Haggai Redaction.” The textual additions in Zech 8:6, 9–13, display strong verbal and thematic 82  For this evaluation, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 19–22. 83  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 375–380.

58

Tiemeyer

similarities with Haggai (hence the name of the redaction) and thus lend cohesion to the extended corpus. According to Wöhrle, this redaction took place at a time when the people needed comfort and assurance that God would bring his salvation. This new material in 8:6, 9–13 thus moderates the demand to repent and instead focuses on God’s compassion. In doing so, the updated text reduced the task of the people and placed more emphasis on God’s freedom to turn to his people (regardless of any repentance on their part).84 6) After the inclusion of the Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus into the gradually growing Book of the Twelve, the so-called “Salvation for the Nations Redaction” added positive references to the nations and their anticipated pilgrimage to Jerusalem across the Book of the Twelve. At this point, Zech 2:15–16 and 8:20–23 were composed. 7) Finally, smaller, individual verses (2:17; 3:9, 10; 4:12; 7:8) were added at unknown points.85 Between Schöttler’s narrow focus on Zech 1–6 and Wöhrle’s wide focus on the Haggai–Zechariah corpus within the Book of the Twelve, another two recent proposals have focused on Zech 1–8. According to Hallaschka’s proposed redactional scheme, the material in Zech 1–8 falls into nine different textual layers:86 1) The basic layer, stemming from ca. 519 bce, contains an early version of the first and third vision accounts (1:8–11*/2:5–6). 2) The second layer, written around 500 bce, creates a vision report consisting of five vision accounts: it adds material to the existing first and third vision accounts (1:9b, 14/2:7a, 8); it composed the fifth account (4:1–6, 10– 14*); an early form of the sixth account (5:1, 3); and an early form of the eighth account (6:1–8*). At this point, the character of the Interpreting Angel is introduced to the vision report. 3) In the middle of the fifth century, this early form of the vision report became linked with the existing material in Haggai by help of added oracular material that focuses on the building of the temple (1:7, 16–17/2:10a, 11, 14/4:6–10*). 4) Sometime at the end of the fifth century/beginning of the fourth century bce, the vision report is extended to include the seventh vision account (5:5–11). 5) At a later point, the oracular material relating to fasting was composed (7:2–3; 8:18–19a). 84  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 380–383. 85  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 356–366 (summary, see also the table on p. 366). 86  For this evaluation, see further Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 22–25.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

59

6)

Even later, in the fourth century bce, an early version of the second vision account was written (2:3–4), as well as the oracular material relating to the diaspora (1:15; 2:10b, 12*; 6:5b, 6–7*) and other oracular texts elaborating on Zech 6:5–7* (7:1; 8:1–13). 7) The vision report reaches its present eight-vision-form only in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. At this time, the material about Joshua (the fourth vision account in Zech 3; the material in 6:9–15) and the material about the Angel of Yhwh (Zech 1:11a, 12, 13) were composed. The core of Zech 3 is located in verses 1a and 4b. This material extends the thoughts found in the divine oracle in Zech 1:11a, 12–13. The fourth vision account is subsequently extended with the speeches in 3:5*, 6–7, and later also with verse 9aβ. At a later stage, the material about the Accuser is added (3:1b, 2*, 9bβ). In addition to a few smaller supplements, verses 8 and 10 constitute the latest material. A parallel development took place with Zech 6:9–14, where verses 9, 10a, 11, 13a form the core text. It is later supplemented with verse 10b, and even later with verses 12, 13b, 14. 8) Shortly afterwards, the framework which connects Zechariah’s vision report to the material in Haggai (Zech 1:1–6; 7:7–14; 8:14–17, 19b) was written. 9) Lastly, the material that predicts salvation for the nations was penned (Zech 2:15–16; 6:15a; 8:20–23).87 As we can see, Hallaschka envisages a very long textual development of Zechariah 1–8 that lasts from the early Persian period well into the Hellenistic era. It is especially notable that, along the lines of Schöttler, he detects a gradual development of the vision report itself, where the individual vision accounts were added step-by-step. Hallaschka further maintains that the vision report is first connected to Haggai in the middle of the fifth century and that this connection is strengthened in the third century by the framework in Zech 1:1–6; 7:7–14; 8:14–17, 19b. Most recently, I have discussed the redactional growth of Zechariah 1–8.88 My own suggestion lies closer to that of Wöhrle than to those of Schöttler and Hallaschka in that I detect an early vision report which contains all vision accounts except Zech 3. My starting point differs from all the above-mentioned proposals, however, as does my envisaged time span. I detect few compelling reasons to postulate a centuries-long development of most of the vision report, even though I am open to the possibility of a few very late additions.

87  Hallaschka, Haggai, 293–323. For a detailed summary and critique of Hallaschka’s proposal, see Tiemeyer, “Review of Martin Hallaschka.” 88  My discussion here builds upon Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report.

60 1)

Tiemeyer

In my view, the original text consisted of seven vision accounts (1:8– 11/2:1–4*/2:5–8/4:1–6aα, 10b–14*/5:1–3/5:5–11/6:1–7). These accounts were characterized by their visual imagery and their paucity of allusions to earlier texts. As these vision accounts also lack any clear references to historical characters or events, they cannot be dated with any certainty. There is, however, no good reason to doubt that they were written by the prophet Zechariah in the last quarter of the sixth century bce. 2) Soon afterwards, Zechariah added a set of divine statements to the vision report (1:12–14aα, 17aβ–bβ/2:9/5:4/6:8) that concluded the first, third, sixth, and eighth vision account. These oracular sayings drew out the historical implications of the extant vision report. Anew, the exact date of composition cannot be determined, yet it is likely that they stem from ca. 520 bce, as indicated by the statement in 1:12b to “seventy years.” Around the same time, someone, again possibly the prophet Zechariah, composed a set of temple-related additions (1:7, 14aβ, 17aα/3:1–8a, 9/4:6aβ–10a/6:9–13*). They emphasized the necessity of building the temple and stressed the significance of the historical characters Joshua and Zerubbabel. Given this focus, a date around the time of the commencement of the building of the temple (ca. 520 bce) is feasible for this redaction. At that time, the dating formula in Zech 1:7 was also added. This dating formula emphasizes that the visions, as seen by the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, had relevance for the precise situation during Darius’s second year of his reign (520 bce). It further encouraged the readers to interpret the vision report as being a prophecy of what Yhwh would do in Yehud in the very near future. It finally also ascertained that Yhwh is the ultimate author of the vision report: even though the deity seldom appears in the vision report, it contains his words.89 A few individual glosses which extended the oracular material associated with the second and fifth vision account (2:4*/4:12) were also composed, with the aim of clarifying matters that were considered too vague or ambiguous. 3) At a later point, when the political circumstances had changed and Zerubbabel was no longer present/alive, a non-homogenous group of individual expansions of the oracular material was composed to adjust the vision report to fit the new historical circumstances. These expansions were associated with the third and fourth vision account (2:10–11, 12–13, 14/3:8b, 10), as well as with the material in Zech 6:9–15* (6:14). They 89  Cf. Behrens, Visionsschilderungen, 279.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

61

transformed the texts about the historical character Zerubbabel into future-looking predictions. The same or another editor wrote and compiled Zech 7:1–8:19. Although this material was probably written in stages over several years, there is no need to envisage a century-long writing process. On the contrary, as above, it cannot be ruled out that Zechariah composed this material at later points in his life.90 The new dating formula in Zech 7:1, adhering to the same style as the one in 1:7, served two functions. First, it encouraged the reader to read the oracular material in Zech 6:9–14 alongside the preceding vision report. Zech 6:9–14 was thus meant to comment on the preceding visions instead of being read together with the following oracles in Zech 7:1–8:19. Secondly, it indicated that the message of Zech 7–8 was relevant to the historical situation in Judah around 518 bce during the fourth year of Darius I’s reign. At this point, it is likely that the material in Zechariah 1–8* came to be associated with the formerly independent book of Haggai. Building upon the insight of especially Wöhrle, the thematic affinity between Zech 8:6, 9–13 and the material in Haggai, makes it likely that Zechariah 1–8* was henceforth transmitted together with the book of Haggai. 4) At an even later date, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8* was included in the gradually developing Book of the Twelve. The redactor responsible for its incorporation wrote the sermon in Zech 1:2–6 and gave it an appropriate date (Zech 1:1). He also added Zech 6:15 to serve as a new conclusion of the vision report. The dating formula in Zech 1:1, as well as the material in 1:2–6, clearly testify to the existing Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus. I view Zech 1:1–6 as a conscious editorial attempt to align the material in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8* with the tenets of the Deuteronomistic theology of the rest of the then extant Book of the Four. In this way, these additions brought Zechariah’s vision report in line with Israel’s wider prophetic heritage. In particular, the future promises in Zechariah’s vision report ceased to be unconditional and came to be contingent on Israel’s obedience to Yhwh. 5) Finally, we can observe another set of very late, single expansions (2:15– 16; 2:17/8:20–23). These additions were likely part of a wider redaction of the Book of the Twelve which reflects the belief that the Gentiles can partake in the cult of Yhwh.

90  The exact notion of authorship is unimportant; what matters are that these additions relate to surrounding circumstances that differ from those associated with the earliest layer.

62

Tiemeyer

My dating scheme is consciously vague. Except for those texts that explicitly mention historical persons and/or the building of the temple (Zech 1:12–17/ 4:6aβ–10a), I consider it impossible to provide a specific date for each individual verse/set of verses. I furthermore do not wish to postulate a series of redactions to Zech 1–8 if by the term “redaction” we mean an expansion of a larger set of texts by a redactor, with the result that we have several redactional layers that reach across Zech 1–8. Rather, my suggestion is closer to the idea of Fortschreibung, i.e. individual expansions of single pericopae. In my view, these individual expansions are unlikely to have been carried out in any systematic fashion. 5 Conclusion In this essay, I have discussed the gradual formation of the material in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, the creation of the redactional unit of a Haggai– Zechariah 1–8 corpus, and the incorporation of this corpus into the growing Book of the Twelve. Although there is little in terms of consensus vis-à-vis the finer details of its gradual composition, there is overall a strong sense in contemporary scholarship that a Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus existed. The first indicator of such a corpus is the dating formulas across Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. It is unclear whether these formulas (1) were written by one and the same redactor, (2) were written by two redactors, one copying and adjusting the work of another, or (3) formed part of the earliest strata of the two texts, their affinity being the result of Persian-period scribal conventions; yet their current existence in the final form of the text invites readers to approach Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 as a textual unity. The second indicator relates to content. Both sets of texts display, in their present form, a concern for the leadership of Yehud and the building of the temple. Again, the reason for this affinity is unclear. It may be the result of (1) redactors who added strategic material across the combined Haggai– Zechariah 1–8, (2) redactors who added material to one body of texts to align it with the message of the other body of texts, or (3) the result of shared political and religious circumstances in Yehud in the early Persian period. In my view, the post-monarchic setting of both sets of texts can, to a large extent, explain (a) the shared convention of dating texts using standardized formulas and (b) the shared focus on the political, agricultural, and religious situation in Yehud. At the same time, I do not doubt that redactions of both sets of texts took place and that these redactions had as their aim to create a more closely connected body of texts, united by their shared religious and societal concerns.

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 Corpus

63

The Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus was subsequently incorporated into the growing Book of the Twelve, yet only limited redactional activity can be traced back to this stage. At an even later time, Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 was connected with Malachi and, lastly, with Zechariah 9–14. Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “Studies in the Book of Haggai.” JJS 2 (1951): 1–13. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. Behrens, Achim. Prophetische Visionsschilderungen im Alten Testament: Sprachliche Eigenarten, Funktion und Geschichte einer Gattung. AOAT 292. Münster: Ugarit, 2002. Beuken, Willem A.M. Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. SSN 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. Coggins, Richard J. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT for the Society for Old Testament Study, 1987. Floyd, Michael H. “The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai.” VT 45 (1995): 473–474. Gonzalez, Hervé. “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah During the Ptolemaic Period.” JHebS 13 (2013). Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2010. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2003. Klostermann, August. Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Bis zur Restauration unter Esra und Nehemia. München: Beck, 1896. Lemaire, André. “Datation en Palestine.” Pages 65–66 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation: Papers read at the 35th Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, 8/27–29/85. Edited by Johan Lust. Leuven: Leuven University, 1986. Lux, Rüdiger. “Das Zweiprophetenbuch: Beobachtungen zu Aufbau und Struktur von Haggai und Sacharja 1–8.” Pages 3–28 in Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel: Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja. FAT 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Mason, Rex A. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University, 1973. Mason, Rex A. “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai.” VT 27 (1977): 413–421. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993.

64

Tiemeyer

Pola, Thomas. Das Priestertum bei Sacharja: Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung. FAT 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi. KAT 13,4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Schöttler, Heinz-Günther. Gott inmitten seines Volkes: Die Neuordnung des Gottesvolkes nach Sacharja. TThSt 43. Trier: Paulinus, 1987. Sérandour, Arnaud. “Réflexions à propos d’un livre récent sur Aggée-Zacharie 1–8.” Transeu 10 (1995): 75–84. Steck, Odil H. “Zu Haggai 1 2–11.” ZAW 83 (1971): 355–379. Steck, Odil H. Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “Review of Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” RBL, 10 March, 2012 (http://www.book reviews.org/pdf/8248_9019.pdf). Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “Review of Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches and Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches.” SEÅ 77 (2012): 373–378. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 626. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. JSOTSup 150. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Tollington, Janet E. “Readings in Haggai: From the Prophet to the Complete Book, a Changing Message in Changing Times.” Pages 194–208 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exile and Post Exilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking. OTS 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Wöhrle, Jakob. “The Formation and Intention of the Haggai-Zechariah Corpus.” JHebS 6 (2006). Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwolfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Wolff, Hans W. Haggai. Vol. 6 of Dodekapropheton. BK 14,6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986.

Chapter 3

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve James D. Nogalski 1 Introduction Having been asked to contribute an essay to this collection to address the topic of the completion of the Book of the Twelve I have been struck anew by two seemingly conflicting observations. On the one hand, I am pleased to note the extent to which conversation about the Twelve as a scroll has now found its way into discussions about the development of the literature of the Hebrew Bible. The creative readings of these prophetic texts that have arisen as a result of scholars taking this topic seriously have created a body of literature that simply did not exist thirty years ago and new contributors regularly bring fresh insights. On the other hand, I am struck by the wide diversity of opinions on some major issues, including the question of the completion of the Book of the Twelve upon which this essay will focus. The discussions that have arisen in the last thirty years propose a number of models regarding how the process of putting the Twelve together came to a close. Some of these models overlap considerably, while others seriously conflict with one another. Most of the theories dealing with the completion of the Twelve function as part of larger investigations, and consequently presuppose decisions about the order and the approximate dates in which smaller collections developed into the scroll as we now have it. These presuppositions make it difficult to engage this topic systematically within the confines of a single essay. Additionally, when comparing the various models, one cannot escape the sense in which the need to lay out the evidence for the models themselves in some ways results in an ongoing dialogue in which the participants speak past one another. I would, therefore, like to use this opportunity to investigate the question of the completion of the Twelve by focusing upon questions surrounding Zechariah 9–14. In all of the models regarding the development of the Twelve, scholars treat these chapters as some of the last to enter the scroll, but as of yet, no consensus has developed regarding either the question of the absolute date or of the relative point at which they entered the Twelve. Did these chapters originate in the early, middle, or late Persian period or the early Hellenistic period? Did these chapters develop independently until they were attached to the end of Zechariah 1–8?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_005

66

Nogalski

Do they interrupt a previously existing arrangement in which Malachi followed Zechariah 1–8, or were they appended to Zechariah 1–8 prior to the attachment of Malachi? Or, did Zechariah 9–14 arise within a corpus that included only portions of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi? Scholars take opposing positions on these questions, and those decisions result in very different models for the completion of the Twelve. In this essay, I will attempt to put these models into conversation with one another by taking the underlying arguments seriously. I hope that in so doing I might at least update my own thinking in light of these other models and perhaps advance the discussion somewhat. The remainder of the essay thus focuses on the fault lines of the arguments concerning two issues: the question of the absolute dating of Zechariah 9–14, a debate that largely hinges upon how one understands Zechariah 9, and an evaluation of the arguments concerning the relative order in which chapters 9–14 entered the larger corpus. 2

The Fault Lines for Dating Zechariah 9–14 within the Twelve

The task of delimiting the chronological parameters of Zechariah 9–14 within the Twelve can begin by recognizing some general agreements concerning the time when these chapters most likely arose in relationship to the Twelve. The combination of prophetic materials into larger collections took on increasing significance during the post-monarchic era, though Jeremias and Schart maintain that Hosea and Amos show signs of common editing that precede Jerusalem’s destruction.1 A broad stream of scholarship recognizes that the prophetic scrolls, and their constituent parts, continued to take shape well into the Persian period at least. Some maintain that the final stages took place in the early Hellenistic period, though most recognize that the nature of the prophetic material itself complicates attempts to isolate recognizable criteria for distinguishing between late Persian and early Hellenistic material. Broad (but not universal) streams of agreement have taken root in the scholarly discussions of the last thirty years that the early core of the Twelve as a multi-prophet corpus began in some way with the combination of what has prosaically come to be known as the Book of the Four Prophets (which included Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah).2 An even larger number of scholars

1  See Schart, Entstehung, 101–155; and Jeremias, “Interrelationship.” 2  See the article of Wöhrle in this volume (Chapter 1).

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

67

have recognized the existence of a version of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 existed wherein the two collections were edited in tandem with one another.3 The remaining six writings either appear in their present location for thematic or chronological reasons. Joel and Obadiah, for example, display close lexical, structural, and/or genre connections to the books on either side. Nahum and Habakkuk fit well thematically between Micah and Zephaniah to help close the chronological gap between the death of Hezekiah in 696 bce (the last king mentioned in Mic 1:1) and Josiah whose reforms began nearly 75 years later in 622 bce.4 Thematically, Nahum deals with Yhwh’s role in the downfall of Assyria while Habakkuk treats the rise and fall of Babylon as future events controlled by Yhwh. Jonah stands at odds theologically with many of the books within the rest of the Book of the Twelve because Jonah displays an openness to foreigners in general and Assyria in particular. Nevertheless, since Jonah ben Amittai worked in the reign of Jeroboam II (786–742 bce) according to 2 Kgs 14:25, the logical placement of Jonah must precede Micah whose superscription lists Jotham (756–741 bce) as the first king under whom Micah appeared as a prophet.5 Similarly, the book of Malachi refers to the Persian governor (Mal 1:8) but presumes a functioning temple. Haggai, by contrast, refers to Zerubbabel using the same word for the Persian governor (1:1, 14; 2:1, 21), but temple construction is only just beginning by the end of the book. Zechariah, likewise, has specific dates that are closely linked to those of Haggai (cf. Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1). Consequently, the placement of Malachi cannot precede Haggai and Zechariah whose message concerns the impending reconstruction of the temple. 3

Competing Models of Redactional Growth at the End of the Book of the Twelve

One of the major points of contention among these models concerns the question of how, when, and why Zechariah 9–14 entered the Book of the Twelve. 3  See the article of Tiemeyer in this volume (Chapter 2). 4  It seems plausible to assume that readers are intended to assume that Zephaniah’s words were composed after Josiah began his reform because of the reference to the “remnant of Baal” in Zeph 1:4. This phrase would have struck ancient as well as modern readers as implying that Josiah’s actions against Baal worshipers and priests would have already taken place. 5  See the discussion on Jerome’s statements about the role of the kings when reading the Twelve in Jerome, “Prologus,” 1374. There Jerome emphasizes the chronology of the kings, stating that unnamed prophets in the Twelve should be interpreted as contemporary with the last king mentioned.

68

Nogalski

At least by the time of Stade,6 most critical scholars treated Zechariah 9–14 as a collection whose origin differed from chapters 1–8.7 A few went further by treating 9–11 and 12–14 as inherently distinct compositions (labelling them Deutero- and Trito-Zechariah respectively) due to the variation in style and subject matter, combined with the distinct superscriptions of 9:1 and 12:1.8 Today, far fewer scholars approach these chapters as literarily separate from one another, though the situation has hardly become less complicated. More to the point for this investigation, the complicated nature of these discussions dramatically affects any attempt to theorize about the collection of the Book of the Twelve, both in terms of conclusions one should draw concerning the relative and absolute dating of the scroll. Some of the formative models that have influenced the interpretation of Zechariah predated discussions of the formation of the Twelve that have taken place in the last thirty years. These models concerning Zechariah 9–14 developed from different presuppositions. For example, many considered prophetic collections to be the recollections of disciples of inspired prophets, or they considered the prophetic persona to have been less interested in literary logic because prophets frequently spoke under the influence of some kind of mantic experience. Often, such presuppositions assumed the prophetic collections represented primarily oral settings. Much has changed in the last thirty years. An increasing number of scholars recognize the phenomenon of “scribal prophecy” as a literary endeavour, one that involved the collection, arrangement, composition, and editing of the prophetic scrolls for elite groups of readers who themselves were trained in and by the words of the collections as they developed.9 And yet, even among those most invested in the discussion of the Book of the Twelve, considerable differences exist in how they deal with Zechariah 9–14. For example, Nogalski has argued that a pre-existing connection between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi was dislodged by the insertion of Zechariah 9–14, while Schart largely ignores these arguments and instead suggests that Malachi was appended to the end of Zechariah 14 sometime after chapters 9–14 were 6  Stade, “Deuterozacharja.” 7  For discussion of the wide variety of views both before and after Stade, see the discussion in Nogalski, Processes, 213–217. 8  Eissfeldt, Old Testament, 434–440. 9  This phenomenon goes by several names, but they all presuppose that sections of some prophetic books, and in some cases, the entire book started as literary compositions, not oral speeches. In most cases such works draw upon other prophetic or biblical traditions. Lange and others refer to this work as “Schreibtischarbeit” (literally “writing-desk work”). Bergler refers to Joel as a Schriftinterpret, while Utzschneider calls Malachi “Schriftprophetie” or “Schriftauslesung.” See Utzschneider, Künder; Bergler, Joel; and Lange, Wort, 26, 145.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

69

added to Zechariah 1–8.10 With yet another model, Wöhrle sees several layers in the editing of both Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi that predated their inclusion into the larger corpus and more than one layer of material that entered simultaneously or subsequently to the inclusion of these blocks into the Book of the Twelve.11 In fact, the complexity of the relationship between Zechariah 1–8, 9–14, and Malachi has spawned at least six variations: 1) Malachi was composed after and apart from Zechariah 9–14 (Hanson; Redditt).12 2) Malachi followed Zechariah 1–8 as the conclusion to the Twelve prior to the compilation of Zechariah 9–14 (Nogalski).13 3) Zechariah 9–14 was composed for Zechariah 1–8, but Malachi was appended to Haggai and Zechariah 1–14 wherein Malachi concluded a collection of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi that circulated as a separate collection (Boda; Pierce).14 4) Zechariah 9–14 was added to Zechariah 8 before Malachi was appended to Zechariah 14, but Malachi already existed as a separate work (Schart).15 5) Portions of Zechariah 9–14 were added to Zechariah 8 along with an existing (but not complete) version of Malachi, and both 9–14 and Malachi received additional material as part of the later editing of the Book of the Twelve (Wöhrle).16 6) Zechariah 9–14 was compiled in stages to go between Zechariah 8 and Malachi (Steck).17 These authors do not just disagree over the relative dates that the material entered the broader corpus; they also differ on the question of the absolute date of the respective texts. It is to this question that I want to turn first, to clarify 10  Nogalski, Precursors, 257–258; idem, Processes, 210–212; Schart, Entstehung, 275–277, 297– 299; similarly, see also Wöhrle, Abschluss, 159–160. 11  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 159–160, 255–263. 12  Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic; Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds”; idem, “Two Shepherds”; idem, Haggai, 94–102. 13  Nogalski, Processes, 206–247. 14  Boda, Zechariah, 30–31; Pierce, “Literary Connectors,” 277–289; and idem, “Thematic Development.” 15  Schart, Entstehung, 305–306. 16  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 439–446. 17  Steck, Abschluss, 33–42, 42–60; Nogalski, Processes, 241–247. For Steck, this combination happens in several stages by the addition of editorial insertions (Einschreibungen), namely Zech 9:1–10:2; 10:3–11:3; 11:4–13:9; and 14:1–21. See especially the outline of his model that corresponds with the concluding redactions of the Isaiah scroll in Steck, Abschluss, 196–198.

70

Nogalski

some of the presuppositions that affect the models for how the Book of the Twelve was completed. The key to this discussion, in my opinion, turns on the issue of how one treats the entities mentioned in Zechariah 9. 4

Re-evaluating Zechariah 9 as a Reflection of Historical Realia

In his recent NICOT commentary on Zechariah, Mark Boda offers a helpful summary of the discussion of the date of Zechariah 9–14. Boda argues that Zechariah 9–14 was compiled as a response to Zechariah 1–8. For Boda, chapters 9–14 should be understood as part of the book of Zechariah (i.e. chapters 1–14) even though he also thinks Zechariah becomes part of a corpus that joined Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi together before they entered the Book of the Twelve.18 Relatedly, he argues for an early collocation of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, not long after the last date mentioned in Zech 7:1, yet he also argues that chapters 9–14 represent a historical context of the “mid to late fifth century,” seventy to one hundred years after the construction of the second temple was completed.19 Boda summarizes the evidence used to date chapters 9–14, noting that American scholars tend to opt for an early Persian period date while continental scholars tend to place the chapters in the early Hellenistic period. Boda indicates three lines of evidence cited by those arguing for Hellenistic dating. He then offers counter arguments to each of those three and adds three additional arguments to support his position of an early Persian period date, as noted in Table 3.1. While these summary points are helpful, additional observations favouring a time closer to Alexander—in my opinion—offer more concrete connections and still make it difficult to favour a context in the early or middle Persian period. Persia is not mentioned in Zech 9:13. Only the sons of Jawan (the Greeks) and Judah/Ephraim are mentioned as combatants. The devastating defeat at the battle of Issus in 333 removed Persia as a major player in the region. Syria and Phoenicia were the first places Alexander’s forces went after the battle of Issus in early 332 bce, even though Alexander himself went to Phoenicia. After Issus, Alexander sent Parmenion to Damascus to follow the defeated Persian king—Darius III (336–330 bce)—and retrieve his treasure. The Persians were overthrown entirely with the death of Darius III in 330 after the battle 18  Boda, Zechariah, 29–31. 19  Boda, Zechariah, 33–37.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve table 3.1

71

Criteria for dating Zech 9–14

Hellenistic dating 1. The north to south march through the Levant mirrors that of the campaign of Alexander in 333 bce.a 2. The Greeks are mentioned specifically as the enemy in Zech 9:13. 3. The negative role of Egypt in chapters 10 and 14 refers to the Ptolemies in the Diadochan period.

Early Persian dating 1.  Zech 9:1–8 does not match Alexander’s route precisely. 2. The Greeks were players in the Levant from the time of Darius I (522–486 bce) onward. 3. Egypt was a frequent enemy for Judah, meaning that references to Egypt cannot be limited to the time after Alexander. 4. The Levant was a buffer zone between the Persians and the Greeks, especially because of trade considerations. 5. The mention of Aram and Phoenicia as political constellations fits better in the early Persian period than the late fourth century. 6. Reference to paying the shepherd in 11:4–17 using the phrase “weighing silver” makes better sense before 400 bce, after which the practice of weighing silver gives way to the more frequent use of coinage.

a A significant change in the conversation began with the work of Elliger who presented a sustained argument for 9:1–8 stemming from the time of Alexander’s campaign in 333 bce; see Elliger, “Zeugnis.”

of Gaugamela when his own confederates murdered him. Alexander himself led the remaining troops into Phoenicia on the way to Egypt. The northernmost cities (Arvad and Byblos) offered no real resistance, but Tyre refused to surrender and endured a seven month siege before being mercilessly overrun. Afterwards, Alexander headed south against the Philistines and laid siege to Gaza after they resisted. After a two month siege Gaza also fell to Alexander. By November of 332, Alexander controlled the eastern Mediterranean coast

72

Nogalski

and he entered Egypt, where he met little resistance because he was seen as liberating Egypt from Persia. This two pronged strategy fits well with a threat to Syria and Phoenicia in the aftermath of the battle of Issus. Hence, this scenario actually does fit well with the geographical flow of Zech 9. In surveying events according to ancient sources, the appearance of Alexander and the wars of the Diadochoi in the last third of the fourth century likely created a general sense of uncertainty in the Levant, but military encounters did not involve Jerusalem with the possible exceptions of four dates: 332, 320, 312, and 302. After Alexander’s death in 323, the vast majority of the skirmishes concerned control of the Mediterranean coast and travel lines between Egypt and Asia Minor. Of these campaigns, three involved Ptolemaic advances into the Levant (320/319, 312, 302 bce), and thus presupposed a south to north advance that does not fit well with the north to south orientation of Zechariah 9. Further, debate exists about which—if any—of these campaigns precipitated Ptolemy’s conquest of Jerusalem that appears prominently in Josephus.20 In 320/19 Ptolemy I briefly captured the coast and Coele-Syria before Antigonus reasserted control over those territories.21 The battle of Gaza in 312 does not fit the scenario described in Zech 9:13, not only because that campaign came from south to north, but because nothing changed with the peace of 311 wherein Antigonus retained control of the coastal region. Additionally, confusion exists about whether the Josephus account of Ptolemy taking Jerusalem refers to 320, 312, or 302, but in each case this seizure would have resulted from Egyptian (Ptolemaic) aggression, and thus would have moved south to north. In the aftermath of the battle of Ipsus (301 bce), Ptolemy moved on the Levant again (as in 319 and 312), but Seleucid was content to avoid confrontation while Ptolemy was alive. Without troops in the battle, Ptolemy was not represented in the truce of 311 and was surprised to learn that Seleucus had been given the region. Ptolemy occupied the lands as what he considered payment for the funds he had contributed to the battle of Ipsus. After Ipsus, when Antigonus was finally defeated, Seleucus never moved against Ptolemy as long as Ptolemy lived (he died in 283 bce). This inaction is largely attributed to the loyalty Seleucus showed Ptolemy who had taken Seleucus in when Seleucus fled Babylon in 321 bce. After Ptolemy died, there were six wars in the Levant over the next 115 years, but the Ptolemies essentially held the region until 168 when Seleucus IV Epiphanes took control of the

20  Josephus, Ant. XII. 21  See Bennett and Roberts, Commanders, 57–60, 98–99.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

73

region, creating a political situation that soon led to the Maccabean revolt.22 By contrast, the events depicted in the theophany of Zechariah 9 clearly presuppose a military threat described as moving north to south. Thus Zech 9 fits well with the Alexander campaign, but not with traditions of Diadochan attacks upon Jerusalem. Further, the arguments for a Persian period date largely rest upon the possibility of Judean and Greek animosity because the Judeans were Persian allies. None of those arguing for a fifth century Persian date take up the political constellations addressed in Zech 9:1–8 in any real detail. As such, the Persian period arguments ignore large swaths of the evidence and logic put forward by Elliger which sets the stage for his delimitation of 332 bce as the most plausible date for the events in Zech 9:1–8. Elliger spends considerable space explaining the implausibility of other options, including suggestions that the chapter comes from the Assyrian, Babylonian, early Persian, Diadochan, or Maccabean periods.23 In short, Elliger’s claim—that the events precipitating the description of the threat battles most likely fit the aftermath of Alexander’s campaign in 332 bce—still makes the most sense. Not only did this activity fit the north to south orientation of Zech 9:1–8, but Alexander’s defeat of Persia in 333 and his subsequent conquest of Syria, Phoenicia, Philistia, and Egypt in 332 changed the political landscape of the ancient Near East. Persia had been the dominant power for two centuries, but Alexander’s actions ended their control. In my opinion, the dramatic change in the political landscape better reflects the scenario described in Zechariah 9. All points considered, Alexander’s campaign fits better than the idea of some of the relatively small skirmishes of 22  Frevel, Geschichte Israels, 330. 23  Elliger takes seriously all of these dates because they had all been suggested by the time he published his article in 1949. See Elliger, “Zeugnis,” 84–107. Nearly seventy years later, few still suggest a preexilic date or a Maccabean date, largely due to the influence of his article. Elliger eliminates these extreme positions by systematically showing the ways that the political and economic situations presumed in 9:1–8 do not align with the Assyrian, Babylonian, or Maccabean periods (Elliger, “Zeugnis,” 84–89). He then explores the reasons why the period of the Diadochoi (the dominant suggestion at the time) would not fit well (Elliger, “Zeugnis,” 89–92). Next, Elliger investigates three major points to account for the date: the situation in Syria and Phoenicia, the relationship between Tyre and Philistine cities, and the relationship of Judah and these entities (Elliger, “Zeugnis,” 92–107). In so doing, Elliger concludes that the constellation of these relationships can only be satisfied in the last decade of the Persian period (Elliger, “Zeugnis,” 107). Further, he frequently emphasizes that the events anticipated in 9:1–8 cannot be describing a simple border skirmish. The changes announced in these verses presume massive changes await Syria and the coast.

74

Nogalski

the Diadochan period, better than the south to north movements of Ptolemy’s known campaigns, and better than any of the nebulous scenarios suggested in the arguments for an early, middle, or even late Persian period setting. 5

Assessing the Arguments and Criteria concerning the Relative Ordering of Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi

This investigation now turns to question of the relative dating of Zechariah 9–14 and the Twelve. I will assess the arguments of five authors whose theories concerning Zechariah 9–14 have either played a significant role or represent viewpoints widely held regarding these chapters and the growth of the Twelve in the last thirty years. These authors include Nogalski, Schart, Redditt, Wöhrle, and Boda. In addition, I will discuss Nicholas Tai’s tradition historical investigation of Zechariah 9–14 because it forms the backbone of much of the discussion in Schart’s theory. 5.1 Boda First, evaluating Zechariah 9–14 within the Twelve requires a decision regarding the literary context(s) in which Zechariah 9–14 arose. Most of the models discussed below argue that Zechariah 9–14 developed independently from Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi, at least up to the point at which it was added to an existing corpus. This presumption generally dominates among critical scholars, but a significant minority opinion has consistently argued that Zechariah 9–14 is much more integrally related to Zechariah 1–8 than the majority recognize. In his recent commentary Mark J. Boda articulates four lines of evidence suggesting that chapters 9–14 should be read contextually as part of Zechariah 1–14, not as an independent composition appended to chapters 1–8.24 These evidentiary lines draw parallels between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 which, for proponents of this model, include two stylistic similarities (inter-textual allusions and the prominence of the prophetic sign-act), similar themes within redactional materials (leadership, Jerusalem and the nations, and Judah/Israel), and what Boda describes as a parallel progression of thought that can be seen in both chapters 1–8 and 9–14. Regarding the stylistic similarities he notes, these formalistic elements, while present, are not used to promote the same ideological agenda across the two parts. For example, Zech 11:4–17 uses the prophetic sign-act, but the purpose is to document the break between Israel and Judah. This attitude hardly 24  Boda, Zechariah, 28–29.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

75

seems consistent with the nonjudgmental statements about the Bethel delegation in 7:1–3 and 8:19–23. Somehow, a model for Zechariah 9–14 must account for the very distinct rhetorical purposes of passages dealing with the northern territories between the two sections. The use of similar stylistic elements does not override the rhetorical aims of the two sections.25 Similarly, the themes (or in my opinion, the motifs) of leadership and Jerusalem’s relationship to the nations do not, by and large, align closely with one another in terms of the ideological perspectives they reflect. Boda sees some level of negative progression toward leaders in chapters 1–8, but where present, the negative aspects do not rise to the same level as those negative statements about Levites, prophets, and the house of David that appear in Zechariah 12–13. The superscriptions in 9:1 and 12:1 set the chapters apart and they align with significant changes in subject matter. Boda also argues for a parallel progression of thought between 9–14 and 1–8, but in my opinion the links between 9–11 and 12–14 appear stronger than those between 9–14 and 1–8. Boda states that “one can discern an overall progression of thought in the presentation of the issue of leadership, a theme which is developed in particular in the materials used to link larger prophetic sections (such as the visionary material, the main oracles in chs. 9–10 and 12–14).”26 He illustrates this leadership theme by focusing upon the priests, prophets, and royal figures across the major sections. He suggests that focus on the priestly leadership in Zechariah 3 and 4 implicitly represents the positive starting point before giving way to the arrival of a royal figure in 9:9. He then argues that critiques arise via the shepherd materials in 9–14 where these shepherds exhibit priestly (11:3), prophetic (13:2–6), and royal (12:10–14) characteristics.27 By the end of Zechariah 14, Yhwh has taken over as king (14:9), Jerusalem’s horses have the same status as priests (14:20), and priestly obligations are distributed among Jerusalem’s population at large (14:21). Boda associates this thematic progression within the agenda of a scribal editor of the book of Zechariah. At least two issues raise questions regarding how to interpret this thematic progression. First, to the extent that one can trace this progression, the real thematic movement occurs within 9–14 whether 1–8 is present or not. The 25  Consider, for example, the fact that two prophetic figures both use similarly styled prophetic judgment oracles to make opposing claims in Jer 28:10–11 (Hananiah) and 28:13–14 (Jeremiah). 26  Boda, Zechariah, 29. 27  The priestly connections, for Boda, are inferred from 11:3 because 11:1–3 may signal a temple setting to the reader by imitating two forms. For Boda, 11:1 echoes an entrance liturgy and 11:2 imitates a communal call to lament. See his insightful discussion in Boda, Zechariah, 637.

76

Nogalski

presence of positive assumptions about leadership should not be limited to only those things that can be inferred about priests in Zechariah 3 and 4 must. Boda does not mention Zerubbabel in this context, but one could make a case that he implicitly represents positive royal expectations associated with David since he is the biological descendant of Jehoiachin.28 Zech 4:6–10 mentions Zerubbabel positively, but the first mention of a royal figure in 9–14 also presupposes a positive image of the human king (9:9–10). To be sure, the prophetic voice (or better perhaps, Yhwh’s voice through the prophet) can be characterized positively in 1–8, and as such could be seen as a kind of literary starting point for the prophetic figure. Nevertheless, the prophetic voice in 9–14 begins with an equally positive string of messages in 9–10 before taking a negative turn with the shepherd materials of 11:4–17 and the confrontation of the prophets in 13:3–6. In short, while one can certainly read 9–14 as an extension of 1–8, the thematic development of the positive depiction of these leadership figures either has to be inferred or the initial impressions of these figures are just as positive in 9–14 as they are in 1–8. The changes to these figures all occur within 9–14. Second, treating Zechariah 9–14 as only the end of Zechariah ignores the extent to which much of its meaning derives from its dependence upon other prophetic traditions. As will be noted below (especially in the discussion of Tai), the conceptual framework of 9–14 relies far less on Zechariah 1–8 than it does upon an implicit dialogue with texts and images in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other texts in the Twelve. To put this issue into context, I will now turn to the question of the relative chronology of the compositional materials in Zechariah 9–14 by comparing the logical underpinnings of the work of Nogalski, Tai, Schart, Wöhrle, and Redditt. 5.2 Nogalski I recognize at least four issues affecting the question of the relative chronology: the history of debate concerning the date of Zechariah 9–14, the writing styles found within these chapters, the weight assigned to the qualitative and quantitative number of catchwords linking Zechariah 8 with the beginning of Malachi, and the dating of Malachi to the mid-fifth century. I provide a lengthy summary that acknowledges the difficulty that Zechariah 9–14 has given scholars going back to the eighteenth century. In the end, though, I side with Elliger and others who date these chapters to the early 28  Zerubbabel was the governor appointed by Persia referenced throughout Haggai as a key player in the rebuilding of the temple. He thus functioned as the local political authority, but he also had royal blood lines.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

77

Hellenistic period.29 The fact that Zech 9:13 mentions the Greeks as the enemy plays heavily in this decision, as does the work of Elliger discussed above. Since the publication of my work, the landscape has shifted on this issue as a significant number of scholars prefer to keep open the possibility of a Persian period setting for 9–14. Most rely upon the impossibility of disproving a negative. I have noted above the reasons why I still find the arguments compelling for dating these chapters to the time of Alexander’s campaign or its immediate aftermath. The question of literary style has, on the one hand, changed very little since the appearance of my treatment of Zechariah 9–14 in the sense that the subunits within these chapters actually seem more recognizable than in many other sections of prophetic literature. On the other hand, the models for how one interprets these chapters and the transitions between the units have multiplied in significant ways. Theories have been propounded that deal with the composition of Zechariah 9–14 as an extension of chapters 1–8 (see discussion of Boda above), as a rolling corpus—independent of Zechariah 1–8 for much of its history—whose parts grew in response to the compositions that were already present (Tai and Schart), and as a redacted whole whose agenda can best be seen in the shepherd imagery that connects pre-existing material (Redditt). In addition, discussion of the date has been complicated by those working on the Twelve: by those arguing that Zechariah 9–14 entered the larger scroll prior to the addition of Malachi (Schart), or arguing that these chapters have a history of editorial development that both preceded their inclusion into the larger corpus and involved additional editorial work once they had been incorporated (Wöhrle). I will respond to these models below. Scholarly opinion concerning the date of Malachi has not changed much since my work appeared more than twenty-five years ago. Most scholars agree on the plausibility of Malachi as an early to mid-fifth century composition, though some have placed it nearer the end of the fifth century.30 Diachronic treatments of Malachi have gained traction in some quarters, but large swaths of scholarship continue to resist models that the book grew in stages, with the exception of one passage. A significant majority of scholars continue to recognize Mal 3:22–24 as a late addition to Malachi that contains allusions back to Moses and the beginning of the Former Prophets.31 In this sense, my model followed the majority opinion at the time. My recent work still assumes that the core of Malachi existed prior to the composition of 29  Nogalski, Processes, 216–217. 30  For example, see the discussions in Redditt, Haggai, 150–151; Hill, Malachi, 77–84. 31  Redditt, Haggai, 185; Hill, Malachi, 363–365.

78

Nogalski

Zechariah 9–14 and that Malachi was attached to Zechariah 1–8 as the original conclusion to the Twelve, though I do include more than Mal 3:22–24 as part of the supplemental material that expanded Malachi as the literary finale of the Book of the Twelve.32 Finally, my arguments concerning the thematic juxtaposition created by catchwords between Zechariah 8 and Malachi 1 have not found much support. I still stand by those arguments but will save that discussion for another venue. Instead, I will now engage the discussion by evaluating the arguments of other scholars who have dealt with Zechariah 9–14 as part of the Book of the Twelve (Schart/Tai, Reddit, and Wöhrle). Their contributions have implications for the discussion of both the relative dating and absolute dating of these chapters. 5.3 Schart and Tai Schart relies heavily on the work by Nicholas Tai to make his case.33 This decision has not received the attention it deserves. Consequently, before discussing Schart’s model, a summary analysis of Tai’s work is important. Tai, argues Schart, makes a compelling case for the extent to which Zechariah 9–13 draws heavily upon prophetic traditions found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.34 For Tai, Zech 9:5 and 10:1 draw upon Jer 5:20–25; Zech 10:3–12 builds off of Jer 23:1–4 (as well as other texts within Jer 31 and Hos 2:25); and Zech 11:1–3 takes up Jer 25:34–38. The links to Ezekiel, according to Tai, appear in Zech 9:1–8; 11:4–17; and 12:9–13:6 and universalize ideas about Yhwh’s kingship found in Ezekiel 47; 28; and 37. By contrast, Zechariah 14 shows no such dependence on these two prophets, so Tai argues that it came later. Even more significantly, Tai distinguishes between the techniques and the content of the passages that draw upon Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Tai makes the case that the tradition-historical links with Jeremiah text involve a direct transfer (Übertragung) of the content of the Jeremiah passage while actualizing it for the author’s own context. In so doing Tai argues that the author’s own knowledge of Jeremiah implies a deep familiarity with Jeremiah traditions on the part of the author and the scribal community in which he resides.35 Relatedly, these Jeremiah texts and the author who uses them show a certain resistance to the Jerusalem leadership. Zechariah 9:1–11:3 thus shows considerable dependency

32  See especially the expanded discussion of the role of the “Book of Remembrance” in Mal 3:16 in Nogalski, “Malachi’s Book,” 199–222. 33  Schart, Entstehung, 275–276; Tai, Prophetie. 34  See also the Redditt, review of Prophetie. 35  Tai, Prophetie, 280–281.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

79

upon Jeremiah, with its concomitant suspicion of Jerusalemite leadership, but this dependency plays no role in 11:4–16 and little in 12:1–13:9.36 By way of contrast, Tai notes that when the author draws upon Ezekiel traditions, something different happens. Whereas the author generally transfers the Jeremiah material directly, he significantly modifies the content of Ezekiel in 11:4–17. The narrative in Zech 11:4–17 draws its imagery from Ezekiel 34 and 37. In both cases, however, the Zechariah text corrects the Ezekiel tradition, dramatically altering the hope for a new David in Ezekiel 34 and the hope for reunification in Ezekiel 37. Tai also argues that the concept of the future in Zech 12:9–13:6 depends conceptually upon Ezekiel, specifically chapters 36 and 39. For Tai, however, this material does not critique Ezekiel. Rather, it takes up hopeful sayings from Ezek 36:25, 29 and 39:29 and transfers their content rather sympathetically and it also reacts to 11:4–13:6. For this reason, Tai considers 12:9–13:6 a Fortschreibung from a later author. Here, however, Tai confuses a critical stance toward some Ezekiel positions (a new David and a reunification with the northern territories) with the assumption that this author would be critical of all positions taken by Ezekiel. Thus, while he carefully documents the changing attitude toward the Davidides and the northern territories, Tai ends up with a model that requires four different authors, each heavily invested in the imagery of Jeremiah or Ezekiel, and each taking up the preexisting context in order to actualize those texts differently. Thus, Tai ends up with a rolling corpus containing a series of compositions that reflect upon the earlier texts. The first composition (9:1–11:3) represents a redactional compilation that three times alternates a longer prosaic piece with a shorter poetic piece. Simultaneously, this composition alternates between a hope for restoration (that includes reunification with the northern territories) and a critique of Jerusalem’s leadership.37 The promises for a unified Israel draw conceptually from earlier material, and Zech 9:1–11:3 considers them to be promises that will still be fulfilled. By contrast, nothing in 9:1–11:3 mentions the temple or its cult, and Jerusalem is hardly mentioned. For Tai, this means that the author/ compiler of 9:1–11:3 was not from Jerusalem. He was either from north Judah or from the northern territorial region (hence the focus upon Ephraim in this material). Again, Tai has confused changing perspectives with different authors. 36  Tai treats 12:1–13:9 as a Fortschreibung that preserves the message of 9:1–11:3 while engaging the Zion tradition. Tai does find some Jeremiah influence in 12:1–8 whereas the bulk of the future concept in 12:9–13:6 depends conceptually upon Ezekiel 36 and 39. Tai, Prophetie, 281, 284. 37  Tai, Prophetie, 285.

80

Nogalski

It remains equally plausible that the movement from positive to negative attitudes toward the northern territories, for example, represents the agenda of a single editor/author who wishes to document that the breaking of this covenant union (11:4–17) came about because of decisions by the leadership. This thematic movement is, after all, present in the text. The idea that its presence was created by design could account not only for the diversity of the perspectives, but it also accounts for the disappearance of Ephraim or other northern territories after 11:3. The enigmatic parable of 11:4–17 ends with the dissolution of “favour” and “union,” almost certainly implying a break with Ephraim. Tai dates 11:4–17 toward the end of the fourth century, largely concurring with Elliger because Tai sees 9:1–8 as a necessary starting point for the whole. Tai then argues that the first Fortschreibung (11:4–16) inverts the imagery of Ezekiel 34 and 37 on the question of reunification, and reflects the events surrounding the so-called Samaritan schism.38 Rather than a single event, relations with Samaria took a decidedly negative turn beginning with Nehemiah’s conflict with Sanballat and others in the mid-fifth century. The final break came in the second century during the Maccabean period when the temple at Mount Gerazim was destroyed by the Maccabees. One major question concerns the reliability of the tradition recounted in Josephus that credits Alexander with exploiting a conflict between leaders of Jerusalem and Samaria by building the temple on Mount Gerazim for the Samaritans.39 Excavations have demonstrated conclusively that the temple at Mount Gerazim existed well before the time of Alexander, but one need not dismiss the Josephus account as entirely fictional. One can readily imagine how enhancing the temple at Gerazim would serve Alexander’s interests (or those of his early successors), and such actions could easily have developed over time into collective memories of much more magnanimous actions on Alexander’s part.40 At any rate, it does appear that an unsuccessful revolt in Samaria was put down by Alexander’s 38  The understanding of the Samaritan schism as a singular event has become increasingly problematic. See especially Knoppers, Jews. Knoppers brings both material and literary evidence together to show a more complex relationship that existed from the sixth century to the second century bce, in which Samaria and Judah sometimes exhibited shared interests (including shared texts such as the Torah), while at other times demonstrate more sectarian attitudes (e.g., Nehemiah’s dealings with Sanballat). 39  Josephus, Ant. XI.8. 40  Numerous accounts arose in the aftermath of Alexander’s campaigns and his death concerning the great King’s beneficent dealings with local populations, marital alliances, and his adoption of local customs. Some of these actions created dissension among his generals. See Bennett and Roberts, Commanders, XVIII. Quite a number of scholars would classify Josephus’s story (Ant. XI.329–339) recounting Alexander’s entry into Jerusalem and granting privileges to the high priest as a legendary account, but it certainly offers

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

81

general Parmenio in 332/331 bce and that a Macedonian military colony was established there.41 It is not implausible to imagine that in the aftermath of those events, a change in leadership could have been installed at the Gerazim temple that was more receptive to Greek interests. Such events could readily account for the fact that Judah and Ephraim are conceptualized as partners against Greece in Zech 9:13, yet 11:4–17 reflects the dissolution of that union over questions of the two temples. According to Tai, Zechariah 14 takes up the day of Yhwh traditions but adapts them by incorporating three additional motifs: theophany portrayals, the pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem, and the change of nature after Yhwh’s intervention. Further, Tai notes the distinction of Zechariah 14 as the only text in the Hebrew Bible that posits what life will look like after the day of Yhwh.42 The model of Schart relies upon the conclusions of Tai with slight, but significant modifications. Schart only mentions Zechariah 9–13 and 14 as the compositional blocks comprising Zechariah 9–14, which leads one to assume he thinks that two developmental stages in Zechariah 9–14 can account for their inclusion into the growing corpus of the Twelve. At the very least, for Schart, Zechariah 9–13 existed as an anonymous independent collection. For Tai, however, the development of 9–14 consists of four stages. The block begins with a compilation arranged by a scribe who was either a northern Judean or someone from northern Israel (hence the focus upon Ephraim and Judah in 9:1–11:3). Three Fortschreibungen follow sequentially that actualize the preceding texts. These three Fortschreibungen consist of 11:4–16; 12:1–13:6; and 14:1–21. For Tai, the author who added Zechariah 14 connected the texts to Zechariah 1–8. Schart, by contrast, understands Zechariah 14 as a text which is very much in conversation with two other texts in the Book of the Twelve, specifically Micah 4–5 and Joel 4.43 These two texts present conflicting messages regarding the nations on the day of Yhwh. Joel 4 anticipates the destruction of the nations in a great battle, while Micah 4–5 (see especially 4:1–4) anticipates peaceful relationships with the nations as they make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem. a parallel example of how collective memory utilizes traditions regarding figures of the past when they might be helpful in the present. 41  Frevel, Geschichte Israels, 329. 42  Tai’s focus here on the specific tradition of the day of Yhwh causes him to overlook Isaiah 66 and the manner in which the imagery of the new heaven and new earth anchors a very similar function at the end of Isaiah. Specifically, after the new earth the survivors go forth and see the burning corpses of the nations who had rebelled against Yhwh (Isa 66:22–24). 43  Schart, Entstehung, 276.

82

Nogalski

For Schart, Zechariah 14 finds a way to combine both perspectives. First, the nations will attack Jerusalem and Judah (as in Joel 4) but then a remnant from the nations will make a peaceful pilgrimage to Zion (according to his understanding of Micah 4–5). Schart also differs from Tai in that he understands Zechariah 14 as the end of what Schart calls the Joel–Obadiah corpus. In other words, Zechariah 14 was not appended merely to conclude the book of Zechariah. Schart’s understanding of Zechariah 14 as the thematic resolution of three “day of Yhwh texts” offers interesting points to ponder synchronically, but one wonders whether these loose thematic differences can fully bear the weight of the evidence he ascribes to them. Tai himself tentatively suggests that Zechariah 14 actualizes 12:1–13:6 by picking up ideas from Zech 2:14–17.44 Schart, therefore, sees the appending of chapters 9–14 as the conclusion of a major stage of development of the Twelve (the Joel–Obadiah corpus) before Malachi was added. Tai simply assumes Zechariah 9–13 existed independently, until the addition of chapter 14, whose author was responsible for appending the last six chapters to Zechariah. Schart follows Tai here up to a point. Schart understands Zechariah 9–13 as a scribal composition interpreting traditions from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with Tai. Yet Schart argues that the composer/compiler of Zechariah 14 created this chapter as an end to the prophetic corpus that he labels as the Joel–Obadiah corpus, though he briefly notes the significant observations of Bosshard and Steck, who see many thematic and verbal connections between Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 66.45 Schart’s insight into the broader literary horizon of Zechariah 14 remains important as does the fact that he does not see these chapters arising as a continuation of Zechariah 1–8. Nevertheless, Schart does not deal explicitly with the question of the absolute date of this material. 5.4 Wöhrle Wöhrle offers a layered model of redaction for Zechariah 9–14 (and Malachi) in which subsequent commentators revise existing texts, providing them with thematic and theological connections to the agendas of these revisors.46 44  Tai, Prophetie, 289. 45  Schart, Entstehung, 277 (cf. Steck, Abschluss, 58–60). 46  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 129–137, 257–265. Steck also has a layered model which he argues parallels stages of redactions in Isaiah. See Steck, Abschluss, passim, but the summary chart on pages 196–198, with the relevant page numbers is quite a helpful overview. I refrain from engaging Steck’s model in this essay because his suggestions that these latest stages extend all the way to the end of the third century bce have been difficult to sustain in terms of absolute dating. Still, his keen observations remain extremely helpful for analyzing the theological profiles of the material in Zechariah 9–14.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

83

Wöhrle’s literary critical approach provides a model in which a small foundational layer begins as an independent composition found largely in portions of chapters 10–11 along with very small segments from chapters 9, 12, and 13. For Wöhrle, like Tai and Schart, the initial composition and several of the layers of Zechariah 9–14 should not be treated as continuations of Zechariah 1–8, primarily because Zechariah 1–8 does not really critique the Jerusalemite leadership. Wöhrle believes that this foundational layer of 9–14, which draws upon the theme of the good and bad shepherd, could refer to the events surrounding Zerubbabel’s disappearance in the early second temple period. For Wöhrle, this composition was revised by the addition of two speeches involving portions of chapters 12 and 14 regarding the nations who will soon attack Jerusalem in similar locations so that the thematic flow repeats itself. This material first addresses the issues of prophets, leaders, and preparation for a siege by the nations. It then rejects the prophets and leaders, while depicting the consequences of the attack of the nations. Wöhrle sees the material in the first revision as a Fortschreibung that actualizes and concretizes the destruction of the shepherds in 11:4–17*. He suggests, rather tentatively, that this first revision could have occurred in the first half of the fifth century bce when there were numerous revolts that involved Judah and threatened Persia. It is not clear to me, however, how extensively these revolts involved Judah, since the vast majority of battles between the Persians and the Greeks centred in Asia Minor.47 In the third phase of its development according to Wöhrle, this independent collection receives a number of additions that share redactional interests with the redactional interests of what he has labelled the Fremdvölkerschicht I.48 For Wöhrle these additions are part of a comprehensive redaction that changes Zechariah 9–14 into a writing that is shaped by the final overthrow of the hostile nations and should be dated to the end of the fifth century. These revisions, according to Wöhrle, change the focus of the internal condemnation into condemnation of the nations. Following a brief insertion of Davidic promise material in 9:9–10, a number of texts are added to Zechariah 9–14 that belong to the redactional layer of the Twelve which Wöhrle labels Fremdvölkerschicht II.49 Wöhrle distinguishes Fremdvölkerschicht I from II based on the focus of Yhwh’s judgment. 47  Wöhrle merely references Donner for support on this point. See Wöhrle, Abschluss, 133; Donner, Königszeit, 432. 48  These texts include 9:1aβ–b, 14–16; 10:3b–5, 11; 12*; and 14*. 49  Wöhrle includes the following texts in this layer: 9:2–6, 8, 11–13; 10:6–10, 12; and 14:4, 6–10, 11.

84

Nogalski

In contrast to Fremdvölkerschicht I, the texts in Fremdvölkerschicht II do not focus upon the “nations” as a whole, but target their sayings against specific nations (including the Phoenicians, Philistines, and Greeks in Zechariah 9). The texts from II focus upon the return of the people from prison, and utilize utopian images that involve the future change of nature itself. For Wöhrle, only with Fremdvölkerschicht I in the late Persian period can one clearly speak of texts directly related to the Book of the Twelve for Zechariah 9–14.50 The Fremdvölkerschicht II layer, by contrast, should be dated to the early Hellenistic period. Wöhrle considers Zech 14:16–19 a later comment to articulate a positive attitude that allows for the nations who survive the day of Yhwh to celebrate the festival of booths.51 In addition, he mentions a few isolated additions that he classifies as glosses from individual readers that are unconnected to other redactional layers in Zechariah 9–14. Wöhrle makes several significant contributions to the discussion of Zechariah 9–14. First, his diachronic approach seeks to do justice to the diverse thematic material that appears in these chapters in ways that some of the other models ignore. Second, his distinction between material that challenges all the nations from material that challenges specific nations needs to be heard. Both are present in Zechariah 9–14 and need some explanation. Third, Wöhrle’s recognition of the sequential recurrence of a focus upon prophets, leaders, and foreign nations points to a thematic flow within these chapters that is seldom recognized. Fourth, Wöhrle’s diachronic model places much of chapter 9 within the later portions of Zechariah 9–14, and his dating of this material to the early Hellenistic period aligns him well with Elliger and Tai. Nevertheless, at least three factors make it difficult to adopt his model systematically. First, his literary critical knife strikes me as being unnecessarily sharp, even when I appreciate his keen eye for changes in nuance. I often find myself thinking he defaults too quickly to the idea that changes in perspective must require changes in authorship. I often see other structural clues in the text that could account for larger stretches of material as more homogenous than he does. Wöhrle’s model often ends up connecting verses to one another that are separated by large chunks of text without what I find to be convincing criteria, as for example why 12:1a would have originally introduced 13:2 in the foundational layer. Second, and in a certain sense consequently, Wöhrle’s model for Zechariah 9–14, as is frequently the case with his evaluations elsewhere in 50  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 161–165. Wöhrle means sometime near the beginning of the fourth century. 51  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 137.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

85

the Twelve, often ends up with such a small foundational layer that it is hard to imagine why later scribes would have bothered to update that particular text with new material. Third, I take issue methodologically with Wöhrle’s consistent refusal to consider the question of intertextuality as part of the literary critical task. His insistence on separating these two tasks often accounts for specific differences in his redactional models and those of others working on the Twelve. I find Tai’s explanation of the shape of Zechariah 9–13 as depending upon tradition historical concepts and articulations from Jeremiah and Ezekiel a more compelling line of argumentation. Zechariah 9–14 (along with Joel and other passages in the prophetic corpus) has been increasingly recognized as “scribal prophecy” that had its roots in literary reflections for scribal consumption rather than prophetic oracles delivered verbally.52 Given the extent to which this model has become embedded in the conversation concerning Zechariah 9–14 and the Twelve, it seems appropriate methodologically that one considers concurrently the extent to which given texts rely upon other texts from the Hebrew Bible as one tries to assess the literary character of a given passage.53 5.5 Redditt Redditt conceptualizes Zechariah 9–14 largely as the work of a single redactor who has combined at least six blocks of material (four pre-existing collections and two redactional supplements or Fortschreibungen that comment upon existing text): (1) a future oriented composition hoping for a reconstitution of the Davidic empire in 9:1–10; (2) a pro-union section demonstrating great concern for the exiles of both kingdoms in 9:11–10:1 and 10:3b–12; (3) an antiunion Fortschreibung that uses shepherd imagery in 10:2–3b; 11:1–17; and 13:7–9; (4) a pro-Jerusalem collection in 12:1–4a, 5, 8–9; (5) a second Fortschreibung that downplays Jerusalem’s elevation over Judah and anticipates a purification of Jerusalem in 12:6–7 and 12:10–13:6; and (6) a pro-Jerusalem collection in 14:1–13, 14b–21 that anticipates an attack by the nations against Jerusalem that is more debilitating for Jerusalem’s inhabitants than the one depicted in chapter 12.54 Redditt’s work offers much to commend it as a workable model. Like Wöhrle, Redditt’s model accommodates the very divergent attitudes expressed 52  See n. 5 above. 53  See his rationale for keeping the literary critical task separate from and antecedent to any evaluation of quotes, allusions, etc. in Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 22–27. 54  Redditt articulates his ideas across two articles and his commentary: Redditt, “Israel’s Shepherds”; idem, “Two Shepherds”; Redditt, Haggai, 102–103.

86

Nogalski

in the core material. Unlike Wöhrle, however, Redditt approaches the literary form of the units with a less rigid tendency to equate nearly every change of perspective with a change of author. His units, therefore, tend to be longer, and he attributes such changes to the selection of pre-existing material and to the creative decisions of a scribal author/redactor. In other words, with the model of Wöhrle Zechariah 9–14 grows by fits and starts as numerous editorial hands react to texts in context. By contrast, Redditt’s compiler has a plan from the outset that involves pre-existing material combined with his own compositions to connect these blocks. 6

Concluding Reflections

What is less clear in Redditt’s model, however, is the question why? Why does this editor articulate so many different perspectives on key issues: the positive and negative attitudes toward the fate of Israel contrasted with Judah, the hope and condemnation related to the family of David, the fate of Judah in comparison to the fate of Jerusalem, and then of the nations on the day of Yhwh. To begin to answer these questions I would return to the emphases found in Schart and Tai. Schart and Tai emphasize the extent to which Zechariah 9–13 creatively build upon traditions in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Schart and Tai both treat Zechariah 14 as a separate collection and, for Schart, chapter 14 offers the connecting links to the day of Yhwh theme of Joel 4 and the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion theme from Micah 4–5. Moreover, Schart also recognizes in passing the work of Bosshard and Steck who have documented the extent to which Zechariah 14 draws upon texts in Isaiah, most concretely chapters 66 and 2.55 This last point has largely gone unnoticed in the context of discussion of Zechariah 9–14. Zechariah 9–14 does not just dialogue with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Rather, these chapters draw in rather significant ways from all three of the other prophetic scrolls. Perhaps it is time that we consider Zechariah 9–14 as an extended, composite composition whose purpose is to reflect upon the message of the prophetic scrolls as a group for an early Hellenistic audience. This composition would have been cognizant of its position in the Twelve at or near the end of the scroll. As such, these chapters can (and I am to the point where I would probably say should) be viewed as a complex composition whose purpose in part was to re-evaluate selected themes from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah for 55  Schart, Entstehung, 277.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

87

a context in the Twelve where the reader can pause to consider these themes in the aftermath of the rebuilding of the temple for a Hellenistic audience. To add one final piece of evidence, it strikes me as relevant to recall an argument that I made a number of years ago regarding the redactional and transitional nature of Zech 13:7–9.56 Debates have surrounded this passage for years, with many scholars arguing that 13:7–9 represents the original ending to the shepherd allegory of 11:4–17.57 Recently, however, quite a number of scholars have demonstrated compellingly that while 13:7–9 alludes back to 11:4–17, it is much harder to sustain an argument that 13:7–9 represents the original ending to that passage.58 Further, a number of scholars have argued that its primary reference point relates better to the message of 13:2–6, and still other scholars see 13:7–9 as an introduction that anticipates the focus in Zechariah 14 on the coming day of Yhwh.59 Thus, credible scholarly arguments have been put forward that 13:7–9 inherently belongs to three different tradition blocks in chapters 11–14. Most of these arguments have been made in the context of an either/or choice, but I argue that these binary choices are unnecessary if one conceptualizes 13:7–9 as a redactional and transitional piece connecting these larger tradition blocks on the part of the author, essentially concurring with Redditt’s model.60 In my opinion, this reflective function also helps to explain the presence of not one, but two specific allusions to 13:9. Not coincidentally in my opinion, this text effectively cites from Mal 3:1–3 and Hos 2:25. To me, it is hardly coincidental that the source of these allusions comes from the first and last book within the Twelve. While a few scholars have noted the reference to Hos 2:25, most have ignored the connection to Malachi 3, or dismissed it as merely a literary trope. Consequently, specific themes from Jeremiah and Ezekiel noted by Tai serve as the launching pad for thinking about those issues for a later audience, while Zech 13:7–9 links those themes with the end and the beginning of the Twelve. This text also introduces Zechariah 14 which reflects upon concepts associated with the day of Yhwh at the end and beginning of Isaiah. The remarkable interplay of Zechariah 9–14 with themes, motifs, and vocabulary from all four prophetic scrolls suggests a conscious bringing together of the message of these four “books” in ways that deserve further investigation.

56  Nogalski, “Zechariah 13:7–9,” 292–304. 57  For a recent discussion, see Boda, Zechariah, 734–735. 58  Nogalski, “Zechariah 13:7–9,” 295–301. 59  Nogalski, “Zechariah 13:7–9,” 301–302. 60  Nogalski, “Zechariah 13:7–9,” 302–304.

88

Nogalski

Finally, in my opinion, this interaction with the scrolls of the Latter Prophets should not limit itself to Zechariah 9–14. This interplay sheds new light on the significance of the concluding passage of Malachi as well (3:22–24). This Malachi passage has gained a large following in recent years as a late appendix to Malachi that contains significant allusions to Joshua 1 and mentions the Torah of Moses. In other words, the last verses of Malachi allude back to the beginning of Joshua (the opening scroll of the Former Prophets) and connect the Torah of Moses with expectations of the prophet Elijah whose story dominates 1–2 Kings, the end of the Former Prophets. When seen in this light, Zechariah 9–14 and Mal 3:22–24 appear to be work conjointly to evoke the entire Torah and Nevi’im. While the term canon remains anachronistic, the deliberate linking of the Latter Prophets to one another in Zechariah 9–14 and the linking of the end of the Twelve with the Torah and the Former Prophets does suggest that we are dealing with a conscious recognition that the Torah and the Prophets constitute an authoritative and recognizable body of literature for the scribes who compiled the latter segments of the Book of the Twelve. Bibliography Bennett, Bob and Roberts, Mike. Commanders and Campaigns. Vol. 1 of The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323–281 BC. Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2008. Bergler, Siegfried. Joel als Schriftinterpret. BEATAJ 16. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. Donner, Herbert. Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen. Vol. 2 of Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. GAT 4,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974. Elliger, Karl. “Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 332 v. Chr.: Eine territoralgeschichtliche Studie zu Sach 9,1–8.” ZAW 62 (1949): 63–115. Frevel, Christian. Geschichte Israels. Studienbücher Theologie 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975. Hill, Andrew E. Malachi. AB 25D. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1998. Lange, Armin. Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition: Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte innerprophetischer Konflikte in der hebräischen Bibel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pages 171–186 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

The Completion of the Book of the Twelve

89

Jerome. “Incipit Prologus Duodecim Prophetarum.” Page 1374 in Biblica Sacra Vulgata. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Knoppers, Gary N. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of their Early Relations. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Zechariah 13:7–9 as a Transitional Text: An Appreciation and Re-evaluation of the Work of Rex Mason.” Pages 292–304 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Nogalski, James D. “How Does Malachi’s ‘Book of Remembrance’ Function for the Cultic Elite?” Pages 199–222 in Priests and Cult in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Pierce, Ronald. “Literary Connectors and a Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi Corpus.” JETS 27,3 (1984): 277–289. Pierce, Ronald. “A Thematic Development of the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi Corpus.” JETS 27,4 (1984): 401–411. Redditt, Paul L. “Israel’s Shepherds: Hope and Pessimism in Zechariah 9–14.” CBQ 51 (1989): 631–642. Redditt, Paul L. “The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4–17.” CBQ 55 (1993): 676–686. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. NCB. London: Harper Collins, 1995. Redditt, Paul L. Review of Prophetie als Schriftauslegung in Sacharja 9–14: Traditionsund kompositionsgeschichtliche Studien, by Nicholas Ho Fai Tai. RBL (1998). Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Stade, Bernhard. “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie.” ZAW 1 (1881): 1–96; and ZAW 2 (1882): 151–172, 275–309. Steck, Odil H. Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Biblisch-theologische Studien 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Tai, Nicholas H.F. Prophetie als Schriftauslegung in Sacharja 9–14: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Studien. Calwer Theologische Monographien 17. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1996. Utzschneider, Helmut. Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der Schrift­ prophetie auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6–2,9. BEATAJ 19. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwolfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktions­ prozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008.

Chapter 4

A Prophetic Anthology Rather than a Book of the Twelve Tchavdar S. Hadjiev 1

The Nature of the Unity of the Twelve

Over the last twenty years, or so, there has been an explosion of studies on the “Book of the Twelve.” All of them presuppose that the Twelve somehow constitute a unified literary work. The nature of that unity, however, is not simple and straightforward, and has been conceived in different ways. Petersen rejects the term “book” with reference to the Minor Prophets, and prefers to speak of a “thematized anthology.”1 Beck has sought to clarify the concept by comparing the Twelve with early Greek anthologies. Such a collection presupposes previously independent texts brought together and ordered according to certain principles. As an anthology, the Twelve possess a double character. On the one hand, they can be read as a single composition; on the other hand, they can be approached as discrete, independent works.2 Guillaume suggests that the anthology was compiled in Alexandria at the time of the translation of the Minor Prophets into Greek.3 Others argue that the Twelve developed right from the start as a single literary work.4 Coggins finds it “quite difficult to imagine that twelve separate scrolls, each maintaining an independent existence, were in place as a necessary preliminary stage in the gathering together of the scroll of the Twelve,” and speculates that the superscriptions, which identify the individual prophetic figures, might be the result of later developments.5 In general, scholars are prepared to recognize the existence of various “literary precursors” to the Twelve, to use Nogalski’s phrase, but these are still regarded as sources contributing to the growth of a single composition which needs to be considered in its totality in order to be properly understood. 1  Petersen, “Book,” 10. 2  Beck, “Dodekapropheton,” 558–581; idem, Tag, 318–323; cf. Sweeney, “Concerns,” 32. 3  Guillaume, “Reconsideration,” 10–12. 4  Nogalski, Precursors; idem, Processes; Schart, Entstehung; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen; Wöhrle, Sammlungen; idem, Abschluss. 5  Coggins, “Prophets,” 63.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_006

A Prophetic Anthology

91

The picture looks different if one chooses to view the Minor Prophets through literary or canonical spectacles. According to House, “centuries ago the ancient community of faith joined these works and thereafter considered them one work. This canonical action merits analysis. It must also be noted that the existence of the book in its final form warrants literary analysis.”6 On this basis, House proceeds to analyze the Twelve as a book with its own genre (written prophecy), tripartite structure (sin—punishment—restoration), and U-shaped comic plot.7 Conrad, more recently, argues for a “reader oriented position from which the formation of the prophetic books is viewed from the perspective of the text’s reception.”8 The Twelve are to be seen as a canonical composition and their meaning emerges from the reader’s interaction with the canonical text, quite apart from any intentionality, which may or may not have been a factor in the work of the various editors responsible for the production of the texts.9 This study will focus on the historical question whether the Twelve were intended to be read as a single literary composition by the people responsible for their creation. Such a position has major interpretative consequences for historically oriented exegesis. An affirmative answer implies that the individual prophetic books cannot legitimately be read in isolation. They need to be seen in the light of the whole, and their themes, motifs, imagery, and teaching should be related to all the other Minor Prophets in order to be properly understood.10 The hermeneutical stakes are quite high. 2

External Evidence for the Unity of the Twelve

It is widely held that the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Minor Prophets, dating from mid-second century bce to the first century ce, demonstrate that already at that time the Twelve were written on a single scroll and presumably regarded as somehow comprising a single work.11 Ben Sira 49:10 6  House, Unity, 69. 7  According to House, Unity, 114, 119–123, a “comic” plot is one where the main protagonist defeats all obstacles and rises victorious at the end. The plot of the Twelve, in his view, is comic because of its hopeful outlook: in the end salvation triumphs over sin and judgment. 8  Conrad, “Twelve,” 90. 9  Conrad, “Twelve,” 91, 93; Scoralick, “Case,” 36. 10  Redditt, “Production,” 33; Rendtorff, “Book,” 77–78. For specific examples, see Schart, “Section,” 139–147. 11  Fuller, “Form,” 86–101; idem, “Text,” 82–88; Watson, Paul, 81–87; Brooke, “Twelve,” 20–27.

92

Hadjiev

(190 bce) arguably reflects an early understanding of the Twelve as a collection with a unified message of salvation and hope.12 This unity is implied by Josephus’s claim that Jewish Scripture consists of twenty-two books, thirteen of which cover the time from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes (Against Apion I.8), and by the twenty-four books mentioned in 4 Ezra 14:45. The Lives of the Prophets places the Twelve together, after Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and before the prophets from Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. This evidence plays a crucial role in the discussion about the nature of the unity of the Twelve, and its importance can hardly be overestimated. In the absence of any explicit indicators that the Twelve ought to be read together, it provides justification to investigate the literary and theological links between the Minor Prophets with the presupposition that the corpus forms a unity.13 Schart puts it this way: “One should … start with the assumption that the Book of the Twelve is a unit; the assumption should only be relinquished if the opposite can be demonstrated.”14 If, however, this presupposition is discarded, there is less of a reason to maintain that the occasional verbal and thematic links between the prophetic books are intentional, rather than accidental (see below 4.3). There are two sets of problems with the external evidence for the unity of the Twelve. First, such evidence does not help us in any way resolve the issue about the precise nature of that unity. Ben Sira’s mention of the “Twelve” tells us that by the second century bce there were people who thought of the Minor Prophets as a single collection. It does not tell us whether that collection was the result of previous deliberate redactional work weaving the preexisting traditions into a new composition, or the result of a canonical decision which at some late stage brought together the originally independent prophetic books into an anthology-type collection. In other words, the fact that by the second and first century bce the Minor Prophets were regarded by some as constituting a unity does not answer the all important question whether their unity was primary, or whether it was secondarily imposed. If anything, recent studies tip the balance in favor of the second option, since Qumran manuscripts do not necessarily contain all twelve books on a single scroll. In some cases individual books or smaller collections were probably transmitted independently.15 The fluid order of the Twelve may be another indication that the books were brought together only after their completion (see below 4.1). 12  Jones, Formation, 8–9; Schart, Entstehung, 4. Contrast Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 130 n. 18. 13  Nogalski, Precursors, 2–3; Schart, Entstehung, 1–6; Shepherd, “Analysis,” 184. 14  Schart, “Reconstructing,” 36. 15  Guillaume, “Reconsideration,” 2–5; Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Malachi,” 734–735, 750. See also Brooke, “Twelve,” 33–34.

A Prophetic Anthology

93

Second, it is not at all clear that the decision to place the Twelve on a single scroll had any hermeneutical consequences for readers in the beginning of the Common Era. There is little evidence to suggest that the Twelve were read as a distinct, unified composition.16 As Barton has cogently argued, during that period belief in the divine character of prophetic oracles diverted attention away from their immediate literary context. The prophetic book “was not seen as a work with its own internal integrity, but as a more or less arbitrary length cut from a longer roll, the seamless fabric of the oracles of God.”17 At Qumran, prophetic oracles are treated by the sectarian commentators as “disembodied words of God,” whose meaning is to be sought in relation to the past, present and future of the sect.18 The New Testament exhibits a similar lack of concern for the boundaries and individuality of the books of the Minor Prophets.19 “The book of the prophets” mentioned in Acts 7:42 (quoting Amos 5:26), far from being a reference to the “book of the twelve prophets,” illustrates well the haziness with which the prophetic corpus as a whole is regarded. Since the chief characteristic of the prophetic word is its divine nature, oracles from different books can be freely combined and interpreted in light of each other. In Acts 15:16–18, “the words of the prophets,” which presumably come from the “book of the prophets” of Acts 7:42, consist of another quotation from Amos (9:11–12), framed with phrases from Jer 12:15 (LXX) and Isa 45:21. In CD VII:14–20, the same two passages from Amos (5:26–27 and 9:11) are linked together and interpreted with the help of Num 24:17, whilst 4QFlor (4Q174) connects Amos 9:11 with 2 Sam 7:11–14. Whenever the prophetic books were considered as parts of a larger whole, that whole was not just the Book of the Twelve, but the prophetic corpus as a whole, and even the whole of Scripture. 3

Isaiah and the Twelve

Another argument put forward for the unity of the Twelve is their putative similarity to the book of Isaiah.20 Both are post-exilic works that incorporate oracles of doom and salvation from various historical periods, and both

16  Watson, Paul, 87–88; Ham, “Prophets,” 56. Contrast Shepherd, Twelve, 11, 49, passim, and Brooke, “Twelve,” 36–42, who concludes (p. 42): “there seems to have been a coherent and integrated reading strategy for the Twelve” at Qumran. However, see the criticism of Vielhauer, “Hosea,” 70 n. 70. 17  Barton, Oracles, 150; see also Jones, Formation, 9–10. 18   Leonhardt-Balzer, “Prophets,” 25. 19  Utzschneider, “Bones,” 282, 291. 20  Collins, Mantle, 65; Coggins, “Prophets,” 64–66.

94

Hadjiev

structure their material chronologically.21 The first major section is dedicated to the Assyrian period (Isa 6–39 // Hosea–Zephaniah); the second major section is dedicated to the Persian (Isa 40–66 // Haggai–Malachi).22 The books of Obadiah, Nahum, and Jonah, together with Joel 4; Amos 1–2, and Zeph 2, are oracles against the nations (OAN) that function in the same way as Isa 13–23.23 Bosshard-Nepustil has argued in detail that the redactions of the Twelve were influenced by the book of Isaiah, with Joel, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah inserted and edited to correspond to Isa 13; 21:1–10, and 22:1–14 respectively.24 The chronological breadth and order of the material provides a clear parallel between the two collections, but it is difficult to gauge the extent to which this is indicative of intentional editorial design. As far as the Twelve are concerned, this might just be the most commonsense approach according to which the collectors of the anthology chose to order the available books (see 4.1 below). At the same time, there are at least two major differences between Isaiah and the Twelve that are suggestive of the different nature of the two works. The first has to do with the way in which the OAN are treated. In Isaiah, and in the other two Major Prophets, the OAN are grouped together and usually positioned in the middle. Even when they are moved from the middle (Jer LXX) to the end of the book (Jer MT), the unity of the block is not compromised. This situation differs markedly from the Twelve where the OAN are scattered throughout the anthology, sometimes as independent books (Obadiah, Nahum), and sometimes only as (integral) parts of individual books (Amos 1–2; Zeph 2). A second, even more important, difference relates to the fact that all the material in the book of Isaiah is attributed to a single prophet. Even though Isaiah contains a number of superscriptions, they all either explicitly mention the prophet (Isa 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; cf. Hab 1:1; 3:1), or assume that Isaiah is the recipient of the revelation (Isa 6:1; 14:28; 15:1 etc.). The consistently preserved anonymity of the authors/redactors who stand behind chs. 40–66 (and significant amounts of material in chs. 1–39 as well) invites the reader to regard the whole of Isaiah as coming from the prophet identified in the superscriptions and the stories (chs. 7–8; 36–39), even though he is not explicitly mentioned beyond chapter 39. By contrast, the superscriptions of the Minor Prophets attribute the oracles to twelve different individuals from different historical periods. This creates an initial impression that we are faced with separate literary works, and on the surface of the text there is nothing to contradict explicitly 21   Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 7–8. 22  Conrad, “Isaiah,” 6–8; LeCureux, Unity, 43–52. 23  Collins, Mantle, 73. 24   Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 337–359, 393–407, passim.

A Prophetic Anthology

95

this impression.25 One has to wonder why the redactors of the Twelve resorted to all sorts of (sometimes difficult to detect) complex redactional interventions, instead of inserting at the very beginning of the collection something like: “the word of the Lord which came to his servants the twelve prophets, who prophesied concerning Israel and Judah.” The figure of Isaiah brings cohesion to a book which contains much diverse material. The figures of the twelve prophets serve the opposite end as they strengthen the impression of disunity. 4

Internal Coherence and the Unity of the Twelve

4.1 An Overall Structure? As Schart rightly points out, the unity of the Twelve is suggested by the number of books included in the collection. “Twelve” symbolizes completeness, corresponds to the traditional number of the tribes of Israel, and testifies to a degree of intentionality on the part of the scribes who brought the Minor Prophets together.26 However, beyond this precise number, little else indicates the presence of intentional design. There is, for example, no discernable structural pattern that unifies the material. House’s tripartite structure, mentioned above, is arbitrarily imposed upon the text, and has won little approval.27 The absence of structure is underscored by the fluidity of the order in the first half of the collection where the MT arrangement (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah) differs from the LXX (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah).28 As Barton has sought to demonstrate, in the early stages of the formation of the canon the order books were placed in had no interpretative significance and was most likely due to chance.29 The same is probably true also for the arrangement of the Twelve. This theory explains why their order was not firmly fixed in the early period. The differing sequences imply that the Minor Prophets were seen as discrete, independent compositions.30 The only discernable principle of their organization is the desire to arrange 25  Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 137, 151–153; idem, “Hypothesis,” 72–77; Cuffey, “Remnant,” 200–202; Hadjiev, Composition, 8–9; Vielhauer, “Hosea,” 55–56. 26  Schart, Entstehung, 5–6. 27  Nogalski, Precursors, 10–12; Schart, “Reconstructing,” 38–39. 28  Nogalski, Precursors, 2; Schart, “Reconstructing,” 37–38; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 448–449, believe that the MT order is primary. Sweeney, “Sequence,” 56–64; idem, “Place,” 152– 154, has argued the LXX represents a more logical, earlier arrangement (see also Jones, Formation, 191–229). On the possible Malachi–Jonah sequence in 4Q76 see Fuller, “Text,” 83–84; Guillaume, “Malachi-Jonah”; Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Malachi,” 736–749. 29  Barton, Oracles, 82–91. 30  Sweeney, “Concerns,” 31–32.

96

Hadjiev

scripts in broadly chronological sequence. The books whose place in the collection varies (Joel and Obadiah) are the books that do not contain any information on dating in their superscriptions and hence their various positions do not disturb the chronological order.31 This fluid order governed by chronological principles is what one would expect from an anthology, with preexisting texts placed alongside each other. Sometimes scholars have looked at the beginning and end of the anthology in the hope of discerning how the final editors may have tried to tie their work together.32 Collins suggests that the beginning and the end are connected by their use of marital metaphors (Hos 2:16–22; Mal 2:13–16).33 Watts further notes the important role that the motif of Yhwh’s love (‫ )אהב‬for Israel (Hos 3:1; 9:15; 11:1, 4; 14:5 and Mal 1:2) plays.34 Bowman and LeCureux stress the prominence of the idea of “return” in Hosea/Joel and Zechariah/Malachi.35 The beginning and the end of the Twelve, however, are so different that the connections can only be coincidental. In Hosea, Yhwh’s love for Israel is expressed in the restoration of his relationship with his people and requires in response the abandonment of all other “lovers.” In Malachi, Yhwh’s love is demonstrated in the destruction of Esau, and demands appropriate dedication to the temple cult. Hosea uses the concept of marriage metaphorically to describe Israel’s relationship to Yhwh, Malachi speaks of literal marriage and divorce.36 Hosea’s metaphor of Israel as the unfaithful wife and Yhwh as a cheated husband, although prevalent in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, is not picked up anywhere else in the Twelve. In fact, Hosea is so different to the rest of the Minor Prophets that it functions neither as an introduction to the Twelve, nor as part of a frame of the Twelve.37 A synchronic reading that assumes the unity of the anthology will be able to capitalize on some recurring themes and motifs at the beginning and the end of the collection, but they are not strong enough to prove intentional editorial design. 31  Jonah is a special case. It does not fit so neatly in a chronological scheme, but does not radically disrupt it either. 32  For an attempt to situate historically these editors see Leuchter, “Look,” 249–265. 33  Collins, Mantle, 66, 81. 34  Watts, “Frame,” 209–217. 35  Bowman, “Twelve,” 54–59; LeCureux, Unity, 22–23, passim. 36  Admittedly this is disputed and the passage is quite difficult, but see Hugenberger, Marriage, 27–47. 37  The problems Hosea’s distinctiveness creates for any “Book of the Twelve” hypothesis are implicitly acknowledged by Wöhrle’s ingenious idea that Hosea was separated from the corpus early on and integrated back only at the very end of the process; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 450–453; idem, Abschluss, 429–437. See also Vielhauer, “Hosea.”

A Prophetic Anthology

97

4.2 A Unifying Theme? The “day of Yhwh” is often seen as one of the most characteristic themes of the Book of the Twelve,38 and it may potentially serve to unify it. The phrase ‫יום‬ ‫ יהוה‬is attested sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible, thirteen of which are found in the Minor Prophets (Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18(2×), 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14 (2×); Mal 3:23; the other three are Isa 13:6, 9 and Ezek 13:5). A number of those passages exhibit verbal similarities that may be suggestive of some literary connections and common editorial strategy (“day of darkness and gloom, day of clouds and thick darkness” Zeph 1:15; Joel 2:2; “the day of the Lord is near” Joel 1:15, 2:1, 4:14; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; “the great and terrible day of the Lord” Joel 3:4; Mal 3:23; cf. Joel 2:11). There are also few variations of the phrase that can quite legitimately be included as “day of Yhwh” texts (Zeph 1:8, 18; 2:2, 3; Zech 14:1).39 However, whilst the “day of Yhwh” plays a very important role in some books (notably Joel and Zephaniah), it does not feature at all in others (Hosea, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai),40 and so is not pervasive enough to tie the corpus together. Nogalski seeks to mitigate this problem by arguing that the “day of Yhwh” theme should not be confined only to texts where the precise phrase occurs. All passages that use the word “day” and refer to some form of divine intervention in the past or in the future, to bless or to punish, either his people or the nations, should be recognized as “day of Yhwh” texts.41 Whilst this suggestion allows Nogalski to include a lot more material from the Twelve in his discussion, this is done at the cost of sacrificing the characteristic specificity of the chosen theme. All prophetic books at one point or another talk about Yhwh’s intervention to punish or to bless his chosen people and their enemies in the past or in the future. To define the “day of Yhwh” theme so broadly is to render it useless as a unifying thread, and even then there are still pockets that remain out of its reach. There are still no “day of Yhwh” texts in the book of Jonah. Many of the “day” phrases in the Twelve do not give any indication as to having been originally intended to point to the “day of Yhwh” concept. For example, the “day of distress” in Nah 1:7 (also Hab 3:16) could be read as a reference to the “day of Yhwh,” if one decides to interpret it in the light of Obad 12, 14 and Zeph 1:15. However, taken on its own and in its immediate 38  Rendtorff, “Book,” 75–87; Petersen, “Book,” 9–10; Schart, Entstehung, 279–282. 39  For details see Beck, Tag, 43–44. 40  See the helpful table in Beck, Tag, 44–45. 41  Nogalski, “Day(s),” 193–199; see already Rendtorff, “Book,” 86, and the criticism of Beck, Tag, 27–28.

98

Hadjiev

literary context in the book of Nahum the “day of distress” simply means a “time of trouble.” In Nahum it refers to the “day of Yhwh” no more than the same phrase does in Ps 20:2; 50:15; Jer 16:9. If a prior decision is taken to read the Twelve as a single whole, an added meaning may be perceived in this and other mentions of various “days” that originally had nothing to do with the “day of Yhwh.” Such a synchronic interpretative strategy can produce new, stimulating readings, but it tells us nothing about the origins of the corpus and the intentions of its editors.42 4.3 Coherence of Style? Investigation of recurring features of style that serve to connect the various prophetic books has been at the forefront of efforts to demonstrate the coherence and unity of the Book of the Twelve. Critics have argued that catchwords and redactional insertions link the Minor Prophets, and invite the reader to interpret the individual books in conjunction with one another.43 A good place to test such claims is the book of Joel, since according to many Joel was especially composed for its current literary position between Amos and Hosea,44 and played an important role in the development of the Twelve. Nogalski links the very creation of the Book of the Twelve with a “Joel-related layer” that incorporated the various literary precursors into a single work.45 Schart postulates a Joel-Obadja-Korpus which comes at a relatively late stage.46 Bosshard-Nepustil proposes an exilic redactional layer, influenced by his Assur/Babel redaction of Isaiah, in which Joel, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah were inserted together.47 Wöhrle argues that Joel displaced Hosea at the beginning of the Four-prophets book and then played an important role in subsequent redactions.48 However, the suggestion that Joel was somehow written with the Book of the Twelve in mind is not very convincing. Joel’s language possesses a distinctiveness that is most easily explained by postulating independent evolution of the scroll. Its style is marked by characteristic expressions like: “grain offering and drink offering” (‫( )מנחה ונסך‬1:9, 13; 2:14; the only time ‫ נסך‬is used in the Twelve); “ministers (‫ )מׁשרתי‬of Yhwh/the altar/my God” (1:9, 13; 2:17; the only

42  Beck, Tag, 69. 43  Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 103. 44  Schneider, Unity, 80–89; Nogalski, “Joel,” 94–109; Seitz, Joel, 39, 55–57. 45  Nogalski, Processes, 275–278. 46  Schart, Entstehung, 261–282. 47   Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 283–297, 337–359. 48  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 436–453.

A Prophetic Anthology

99

time ‫ ׁשרת‬is used in the Twelve);49 the unusual use of the verb “to cut” (‫)כרת‬ with objects like “wine” (1:5), “offerings” (1:9), and “food” (1:16) to express the idea of famine and depravation; ‫( נאות (ה)מדבר‬1:19, 20; 2:22);50 “herds of cattle” (‫( )עדרי בקר‬1:18); “watercourses of” (‫( )אפיקי‬1:20; 4:18). It is striking that Joel does not habitually allude to the imagery and the vocabulary that are characteristic of the rest of the Minor Prophets in places where this would have been particularly useful. The call to lamentation and the fertility theme in Joel 1–2 provide ample opportunity to establish strong connections with Hosea and Amos where similar motifs occur (see Hos 2; 14; Amos 4–5), yet there is no concerted effort on Joel’s part to do so.51 In fact Joel often goes for terminology that is different to the one found in Hosea and Amos, demonstrating his independence from them. Instead of using the long and very distinctive list “my bread and water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (‫( )לחמי ומימי צמרי ופׁשתי ׁשמני וׁשקויי‬Hos 2:7),52 he talks of the “wheat (‫ )חטה‬and the barley (‫( ”)ׂשערה‬Joel 1:11, only here in the Twelve). He never mentions “gardens” (‫( )גנות‬Amos 4:9) and the “olive tree” (‫( )זית‬Hos 14:7; Amos 4:9), but includes the “date palm (‫ )תמר‬and the apple/apricot (‫( ”)תפוח‬Joel 1:12, only here in the Twelve). To describe hunger, instead of Amos’s unusual phrase “cleanness of teeth” (‫( )נקיון ׁשנים‬4:6), Joel makes an equally unusual use of ‫כרת‬, mentioned above. Instead of Hosea’s “beasts of the field” (‫( )חית הׂשדה‬2:14; 2:20; 4:3; 13:8), Joel prefers “the animals of the field” (‫( )בהמות ׂשדה‬1:20; 2:22), only here in the Twelve; cf. “animals of the forest” (‫( )בהמות יער‬Mic 5:7). The extremely common verb “to turn” (‫ )ׁשוב‬unsurprisingly appears in all three books, although Joel gives it his own characteristic twist: “turn to me … with fast (‫)צום‬, and with weeping (‫)בכי‬, and with mourning (‫( ”)מספד‬2:12). However, other key terms for seeking Yhwh like ‫( דרׁש‬Hos 10:12; Amos 5:4–6, 14; Zeph 1:6) and ‫בקׁש‬ (Hos 3:5; 5:6, 15; 7:10; Amos 8:12; Zeph 1:6; 2:3; Zech 8:21–22; Mal 3:1) are missing from Joel. In their place he uses his own characteristic phraseology: “tear your hearts” (‫( )קרעו לבבכם‬Joel 2:13);53 “weep” (‫( )בכה‬Joel 1:5; 2:17); “consecrate a fast, call a solemn assembly” (‫( )קדׁשו צום קראו עצרה‬Joel 1:14; 2:15). The only 49  The closest parallels are: “ministers of our God” (Isa 61:6), “ministers of the sanctuary” (Ezek 45:4), and “ministers of the house” (Ezek 45:5; 46:24). The phrase “ministers of the altar” is unique to Joel. 50  The phrase is used in Ps 65:13 and Jer 9:9; 23:10 but not in the Twelve (see Hos 9:13; Amos 1:2; Zeph 2:6). 51  Contra Schart, Entstehung, 266; Nogalski, “Joel,” 95–98, 101–104. 52  In the Twelve, the rare ‫ שקויי‬appears only here, and the pair ‫ פשת‬and ‫ צמר‬only here and in Hos 2:11. 53  The attempt of Schart, “Section,” 142, to establish a connection with Hos 13:8 ignores the fact that the phrase has a completely different meaning in Hosea.

100

Hadjiev

other time “solemn assembly” (‫ )עצרה‬appears in the Twelve is Amos 5:21 where Yhwh declares he does not delight in such a thing, creating an irreconcilable tension with the call of Joel (if the two are meant to be read together, that is). The judgment of the nations in Joel 4 presents us with another field of unutilized opportunities. This text is often seen as a redactional composition that anticipates various other passages in the Twelve which address the theme of the foreign nations (like Amos 1–2; Obad; Zech 9, 14).54 Yet it is striking that whilst unmistakable thematic similarities between Joel and some of these passages exist, there are also considerable stylistic differences, as well as an overall distinctiveness to Joel 4, that preclude the possibility of Joel having been written with the rest of the Twelve in mind, although dependence on Obadiah is highly likely (on this see below). The unifying motif of Joel 4, the mysterious “valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 4:2, 12) // “valley of decision” (4:14) where the judgment of the nations takes place, does not prepare the reader in any meaningful way for what is to come in the rest of the anthology. The motif of the miraculous water flowing from the Jerusalem temple in Joel 4:18b reappears in Zech 14:8 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12), but the language is so completely different that there can be no question of any intended literary connection. An overall look at the specific nations reveals a curious picture. Whilst Tyre and Sidon (Joel 4:4) easily connect with Zech 9:2, the Sabeans (Joel 4:8) are not mentioned anywhere else in the collection. The Philistines are designated with the unusual ‫( גלילות פלׁשת‬Joel 4:4) instead of the more common ‫ פלׁשתים‬or the list of towns as it appears in Amos 1:6–8; Zeph 2:4; Zech 9:5–6. The coupling of Egypt and Edom in Joel 4:19 is surprising.55 The most likely explanation of this move is to be sought in Joel’s dual dependence on Exodus and Obadiah, in which case the combination of Egypt and Edom here is best seen as symbolic depiction of Yhwh’s (and Judah’s) enemies.56 This particular way of symbolizing the enemy nations does not anticipate anything else in the rest of the Twelve and suggests that Joel’s dependence on Obadiah is no less indicative of a desire to connect the two texts in a “Book of the Twelve,” than is his dependence on the exodus indicative of a desire to link Joel and Exodus into a single book. A detail that confirms this conclusion is the fact that Joel 4:19 “avoids” Obadiah’s favorite term “Esau” (used also in Mal 1:3–4), and Obadiah’s uniquely

54  Nogalski, Processes, 26–48; Schart, Entstehung, 270–277; Wöhrle, Abschluss, 264–279. 55  Scoralick, “Case,” 48–50, surveys various proposals and makes an interesting link with the devastation of Egypt and Edom in Zechariah 14 and Malachi 1, though this can hardly be the original reason for the mention of Egypt and Edom in Joel. 56  Sweeney, “Place,” 147.

A Prophetic Anthology

101

coined phrase “Mount Esau” (‫( )הר עׂשו‬Obad 8, 9, 19, 21), a perfectly missed opportunity to contribute to the creation of a characteristic “style of the Twelve.” Whilst rarely mentioned peoples like the Greeks (only in Zech 9:13) feature in Joel 4, Damascus (Amos 1:3–5; Zech 9:2), Moab and Ammon (Amos 1:13–2:3; Zeph 2:8–10), and most notably Assyria (Nahum, Jonah, Zeph 2:13–15), and Babylon (Mic 4:10; Hab 1:6; Zech 2:11; 6:10) are nowhere to be seen. Taken as a whole, Joel 4 is an extremely unsuitable introduction to the theme of the judgment of the nations as it unfolds in the Book of the Twelve. Joel’s distinctiveness needs to be taken seriously when we evaluate the numerous, indisputable literary allusions scattered throughout the text, like Joel 4:16a // Amos 1:2 and Joel 4:18a // Amos 9:13b, for example. Too often proponents of the “Book of the Twelve” hypothesis quickly jump to the conclusion that the mere presence of such allusions indicates an intention to lock Amos and Joel into a single composition. In my earlier work on Zephaniah, I argued that the redactors of Zephaniah were clearly influenced by the book of Amos, yet the nature of the literary dependence suggests there was no editorial effort to incorporate the two texts into a larger work.57 Vielhauer reaches a similar conclusion with regard to Hosea 1 and the visions of Amos.58 Joel, I submit, presents a comparable case. There are unmistakable and widely acknowledged links to other biblical books, but the function and hermeneutical significance of those links are often misunderstood. The mere presence of such connections is not an automatic invitation to read Joel as an integral part of the Book of the Twelve. One example will have to suffice. There is no question that in the description of the day of Yhwh as a “day of darkness and gloom, day of cloud and thick darkness” in Joel 2:2 and Zeph 1:15 are connected.59 Yet Joel’s depiction of the “day of Yhwh” draws on other texts as well, some of them outside the corpus of the Minor Prophets. Joel 1:15 (‫ )אהה ליום כי קרוב יום יהוה וכׁשד מׁשדי יבוא‬is a combination of Isa 13:6 (‫)כׁשד מׁשדי יבוא‬, Ezek 30:2 (‫)הה ליום‬, and the set phrase “for the day of Yhwh is near” (‫( )כי קרוב יום יהוה‬Isa 13:6; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 15; cf. Ezek 30:3). The detailed description of an advancing army (Joel 1:6; 2:1–9) culminating in the darkening of the sky (Joel 2:10; Isa 13:10), and the link between the day of Yhwh and lamentation (Isa 13:6: ‫)הילילו‬, brings Joel 1–2 and Isa 13 even closer together.60 There is no reason to privilege the connection between 57  Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” 328–335. 58  Vielhauer, “Hosea,” 68–69. 59  The direction of dependence is estimated differently: Zephaniah is dependent on Joel (Nogalski, Precursors, 194–195); Joel is dependent on Zephaniah (Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 437–438); both are part of the same redaction (Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 325–326). 60  Strazicich, Joel’s Use, 93, 102–110, 117–141.

102

Hadjiev

Joel and Zephaniah and estimate its significance differently from the significance of the Isaiah connection. By far the most economical hypothesis is that Joel combines material from Isa 13 and Zephaniah and perhaps even points the reader to these other prophetic texts, but does not demand that these be read as integral components of a single book.61 In other cases, Joel’s “links” to the rest of the Minor Prophets are simply due to coincidence, and carry no hermeneutical significance whatsoever. Sometimes we have common expressions used independently by different authors. For example, “grain (‫)דגן‬, wine (‫)תירוׁש‬, and oil (‫ ”)יצהר‬in Joel 1:10; 2:19 is hardly an intentional allusion back to Hos 2:10, 24 or a forward pointer to Hag 1:11.62 The phrase is just a widespread idiom.63 The same, contra Nogalski,64 is true of the repetition of “the vine (‫ )גפן‬and the fig tree (‫ ”)תאנה‬in Joel 1:7, 12; 2:22 and Hos 2:14.65 Nogalski objects to this kind of reasoning by pointing out that “some thematic lines of connections are created by combinations of relatively common words” (italics original), the motif of agricultural fertility being an obvious example, since agricultural terms are by definition common in ancient Israelite discourse.66 However, if Joel is indeed aiming to reflect and develop the theme of fertility from Hosea, it is inexplicable why he chooses to connect to the earlier prophetic work exclusively via these commonplace idioms and ignores Hosea’s distinctive language and imagery (see above). As I have argued elsewhere, an “overlap [of common vocabulary] needs to include a critical minimum of characteristic expressions and ideas and one needs to pay sufficient attention not just to similarities but also to the differences of the passages in question” in order to prove conscious attempt at literary connection.67 Even when we are not dealing with stock phrases, there are many cases where coincidence is still the most likely explanation for the recurrence of similar vocabulary or imagery. A case in point is Joel’s locust plague. There are only 61  A similar point with regard to Malachi has been made by Kessler, “Unity,” 227–234. See also the discussion on Isaiah and the Twelve in Schultz, “Ties,” 41–45. 62  Contra Nogalski, “Joel,” 102; Collins, Mantle, 67. 63  See Deut 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; Num 18:12; Jer 31:12; 2 Chr 31:5; 32:28; Neh 5:11; 10:40; 13:5, 12 and the shorter variant “grain (‫ )דגן‬and wine (‫”)תירוש‬: Gen 27:28, 37; Deut 33:28; Ps 4:8; 2 Kgs 18:32 // Isa 36:17; Isa 62:8; Hos 2:11; 7:14; 9:1–2; Zech 9:17. 64  Nogalski, “Joel,” 102–103. 65  The phrase appears in Num 20:5; Deut 8:8; 1 Kgs 5:5; 2 Kgs 18:31 // Isa 36:16; Ps 105:33; Cant 2:13; Isa 34:4; Jer 5:17; 8:13; Mic 4:4; Hab 3:17; Hag 2:19; Zech 3:10. 66  Nogalski, “Book,” 19. 67  Hadjiev, Composition, 33–34, 38–40 (quote on p. 40). See further Schultz, “Ties,” 32; Cuffey, “Remnant,” 203–208. In this respect the proposal of Wöhrle, “Cross-References,” 8, to introduce more rigorous controls for distinguishing conscious from unconscious literary allusions is welcome, but incomplete.

A Prophetic Anthology

103

three books in the Twelve where locusts imagery appears, and in all three cases it is juxtaposed with the motif of devouring fire (Joel 1:4–20; Amos 7:1–6 and Nah 3:15–16). The rare term ‫ גזם‬is used only in Amos 4:9 and Joel 1:4, 2:25. This is enough for Nogalski, Schart, and Wöhrle to suggest that the passages are redactionally connected, although they reconstruct the connection differently.68 However, when one takes a look at the passages as a whole, rather than simply focusing on the similarities, it becomes clear that the links are most likely coincidental. The word ‫ גזם‬is virtually the only connection between Amos 4:6– 11 and Joel 1:4–2:25 (see also the use of ‫ ׁשוב עד‬in both). The ‫ גזם‬eats different things in these texts, the drought is described in different ways (Joel 1:17–20; Amos 4:7), and the words for “fire” are different (cf. ‫ ׂשרפה‬in Amos 4:11). Even more peculiar is the link in Joel with Amos 7:1–6. The word for locust Amos used there is ‫גבי‬, a term that occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible, both times in the Twelve (Amos 7:1 and Nah 3:17; cf. Isa 33:4). Yet Joel does not appropriate this rare term. Instead, his list in 1:4 and 2:25 consists of ‫( גזם‬Amos 4:9), ‫ ארבה‬and ‫( ילק‬Nah 3:15–16), and surprisingly of the unexpected term ‫ חסיל‬which does not resurface anywhere else in the Twelve. If Joel was composed for its current literary context, the “substitution” of Amos’s (and Nahum’s) ‫ גבי‬with ‫ חסיל‬is very difficult to explain. Joel may be influenced by Amos 7:1–6 in his combination of fire and locusts imagery, but is not using the language of Amos’s visions and so it is not likely that he was composing his text as an introduction to Amos. One may choose to read Amos in the light of Joel, but this is the decision of a later reading community, not the invitation of the author(s) of Joel. 5

Conclusion: How Should We Then Read the Twelve?

The “Book of the Twelve” was not rediscovered but (re)invented by modern scholarship. There is every reason to believe that the Minor Prophets evolved at first independently, and were placed together in an anthology-type collection only at a late stage of the canonical process. The claim that the individual prophetic books cannot be properly understood on their own, and need always to be read in the light of the larger whole (i.e. the Twelve), must therefore be rejected. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a modern reader from interpreting the anthology as a unit and generating new meanings by placing the various prophetic scripts alongside each other in creative ways. However, such a reading strategy is a synchronic enterprise that depends on the decision of 68  Nogalski, Processes, 23, 120–121, 124–127; Schart, Entstehung, 261–262, 274; Wöhrle, Abschluss, 146, 154–155.

104

Hadjiev

later interpreters, and is not demanded as such by the nature of the text. It should not be confused with diachronic arguments, or related to the process of the composition of the Twelve. Originally the Minor Prophets were intended to be read not as a collection but as self-contained works. To continue to read them in such a manner is still a legitimate exercise. Bibliography Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986. Beck, Martin. Der Tag “YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Beck, Martin. “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie.” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–581. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’? A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Festschrift John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Is the Twelve Hypothesis Likely from an Ancient Reader’s Perspective?” Pages 47–96 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Bosshard-Nepustil, E. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuch­ ungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Bowman, Craig. “Reading the Twelve as One: Hosea 1–3 as an Introduction to the Book of the Twelve (The Minor Prophets).” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (2006): 41–59. Brooke, George J. “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 19–43 in Congress Volume Leiden 2004. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Coggins, Richard J. “The Minor Prophets—One Book or Twelve?” Pages 57–68 in Crossing the Boundaries: Festschrift M.D. Goulder. Edited by E. Porter et al. BibInt 8. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Coggins, Richard J. Joel and Amos. NCB. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Collins, Terence. The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. BibSem 20. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Conrad, Edgar W. “Reading Isaiah and the Twelve as Prophetic Books.” Pages 3–17 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

A Prophetic Anthology

105

Conrad, Edgar W. “Forming the Twelve and Forming Canon.” Pages 90–103 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Cuffey, Kenneth H. “Remnant, Redactor, and Biblical Theologian: A Comparative Study of Coherence in Micah and the Twelve.” Pages 185–208 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Fuller, Russell. “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence from the Judean Desert.” Pages 86–101 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Fuller, Russell. “The Text of the Twelve Minor Prophets.” CurBs 7 (1999): 81–95. Guillaume, Philippe. “A Reconsideration of Manuscripts Classified as Scrolls of the Twelve Minor Prophets (XII).” JHebS 7 (2007). Guillaume, Philippe. “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa).” JHebS 7 (2007). Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos. BZAW 393. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2009. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis.” Pages 325– 338 in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 531. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Ham, Clay A. “The Minor Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 39–56 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2009. House, Paul R. The Unity of the Twelve. JSOTSup 97. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Jones, Barry A. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Kessler, Rainer. “The Unity of Malachi and Its Relation to the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 223–236 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. LeCureux, Jason T. The Thematic Unity of the Book of the Twelve. Hebrew Bible Monographs 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “The Minor Prophets in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 7–25 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2009. Leuchter, Mark. “Another Look at the Hosea/Malachi Framework in the Twelve.” VT 64 (2014): 249–265.

106

Hadjiev

Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” Pages 102–124 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Festschrift John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Nogalski, James D. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Nogalski, James D. “The Day(s) of Yhwh in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 192–213 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Nogalski, James D. “One Book and Twelve Books: The Nature of the Redactional Work and the Implications of Cultic Source Material in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 11–46 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009. Pajunen, Mika S. and von Weissenberg, Hanne. “The Book of Malachi, 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve.’” JBL 134 (2015): 731–751. Petersen, David L. “A Book of the Twelve?” Pages 3–10 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Redditt, Paul L. “The Production and Reading of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 11–33 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Rendtorff, Rolf. “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” Pages 75–87 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets: Problems and Models.” Pages 34–48 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Schart, Aaron. “The First Section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets: Hosea—Joel— Amos.” Int 61 (2007): 138–152. Schneider, Dale A. The Unity of the Book of the Twelve. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Yale University, 1979.

A Prophetic Anthology

107

Schultz, Richard L. “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 27–45 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Scoralick, Ruth. “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 35–52 in Pers­ pectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Seitz, Christopher R. Joel. ITC. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Shepherd, Michael B. “Compositional Analysis of the Twelve.” ZAW 120 (2008): 184–193. Shepherd, Michael B. The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament. StBibLit 140. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2011. Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel. BibInt 82. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2007. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 133–154 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Utzschneider, Helmut. “Flourishing Bones: The Minor Prophets in the New Testament.” Pages 273–292 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2006. Vielhauer, Roman. “Hosea in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 55–75 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2004. Watts, John D.W. “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi.” Pages 209–217 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006.

108

Hadjiev

Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktions­ prozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis.” Pages 3–20 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012.

Part 2 Issues in Interpretation

∵

Chapter 5

Hosea in the Book of the Twelve Jörg Jeremias “Yhwh’s speaking started with Hosea.” Though this translation of Hos 1:2a is not the only possible and not even the most likely one, those reading the Hebrew text would have heard this meaning of Hosea’s introductory sentence, too. It may be that later readers of the Book of the Twelve even heard it prior to the other meanings. At least some modern commentaries have favoured it, following Ferdinand Hitzig’s 1838 commentary on the Twelve as the most prominent representative.1 1

Hosea and Amos

1.1 Two Different Prophets In any case, it is by no means fortuitous that the book of Hosea takes the front rank among the twelve prophets in its Hebrew as well as in its Greek form of the Septuagint. Hosea was the only prophet among the Twelve who both originated from and proclaimed in the Northern Kingdom of Israel; Amos also proclaimed there but came from and was educated in Judah. The many points of contact between the texts of the books of Amos and Isaiah are indications of the Judaic provenance of Amos.2 The different background of Hosea and Amos may explain why Hosea so emotionally condemns “the calf of Samaria” (Hos 8:6) in the sanctuary of Bethel, while Amos contains no mention, though he attacks the pilgrimages to Bethel and Gilgal (Amos 4:4–5; 5:4–5). It may explain, too, why Hosea refers to events of Israel’s history more frequently than any prophet after him. As far as we know, the religious tradition of the Northern Kingdom dealt much more intensively with history as the field of human experience of God than southern Judah’s did. Additionally, the difference may explain why the prophetic condemnation of the cult of their days varies so much with Amos and Hosea: while Amos condemns the gulf between worship and daily life—worship no longer positively influences or even changes the brutal

1  Cf. Hitzig, Propheten, 74–75. 2  Cf. Fey, Amos, and recently Kreuch, Amos- und Jesajabuch.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_007

112

Jeremias

and selfish actions of powerful men (Amos 4:4; 5:24)—Hosea attacks the form and contents of Israel’s worship which in his eyes have become Baal-worship. 1.2 Two Different Kinds of Books Even more important for the position of the book of Hosea at the front of the twelve prophets is the fact that its primary layer is probably the oldest prophetic book to be written. Again, a comparison with the book of Amos may be helpful, since Amos was the older prophet who spoke and acted before Hosea. The book of Amos is structured in a very transparent arrangement. Prior to the addition of the final words of salvation, Amos 9:7–15, the central collection of Amos’s words in chapters 3–6 was framed by two poems in a strophic order, the first one stressing Israel’s guilt as above that of their neighbouring nations despite all their cruelty (Amos 1–2), and the final one which transmits Amos’s visions teaching readers that God’s patience with his people has come to an end (Amos 7–9*). The collection of Amos’s words proper in Amos 3–6 is ordered carefully, too. Its first part is introduced as God’s own word (“Hear this word which Yhwh has spoken against you, o people of Israel!” Amos 3:1), while the second part is introduced as the prophet’s reaction to God’s word (“Hear this word which I deliver against you as a dirge, house of Israel!” Amos 5:1). It is unlikely that those responsible for the book of Amos would have invented such a sophisticated order for a new kind of literature; it is likelier that they modelled their work after a precursor. The book of Hosea looks very different. For a first-time reader there seems to be much more chaos than in the book of Amos. To be sure, chapters 1–3 contain a collection of words and acts of the prophet which are transparent for readers. These chapters apparently were gathered because of their common subject. They concern the prophet’s marriage with a prostitute and relate it to the metaphor of Yhwh’s marriage with his difficult and stubborn people.3 But readers reaching chapter 4 feel rather lost, at least when reading the following chapters for the first time. They are confronted with a chain of prophetic utterances without evident limits. Usual prophetic formulas introducing a new entity like “Thus says Yhwh” or concluding it like “utterance of Yhwh” are missing until the end of chapter 11. Formal speeches of God and speeches of the prophet himself intermingle with each other without any rule. Words about Israel in the third person are suddenly interrupted by addresses to Israel (or the readers). Until chapter 9 plural imperatives serve to introduce subdivisions (4:1; 5:1, 8; [6:1]; 8:1; 9:1), but later on even they are absent. From 9:10 onwards to the 3  Cf. for these chapters e.g. Sherwood, Prostitute; Wacker, Figurationen; Törnkvist, Use and Abuse.

113

Hosea

end of chapter 11 there are prophetic or divine speeches which place historical events into the centre of their argument, possibly an arrangement according to a common subject. While the marriage collection of chapters 1–3 contains many words of salvation, a reader who started in chapter 4 meets the first word of salvation at the end of chapter 11. Since the formula “utterance of Yhwh” concludes chapter 11, such a reader is for the first time invited to rest a moment before continuing to read. Chapters 12–14, ending in a long speech of salvation (14:2–9), seem to form an entity of their own or a secondary prolongation of chapter 4–11. Hos 12:3 uses the same category (“Yhwh has a contention [‫]ריב‬ with Judah”) for God’s accusation against his people as 4:1 does. 2

The Book of Hosea

2.1 Elements of Composition in the Book4 Yet, there are evident indications of conscious composition in chapters 4–11 which for the majority of scholars form the nucleus of the prophetic book (for some of them this nucleus would be limited to 4:1–9:9). I restrict myself to the most important indications: 1. The main accusations of the prophet against his people and especially against their leaders in Samaria belong to the area of the cult on the one hand and to that of foreign policy (and of social repression) on the other. From chapter 8 onwards, both kinds of accusations are related to each other, but prior to it in chapters 4:4–5:7 and 5:8–7:16 they are dealt with separately. The contents of the prophetic texts become more complex and more comprehensive the more readers advance. Chapters 8–11 present a kind of summary of Israel’s guilt, with chapters 9:10–11:11 surpassing chapter 8 in their combination of Israel’s present guilt with its guilt in history.5 Before chapters 9:10–11:11 start, Hos 9:1–9 draws a first consequence predicting the needs of exile; chapter 11 concludes the collection of words about Israel’s guilt in history by drawing a final one. 2. Chapters 4:4–5:7 and 5:8–7:16, which introduce the subjects of Israel’s fault in worship and in foreign policy respectively, are both divided into two parts which in their main orientation run parallel: a longer one first, a shorter one second. This division is especially evident in the case of 4:4–5:7. After a general introduction to chapter 4–11 as a whole in 4:1–3, 4  Cf. among others Jeremias, Hosea und Amos, 55–66; Zenger, “Menschen,” 185–190; Crüsemann, “Jetzt,” 13–20. 5  Cf. for these chapters e.g. Daniels, Hosea; Neef, Heilstraditionen; Holt, Prophesying.

114

Jeremias

first the most responsible figures are accused of their guilt (the priests in 4:4–10; the priests and politicians in 5:1–2); then the misguided people are shown their misconduct, both times initiated by a “spirit of whoredom” (4:11–15; 5:4–5), while a final passage without speech from God and without address sounds halfway like a lament (4:16–18; 5:6–7). 3. Most important is the following observation: In many passages in 4:4–9:9 there are brief hints at events that seem to have happened rather recently, very often located at certain places, e.g. the guilt of a certain priest (4:4–6), the failure of priests and politicians at certain places (5:1–2), single events in the course of the so-called Syrian-Ephraimite war (5:8–11) etc.; cf. 6:7–9; 12:12. Apparently these bare allusions sufficed for the first readers to remind them of events in which they participated or of which they were informed by other sources. Very likely these hints aim at oral words of the prophet Hosea in a very condensed form. Readers of later generations like us ourselves do not really understand them. But this does not matter. The authors of the book do not want to discuss these past events, but they want to draw general consequences from it using it as a kind of example. These consequences any reader can grasp at any time; they are relevant to all generations. Let me take two examples, an easy and a complex one. In the case of 4:4–8, a reader is first informed of the failure of a single priest which he only roughly understands. But then the perspective is widened and the text touches upon the guilt of all priests of the prophet’s time. The immense increase of their guilt, due to their intention to perform more and more cultic celebrations, has led to a neglect of God’s will and to the longing of the people for more and more sacrifices combined with pleasant meals of meat. The prophet calls this intention Baal-worship in chapter 2 or prostitution and adultery in chapters 4–5. Thus, the reproach of a single priest with his failure of communicating God’s will has led to a general reflection of the elements of worship appropriate to the living God. In the case of the Syrian-Ephraimite war (733–732 BCE), individual events which Hosea criticizes in 5:8–11 only serve as a starting point for general theological reflections which are directed to both parties of this Judeo-Israelite brother-crisis. Though for a historian both parties acted very differently, for the prophetic text they both failed in an identical way: they looked for help and turned to Assyria instead of longing for divine intervention. Consequently, Yhwh who could have become a physician for their “illness” which he himself had sent now has changed to a lion threatening to devour them (5:12–14). Israel as well as Judah tried to solve their problems politically and to avoid any divine contact. But they had to learn that avoidance of Yhwh is in vain. Since they rejected him as a physician they will meet him as a lion. For the prophetic text there was and is no chance to act in a context in which God is not present.

Hosea

115

Yet, if the story would end here, neither Israel nor Judah would exist. The prophetic reflection continues. It tells of God’s unwillingness to act as a lion that is devouring his people and of his patience which leads him to wait urgently for their repentance. But God waits in vain. Israel’s and Judah’s sense of a necessary change exists, but it is so careless and brief and so full of Baal-thinking that God’s only means to save his people is to send prophets who condemn Israel as well as Judah. But these prophets definitely are his last resort to save his people (5:15–6:6). Will they find ears who listen to them? Since their words are written down in the book of Hosea everyone is able to come to know them. It is evident that such a theological reflection which looks back on the war of two brother-states from a distance and which offers its prophetic interpretation and afterwards looks back on Israel’s and Judah’s reaction to the prophetic interpretation of that war, is far distant from the oral words of divine judgment on single military events with which the literary entity started in 5:8–11. Additionally, the final verse of this entity proves that the authors of the text intended more than just a reflection on the Syrian-Ephraimite war. In this final verse, God’s intention through his prophet to save a stubborn people is condensed in the following words (6:6): For it is loyalty that I delight in, not sacrifice, knowledge of God instead of burnt offerings. Anyone who has followed the arguments of the text so far is confused at first reading. Up until now, the prophetic text had discussed political matters, cruelty during the war, futile hope for Assyrian help etc., but never worship and sacrifice. Hos 6:6 shows that the text expects readers to have started in chapter 4, which reproaches the kind of worship of Hosea’s time and concerns sacrifices. Additionally, the text expects readers to be able to transfer insights from one subject to another. For Hos 6:6 “sacrifice”—a joyful worship usually combined with meals of meat—fails the true God in the same way as Israel’s and Judah’s hasty and easy repentance does. It is “knowledge of God” that God cares for;6 but “knowledge of God” is intimately bound to God’s will in history and presence. 2.2 Critical Scholarship What is the idea behind this unusual arrangement of a prophetic book and who is responsible for it? In recent scholarship there is no agreement whatsoever concerning these questions. Opinions differ widely due to the fact that in the Hebrew Bible no actual parallels exist for this kind of prophetic book. 6  Cf. Wolff, “Wissen,” for this central term of Hosea’s theology, still relevant today.

116

Jeremias

On the one hand, there are maximalists like Walter Gisin, Brad E. Kelle, and John A. Dearman who tend to ascribe more or less all transmitted words to the historical Hosea or to his pupils still in the eighth century. The extensive commentary of Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman acknowledges literary layers in the book in principle, but in the majority of cases the authors would not dare to decide which parts of the text are primary and which are secondary. On the other hand there are minimalists who either find only very fragmentary words of Hosea in the book7 or who detect no words of the historical prophet whatsoever. For Martti Nissinen who interprets his texts with a colometric analysis and classifies the layers of the text according to the history of theological ideas, the basic layer are exilic laments; for Susanne Rudnig-Zelt this basic layer of the book would be some wisdom—not prophetic!—sayings concerning the end of the Northern Kingdom, the latest layers belonging to Hellenistic times; and for James M. Bos the whole book was written in the sixth and the fifth century. For all of these authors the book of Hosea received its essential shape in post-exilic times. The majority of scholars find their place in between these extreme positions. Few of them would deny that some late texts of the book like 2:1–3, 18– 25; 3:5 or 6:10–11; 7:10 etc. belong to post-exilic times, at least in their final form. None of them would deny the many additions from Josianic and exilic times which intend to relate Hosea’s accusations against the cult and the politics of the Northern Kingdom to readers in Judah. It is evident that the book of Hosea took its final shape in Judah. There are investigations which attempt to uncover how the book of Hosea was read and interpreted in Persian Period Judah;8 there are monographs investigating the change of meaning when the northern book of Hosea was transmitted to the south.9 The main differences among the majority of scholars belonging to the middle group are threefold: 1. The more critical exegetes (e.g. Reinhard G. Kratz, Henrik Pfeiffer, Roman Vielhauer) would hesitate to ascribe already to the historical Hosea ideas like a clear-cut differentiation between Yhwh and Baal or the demand for an exclusive veneration of Yhwh. Therefore they tend to diminish the words attributed to Hosea or his immediate pupils. 2. Some critical exegetes would tend to regard the variations between divine and prophetic speeches, as well as the shifts in addressing Israel in the 7  For Yee, Composition, e.g., words of Hosea in chapter 4 are v. 4*, 5b, 12aα, while there are none in chapter 11. 8  Cf. the commentary of Ben Zvi, Hosea, and Trotter, Reading Hosea. 9  E.g., Emmerson, Hosea; Naumann, Hoseas Erben.

Hosea

3.

117

second and the third person, as indications of literary growth, in this respect in general agreement with the minimalists. The more conservative scholars (e.g. Eberhard Bons, Frank Crüsemann, Graham I. Davies, Jörg Jeremias, Andrew A. Macintosh, Wolfgang Schütte, Marvin A. Sweeney, Erich Zenger) would interpret these changes as a conscious means of literary intention. There are points of contact between texts in the book of Hosea and texts in the book of Jeremiah as well as texts in the Deuteronomistic History. But there is no typical deuteronomistic language in the book of Hosea and very rarely typical Jeremianic language. Thus, in cases of dependence the majority of scholars would attribute priority to the book of Hosea which influenced the texts of the book of Jeremiah and of DtrH. Minimalists would usually differ in this respect; critical scholars of the middle group would differ occasionally.

2.3 The Lyric of Alkaios: a Possible Model In any case, there is agreement that even the oldest layer in the book of Hosea presupposes the fall of Samaria and the end of the Northern Kingdom. The book of Hosea in its primary stage may have been composed rather early after 722 BCE, because the proclamation of Hosea concerning the end of the state had become true so soon. According to his datable utterings Hosea must have started his prophetic career some 15 years before the fall of Samaria; apparently, it ended with this very fall. There are also indications of typical northern dialect terms in the texts.10 Though Hosea’s oral words were rejected by the majority of his contemporaries (Hos 9:7–9), his message must have been preserved in a condensed form, probably already in written shape, by a group of pupils or followers. If it was preserved in a written form, it served the needs of this group at first and was not created immediately for the public. In recent years some scholars—Herrmann M. Niemann, Frank Crüsemann and following him Wolfgang Schütte—have pointed to a possible analogy for the literary peculiarities of Hos 4–11 in Greek literature.11 The political lyricist Alkaios of the seventh/sixth century had formed a group of pupils discussing his poems in regular meetings. According to Wolfgang Rösler who is the source for the scholars mentioned above, these discussions found their way into a literary tradition which again was presented orally in symposia of this group.12 As a result of such lively discussions, one meets sudden addresses and “dark hints” 10  Cf. Macintosh, Hosea, LIII–LXI. 11  Niemann, “Ende,” 136; Crüsemann, “Jetzt,” 26–28; Schütte, Gerechtigkeit, 19–22, 194–198. 12  Rösler, Dichter.

118

Jeremias

in the Greek text comparable to the addresses and “dark hints” in the book of Hosea. These Greek texts represent a kind of archaic literature which did not aim at a public audience but was written down for insiders. Very probably this is true for the basic layer of the book of Hosea, too. Thus these Greek texts may serve as a model to conceive the origin of an early prophetic book and especially of Hos 4–11*. Representing a continuing discussion, the Greek texts could explain why a critical reader of Hos 4–11 often gets the impression of eavesdropping on an actual dispute either between Hosea and his audience or within a group of pupils of Hosea who wanted to decide how to relate different prophetic subjects to one another. These Greek texts would further explain why there are many allusions in the book of Hosea which later readers of the texts can grasp only roughly. 3

The Roots of the Book of the Twelve

The history of the Twelve starts with the books of Hosea and Amos. Already these books of the two earliest among the so-called writing prophets contain a number of verses which are formulated under the influence of the other prophetic book respectively.13 By these allusions to the other book, a careful reader apparently is called to relate both prophetic books to each other instead of reading them in isolation.14 Aaron Schart has analyzed verses showing these mutual influences and has supposed that both prophetic writings were combined on a common scroll.15 Yet there is a significant difference between both prophetic books. In the book of Hosea all texts which echo words of Amos or which show literary connections to the book of Amos evidently belong to secondary layers. This is not true for the book of Amos in an analogous manner. In the case of the book of Amos the influence of texts of the book of Hosea are much more numerous and they often concern the primary layer of the book’s formation as e.g. in Amos 3:2.16 This again is a clear indication of the priority of the origin of the book of Hosea. In any case, the early tradents as well as the redactors of the books of Hosea and Amos wanted their readers to grasp the guilt of Israel which had led to God’s punishment and to the end of the state comprehensively. In 13  Of course, methodologically these literary connections must be separated carefully from some common traits of the proclamation of both prophets. 14  For a discussion of these connections, cf. Jeremias, Hosea und Amos, 34–54. 15  Schart, Entstehung, 101–155. Yet, Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 242–243, opposes the assumption of a common scroll with strong reasons. 16  Cf. Jeremias, “Interrelationship,” 173–186.

Hosea

119

their eyes such comprehensiveness could be reached only by studying the book of Hosea and the book of Amos together and in complementation. Only when read in relation to one another, both prophetic books are able to lead to a new beginning for a guilty people and to convey God’s actual will as an orientation to them. 3.1 A Book of Three Prophets? Some scholars have assumed that—in exilic time—a scroll existed which comprised not only the books of Hosea and Amos but also (an early version of) the book of Micah.17 Viewed from the perspective of the book of Hosea this hypothesis is attractive, though the book of Micah evidently developed separately afterwards. In the Greek tradition of the Septuagint, the three prophets follow each other. 1. According to its present shape, the first chapter of the book of Micah— especially Mic 1:2–7—is a late redactional text; together with 5:14 its beginning (Mic 1:2) forms a frame for Mic 1–5. The nucleus of 1:2–7 probably consisted of 1:6–7*, a retrospect to the fall of Samaria which in the context of chapter 1 serves as a warning for Jerusalem. The reason given for the fall of Samaria is nothing else but a condensation of Hosea’s theology. Since Hosea already had transformed his metaphor of Israel’s “whoredom” from the area of the cult to that of foreign policy—exaggerating the imagery by stating that the “whore” Israel in this respect had to spend her fee instead of receiving it (Hos 8:9–10)—the older part in Mic 1:7 (v. 7b) deploys this metaphor for Israel’s bargaining with Egypt and Assyria, while the later part of the verse (v. 7a) takes the more usual contents of Hosea’s metaphor and directs it against Samaria’s veneration of iconic representations of God or foreign gods.18 The guilt of the Northern Kingdom is conceived in categories of Hosean theology in both parts of the verse. In the horizon of the growing Book of the Twelve, the subject of Samaria’s fall is finished definitely in Mic 1:2–7. 2. The three prophetic books of Hosea, Amos, and Micah are combined by reporting the vivid polemics of the primary audience against the proclamation of these three prophets. In all cases the focus is directed to the standing and the function of a prophet. In all of the three books the 17  Cf. Schneider, Unity; Schart, Entstehung, 155; Schütte, Gerechtigkeit, 200. Wöhrle, Samm­ lungen, 244, doubts that a book of three prophets existed. Following Nogalski, Literary Precursors, he pleads for a Book of the Four (including Zephaniah) as the root for the Book of the Twelve. 18  For this differentiation, cf. the commentaries of Wolff, Micha, and Jeremias, Joel.

120

Jeremias

attacks against the prophets are actualized by direct citations of the opposition (Hos 9:7–9; Amos 7:10–17; Mic 2:6–10). Thus, the reader is urged to move into position; he or she cannot stand neutral and indifferent. Whoever reads one of these prophetic books as a whole will understand that for God’s people these prophetic voices, though uncomfortable and offensive, are necessary for the people’s survival. 4

The Book of Hosea as Part of the Twelve

The further growth of the Book of the Twelve apparently developed without much influence from the book of Hosea. This observation has led Jakob Wöhrle to the assumption that for a long time the book of Hosea was excluded from this development.19 Placed immediately behind Hosea, the much younger book of Joel gained a leading function for the growth of the Twelve.20 It had learned much from the book of Amos, but once placed in front of Amos it offered the hermeneutical key for understanding Amos and the following books. Its main subjects became the main subjects of the developing Twelve: judgment and salvation of the nations, the “Day of Yhwh,” Zion as the place for last hope, the famous confession of Yhwh’s overwhelming surplus of his grace over his anger (in Exod 34:6–7 and its parallels) etc. All these subjects were lacking in the book of Hosea. Yet, the book of Hosea was not necessarily excluded from this development. As the only witness to the “northern theological spirit” among the Twelve, it stayed rather untouched by the new growth of the other books—with one important exception. The final chapter added to the prophetic book, chapter 14, in which God offers final salvation to those who return to him, firmly links Hosea with Joel. In both texts, Hos 14:2 and Joel 2:12, the call for return is combined with the unusual preposition ‫ עד‬and is rooted in God’s foundational promise of his salvific intention (Hos 14:5–9; Joel 2:14).21 According to Hos 14, God first will heal the ‫ משובה‬of his people, i.e. their unwillingness and even inability to return to him (Hos 14:5; cf. 5:3–4; 11:7), before his call to return will be answered; according to Joel 2:12–14, God’s call to return is founded in the surplus of his grace over his anger (cf. Exod 34:6–7). At the same time, the subject of Israel’s return to God not only links the first two books of the Twelve 19  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 54–58, 450–453. 20  Cf. Nogalski, “Joel.” 21  Additionally, Hos 14:8a shows many terms of Joel 1 and may have been added as a further link between both books; cf. Nogalski, “Joel,” 97–98; idem, Precursors, 69–73.

121

Hosea

together, but is prominent in the last two books as well (Zech 1:3–4; Mal 3:7). It forms a frame for the Book of the Twelve. Once read prior to the book of Joel, the book of Hosea shows many traits of subjects common to the Twelve. Though there are no hints at Zion, at least David is named (Hos 3:5; cf. Amos 9:11; Mic 5:1; Zech 9:9–10). Hosea’s “days of retribution” (9:7) could easily be related to the “Day of Yhwh” so often mentioned in the Twelve; Hosea’s lament about Israel’s “mixture with the nations” (7:8) could be interpreted in the horizon of the prophetic question for the future of the nations. Especially Hos 1–3 and 4:1–3 gain special importance in their new function as an introduction to the Twelve: The enduring love of God to his rebellious “wife” and his unwillingness to divorce her forever determine all history, and his will—revealed principally in the Decalogue and cited in Hos 4:2—is actualized in the following books of the Twelve for present and future. Bibliography Andersen, Francis I. and Freedman, David N. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. Garden City, NY et al.: Doubleday, 1980. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Hosea. FOTL 21,A,1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Bons, Eberhard. Das Buch Hosea. NSKAT 23,1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Bos, James M. Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea: The Case for Persian-Period Yehud. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2013. Crüsemann, Frank. “‫‘—עתה‬Jetzt’: Hosea 4–11 als Anfang der Schriftprophetie.” Pages 13–31 in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah …” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Daniels, Dwight R. Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea. BZAW 191. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1980. Davies, Graham I. Hosea: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992. Dearman, John A. The Book of Hosea. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Emmerson, Grace I. Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective. JSOTSup 28. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984. Fey, Reinhard. Amos und Jesaja: Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja. WMANT 12. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1963. Gisin, Walter. Hosea: Ein literarisches Netzwerk beweist seine Authentizität. BBB 139. Berlin and Wien: Philo, 2002. Hitzig, Ferdinand. Die zwölf kleinen Propheten. Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1838.

122

Jeremias

Holt, Else K. Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea. JSOTSup 194. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Hosea. ATD 24,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Jeremias, Jörg. Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton. FAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pages 171–186 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kelle, Brad E. Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2005. Köckert, Matthias. “Prophetie und Geschichte im Hoseabuch.” ZTK 85 (1988): 3–30. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Erkenntnis Gottes im Hoseabuch.” ZTK 94 (1997): 1–14 (= Pages 287–309 in idem. Prophetenstudien. Vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften. FAT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Kreuch, Jan. Das Amos- und Jesajabuch: Eine exegetische Studie zur Neubestimmung ihres Verhältnisses. Biblisch-theologische Studien 149. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014. Landy, Francis. Hosea. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Macintosh, Andrew A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1997. Naumann, Thomas. Hoseas Erben: Strukturen der Nachinterpretation im Buch Hosea. BWANT 131. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991. Neef, Heinz-Dieter. Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Hosea. BZAW 169. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1987. Niemann, Hermann M. “Kein Ende des Büchermachens in Israel und Juda (Koh 12,12)— Wann begann es?” BK 53 (1998): 127–134 (= Pages 127–138 in idem. History of Ancient Israel, Archaeology, and Bible: Collected Essays. Edited by Meik Gerhards. AOAT 418. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015). Nissinen, Martti. Prophetie, Redaktion und Fortschreibung im Hoseabuch: Studien zum Werdegang eines Prophetenbuches im Lichte von Hos 4 und 11. AOAT 231. Kevelaer: Butzon & Becker, 1991. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by idem and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBLSBS 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000.

Hosea

123

Pfeiffer, Henrik. Das Heiligtum von Bethel im Spiegel des Hoseabuches. FRLANT 183. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Rösler, Wolfgang. Dichter und Gruppe: Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion früher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios. München: Fink, 1980. Rudnig-Zelt, Susanne. Hoseastudien: Redaktionskritische Untersuchungen zur Genese des Hoseabuches. FRLANT 213. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schneider, Dale A. The Unity of the Book of the Twelve. Diss. Yale, 1979. Schütte, Wolfgang. “Säet euch Gerechtigkeit!” Adressaten und Anliegen der Hoseaschrift. BWANT 179. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Sherwood, Yvonne. The Prostitute and the Prophet: Reading Hosea in the Late Twentieth Century. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2004. Sweeney, Marvin A. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 1 of The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000. Törnkvist, Rut. The Use and Abuse of Female Sexual Imagery in the Book of Hosea: A Feminist-Critical Approach to Hos 1–3. Diss. Uppsala, 1998. Trotter, James M. Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud. JSOTSup 328. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Vielhauer, Roman. Das Werden des Buches Hosea: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BZAW 349. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2007. Wacker, Marie-Theres. Figurationen des Weiblichen im Hoseabuch. HBS 8. Freiburg: Herder, 1996. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wolff, Hans W. “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform der Theologie.” Pages 182–205 in idem. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 22. 2nd ed. München: Kaiser, 1973. Wolff, Hans W. Micha. Vol. 4 of Dodekapropheton. BK 14,4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982. Yee, Gale A. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. SBLDS 102. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 1987. Zenger, Erich. “‘Durch Menschen zog ich sie …’ (Hos 11,4).” Pages 183–201 in Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten: Festschrift Josef Schreiner. Edited by Lothar Ruppert et al. Würzburg: Echter, 1982.

Chapter 6

Joel in the Book of the Twelve Ruth Ebach 1

Content and Structure

All four chapters of the book of Joel1 address the Day of Yhwh and the related signs and portents. In the dangerous situation of an imminent fatal locust plague and a threatening drought, the question arises as to how Israel could survive this decisive day. The first two chapters describe the events of a near or presently happening Day of Yhwh, which the people survive by prophetically advised fasting according to the priestly instructions and by returning to God. The third and the fourth chapters describe events which will take place before the coming Day of Yhwh. In chapter 3, God announces that he will pour out his spirit upon all flesh and that salvation will be realized by calling (upon) his name. The fourth chapter focuses on the foreign nations and a decisive battle in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Because of the chronological and thematic caesura, the major parts of the book of Joel can be divided into Joel 1–2 and 3–4.2 Another possible outline, namely a structural division after Joel 2:17, can be reached by differentiating between, on the one hand, the description of distress and the prophetic call of repentance, and, on the other hand, God’s announcement of salvation. Such a division would be further supported by linguistic reasons (cf. the two different refrains in Joel 1:14; 2:15 and in 2:27; 4:17).3 2

The Development of the Book of Joel

In contemporary discussion, there are three chief models of Joel’s literary development. Frequently, the literary integrity of (nearly) the entire book is 1  Most of the English and a few older German translations use the chapter-numbering of the Septuagint and count chapter 3 as Joel 2:28–32. As a result, Joel consists of three chapters. 2  This division is also seen by Birch, Hosea, 126–127, who emphasizes that this caesura can, but must not, indicate two literary layers in Joel, but: “In any case, seen as present experience and future vision the two sections of the book of Joel are 1:1–2:27 and 2:28–3:21.” 3  Especially Wolff, Joel, 67–70, underlines this caesura.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_008

Joel

125

defended.4 Yet, the chronological and thematical differences between Joel 3 and 4 on the one side, and most parts of Joel 1–2 on the other, speak against the monolithic character of the book. For example, after Joel 1–2 predicts salvation for Israel, Joel 3 declares that the addressees—the next generation—are (again) all awaiting the Day of Yhwh, not perceived as a single event. But then the criteria in Joel 3:5 give the addressees instructions that enable them to survive the Day of Yhwh. Likewise, in contrast to the already promised, unconfined salvation for Israel in Joel 2:27, Joel 3 implies that everyone who fulfils the criteria—given in the narratives in Joel 1–2; 4—will be saved. For the present generation, there will be a time after the Day of Yhwh; for the next generation, there will be a time before it. The alternative possibility is therefore more probable: the aforementioned structure of Joel has led many scholars to identify Joel 1–2 as the primary layer, whereas Joel 3–4 (or Joel 3 as a unit after Joel 4) are understood to form a later addition.5 A third possibility, which also takes the internal differences into account, is to postulate a gradual development of Joel that is unrelated to the chapter division.6 Many cross-references and catch-words link the book of Joel with other prophetic books and especially with the other textual corpora in the Twelve. These links are significant for the evaluation of the possible dating of Joel. More importantly, however, from a redactional critical perspective, they shed light upon the written development of the book within the context of the growing Book of the Twelve, which is of crucial importance in this article. The frequent allusions and references in Joel have always been noted, but at least two different methodological consequences have been drawn. Many scholars, among them Christopher Seitz in his recent Joel-commentary,7 define Joel’s literary character as late prophetic writing that reacts to earlier 4  Among others, cf. the Joel-commentaries Wolff, Joel, and Seitz, Joel. Coggins, Joel, 17–19, chooses a holistic interpretation of Joel because of his methodological reserve without categorically excluding the possibility of a diachronic development (see, e.g., his remarks [ibid., 55] concerning Joel 4:4–8, which are often seen as later additions). 5  Cf. esp. Jeremias, Joel, 3–5, who votes against his own older assumption of a literary unity (cf. his TRE article “Joel/Joelbuch,” 92–94) and for a bipartite book of Joel (Joel 1–2; 3–4), and Barton, Joel, 5–14. 6  Especially Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 387–460, developed a model in which a primary layer in Joel 1–2* is enlarged by insertions in these two chapters and by the basic layer of Joel 4 at the same time. See below 2.3. 7  For example, Seitz, Joel, frequently criticizes an interpretation of Joel in the context of redactional layers through several different writings in the Book of the Twelve (cf. ibid., 6, 11). Against redaction critical analyses, which see broad layers through the Book of the Twelve dealing with the Day of Yhwh cf. Beck, Tag, esp. 142–146.

126

Ebach

books, and highlight its unique character.8 Scholarship of the last decades, however, has illustrated and emphasized the function of the book of Joel (or its several layers) for understanding the growth of the Book of the Twelve as a whole. The ensuing sections will therefore analyse the impact of Joel on its literary environment.9 Joel functions as a “literary anchor”10 for the growing context and as a “hermeneutical key”11 for the following material. It is obvious that its relations to the other texts in the Twelve have a different character than its relations to Isaiah (especially Isa 13) or to the other books of the OT.12 It is more than just an amplification or a correction of another work or a prophetic position. As part of a common literary context, the book of Joel in his front position further influences the theological shape and interpretation of the other parts. Joel’s role as antecedent is especially true for the Day of Yhwh-motif. Section 2.3 will show that this character and function not only results from its position before Amos and the rest of the books in the Twelve but is also already intended in all layers of Joel. Textual corpora and layers in the growing Book of 8  A dating of Joel depends on the evaluation of its possible different layers. The numerous allusions to other prophetic writings point to a Persian or—especially for the younger parts—even Hellenistic dating of Joel or its basic layer. The mention of the elders, the active temple-cult with priests, and some Aramaic terms, together suggest a post-exilic dating of Joel. Cf. Jeremias, Joel, 2. Concrete political entities named (Phoenicia and Philistia) are references only in the late insertions in chapter 4. 9  This article deals with the earlier order represented by the MT. In the Septuagint, Joel follows Hosea, Amos, and Micah and precedes Obadiah, Jonah, and Nahum. Sweeney, “Place,” 589–595, deals with both sequences and emphasizes a priority of the LXX-order, because of inner-biblical allusions. In addition to a chronological sequence of the writings in the LXX, he highlights the focus of the first three writings (Hosea, Amos, and Micah) on the Northern Kingdom as example for Judah, and of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk on the nations’ actions against Jerusalem. In his view, Joel serves as hinge referring to the threat of Jerusalem and the nations; cf. idem, Hosea, 147–149. If one follows him, the references forward to Amos and Micah would become references backwards and Joel would lose its function as hermeneutical key (see below). In addition, the catchphrases between the end of Joel and the beginning of Amos must then be understood as later additions. For a critical view, cf. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 448–449 with n. 38. 10  Cf. Nogalski, “Joel.” 11  Jeremias, “Function,” 77. 12  A canonical approach likewise underlines the interaction between Isaiah and Joel in one book (the OT), but this connection has not been intended in the same manner as the development of several writings in the Book of the Twelve. Coggins, “Interbiblical Quotations,” 76–80, criticizes those scholars who see Joel as an integral part of a growing Book of the Twelve and who frequently emphasize those cross-references which are congruent to their special model while ignoring relations to Isa 13:6 and 24:7. Yet, reinforcing allusions in the Book of the Twelve does not mean ignoring other relations.

127

Joel

the Twelve take and form Joel as a literary anchor, and Joel-related redactional layers have been identified in several writings of the Twelve. 2.1 Quotes and Allusions in the Book of Joel Joel 3:5 promises salvation on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem for those who call upon the name of Yhwh (‫ )כי בהר־ציון ובירוׁשלם תהיה פליטה‬and marks this promise as a directly quoted word of Yhwh (‫)כאׁשר אמר יהוה‬. Thereby, Joel quotes Obad 17, i.e. another text in the Twelve.13 Besides this direct quote,14 however, numerous other allusions shape the book of Joel. Table 6.1 shows the table 6.1 Quotes and allusions

Joel

Allusions, parallels, and quotes

1:1–14 1:4 1:8 1:12 1:15 2:2 2:6 2:11 2:12–14

Hos 14:5–10 Amos 4:9; 7:1–2 Amos 5:2; Hos 2 Amos 4:7–9; Hag 2:19 Zeph 1:7, 14–15; Obad 15 Amos 5:18–20; Zeph 1:14–15 Nah 2:11 Nah 1:6; Zeph 1:14; Mal 3:2, 23 Hos 14:2–3; Amos 5:15; 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9; 4:2; Mic 7:18–20; Zeph 2:3; Zech 1:3–4; Mal 3:7 Zech 1:14 Zech 8:12 Amos 4:10 Nah 3:15–17 Zeph 3:15 Zeph 3:9–13; Zech 12:10 Mal 3:23 Obad 17 (marked quote) Obad 11; Zeph 3:8; Zech 14:2 Obad 11; Nah 3:10

2:18 2:19 2:21 2:25 2:27 3:1 3:4 3:5 4:2 4:3

13  The extension of the quotation with the words “and in Jerusalem” strengthens the parallel to Joel 4:16. Regarding the literary influence, Joel probably alludes to Obadiah. Alternatively, as Wöhrle, Abschluss, 207–209, argues, pointing to the logical and grammatical tensions between Obad 17a and its context, Joel and Obadiah belong to the same layer in the Twelve. 14  Joel 2:12 could be another allusion to a quote.

128

Ebach

table 6.1 Quotes and allusions (cont.)

Joel

Allusions, parallels, and quotes

4:4 4:10 4:14 4:16 4:18 4:19 4:21

Obad 15 Mic 4:3–4 (reversed) Obad 15 Hos 11:10; Amos 1:2; Hag 2:6 Amos 9:13; Zech 14:8 Amos 1:11; Obad 10 Zech 12:6

allusions, parallels, and quotes under discussion.15 The question of literary dependence of some of these links will be discussed later.16 The frequent and close connections to Amos attract attention. The texts share the topics of drought, locusts, and especially the Day of Yhwh. In addition, both books are directly literarily interlocked by catchphrases (in Joel 4:16 and Amos 1:2) and verbal parallels (between Joel 4:16 and Amos 9:13).17 Other close interrelations exist in Joel to Obadiah—especially regarding the attack of the nations and the salvation on Mount Zion18—and to Zephaniah— especially regarding the Day of Yhwh.19 2.2 Joel as a Separate, Late Prophetic Book Joel begins with a new superscription which introduces the words of a new prophet. It features a kind of prologue,20 marking Joel as a separate prophetic 15  The table registers most of the allusions discussed. A few of them may not be convincing, yet their quantity shows the practice in the book of Joel to construct a broad system of cross-references or—more carefully—its interrelation with the context. In a similar manner, Wolff, Joel, 96, argues against Bach, Aufforderungen, 72 n. 1, who detects in Joel 4:10 a proverbial tradition taken up by Joel without a direct literary dependence on Mic 4 or Isa 2. 16  The table is limited to allusions in the Book of the Twelve. For further parallels, see Crenshaw, Joel, 27–26; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 388–390, and Zenger, “Buch Joël,” 646–647. 17  Cf. the remarks to Joel and Amos in section 2.3 below. 18  For parallels between Obadiah and Joel, cf. the overview in Bergler, Joel, 301–327, and Schart, Entstehung, 270–274. 19  The looser relations to Hosea, which especially Schart and Nogalski emphasize, will be discussed in section 2.3. 20  For this categorization of verses 2–4, cf. Jeremias, Joel, 11–13.

Joel

129

book. Yet it reacts to and interacts with several prophetic traditions. Looking at the book as a separate entity, Joel can be characterized as literary prophecy (schriftgelehrte Prophetie), which must be read as a reaction to other separate texts.21 The message of Joel is understandable only with the other books as background.22 Siegfried Bergler stresses the “kompilatorischen Charakter” of the book of Joel,23 whereby the author handles numerous earlier theological concepts and transfers them to his times, and John Strazicich likewise speaks of a “midrashic use” of Scripture.24 According to this line of reasoning, the relationship of Joel to the other prophetic books (or to the OT books in general) does not differ from its relationship to the other texts in the Book of the Twelve. For example, Joel alludes to the Exodus-narrative (esp. to Exod 10:1– 20),25 Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Deuteronomy.26 The distinct relationship with Amos is the reason for the order Joel–Amos, and it is enhanced by several later minor redactional additions.27 Joel’s special relationship to Amos and most of the other books of the Twelve and its hermeneutical function within the growing Book of the Twelve have led to an understanding of Joel and its textual growth as a conscious part of a broader context. 21  Those scholars who vote for a pre-exilic dating—cf. Stuart, Hosea, esp. 224–226, who sees a reflection of an invasion against Jerusalem as the historical background and opts for the Assyrian or Babylonian invasions in 701, 598, or 588 bce—must explain the many references to late prophetic (and Pentateuchal) texts as shared early traditions, e.g. regarding the Day of Yhwh. 22  Bergler, Joel, 344, uses very concise formulations to describe the lack of Joel’s own personality: “‘Echte’ Joeltexte (Eigengut) aufzuspüren, erweist sich als vergebliches Unterfangen. Joel als Persönlichkeit, als ‘Dichter’ bleibt völlig im Hintergrund. Nicht seine Botschaft, sondern die seiner Vorgänger steht im Zentrum. […] Er sieht sich als Glied in der ununterbrochenen Kette der Propheten, als Erfüllungshilfe bislang unerfüllt gebliebener Worte, die er kompiliert, radikalisiert und aktualisiert.” 23  Cf. Bergler, Joel, 247–276. 24  The study of Strazicich, Joel’s Use, esp. 59–252, citation on page 249, is very useful for detecting many catchword-references, without needing to accept his methodological paradigm. 25  Cf. Strazicich, Joel’s Use, 71–75, and Sweeney, “Place,” 582–585. 26  See especially Strazicich, Joel’s Use. In addition, Nogalski, Processes, 32–37, deals with the parallel judgment-scenery in Joel 4:9–17 and 2 Chr 20:1–30. 27  For example, Collins, Joel, 7, 26, argues that Joel was placed before Amos because of their thematic and stylistic parallels esp. in Joel 4:16 and Amos 1:2—in his view a citation of Amos in Joel. However this conjunction should not be seen as a reason for its position, but rather as a sign of the literary technique during the process of writing and composing Joel and the Joel-related corpus.

130

Ebach

The Book of Joel as Part of the Growing Book of the Twelve: the “Joel-related Layer,” the “Joel-Obadiah-Corpus,” and the “Joel-Corpus” Joel boasts a special position within the Twelve, because of its literary position before nearly all the texts that it quotes or to which it alludes.28 Despite considerable disagreement, James Nogalski, Aaron Schart, and Jakob Wöhrle have all noted the many inner-biblical allusions in the Twelve to the book of Joel, and have developed three models whereby the insertion of Joel—or its different layers—evoked a new layer in the growing Book of the Twelve. Nogalski introduced a “Joel-related layer,” Schart a “Joel-Obadiah-Corpus,” and Wöhrle a “Joel-Corpus.”29 The content of these three layers differ, due especially to the scholars’ different redactional critical views regarding Joel itself and their divergent understandings of Hosea. Relying especially on the second part of his dissertation dealing with the Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, Nogalski stresses the intended links between, on the one hand, Joel and Amos and, on the other, Hosea and Joel. He identifies the call of repentance as a “dovetailing genre,” found at the end of Hosea and at the beginning of Joel.30 Hos 14 does not hint at the result of this call and never outlines the people’s possible repentance. Nogalski concludes that “the end of Hosea functioned as the hermeneutical backdrop from which Joel began.”31 Additionally, according to Schart, in order to understand the book of Joel the reader needs to have read Hosea, since the book of Joel does not explain the people’s guilt and therefore the reason for the call: “Only readers who have first read Hosea are prepared to understand Joel’s prophecy.”32 The end of Hosea and the beginning of Joel share the topic of fertility. According to Nogalski, the following references point backwards to 2.3

28  Jeremias, “Function,” 77. For a synchronic reader-orientated analysis, see Scoralick, “Auch jetzt noch,” esp. 65–68. 29  For a critical review of the models developed by Nogalski, Schart, and Bosshard-Nepustil, who developed the thesis of an Assur-Babel-redaction in the Book of the Four, which reacts on Isaiah, see Roth, Israel, 89–93. 30  For further details concerning the conjunction between Hosea and Joel, see Nogalski, “Joel,” and especially idem, Processes, 13–22. Nogalski, “Joel,” 97, mentions the differences between both instances of a call of repentance. For further parallels between Joel and his surrounding writings Hosea and Amos, cf. Dahmen, “Buch,” 16–19, and as shorter overview in idem, “Joel.” 31  Nogalski, Processes, 14. 32  Schart, “First Section,” 142. In this article, he mentions five recurring topics in Hosea, Joel, and Amos: superscriptions, call to return to Yhwh, the Day of the Lord, the end of God’s patience (Hosea and Amos), and the Sinai Torah (esp. Hosea and Amos and the Grace-formula). Regarding the allusions between Hosea and Joel, cf. idem, Entstehung, 266–267.

Joel

131

Hos 14:5–10 in Joel 1:1–14: inhabitants (‫ )יׁשב‬in 1:2, 14; wine (‫ )יין‬in 1:5, vine (‫)גפן‬ in 1:7, 12, and grain (‫ )דגן‬in 1:10.33 Furthermore, Nogalski and Schart emphasize a linguistic peculiarity in both parts (and in Amos 4:6–13). The texts do not mention—in contrast to the deuteronomistic writings—from what the people shall turn away (‫)ׁשוב מן‬, but they show to whom they shall return (‫)ׁשוב עד‬. It remains disputable whether the frequently used terms really support the argument of a catch-word-conjunction, but both scholars at least explain successfully the position of Joel next to Hosea. Challenging the emphasis on the relation between Hosea and Joel, Wöhrle argues that in contrast to the deuteronomistic Book of the Four, no layer can be identified which links Hosea and Joel (and the corpora that begin with Joel, see below). This remark and further observations lead him to suggest that Hosea was detached from the Book of the Four only to be reintegrated in the latest phases of the development of the Book of the Twelve.34 The conjunctions between Joel and Amos are much tighter and more obvious.35 First and foremost, at the end of Joel and therefore just before Amos starts, Joel 4:16 describes God’s calling from Mount Zion and Jerusalem (‫מציון‬ ‫)יׁשאג ומירוׁשלם יתן קולו‬. This statement, using almost the same formulations, refers directly to the motto of Amos found in Amos 1:2.36 Joel 4:16 cannot be identified as a later gloss that links the two texts but is instead part of Joel 4 (or rather the primary layer of the chapter). Therefore, it is obvious that Joel does not only react to an earlier prophetic word, Joel 4* is also oriented towards the writing that immediately follows. Amos 9:13 and Joel 4:18 show a second striking parallelism. The chronological sequence of these two texts is highly disputed,37 but it is obvious that they establish a reference-system. Schart and Wöhrle (see below) emphasize that the insertion of Amos 9:13 serves as a reference to Joel (or Joel 1–2*), although they locate this insertion in different redactional layers. Besides other thematic parallels, such as the returning to Yhwh, the Day of Yhwh-motif also links the two texts. After reading Joel (1–2), God’s frequently repeated word in Amos 1–2 that he will not return “it/him” 33  Cf. Nogalski, Processes, 13–14. Additionally, he highlights the two-fold use of the particle this (‫ )זאת‬in 1:2 referring backwards (ibid., 15–17). Nogalski notes that these terms are catchwords and no direct citations, as between Joel and Amos. Coggins, “Interbiblical Quotations,” 77, argues that these relations are not self-evident as Nogalski claims, but frequently used terms. While style is interdependent of genre, in his view, style does not necessarily imply a literary dependence. Also cf. Hagedorn, Anderen, 232–233. 34  Cf. esp. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 450–453. 35  For the relation between Joel 1–2 and Amos, see especially Jeremias, “Function,” 84–86. 36  Schart, Entstehung, 262, speaks of a “redaktionell intendierten Stichwortverkettung.” 37  Nogalski, “Joel,” 108, evaluates Amos 9:13 as a citation of Joel 4:18. For a detailed analysis of the allusions and quotes in Joel 4:1–21, see idem, Processes, 43–48.

132

Ebach

(‫ )לא אׁשיבנו‬receives a new horizon. Joel fills the gap and stylizes this remark to be a reminder of the (announced) Day of Yhwh.38 These short remarks concerning Joel’s literary neighbours, as well as the aforementioned additional links to several other texts in the Book of the Twelve, show that we should widen the scope beyond the book of Joel. The superscription of Joel (Joel 1:1) is similar to, but not identical with, those of the Book of the Four (Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1). Nogalski develops a broad theory in which Joel functions as a literary anchor and combines the older Book of the Four and the already combined material in Haggai and Zechariah. At the same moment and by some additions, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi became part of the so called “Joel-related layer.”39 In a similar manner, but starting with Amos, Schart develops the model of a “Joel-Obadiah-Corpus.” Based on the linkage of Amos 9:12–13 and 4:9, as well as further connections with Joel, Schart identifies Joel and Obadiah as a composed frame for the earlier Amos. Hence, Joel influences the reading and theological shape of Amos and, in addition, creates a broader Zion-theology that changes the understanding in Amos and Obadiah of the cultic critic and the nations. This layer consists of nearly all texts from Hosea to Zechariah 14.40 Both models emphasize that the insertion of Joel contributed to a new understanding of the earlier books, the shaping of new writings, and especially the understanding of several writings as one book. It is remarkable that both models see the insertion of Joel as an anchor for a broad literary context, because they neither assume—nor evaluate—a multi-layered development of Joel itself. The strong relations to Obadiah, for example, are (nearly) completely absent in Joel 1–2 yet become formative in Joel 3:5; 4 (cf. Joel 4:2–4, 7, 14, 19). Additionally, the function of Zion, as highlighted by Schart, changes throughout the different parts of Joel, especially in relation to Israel and the foreigners. Wöhrle starts anew with a redactional critical analysis of Joel and differentiates the process of Joel’s integration in the Book of the Twelve on this basis. As a result, he identifies five layers in the Book of the Twelve with connection to Joel. Because it is the most differentiated model for Joel, it merits a closer examination. Already the primary layer (Joel 1:1–3, 5, 8–20; 2:1, 2*, 3, 6, 10, 11b, 15–17, 21– 24, 26a)41 has strong relationships to the earlier parts of Amos, Micah, and 38  Cf. Schart, “First Section,” 145–146. 39  Cf. esp. Nogalski, Processes, summarized in 275–278. 40  For more details, see Schart, Entstehung, 261–282. Dahmen, “Buch,” 19–21, discusses the thesis of an intended frame around Amos by Joel and Obadiah. 41   For a dating of this primary layer—and therefore the Joel-Corpus—see Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 453–456. He highlights the economic situation in the 5th century bce due

Joel

133

Zephaniah and reacts to them.42 The result of the combination of this text with the Book of the Four—without Hosea—is a Joel-Corpus, which resembles Nogalski’s layer, but has a much narrower content.43 In his discussion, Wöhrle takes the remarks concerning the similarities of the superscription to those of the Book of the Four into account.44 The primary layer deals with the drought and the Day of Yhwh. Die Dürre wird somit nach Joel 2,1–11* als Zeichen des in den folgenden Prophetenbüchern erwarteten Gerichts verstanden. Der dort angekündigte Tag Jhwhs scheint nun gekommen zu sein. So handelt es sich bei der Grundschicht des Joelbuches geradezu um eine geschichtstheologische Deutung einer Naturkatastrophe unter Auslegung bereits vorliegender Prophetenbücher.45 Joel’s own situation is reflected in his treatment of the announced and alreadytranspired divine judgment of his people. By taking up the Day of Yhwh-motif and the close connection to Zephaniah, already the primary layer must have been written with its literary context in mind. Three texts in the following writings pick up the structure of Joel’s earlier material. The above-mentioned passage Amos 9:13–15*, which has often been identified as secondary addition, shares catchwords and the combination of “economic and external affairs.”46 Wöhrle detects similar parallels to Mic 7:8–10* and Zeph 3:14–17, two texts that, like Amos 9:13–15, are later additions made subsequent to the deuteronomistic layers. By these texts, which mirror the thematical sequence of Joel 1–2* (agrarian misery, Day of Yhwh in darkness, call to rejoice), the new corpus has a clear structure from judgment to salvation, grounded in Joel, which itself depends on the subsequent books in this corpus. At this point, the difference between Wöhrle’s approach and an approach that interprets Joel as a separate book which at one point was integrated in a collection of writings becomes obvious. Following Wöhrle, Joel has never to the Persian tax-system as background for the combination of drought—as economic danger—and the possibility that this causes a control by another nation (cf. Joel 2:17). 42  As already mentioned, Wöhrle develops a model in which Hosea is not part of the growing Book of the Twelve in these times. 43  For further details concerning the Joel-Corpus, cf. Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 436–460, and— shorter—idem, “Joel.” 44  Likewise, Nogalski, Processes, 277–278, highlights the function of the superscriptions of the new writings in his Joel-related layer (Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi), but points to their dependence on their respective contexts. 45  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 457. 46  Cf. Wöhrle, “Joel,” 132.

134

Ebach

existed as a distinct book; instead it was written within the context of a multiprophetic book. The further development of Joel is analogously connected with the growing of the Book of the Twelve. As a second layer (“Foreign Nations Layer I”: Joel 1:4, 6–7; 2:2*, 4–5, 7–9, 11a, 18–20, 25, 26b, 27; 4:1–3, 9–17), the judgment of the foreign peoples—together with the locust-motif—is included in Joel. “The Foreign Nations Layer II” (Joel 4:4–8, 18–21) names concrete peoples.47 Joel and the growing Book of the Twelve receive a new perspective of salvation by the addition of the “Salvation for the Nations Layer,” which contains Joel 3. As Wöhrle has shown, this universalistic perspective has been inserted into several parts of the Book of the Twelve, where the earlier context described the destruction of foreigners.48 The question of the origin of the motifs in Joel 3, which differ in Joel 3:1–3 from the rest of Joel, can also be answered within the horizon of the Book of the Twelve. As I have shown elsewhere,49 Joel 3 is deeply influenced by the sequence of Zech 12:9–13:9 and takes up and modifies the motifs of the outpouring of God’s spirit, the topic of the end of prophecy, the call of Yhwh, and a possible salvation. With the modified description of the way through judgment to salvation shown in Zech 12:9–13:9, and the already mentioned chronological changes in Joel itself, the way to salvation is opened and its human scope is widened. The new frame around the growing Book of the Twelve found in Joel 3 and Zech 14:16–19, which is also part of Wöhrle’s “Salvation for the Nations-layer,” changes the view on the foreign nations. They can also be saved together alongside Israel. For the final layer in Joel, Wöhrle identifies a “Grace Layer” (2:12–14) and thereby presents a solution for the question of the relationship of the repeated grace-formulas especially in Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2.50 47  Most of those scholars who prefer a literary unity of the entire book assume that Joel 4:4– 8, 18–21 are or could be later additions. Cf., among others, the early commentaries of Wolff, Joel, 88–90, and Jeremias “Joel/Joelbuch,” 92. 48  For Joel 3 as a later addition, cf., among others, Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 423–428, and Barton, Joel, 94. 49  Cf. Ebach, “Geistausgießung,” esp. 54–61. 50  Regarding the grace-corpus—and for further methodological considerations—cf. Wöhrle, “Cross-References.” The suggestion of a Grace Layer can defuse Coggins’s objection (“Interbiblical Quotations,” 79), that Nogalski does not integrate this relationship in his model. In a longer passage, Weimar, Jona, 376–386, discusses the literary interdependence between Joel and Jonah and votes for Joel as recipient or a mutual influencing regarding the grace-formula. The common phrase produces a “zitierender Rückgriff” (ibid., 379) on Joel, which motivates the reversal. In contrast, Kelly, “Joel,” prefers basing on stylistic and lexical observations the priority of Joel 2:13.

135

Joel

That Joel has strong relationships to the development of other writings of the Twelve should be obvious, although the concrete models vary. The strong impact of Joel on the understanding of the growing Book of the Twelve and its theological contribution to the entire book shall briefly conclude the remarks. 3

Joel’s Theological Contribution

Joel’s overarching theme in every layer is the Day of Yhwh, its signs, and the possibility to survive. Nogalski sums up: “A cohesive reading which uses Joel as the anchor ultimately does two things. It explains why the history of Yhwh’s people occurred in the way it did, and it offers hope to the readers that they will endure only by turning to Yhwh.”51 During the development of Joel, this theme is linked with Mount Zion as the place of salvation.52 In the earlier parts not only a remnant, as in the prophetic traditions in Amos and Zephaniah adapted by Joel, but the entire people can survive the judgment if they return to God. The priests have to uphold the people’s fasting.53 In striking contrast to the traditions alluded to, Joel does not report which guilt caused the coming of the Day of Yhwh, because the book necessarily needs to be read in combination with those texts to which it reacts and with which it builds a common theological corpus.54 In every part, Joel does not want to give a new rationale: he describes the Day of Yhwh in a new context and aims to show the ways to salvation. The late addition of Joel 3 opens this possibility for individuals and at the same time for foreigners through the outpouring of Yhwh’s spirit on all flesh (‫)כל־בׂשר‬.55 Joel can perform the hermeneutical function as key and the literaryhistorical function as anchor for the growing Book of the Twelve because of its lack of an explicit historical setting.56 This indefiniteness allows the book 51  Nogalski, “Joel,” 107. 52  Regarding the Zion-motif, see Schart, Entstehung, 263. 53  Cf. also Jeremias, “Function,” 30. 54  Schwesig, Rolle, esp. 156–159, 174–178, emphasizes the multidimensionality of the Day of Yhwh in the book of Joel and sees in this particularity the function of Joel in his Book of the Ten (as Schart) to link the prophetic traditions following in the other writings. In a canonical view, Rendtorff, “Tag,” 1–5, describes the multidimensionality of Joel’s Day of Yhwh and its function as the basis for the following writings in a similar manner, and designates Joel as “Kompendium über den Tag Jhwhs” (ibid., 1). 55  For further discussion, see Ebach, “Geistausgießung,” 48–53; Hagedorn, Anderen, 266– 269, and Roth, Israel, 63–71. 56  Already the lack of a concrete historical situation in the superscription, which remarkably is in contrast to those of the Book of the Four on which Joel reacts, make this openness

136

Ebach

to serve as an overarching point of reference for the other writings. Therefore, it can precede Amos and refer back to the earlier prophet; it can cite Obadiah and be read before it. Joel’s schematism enables a learning from history in the Book of the Twelve.57 Bibliography Bach, Robert. Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch. WMANT 9. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1962. Barton, John. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Bergler, Siegfried. Joel als Schriftinterpret. BEATAJ 16. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988. Birch, Bruce C. Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Coggins, Richard. “Interbiblical Quotations in Joel.” Pages 75–84 in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by John Barton and David J. Reimer. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. Coggins, Richard. Joel and Amos. The New Century Bible Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Collins, John J. Joel, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. New Collegeville Bible Commentary 17. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013. Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995. Dahmen, Ulrich. “Das Buch Joel.” Pages 11–113 in Die Bücher Joel und Amos. Written by idem and Gunther Fleischer. NSKAT 23,2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2001. Dahmen, Ulrich. “Joel: Schriftgelehrte Prophetenauslegung.” BK 68 (2013): 14–19. possible. The hints to the writer’s historical background, which enables a dating of Joel, are a different matter. 57  For more details, see Scoralick, “Auch jetzt noch,” 61, and Sweeney, “Place,” 582, who sums up: “Joel presents its scenario of threat and deliverance in anonymous terms; it therefore constitutes a basic pattern of threat and divine response to threat that can be read in relation to any particular historical situation in which the same patterns apply.”

Joel

137

Ebach, Ruth. “Geistausgießung und Rettung: Joel 3 als modifizierende Aufnahme von Sach 12,9–13,9 im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” BN 167 (2015): 43–63. Hagedorn, Anselm C. Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel. BZAW 414. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2011. Jeremias, Jörg. “Joel/Joelbuch.” TRE 17: 91–97. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Function of the Book of Joel for Reading the Twelve.” Pages 77–87 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Kelly, Joseph R. “Joel, Jonah, and the YHWH Creed: Determining the Trajectory of the Literary Influence.” JBL 132 (2013): 805–826. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by idem and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Der ‘Tag Jhwhs’ im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 1–11 in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah …” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “The First Section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets: Hosea—Joel— Amos.” Int 61 (2007): 138–152. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Scoralick, Ruth. “‘Auch jetzt noch’ (Joel 2,12a): Zur Eigenart der Joelschrift und ihrer Funktion im Kontext des Zwölfprophetenbuches.” Pages 47–69 in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah …” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Seitz, Christopher R. Joel. ITC. London et al.: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

138

Ebach

Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. BibInt 82. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2007. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve.” SBLSP 135 (1999): 570–595. Sweeney, Marvin A. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 1 of The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Weimar, Peter. Jona. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2017. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wöhrle, Jakob. “Joel and the Formation of the Book of the Twelve.” BTB 40 (2010): 127–137. Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis.” Pages 3–20 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Wolff, Hans W. Joel und Amos. Vol. 2 of Dodekapropheton. BKAT 14,2. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975. Zenger, Erich. “Das Buch Joël.” Pages 643–649 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by Christian Frevel. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. 9th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016.

Chapter 7

Amos in the Book of the Twelve Jason Radine 1 Introduction Canonically, the book of Amos is a member of the Book of the Twelve. This paper will explore a few portions and aspects of the book of Amos that suggest that the book of Amos may have grown in concert with other books within the Twelve. The topics that this paper will investigate comprise the relationships between the book of Amos and the early books of the Twelve (Hos, Mic, Zeph), the later books of the Twelve (Joel, Hag, Zech, Mal), and Amos’s place in the canonical orders of the Twelve. 2

Amos and the Book of the Four

When considering the book of Amos as a consciously-edited member or chapter within the Book of the Twelve, one naturally investigates similar or identical passages as well as broader themes within the Twelve. In terms of historical, theological, and ethical themes, the bulk of the book of Amos most closely echoes other books internally dated to the same general time frame, that is, the eighth century bce. These books are Hosea and Micah. These three books, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, all deal either explicitly or implicitly with the Assyrian threat on Israel and Judah, with various explanations as to why Israel and Judah were in as severe straits as they were. The internal datings of these books to the Assyrian era is found in their superscriptions’ regnal synchronisms. The superscriptions of these three books share not only similar datings, but also similar forms, generally featuring phrasing such as “the words of Yhwh which came to N.N.” (although Amos 1:1 has a slightly different form, as “the words of Amos”). The book of Zephaniah has a superscription similar to those of Hosea, Amos, and Micah, and thus it has been proposed that these four prophetic books once formed a specific collection, referred to in modern scholarship as the “Book of the Four.”1 It has further been proposed that 1  Nogalski, Precursors, 276–282. For a history of earlier Book of the Twelve research going back to Heinrich Ewald in 1868 (who also regarded the superscriptions as indicative of earlier collections), cf. Redditt, “Formation.” © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_009

140

Radine

portions of the Book of the Four existed as smaller sets of books prior to their inclusion in larger sets. These include a set of three (Hosea, Amos, Micah),2 as well as a small set of two, Hosea and Amos, which Jeremias has proposed may have grown in stages together in a sort of dialogue.3 The Book of the Four has often been seen as deuteronomistic, due to the resemblance of the superscriptions’ regnal synchronisms to the regnal synchronisms in the books of Kings. Deuteronomistic-style phrases have also been observed within the members of the Book of the Four, such as the statement that Yhwh does nothing without informing his servants the prophets in Amos 3:7.4 Even so, the bulk of the contents of the books of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah have been observed to have considerable differences with the DtrH’s perspective on religion and history. Rainer Albertz noted that the Four oppose the hopes present in the DtrH for the restoration of the Judahite monarchy in Josianic form, and Wöhrle observed that the DtrH lacks the strident social criticism of the Four.5 That is, the Four (and particularly Amos) ascribe the coming disaster on Israel and/or Judah in large part to their economic-moral wrongs, such as abuse of the poor. The DtrH is mostly concerned with Israelite polytheism (as opposed at least to henotheism) and iconism rather than moral abuses. While polytheism and iconic worship are also major concerns in the Four, especially in Hosea, the Four contain moral concerns that far exceed those that appear in the DtrH (although some are present in Deuteronomy itself). Previously I have argued that the book of Amos at least differs more in its outlook than the mere polytheism/economic morality distinction.6 I noted that the overall diagnosis in the books of Kings of what is wrong with Israel, the Northern Kingdom, is the Israelite kings’ adherence to the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, the Northern Kingdom’s founding monarch. There seems to be no awareness of Jeroboam son of Nebat in the book of Amos, even where the Bethel shrine is singled out.7 I suggested that the reason for this relates to the possible non-historical reality of the United Monarchy, and that the book of Amos reflects a more likely reality that the Northern Kingdom was not founded as a breakaway state from the greater Jerusalem-based kingdom of Israel, 2  Schneider, Unity, 35–43. 3  Jeremias, “Interrelationship.” Cf. Wolfe, “Editing,” 93, for an early proposal of a Hosea–Amos scroll, and Schart, Entstehung, 101–155, for a fuller elaboration of this idea, and cf. Schart, “Reconstructing.” 4  For dtr. phraseology in Amos, cf. Schmidt, “Redaktion.” 5  Albertz, “Exile,” 232–251; Wöhrle, “No Future,” 625–626. 6  Radine, “Redaction.” 7  Radine, “Redaction,” 288–296.

141

Amos

and thus the book of Amos does not subscribe to the notion of a national original sin from Jeroboam’s secession.8 My conclusion thus was that even if there was a Book of the Four, any deuteronomistic editing that it may have undergone would have been minimal, having no discernible effect on the diagnosis of Israel’s wrongdoing in the book of Amos. The works discussed above demonstrate that while there may have been a distinct Book of the Four with dtr. editing, the Four have quite distinct outlooks that differ from the DtrH. The existence of a historical Book of the Four in general remains, like most theories of biblical composition, a matter of debate, and the issues concerning the Four are discussed much more fully in Wöhrle’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 1). I will now turn to what in my view is a clearer linkage of the book of Amos with the Book of the Twelve: the conclusion to the book of Amos. 3

The Amos Epilogue

Amos 9:11–15, which forms a kind of epilogue to the book of Amos, has long been considered a later addition to the book.9 The sharp contrast of paradisiacal bounty after nine chapters of brutal condemnation prompted Wellhausen famously to call it “Rosen und Lavendel statt Blut und Eisen.”10 This portion of the book seems to come almost out of nowhere (except for maybe Amos 9:8b)11 and with no reform of the people’s ways, presenting a dramatic reversal of fortunes.12 The striking difference with the rest of the book of Amos raises important questions about where this epilogue, if it is not of common origin with the rest of the book, fits in or relates to the Twelve. The later origin of the epilogue, and a key to its meaning, is evident in the enigmatic reference to the “booth of David” (‫ )סכת דויד‬that is fallen and will be rebuilt. The ‫ סכת דויד‬is usually interpreted politically, to refer to the Davidic 8  Radine, “Redaction,” 297–299. 9  See, for example, Hadjiev, Composition, 119–120. 10  Wellhausen, Propheten, 96. 11  Biddle, “Sinners,” suggests that an earlier form of the book of Amos predicted destruction only for the ruling elite and their cities and shrines, with redactional additions totalizing this destruction to the whole people. 12  As Nel, “Amos 9:11–15,” 84, put it, “The pronouncements of doom seem to be no more than a bad dream. One wakes up in what seems like a fairyland.” The overall picture in the epilogue is of the conclusion-type which Schart, “Concluding Sections,” 250–251, referred to as “describing the ultimate realization of God’s rule over the Earth,” although Schart there identified Amos 9:14 with the type of “restitution of an original but lost state of integrity.”

142

Radine

kingdom,13 lineage,14 or capital city,15 whether the passage is dated to a preexilic, exilic, or post-exilic time-period. A few scholars, however, have identified the ‫ סכת דויד‬with the Jerusalem temple, myself among them. Sabine Nägele, dating Amos 9:11 to the late eighth century, saw the passage as an attempt to dampen overconfident Zion theology in the wake of Judah’s survival from the attack of Sennacherib.16 G. Henton Davies, dating the passage to a post-exilic setting, saw the reference to the restored ‫ סכת דויד‬as part of what he considered to be the book’s overall positive view of the rebuilt Jerusalem temple in its rivalries with other shrines in Benjamin.17 I also argued for a temple identification of the ‫ סכת דויד‬in an earlier work, with a post-exilic dating.18 The term ‫ סכה‬has a cultic connotation in several biblical passages. Lam 2:6 uses the term to refer to the tabernacle/temple, and Ps 27:5 also associates the term with Yhwh’s temple. Pss 31:21; 42:5; and 76:3 use the term to refer to the shelter and protection of Yhwh. The holiday associated with the term, Sukkoth, the Feast of Booths, also has strong temple connections. Sukkoth was the occasion for the dedication of the first temple (1 Kgs 8:2, 65–66), Haggai’s prophecy of the construction of the second temple (Hag 2:1), the rebuilding of its altar (Ezra 3:4), Ezra’s public Torah reading (Neh 8:13–18), and its rededication by the Maccabees (2 Macc 1:18; 10:6). The holiday itself was a harvest holiday (Exod 23:16; Deut 16:13), associated with bountiful agricultural produce,19 which fits with the scenes of effusive bounty in the following verses in Amos. The reference to the name “David” in ‫סכת דויד‬, which has caused many to see a political meaning to this term, can indeed be consistent with a temple identification, as the Chronicler associates David with the planning and design of the temple (2 Chr 22–24; 28:11–29:9). A more recent and similar identification of the ‫ סכת דויד‬with the temple has been proposed by Greg Goswell.20 He wrote that references to Jerusalem else13  Among others, Sweeney, “Dystopianization,” placing Amos 9:11–15 in a pre-exilic setting. For an interpretation of the term as referring to the Davidic kingdom (and its cities) in the post-exilic period, cf. Nogalski, “Suffixes.” 14  Timmer, “Use,” 109–110. Timmer also argued there that Isa 16:5 uses the same phrase in reference to the Davidic kingdom, while granting that the tent image is itself cultic. However, Isa 1:8 refers to the ‫אהל מועד‬, not the ‫סכת דויד‬. The Talmud Bavli links the “fallen” to the lineage of David himself, and refers to his descendant, the Messiah, as the “son of the fallen one.” Sanhedrin 11:1–2; cf. Neusner, Amos, 103. 15  Pomykala, “Jerusalem.” 16  Nägele, Laubhütte, 236–237. 17  Davies, “Amos.” 18  Radine, Book of Amos, 199–205. 19  Rubenstein, History, 20–25; Kronholm, “‫סכך‬.” 20  Goswell, “David.”

Amos

143

where in the Twelve refer to it as God’s capital, the holy city, rather than a royal or imperial capital.21 The association of the ‫ סכה‬with David instead of Solomon is, in his view, due to the tradition that David brought the ark to Jerusalem and housed it in a tent, and thus the city as holy site is associated most with him. Goswell suggests that the Twelve in general is not interested in a restoration of the Davidic kingdom, but in the universal acclamation of Jerusalem as God’s capital. It is thus that the people (not the monarchy) will “possess” the nations round about, as they recognize God’s capital city. As for David’s appearance in Amos 6:5, Goswell suggested that this reference refers to David’s music in a liturgical sense. Goswell read the banquet scene in Amos 6 as the profane use of sacrificial animals and tools, and thus that improvising music “like David” refers to him as a cultic musician, a Psalmist.22 If it is true that the ‫ סכת דויד‬is the rebuilt temple, the Amos epilogue shows clear links with later, Second Temple portions of the Twelve. The books of Joel, Haggai, and Malachi reflect the theocratic transformation of post-monarchic Yehudite/Jewish religion, whereby the temple priesthood exerted unprecedented local authority in the Persian province of Yehud.23 The book of Haggai of course deals directly with the issue of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, but the connections go far beyond that. The Amos epilogue follows the description of the rebuilt booth of David with imagery of the possession of the nations roundabout as well as extraordinary agricultural bounty. The functioning of the temple and the increase in agricultural fecundity are closely linked in the late prophetic books. Deborah Rooke has shown that the books of Joel and Malachi show a strong connection between proper priestly worship and Yhwh’s providence of the people’s food supplies.24 As she observed, the book of Joel calls on the priests to lead the people in repentance to end a famine both for themselves and for sacrificable materials (“blessings”),25 and the book of Malachi condemns priests for giving inadequate or impure offerings to Yhwh, with an implied result in famine.26 As Rooke aptly put it: “Faithful priests mean reliable food supplies; 21  Goswell, “David,” 245–247. For the gradually expanded notion of Jerusalem as the city of God in the Twelve, cf. Gärtner, “Jerusalem—City of God,” for Jerusalem in Zephaniah, and idem, “Jerusalem und die Völker,” for Jerusalem in Mic 4–5 and Zech 14, and Redditt, “Depictions,” regarding Jerusalem in Hag, Zech, and Mal. 22  Goswell, “David,” 248–250. 23  On the rise of priesthood and the reduction of hopes for a Davidide monarch in the Persian period, cf. Grabbe, “Priesthood”; Redditt, “King,” and Wöhrle, “Hierocracy.” 24  Rooke, “Priests.” 25  Rooke, “Priests,” 83–89. 26  Rooke, “Priests,” 89–97.

144

Radine

and so faithful priests are as fundamental for the community’s well-being as are abundant harvests.”27 Of course, the same situation applies in Haggai, where the way to end a famine is to restore temple worship (Hag 1:9–10). As Rooke noted in the case of Joel, the offering of proper sacrifices is not always a matter in the control of priests, and the failure to do so properly is not always their fault. Especially in the case of Joel, Rooke observed that the priests seem to want their “blessings” (supply of proper offerings) restored, and that such restoration would be a great benevolence from Yhwh. Again, if the rebuilt ‫ סכת דויד‬refers to the Temple, then the extraordinary bounty almost bursting from the ground makes good sense. Seen in the light of the essential connection in post-exilic prophetic literature between sacrifice and food supply, a proper temple worship is part of the needed food supply. Thus, the Amos epilogue is predicting a future where the temple will function properly and thus that the land will concomitantly produce ample food and wine for people and offerings alike. The bountiful food supply of the Amos epilogue, particularly in Amos 9:13b, appears nearly identically in Joel 4:18b, including the rare word ‫עסיס‬. Often rendered as “sweet wine”28 or “new wine,”29 the term refers technically to “pressed juice” (‫ )עסס‬and is used once also for pomegranate juice (Song 8:2). The mountains are “melting” (‫)מוג‬, perhaps saturated with the pressed juice. The image seems to be of the mountains helping with the winemaking process, oozing fresh pressed grape juice, saving the people from having to harvest grapes. The image is an Edenic ease of eating and drinking. The relationship between the books of Amos and Joel is debated and not resolved. The matter is complicated by the fact that Amos and Joel also share a nearly identical line at Amos 1:2 and Joel 4:16a. Nogalski regarded Joel 4:16a as citing Amos 1:2; and Amos 9:13a as citing Joel 4:18a.30 Jeremias agreed with Nogalski regarding the former citation but equivocated on the latter.31 I have suggested elsewhere that Amos 1:2 fits well with the bulk of the first stratum of the book’s composition and so is probably the source of Joel 4:16a, like the views presented above.32 The book of Joel seems to draw so much from other prophetic books that in this case intertextual borrowing from the book of Amos is at least as likely as Amos 1:2 and Joel 4:16 both independently drawing from oral traditions. 27  Rooke, “Priests,” 98. 28   K JV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, ESV, ASV. 29   N IV, DBY. 30  Nogalski, “Anchor,” 99, and idem, “Nation,” 91. 31  Jeremias, “Function,” 84. 32  Radine, Book of Amos, 43–44.

Amos

145

So, the epilogue of Amos shares a theological linkage of temple and bounty with the books of Joel, Haggai, and Malachi. The epilogue also shares commonalities with Zechariah, particularly ch. 14. Zech 14:16–19 announces that “on that day” the survivors of all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will gather at Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkoth. If they refuse, they will suffer drought and plague. If the interpretation made here of the ‫ סכת דויד‬with the temple is correct, the imagery in Zech 14:16 draws the holiday and the temple closer together; the Festival of Booths celebrated in the “booth.” This passage shares the notion of “all the nations who are called by my name” in Amos 9:12 along with a connection with “booth(s)” with Amos 9:11. The plural subject of ‫ יירׁשו‬in Amos 9:12 is most naturally the people associated with the restored ‫סכת דויד‬, that being the Judahites.33 The notion here is that Yhwh’s holy site will possess the nations, through the people associated with it.34 Daniel Timmer has recently argued that the sequence of the restoration of the ‫סכת דויד‬, followed by possession of the nations, goes against identifying the ‫ סכת דויד‬with the temple, writing that “The stereotypical order of events in the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere in the ancient Near East points in the same direction, typically presenting victory followed by temple building.”35 However, the Jewish community of post-exilic Yehud was a theocracy (or hierocracy), not a kingdom like Babylon or other polities of the ancient Near East. A kingdom must exist before dominating its enemies, and for post-exilic Yehud, that kingdom was the temple. The imagery of Amos 9:11–12 is similar to that of Zech 14:16, that the nations submit to Jerusalem/Zion in worship; as such, the temple must exist first. Edom is specifically marked out in Amos 9:12; while Edom can often stand as a cipher for any and all enemy nations, the differentiation between Edom and the other nations suggests here that Edom is specifically in mind.36 The inclusion of Edom likely simply reflects exilic and post-exilic resentment of Edom, as is apparent for example in Ezek 25:12–14.37 Edom continues to operate as

33  Nogalski, “Suffixes,” 415–416, saw the ‫ סכת דויד‬as the subject of the possessing, but as a collective term for “cities,” based in part on the use of ‫ סכה‬for Jerusalem in Isa 1:8. While his identification of the ‫ סכת דויד‬is not the same as is made here, I agree with him that the ‫ סכת דויד‬is essentially the subject, in that the people associated with the “booth” are the ones who will possess the nations. 34  Goswell, “David,” 256–257, has generally the same view as presented here regarding the subjects of “possess.” 35  Timmer, “Use,” 109 (emphasis his), citing Enuma Elish tablet VI as an example for the sequence of victory followed by temple building. 36  Often “Edom means Edom” as Nogalski, “Nation,” 90, notes. 37  I have argued elsewhere, Radine, Book of Amos, 179–180, that Amos 1:9–11 is exilic.

146

Radine

a target of wrath in late works in the Twelve, such as Joel 4:19 and Mal 1:2–5,38 demonstrating that Edom continues to be, either as itself or as a cipher for all the nations, a symbol of a despised enemy of Judah, and Edom’s appearance in Amos 9:12 likely reflects this tradition. Lastly, it is also notable that Zech 14:5 specifically mentions the earthquake of the time of Uzziah, which appears in Amos 1:1, and which in turn might be referenced in Joel 4:16. With all of these connections, it is most likely the case that the Amos epilogue was composed and added to the book of Amos at a relatively late stage, when Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Joel were also entering the growing corpus. While it is not necessarily the case that Amos 9:11–15 was specifically written in order to form part of the Twelve, it was likely composed in order to bring the book of Amos into consistency with the theological expectations emphasized in the late books of the Twelve. 4

MT and LXX Orders

Stepping back now to look at the Book of Amos in its canonical placement within the Book of the Twelve, it is evident that the meaning of the book of Amos within the Twelve is affected considerably by the order of the books in the corpus. The MT order features the first six books in the order of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, whereas the LXX features them in the order of Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and Nahum. Nogalski identified a catchword principle connecting the books like a train in the MT order,39 but this only works in the MT order. Nogalski also suggested that, in the MT order, Israel is shown to be accused in Hosea, urged to penitential prayer in Joel, and fails to do so in Amos. Following Barry Jones in suggesting that the LXX (Vorlage) order is older than the MT order,40 Sweeney argued that the ordering makes a difference in meaning to the constituent books.41 In his view, the LXX points to the demise of the Northern Kingdom as a paradigm for the Southern Kingdom and is the earliest historical concern, of greatest interest from the late monarchic to the early Persian periods. The MT order reflects, in his view, the Jerusalem primacy of the later Persian period. At this stage, Jerusalem-concerns as seen in the book of Joel were interspersed within the 38  Scoralick, “Case,” 50, suggests that Mal 1:2–5 could be read as an extension of the same thought as Zechariah’s “all the nations” along with Egypt in Zech 4:16–18. 39  Nogalski, Precursors, 21–57. 40  Jones, Formation, 221–242. 41  Sweeney, “Place.”

147

Amos

Hosea/Amos/Micah set, downplaying the North-first LXX meaning and making Jerusalem paramount throughout. Certainly the LXX preserves something of a possible Book of the Four, as Hosea, Amos, and Micah are adjacent to each other in the LXX order. If there was at least a “Book of the Three” consisting of Hosea, Amos, and Micah, then the LXX order is likely primary for the Twelve if the initial compilers of the Twelve made any effort to preserve the earlier corpora they had encountered. It is, of course, also possible that the earliest precursor to the Twelve was broken up at an early stage as part of the Twelve’s development, which leaves open the possibility that the MT order is primary.42 5 Conclusion The book of Amos has thematic and literary connections (the latter through the superscriptions) with the books of Hosea, Micah, and to a lesser extent, Zephaniah, that suggest the possibility that at least some form of the book of Amos was once part of a Book of the Four, and that this Book may have contained some dtr. traits. However, any such Book of the Four significantly differed from the DtrH. Amos 9:11–15 shares considerable thematic and cultic connections with Joel, Haggai, Zechariah (or at least Deutero-Zechariah) and Malachi such that it is likely that this epilogue to Amos was written to align the earlier book of Amos with the cultic-religious hopes and expectations that also characterize the latter books of the Twelve, thus bringing what is probably at least in part one of the older members of the Twelve in line with the nature of developing Judaism expressed in the Twelve’s latest component works. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’” Pages 232–251 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Biddle, Mark E. “Sinners Only? Amos 9:8–10 and the Problem of Targeted Justice in Amos.” PRSt 43 (2016): 161–175. Davies, G. Henton. “Amos—The Prophet of Reunion.” ExpTim 92 (1980–1981): 196–200.

42  Wöhrle, “Joel,” 134–136, suggested Hosea was separated off from its connection with Amos at a very early stage in the development of the Twelve, to initiate such a collection with Joel instead of Hosea.

148

Radine

Gärtner, Judith. “Jerusalem—City of God for Israel and the Nations in Zeph 3:8, 9–10, 11–13.” Pages 269–283 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Gärtner, Judith. “Jerusalem und die Völker in Mi 4/5 und Sach 14.” Pages 339–358 in Die Stadt im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Aaron Schart and Jutta Krispenz. BZAW 428. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Goswell, Greg. “David in the Prophecy of Amos.” VT 61 (2011): 243–257. Grabbe, Lester L. “The Priesthood in the Persian Period: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.” Pages 149–156 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos. BZAW 393. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2009. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pages 171–186 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Function of the Book of Joel for Reading the Twelve.” Pages 77–87 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Jones, Barry A. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Kronholm, Tryggve. “‫ סכך‬sāḵaḵ.” TDOT 10: 236–254. Nägele, Sabine. Laubhütte Davids und Wolkensohn: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Amos 9,11 in der jüdischen und christlichen Exegese. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Nel, W.A.G. “Amos 9:11–15—An Unconditional Prophecy of Salvation during the Period of the Exile.” OTE 2 (1984): 81–97. Neusner, Jacob. Amos in Talmud and Midrash: A Source Book. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “The Problematic Suffixes of Amos ix 11.” VT 43 (1993): 411–418. Nogalski, James D. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000. Nogalski, James D. “Not Just another Nation: Obadiah’s Placement in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 89–107 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012.

Amos

149

Pomykala, Kenneth E. “Jerusalem as the Fallen Booth of David in Amos 9.11.” Pages 275–293 in God’s Word for Our World: Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Vol. 1. JSOTSup 388. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2004. Radine, Jason. The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah. FAT II,45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Radine, Jason. “Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Book of the Four and the Origins of Israel’s Wrongs.” Pages 287–302 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Redditt, Paul. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” Pages 1–26 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Redditt, Paul. “Depictions of Exilic and Postexilic Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible, especially Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.” Pages 359–383 in Die Stadt im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Aaron Schart and Jutta Krispenz. BZAW 428. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Redditt, Paul. “King, Priest, and Temple in Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi and Ezra– Nehemiah.” Pages 157–173 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Rooke, Deborah W. “Priest and Profits: Joel and Malachi.” Pages 81–98 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. BJS 302. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets: Problems and Models.” Pages 34–48 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000. Schart, Aaron. “The Concluding Sections of the Writings of the Book of the Twelve Prophets: A Form- and Redaction-critical Study.” PRSt 43 (2016): 243–256. Schmidt, Werner. “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theologischen Unterschieden zwischen dem Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler.” ZAW 77 (1965): 168–193. Schneider, Dale A. The Unity of the Book of the Twelve. PhD Diss. Yale, CT: Yale University, 1979.

150

Radine

Scoralick, Ruth. “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” Pages 35–52 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 133–154 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature: The Case of Amos 9:11–15.” Pages 175–185 in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2006. Timmer, Daniel. “The Use and Abuse of Power in Amos: Identity and Ideology.” JSOT 39 (2014): 101–118. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten. 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. Wöhrle, Jakob. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 58 (2008): 608–627. Wöhrle, Jakob. “Joel and the Formation of the Book of the Twelve.” BTB 40 (2010): 127–137. Wöhrle, Jakob. “On the Way to Hierocracy: Secular and Priestly Rule in the Books of Haggai and Zechariah.” Pages 173–189 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Wolfe, Rolland E. “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve.” ZAW 53 (1935): 90–129.

Chapter 8

Obadiah in the Book of the Twelve Anna Sieges and Nicholas R. Werse 1

Obadiah as Scribal Prophecy

The final form of Obadiah consists of a single oracular “vision” (‫ ;חזון‬v. 1) targeting Edom on account of their crimes against Judah. Scholarship generally associates these crimes with the tradition of Edomite participation in the Babylonian led 587/6 bce siege of Jerusalem.1 This “vision” emphasizes Edom’s fraternal relationship with Judah via their respective ancestors—Esau and Jacob—in order to highlight the treacherous depth of the Edomite betrayal.2 Obadiah’s proclaimed judgment revolves around the central “Day of Yhwh,” on which all nations will face just recompense. The Obadiah oracle artistically employs a series of word-plays and ironic reversals in order to frame Edom’s coming judgment as the just reversal of these condemned crimes.3 Although short in length, Obadiah boasts an impressive number of lexical and thematic parallels with other texts in the Twelve. Obadiah’s distinctive focus on Edom recalls this nation’s appearance in Joel 4:19; Amos 1:11–12; 9:12 (cf. Amos 1:6, 9; 2:1); and Mal 1:2–4.4 The prominent “Day of Yhwh” theme occurs elsewhere in Joel; Amos 5:18–20; Zeph 1:7–18; and Mal 3:23.5 Additionally, Obadiah articulates a salvific expectation that correlates the judgment of the nations with the restoration of Zion (cf. Joel 4:1–21; Mic 4:11–13; 5:7–9; Zech 9:1– 10; 12:1–5; 14:1–5).6 Obadiah’s extensive intertextuality complicates the compositional implications of these parallels for the formation of the Twelve. Obad 1–6 famously 1  E.g. Jenson, Obadiah, 4–5; Nelson, Historical Roots, 180. Cf. Ezek 25:12–14; Lam 4:22; Ps 137:7; 1 Esd 4:45. Obadiah’s dependence on Jer 49:7–22 indicates that it better reflects a postexilic composition drawing upon a preexisting literary tradition. For objections to an exilic dating, see Ben Zvi, Study, 260–267; Nogalski, Book, 367–368. 2  For discussion, see Krause, “Tradition,” 475–486. 3  Anderson, “Poetic Justice,” 247–255; Werse, “Crime,” 85–110. 4  On Edom in the Twelve, see Hagedorn, “Edom,” 41–57; Scoralick, “Case,” 35–54. On the possible reading of “Edom” in Mic 2:12, see Wagenaar, “Edom,” 531–539. 5  On the “Day of Yhwh” theme within the Twelve, see Beck, Tag YHWHs; Schwesig, Rolle; Macchi, “Thème,” 141–181. 6  Prominent studies on the nations in the Twelve include Roth, Israel; Hagedorn, Anderen. Cf. Wöhrle, Abschluss, 439–446.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_010

152

Sieges and Werse

draws upon Jer 49:7, 9–10, 14–16.7 Obadiah further reflects the influence of Ezek 35:1–15 and parts of Isaiah.8 Obadiah even contains parallels with Job, Psalms, and Proverbs.9 Although not every parallel necessitates literary dependence between texts, commentators commonly identify Obadiah as “scribal prophecy” constructed by drawing upon preexisting oracles.10 Obadiah’s parallels with other parts of the Twelve, therefore, must be considered in light of this larger scribal tendency of drawing upon earlier texts.11 Within the Twelve, Obadiah shares especially strong parallels with Joel, Amos, Micah, and Malachi. The following examination, therefore, will assess these literary parallels before considering the diachronic implications of this intertextual programme for the composition of Obadiah in relation to the formation of the Book of the Twelve. 2

Relationship with Amos

Many scholars recognize a general relationship between Amos and Obadiah. Edom’s fraternal betrayal features in Amos 1:11–12 and the “possession of the remnant of Edom” (‫ )יירׁשו את־ׁשארית אדום‬in Amos 9:12 parallels the “possession” (‫ )ירׁש‬of Edom in Obad 17–18. James Nogalski identifies thirteen parallels between Obadiah and Amos 9 in his argument that scribes constructed Obadiah for its canonical place following Amos.12 Nogalski observes that Obad 1 frames the oracle as a “vision” (‫)חזון‬, yet the ensuing pronouncements do not reflect expected visionary material. He proposes that introducing Obadiah in this way parallels the concluding Amos vision.13 Nogalski argues that the editor of Obadiah alters the source material from Jer 49 in three ways 7  For arguments tracing the direction of influence from Jer 49 to Obadiah, see Dicou, “Wijsheid,” 90–96; Meinhold, “Weisheitliches,” 70–86; Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 89–107. 8  For parallels with Ezek 35:1–15, see Olávarri, “Cronología,” 308–309; Nogalski, Processes, 76–78. For parallels with Isaiah, see Bosshard, “Beobachtungen,” 32–33, 42–49; Nogalski, Processes, 74–75; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 418–420. 9  Cf. Obad 3–4 // Job 39:27–28, Obad 7 // Ps 41:10, Obad 13aα // Prov 27:12, and Obad 21b // Ps 22:29. 10  E.g. Nogalski, Processes, 73; Schart, Entstehung, 270; Jeremias, Propheten, 57. 11  Ben Zvi critiques studies of links between the individual texts of the Twelve for in­ consistently treating intertextuality with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (“Twelve Hypo­ thesis,” 75). 12  Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 89–107. 13  Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 93. Note that Obad 1 uses ‫ חזון‬whereas the Amos visions use ‫( ראה‬Amos 7:1, 4, 7–8; 8:1, 2; 9:1). The root ‫ חזה‬only applies to Amos’s prophetic activity in Amos 1:1 and 7:12.

Obadiah

153

to follow the pattern of Amos 9. First, the editor alters the two ‫אם‬-clauses of Jer 49:14–16 in order to construct five ‫אם‬-clauses in Obad 4–5, thereby paralleling the five ‫אם‬-clauses of Amos 9:2–4. Second, the editor inverts Jer 49:9 when compiling Obad 5 in order to pattern the “destruction” to “remnant” progression from Amos 9:7–10. Finally, Nogalski argues that placing the phrase “from there I will pull you down” (cf. Jer 49:16) near the beginning of Obadiah (v. 4) creates a parallel with Amos 9:2.14 Nogalski further argues that the unusual combination of formulaic phrases in Obad 8a reflects a collection of literary markers from Amos 9. The phrase “‘Will not, on that day,’ an utterance of Yhwh” (‫ )הלוא ביום ההוא נאם‬combines “will not” (‫ )הלוא‬from Amos 9:7, “in that day” (‫ )ביום ההוא‬from Amos 9:11, and “an utterance of Yhwh” (‫ )נאם יהוה‬from Amos 9:7, 8, 13.15 Arguments for intertextual relationships based upon formulaic literary markers are notoriously difficult due to the frequency of such sayings throughout the latter prophets. Yet Nogalski’s proposal supplies a possible explanation for the unusual construction of Obad 8a. Nogalski’s six remaining parallels concern thematic similarities between Amos 9:11–15 and Obad 15–21. First, Amos 9:11 and Obad 15 both inaugurate a description of the “day” characterized by Judean restoration and the judgment of the nations. Second, Amos 9:11 and Obad 16 allude to the destruction of Jerusalem. Third, this allusion in both cases corresponds to a promised restoration of the Davidic kingdom (Amos 9:11–12; Obad 19–20). Third, Amos 9:12 and Obad 17–18, 19–20 concern the “possession” (‫ )ירׁש‬of Edom. Fourth, Amos 9:14 and Obad 19–20 promise the restoration of exiles/captivity. Finally, Amos 9:15 and Obad 21 conclude both “visions” with the promise of a restored kingdom.16 Not all of these parallels necessitate the intentional patterning of Obadiah on Amos 9.17 Many of these thematic similarities could merely evince a common set of salvific expectations and not literary dependence. However, the replication of key vocabulary clusters such as “from there I will pull you down” (Amos 9:2; Obad 4), the five ‫ אם‬clauses (Amos 9:2–4; Obad 4–5), and the “possession” of Edom (Amos 9:12; Obad 17–18) supply periodic and otherwise rare parallels between these visions that are hard to dismiss. The correspondence of these literary parallels with the rearranged Jeremiah source material in Obadiah further suggests the intentionality of such similarities. The force of the 14  Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 92–94. The phrase ‫ מׁשם אוריך‬only occurs in Jer 49:16; Amos 9:2; and Obad 4. 15  Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 94. 16  Nogalski, “Another Nation,” 95–97. 17  See the objections of Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 129, 143–148.

154

Sieges and Werse

evidence as a whole, therefore, supports Nogalski’s conclusion that Obadiah reflects a canonical awareness of its MT position following Amos 9.18 This conclusion does not necessitate reading Obadiah as a continuation of the Amos visions (7:1–9:15).19 The superscription of Obadiah suggests the beginning of a distinct prophetic message attributed to a new prophetic identity. The compositional conclusions drawn based upon these parallels must account for both the literary links to Amos 9 and Obadiah’s distinctive prophetic features. 3

Relationship with Micah

Nogalski’s argument that editors shaped Obadiah for its place in the Twelve depends additionally upon parallels with the ensuing prophetic material. Although Obadiah shares minimal links with Jonah, Nogalski identifies catchwords with Mic 1:1–7.20 Not all of these catchwords necessitate intentionally constructed links between Obadiah and Mic 1:1–7 as several of these terms occur frequently throughout the Hebrew prophets. The two strongest links consist of the “field of Samaria” (‫ )ׂשדה ׁשמרון‬in Obad 19aβ; Mic 1:6 and “the gate of my people” (‫ )ׁשער עמי‬in Obad 13; Mic 1:9.21 Hebrew prophetic literature occasionally identifies Samaria with a “mountain” (‫ )הר‬but rarely a “field” (‫)ׂשדה‬.22 This description of Samaria in Mic 1:6 draws its language of “field” (‫ )ׂשדה‬and “heap of ruins” (‫ )עי‬from Mic 3:12, applying the imagery of Zion’s destruction to Samaria.23 This unusual designation in Obadiah, therefore, fits the Micah textual tradition. The use of “the gate of my people” (‫ )ׁשער עמי‬similarly lacks precedent in Obadiah, yet reflects the Micah tradition’s frequent use of “my people” 18  Nogalski, Processes, 91–92; idem, Book, 375–376. 19  Contra Schart, Entstehung, 270–271. 20  Nogalski, Processes, 82–85. On the minimal catchwords between Obadiah and Jonah, see idem, Precursors, 33–35. 21  Several scholars identify Obad 19aβ as a gloss (e.g. Allen, Books, 70 n. 37). Others emend ‫ ׂשדה‬to the more expected ‫ הר‬following the LXX (e.g. Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 407). 22  1 Kgs 16:24; Jer 31:5; Amos 3:9; 4:1; 6:1. The preceding designation “field of Ephraim” (‫ )ׂשדה אפרים‬occurs only in Obad 19. The “land (‫ )ארץ‬of Ephraim” occasionally occurs (Deut 34:2; Judg 12:15; 2 Chr 30:10), but the designation “mountain(s) (]‫ )הר[ים‬of Ephraim” is most common (Josh 17:15; 19:50; 20:7; 21:21; 24:30, 33; Judg 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 7:24; 10:1; 17:1, 8; 18:2, 13; 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Sam 1:1; 9:4; 14:22; 2 Sam 20:21; 1 Kgs 4:8; 12:25; 2 Kgs 5:22; 1 Chr 6:52; 2 Chr 13:4; 15:8; 19:4; Jer 4:15; 31:6; 50:19). 23  Wolff, Micha, 11; Deissler, Obadja, 172, 182. Several investigations attribute Mic 1:5b–7 to the editors of the Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah). See Nogalski, Precursors, 132, 138–139; Schart, Entstehung, 178; Albertz, Exilszeit, 168–169; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 140–142, 192–193.

Obadiah

155

(‫)עמי‬.24 These two parallels reflect distinctive characteristics of the Micah text, suggesting that Obad 13 and 19aβ allude to Micah. These links between Obadiah and Micah are minimal when compared to the parallels with Amos 9. Furthermore, Micah does not reside next to Obadiah in any current arrangement of the Twelve. Nogalski argues that the links between Micah 1 and Obadiah indicate that editors shaped Obadiah to fit between Amos and Micah prior to the inclusion of Jonah.25 This proposal coheres with the common scholarly conclusion that Jonah entered the Twelve after Obadiah.26 Additionally, this proposal coheres with the recent Book of the Four hypothesis that posits a precursory collection to the Twelve in which Amos and Micah were juxtaposed.27 The links to Amos 9 and Mic 1 suggests that editors crafted Obadiah to fit between these two chapters. Such compositional conclusions, however, must keep in mind that Obadiah shares more links with Amos 9 than with Mic 1. 4

Relationship with Joel

Obadiah additionally shares several intertextual similarities with Joel.28 Both texts revolve around the central “Day of Yhwh” theme in which Jerusalem’s restoration follows the judgment of the nations. Both texts, furthermore, are scribal prophecy constructed based upon preexisting texts.29 Aaron Schart provides one of the most extensive assessments of the intertextuality between Obadiah and Joel in the context of the formation of the Twelve.30 Although not all of his listed parallels necessitate direct literary dependence, four echoes between Joel and Obadiah support Schart’s argument for a literary relationship

24  Mic 1:9; 2:4, 8–9; 3:3. Nogalski limits his comparison to Obad 15–21 and Mic 1:1–7, thus omitting ‫( ׁשער עמי‬Precursors, 31–33). 25  Nogalski, Processes, 78–79. 26  E.g. Wöhrle, “Prophetic Reflection,” 1–17; Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 118–127. 27  Some scholars optimistically treat the Book of the Four hypothesis as a near consensus (e.g. Schwesig, Rolle, 1–2; Macchi, “Petits Prophètes,” 461). Although gaining in popularity, the Book of the Four still faces notable objections (e.g. Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” 221–235; Bornand, “Livre des Quatre,” 551–552, 563). 28  For fuller lists of parallels between Joel and Obadiah, see Bergler, Joel, 301–327; Schart, Entstehung, 272–273. 29  As observed by Bosshard, “Beobachtungen,” 47–48; Jeremias, Propheten, 57. 30  Schart argues that the same editorial activity shaped Joel and Obadiah for their place in the Twelve (Entstehung, 278–282).

156

Sieges and Werse

between these texts.31 First, Obad 11 and Joel 4:3 are the only two places in which the language of “casting lots” (‫ )ידו גורל‬appears as part of the plundering of Jerusalem.32 Second, Obad 10a transitions from the divinely proclaimed judgment against Edom (v. 8–9) to the Edomite crimes (v. 10–11). Obadiah 9 concludes by pronouncing that “everyone will be cut off from Mount Esau from slaughter” (‫)יכרת־איׁש עׂשו מקטל‬. The first word of v. 10 (‫ )מחמס‬parallels the concluding construction of v. 9 (‫ )מקטל‬in the announcement of the Edomite crime “From the violence against your brother Jacob” (‫)מחמס אחיך יעקב‬. The formulation ‫“( מחמס‬from the violence”) appears in Joel 4:19 expressing the same Edomite crimes against the people of Judah as found in Obad 10.33 Third, the formulaic announcements about the Day of Yhwh and the guiding lex talionis principle in Obad 15 contain several parallels with Joel.34 The formula “for the day of Yhwh is near” (‫ )כי־קרוב יום־יהוה‬occurs in Obad 15aα and at various points throughout Joel (1:15; 2:1; 4:14).35 The parallel in Joel 2:1, furthermore, accompanies an explicit concern with the centrality of Jerusalem as “my holy mountain” (‫ )בהר קדׁשי‬as found in Obad 16. The lex talionis declaration in Obad 15b finds similarities with Joel 4:4, 7b.36 These are the only places where “deeds” (‫ )גומל‬return upon someone’s “head” (‫)ראׁש‬.37 Finally, Obad 17 announces as part of its salvific turn for Jerusalem that “on Mount Zion there will be the delivered” (‫)ובהר ציון תהיה פליטה‬. Joel extends the parallel slightly in Joel 3:5 to read “on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be the delivered” (‫)כי בהר־ציון בירוׁשלם תהיה פליטה‬. The Joel declaration “just as Yhwh has said” (‫ )כאׁשר אמר יהוה‬acknowledges the preexistence of this salvific announcement in Obad 17a. The salvific pronouncement for the “delivered” (‫ )פליטה‬occurs in Obad 17a alongside a parallel pronouncement that Esau will 31  For example, Schart argues for a literary relationship between the use of ‫ עליה‬in Obad 1 and Joel 4:9–10, as well as the common use of “thief” (‫ )גנב‬imagery for enemies in Joel 2:9 and Obad 5. Each of these parallels with Joel, however, results from the Obadiah reappropriation of material from Jer 49, thus complicating arguments for an intentional echo of Joel. 32  For discussion, see Schart, Entstehung, 272. Cf. Bosshard, “Beobachtungen,” 47; Bergler, Joel, 305. For other thematic similarities, see Joel 4:1, 2, 3, 6. The language of “casting” (‫)ידד‬ “lots” (‫ )גורל‬occurs in different contexts in Jonah 1:7; Mic 2:5; Nah 3:10. 33  The construction ‫ מחמס‬only occurs in 2 Sam 22:3; Ps 72:14; Ezek 12:19; Joel 4:19; Obad 10. 34  On the lex talionis principle in Obadiah, see Anderson, “Poetic Justice,” 247–55; Werse, “Crime,” 85–100. 35  The parallel in Joel 1:15 occurs as part of a larger quote from Isa 13:6. Cf. Isa 13:6; Ezek 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 4:14; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14. 36  See Bergler, Joel, 306–307; Schwantes, “Sobrevivencias,” 169–175. Cf. similar expressions in 1 Kgs 2:33; Ps 7:17; Prov 12:14. 37  The language of “deeds” (‫ )גמול‬is otherwise not prominent in the latter prophets. See only: Isa 3:11; 35:4; 59:18 Jer 51:6; Lam 3:64; Joel 4:4, 7; Obad 15.

Obadiah

157

lack any “survivor” (‫ )ׂשריד‬in 18b. The use of the “delivered” (‫)פליטה‬/“survivor” (‫ )ׂשריד‬word-pair echoes the previous use of this pair in v. 14.38 This word-pair additionally occurs in Joel 3:5.39 Schart further argues that the concluding declaration “because Yhwh has spoken” (‫ )כי יהוה דבר‬in Obad 18bβ canonically looks back to these similar announcements in Joel.40 Joel and Obadiah share several additional thematic parallels that may not necessitate literary dependence, but evince a common theological matrix. The call for the nations to “rise up” against Edom clearly draws from Jer 49:14, and thematically parallels Joel 4:9a, 11a. Bergler further suggests a parallel between the summoning of Yhwh’s “warriors” (‫ )גבורים‬in Joel 4:11b and the destruction of Edom’s “warriors” (‫ )גבורים‬in Obad 9a.41 The scribal prophetic nature of both texts complicates arguments for a direction of influence. This scribal nature suggests that both texts reflect a common approach to prophetic production. Both texts, furthermore, reflect similar assumptions about the Day of Yhwh as a day of judgment upon the nations that corresponds with Zion’s exaltation. Thus both texts likely reflect a similar scribal culture and background. At the same time, Joel and Obadiah differ in important ways. Obadiah lacks references to the natural disasters of Joel, and Joel lacks the concluding focus on Yhwh’s kingship as found in Obad 21.42 Both texts reflect a similar canonical awareness suggesting a common scribal intention for literary integration into a preexisting Book of the Four. Thus while Obadiah and Joel reflect distinctive compositions, Nogalski and Schart correctly posit a similar compositional background and entry into the emerging collection of prophetic texts.43 5

Relationship with Malachi

Edom reemerges as a key character in the Book of the Twelve in Mal 1:2–4 where a comparison between the state of Jacob and Esau serves as evidence for divine fidelity to the post-exilic audience. Obadiah and Mal 1:2–4 both draw on the Jacob and Esau ancestral traditions in order to emphasize the fraternal relationship between Edom and Judah. Both passages present Edomite hopes for building as both self-deceiving and opposed by Yhwh. Nogalski further 38  See discussion in: Werse, “Crime,” 98. 39  See this word-pair in: Josh 8:22; Jer 42:17; 44:14; Lam 2:22. 40  Schart, Entstehung, 270. Cf. Bergler, Joel, 308–310. 41  Bergler, Joel, 313–316. 42  As noted by Schart, Entstehung, 274. 43  Nogalski, Processes, 275–278; Schart, Entstehung, 278–282. Cf. Wöhrle, Abschluss, 443.

158

Sieges and Werse

notes the striking similarity between “Mount Esau” (‫ )הר עׂשו‬in Obad 8bβ and the targeting of “his [Esau’s] mountains” (‫ )הריו‬in Mal 1:3.44 Gibson correctly argues that these parallels do not necessitate a compositional relationship between Obadiah and Mal 1:2–4. Obadiah rhetorically looks forward to an Edomite judgment whereas Mal 1:2–4 assumes Edom already suffered judgment. Gibson argues that Mal 1:2–4 shares greater literary links with Isa 34:5–15; Ezek 35; and Joel 4:19.45 Ezek 35 supplies the strongest intertextual parallel with Mal 1:2–4. Ezek 35:8 speaks of Esau’s plural “mountains” (‫ )הרים‬in much the same way as Mal 1:3 (cf. the singular ‫ הר עׂשו‬in Obad 8). Mal 1:3 announces that Yhwh will set Esau’s mountains to “desolation” (‫)ׁשממה‬ using a central term from Ezek 35 (v. 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15). Mal 1:3 proclaims the “desolation” (‫ )ׁשממה‬of Esau’s “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬thus reversing Ezek 35:15. Ezek 35 further uses the language of “ruins” (‫ ;חרבה‬Ezek 35:4; cf. Mal 1:4) and “eternity” (‫ ;עולם‬Ezek 35:5, 9; cf. Mal 1:4).46 Obadiah similarly reflects the influence of Ezek 35, suggesting that Mal 1:2–4 and Obadiah depend upon common sources and reflect a common literary tradition. Yet whereas Obadiah looks forward to the completion of Edomite judgment, Mal 1:2–4 assumes that the desolate condition of Edom is common knowledge among the audience. Thus Obadiah and Mal 1:2–4 share different temporal relationships with Edom’s destruction, suggesting different compositional origins.47 Within the context of the Twelve, Mal 1:2–4 supplies confirmation of the fulfillment of Obadiah’s promised Edomite judgment. This confirmation draws from past oracles against Edom for the new purpose of demonstrating divine fidelity to the post-exilic community. 6 Conclusions The preceding observations yield three conclusions for the formation of Obadiah. First, redaction critics traditionally view Obadiah as the product of a diachronic composition process. Although there are variations across the composition models, many redaction critics divide between the historically 44  Nogalski, Processes, 190–194. Cf. Hill, Malachi, 168; Petterson, Haggai, 324. 45  Gibson, Covenant Continuity, 55–62. 46  For a full assessment of the relationship between Mal 1:2–4 and Ezek 35, see Gibson, Covenant Continuity, 58–62. 47  Cf. Wöhrle, Abschluss, 443, who posits that Mal 1:1, 4–5 shares common composition with the earliest literary core of Obadiah.

Obadiah

159

oriented v. 1–14, 15b* and the more eschatologically oriented v. 15a, 16–21*.48 Obadiah reflects a heterogeneous composition drawing upon different sources, yet the spread of these sources across both sides of this traditional division suggests that Obad 1–14, 15b* and 15a, 16–21* share greater similarities than once assumed. As with the use of Jer 49 source, the parallels with Amos 9; Mic 1; and Joel all occur on both sides of this traditional diachronic division.49 These observations suggest that the earliest literary composition of Obadiah extends beyond 1–14, 15b* to include 15a, 16–21*.50 Second, Obadiah assumes not only a literary form of Jer 49; Ezek 35; Amos 9; and possibly Mic 1; but also the scribal access to these sources. This evidence, combined with the awareness of Persian era Edomite recession (vv. 16–21*), suggests a date of composition in the Second Temple period. Thus Obadiah depends upon a literary tradition that grew out of the 587/6 bce destruction of Jerusalem without necessitating close temporal proximity to this event. Third, Obadiah reflects a heavy use of preformed material, yet the arrangement of this material in order to parallel structurally Amos 9 suggests that scribes composed Obadiah with a canonical awareness of the final Amos vision. These parallels, combined with the links to Mic 1, suggest that Obadiah presupposes its place between two juxtaposed “Book of the Four” texts. The similar scribal character and thematic concerns with Joel suggest comparable dates of composition and entry into the Twelve.51 This placement after Joel and Amos creates a sub-collection within the MT ordering of the Twelve thematically linked by the Day of Yhwh and concern for the nations.52 In the LXX ordering, Obadiah falls between Joel and Jonah. This alternative ordering positions Obadiah next to the closely related text of Joel as part of a larger LXX group of prophets concerned with the nations (Joel, Obad, Jonah, Nah, Hab, Zeph).53

48  E.g. Deissler, Obadja, 138–139; Lescow, “Komposition,” 380–398; Assis, “Structure,” 213. 49  See Obad 1–5 (cf. Jer 49:7, 9–10, 14–16), 8b (cf. Jer 49:7), 9a (cf. Jer 49:22b; 50:36; 51:56), 16 (cf. Jer 49:12), 17b (cf. Jer 49:2b). 50  See Jeremias, Propheten, 58–59; Wöhrle, Abschluss, 192–218. 51  See similarly: Nogalski, Processes, 275–278; Schart, Entstehung, 278–282. Cf. Wöhrle, Abschluss, 443. 52  See similar conclusions in Marks, “Twelve Prophets,” 207–208. Cf. Sweeney, “Obadiah,” 70– 71. Nogalski suggests that the priority of the MT ordering reflects a “relative consensus” in scholarship (“One Book,” 13–14). Against this conclusion, see Sweeney, Hosea, xxxv–xxxix. 53  On the LXX ordering, see Sweeney, “Concerns,” 28–29.

160

Sieges and Werse

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Anderson, Bradford A. “Poetic Justice in Obadiah.” JSOT 35 (2010): 247–255. Assis, Elie. “Structure, Redaction and Significance in the Prophecy of Obadiah.” JSOT 39 (2014): 209–221. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah. BZAW 242. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Is the Twelve Hypothesis Likely from an Ancient Reader’s Perspective?” Pages 41–96 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Bergler, Siegfried. Joel als Schriftinterpret. BEATAJ 16. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988. Bornand, Rachel. “Un ‘Livre des Quatre’ Précurseur des Douze Petits Prophètes?” ETR 82 (2007): 549–566. Bosshard, Erich. “Beobachtungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch.” BN 40 (1987): 30–62. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Unter­ suchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Deissler, Alfons. Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakuk. Vol. 2 of Zwölf Propheten. NEchtB 8. Würzburg: Echter, 1984. Dicou, A. “Geen wijsheid meer in Edom: Jeremia 49,7 en Obadja 7–8.” ACEBT 9 (1988): 90–96. Gibson, Jonathan. Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi. LHBOTS 625. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Hagedorn, Anselm C. Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel. BZAW 414. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2011. Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Edom in the Book of Amos and Beyond.” Pages 41–57 in Aspects of Amos: Exegesis and Interpretation. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Andrew Mein. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2011.

Obadiah

161

Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1998. Jenson, Philip P. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. LHBOTS 496. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2008. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Krause, Joachim J. “Tradition, History, and Our Story: Some Observations on Jacob and Esau in the Books of Obadiah and Malachi.” JSOT 32 (2008): 475–486. Lescow, Theodor. “Die Komposition des Buches Obadja.” ZAW 111 (1999): 380–398. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–235. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. “Les Douze Petits Prophètes.” Pages 459–463 in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Thomas C. Römer et al. MdB 49. 2nd ed. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. “Le thème du ‘jour de YHWH’ dans les XII petits prophètes.” Pages 141–181 in Les prophètes de la Bible et la fin des temps. Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. LD 240. Paris: Cerf, 2010. Marks, Herbert. “The Twelve Prophets.” Pages 207–233 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987. Meinhold, Arndt. “Weisheitliches in Obadja.” Pages 70–86 in Weisheit außerhalb der kanonischen Weisheitsschriften. Edited by Bernd Janowski. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 10. Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1996. Nelson, Richard D. Historical Roots of the Old Testament (1200–63 BCE). BibEnc 13. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “One Book and Twelve Books: The Nature of the Redactional Work and the Implications of Cultic Source Material in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 11–46 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of The Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea—Jonah. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Nogalski, James D. “Not Just Another Nation: Obadiah’s Placement in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 89–107 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Olávarri, Emilio. “Cronología y estructura literaria del oráculo escatológico de Abdías.” EstBib 22 (1963): 303–313.

162

Sieges and Werse

Petterson, Anthony R. Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. AOTC 25. Nottingham: Apollos, 2015. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “The Jonah-Narrative within the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 109–128 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Schwantes, Milton. “Sobrevivencias: Introducción a Abdías.” RIBLA 35/36 (2000): 169–175. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Scoralick, Ruth. “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” Pages 35–54 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Stuart, Douglas K. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. Sweeney, Marvin A. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 1 of The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Obadiah within the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 64–84 in Obadiah. Edited by Bob Becking. New Readings: A Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2016. Wagenaar, Jan A. “‘From Edom He Went Up …’: Some Remarks on the Text and Interpretation of Micah II 12–13.” VT 50 (2000): 531–39. Werse, Nicholas R. “Crime and Punishment: A Semiotic Analysis of Judgment in Obadiah.” Pages 85–100 in Obadiah. Edited by Bob Becking. New Readings: A Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2016. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006.

Obadiah

163

Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wöhrle, Jakob. “A Prophetic Reflection on Divine Forgiveness: The Integration of the Book of Jonah into the Book of the Twelve.” JHebS 9,7 (2009): 1–17. Wolff, Hans W. Micha. Vol. 4 of Dodekapropheton. BKAT 14,4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982.

Chapter 9

Jonah in the Book of the Twelve John Kaltner, Rhiannon Graybill, and Steven L. McKenzie Since the early 1990s the role played by Jonah in the Book of the Twelve has received growing interest, and the book has figured prominently in many of the efforts to explain the relationships within the Twelve. Among the questions most commonly asked have been the following: 1) Is it possible to trace the development and growth of the Book of the Twelve? 2) What was the original order of the works? 3) Is there evidence of redaction within the collection? 4) What do the shared vocabulary and themes within the books suggest? Jonah has provided important data for addressing each of these questions. 1

The Development and Growth of the Book of the Twelve

There is virtual agreement that Jonah was a late addition to the Book of the Twelve, so its relevance for determining the diachronic development of the collection is limited.1 Nonetheless, aspects of Jonah have proved useful in attempts to trace the growth of the books with which it is associated. Among those who argue that the Book of the Twelve is a united corpus, there is a range of opinions regarding how many stages of growth can be discerned within it. Some see three stages, while others opt for four or five, but there is a general consensus that Jonah was one of the last works added to the collection.2 Uniquely, Jonah is the only work in the Book of the Twelve that does not begin with a heading like those found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.3 While their headings imply that each book of the Twelve was independent, the chronological relationships between some of them suggest that they form collections. The lack of a heading in Jonah might indicate that it 1  Jonah’s limited value in this area is evidenced in the fact that it is hardly mentioned in the section that discusses the stages of growth of the Twelve in Redditt’s article “Formation,” 16–19. 2  Redditt, “Formation,” 16. 3  Jonah’s story simply commences, with no indication that what follows is a word, vision, or oracle. See Zapff, “Perspective,” 293.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_011

165

Jonah

is a continuation of Obadiah, with that book’s opening reference to a messenger sent to the nations serving as an allusion to Jonah’s mission (Obad 1).4 Similarly, Jonah’s identification as the son of Amittai (1:1) links him with the figure mentioned in 2 Kgs 14:25 and contemporizes him with the other eighthcentury bce prophets, placing him in the chronological context between the Hosea–Obadiah group and Micah, which follows Jonah in the MT ordering.5 These issues are related, however indirectly, to the question of how the Book of the Twelve took shape and reached its present form. Jonah’s words in 4:2 are frequently cited in discussions of the book’s possible role in the development of the Book of the Twelve: “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing.” The description of the deity echoes Exod 34:6–7a, where Moses has an encounter with God on Mount Sinai. It echoes passages in four other books of the Twelve that highlight God’s compassion using vocabulary found in the Jonah text (Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18–20; Nah 1:2b, 3a; Mal 1:9a). The similarity has led some scholars, such as Jakob Wöhrle, to suggest that all these passages were inserted by the same redactor who added Jonah to the collection in order to create the Book of the Twelve.6 This theory helps to give the corpus a more coherent structure.7 2

The Order of the Book of the Twelve

The works that comprise the Book of the Twelve do not always appear in the same order in the ancient manuscripts. The MT consistently presents them in the following order: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.8 But the Greek tradition has a number of different arrangements, with some of the oldest witnesses having the order Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum,

4  Zapff, “Perspective,” 298. 5  Zapff, “Perspective,” 299. 6  Wöhrle, “Reflection,” 2–17. 7  Critiques of Wöhrle’s theory can be seen in Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 109–128; and Spronk, “Jonah,” 2–9. 8  The MT order of the Book of the Twelve is also preserved in two manuscripts from the Judean wilderness. One is the late first century bce Naḥal Ḥever Greek Twelve Prophets Scroll (8ḤevXIIgr), and the other is the second century ce Wadi Murabbaʿat Twelve Prophets Scroll (Mur88).

166

Kaltner, GRAYBILL and MCKENZIE

Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.9 The ordering of books in the first half, where Jonah is located, differs in its placement of Joel and Micah. In the Greek arrangement, Jonah appears between Obadiah and Nahum, while in the MT it is found between Obadiah and Micah. The inconsistency has led to debates and differing views regarding which order should be considered the more original one. James D. Nogalski favours the priority of the MT arrangement, but he believes that Jonah was a later addition to the collection and not part of its original formation. Nogalski bases his belief that the Book of the Twelve is a coherent collection on the presence of catchwords and phrases within adjacent books. He argues that the presence of Jonah between Obadiah and Micah in the MT interrupts the catchwords in those two books and concludes that Jonah must have been inserted between them at a later point.10 Marvin A. Sweeney holds the opposite view. He argues that the Greek tradition preserves the original order of the Book of the Twelve based on the way the Greek sequence expresses interest in the fate of the Northern Kingdom of Israel as an example for Judah’s and Jerusalem’s future. While the MT order of the books still shows some interest in the Northern Kingdom, it is the fate of Jerusalem and the Southern Kingdom that is highlighted. Sweeney maintains that the Greek order’s concern for the Northern Kingdom best fits the context of the reigns of Kings Josiah and Hezekiah of Judah, while the MT sequence’s interest in Jerusalem reflects more the situation that existed during the period of Ezra and Nehemiah. He therefore concludes that the Greek order of the books is the older of the two, and he points to the close intertextual ties between Jonah and Nahum as evidence of the priority of the LXX sequence over that of the MT.11 The evidence from Qumran has played an important role in efforts to establish Jonah’s place within the Book of the Twelve. Seven manuscripts in various 9  Among the Greek manuscripts with this order are Codex Vaticanus (fourth century ce), Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century ce), Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century ce), and Codex Marchalianus (sixth century ce). See Muldoon, Defense, 64–69, on how the different orders in the MT and the LXX complicate attempts to determine the relationships among the works in the Book of the Twelve. 10  Nogalski, Processes. A brief explanation of why Nogalski prefers the MT order of the Twelve is found in idem, Book of the Twelve, 3–4. 11  Sweeney, “Concerns,” 25–30. In the MT order of the Twelve, Jonah and Nahum are separated by Micah, and this makes the LXX reading the more difficult of the two. According to the principle of lectio difficilior, this means that the LXX order is more original. Regarding the relationship between Jonah and Nahum, their different views on the fate of Nineveh put them in tension with one another. In Jonah, the Ninevites are saved, but in Nahum the city is destroyed (Nah 2:8–3:7). For more on Sweeney’s view, see idem, “Sequence,” 49–64.

167

Jonah

states of preservation from cave 4 contain portions of the Twelve. The first of these, identified as either 4QXIIa or 4Q76, is the oldest known manuscript of the Twelve (c. 150 bce). Its beginning and ending are lost, rendering it impossible to know what books it contained, but it is clear that Malachi is not in its usual place as the final book because Jonah comes after it.12 Some have argued that this is proof of an alternative sequence of the Book of the Twelve in which Jonah was the last work in the collection, but others have urged for more nuance in how the Qumran evidence should be interpreted. For instance, Mika S. Pajunen and Hanne von Weissenberg have challenged the notion that Jonah follows immediately after Malachi in 4QXIIa by arguing that it is impossible to join together the two fragments that would establish this sequence. In their view, Malachi comes before Jonah in 4QXIIa, but it is extremely unlikely that they succeeded one another because another composition likely existed between them. Pajunen and von Weissenberg conclude that 4QXIIa most likely contained only three or four of the shortest books of the Twelve and not the entire collection, and that Malachi was not always the final book in collections of (some of) the Twelve. If all the books of the Twelve were not included, it is questionable whether the scroll presented Jonah as the last book in the collection. Nonetheless, the scroll supports the idea that Jonah came after Malachi, even if another composition divided them. Since, in the view of Pajunen and von Weissenberg, the idea of a fixed collection of the Book of the Twelve is a post-canonical concept, the Qumran material does not demonstrate the existence of an alternative order in which Malachi is not the final book.13 3

Redaction of the Book of the Twelve

Those who consider the Book of the Twelve a coherent collection base this view on evidence of a redactor who shaped the works and established certain relationships among them.14 A vocal critic of this idea has been Ehud Ben Zvi, who has raised several objections to the notion that the Twelve are a unified whole. In the first place, he argues that the books of the Twelve’s collective grouping 12  Russell Earl Fuller’s 1988 Harvard dissertation was the first critical edition of six of the manuscripts from Qumran that contain portions of the Book of the Twelve. He initially concluded that these manuscripts include material from all twelve books and that Jonah follows Malachi in 4QXIIa, but in later publications he is more cautious and considers only the latter to be a possibility. See Guillaume, “Malachi-Jonah.” 13  Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Book of Malachi,” 731–751. 14  Issues related to the redaction of the Book of the Twelve are discussed in Redditt, “Formation,” 12–25.

168

Kaltner, GRAYBILL and MCKENZIE

does not entail their inherent cohesion, since ancient writers often gathered anthologies of disparate works that lacked coherence. Similarly, subsequent groups and communities typically read the Twelve as an anthology, and not as a coherent collection. Third, Ben Zvi highlights that the different orders for the first six books as seen in the MT and those of ancient Greek sources indicates that an official order had not been established. Finally, he rejects the notion of a unified Book of the Twelve because the superscriptions and titles of the individual works create separations and divisions among them.15 The criticisms of Ben Zvi and others notwithstanding, some have called attention to links between some of the books of the Twelve that are best explained as the result of redactional activity, and Jonah has sometimes been cited in these discussions. One such scholar is Aaron Schart, who stresses Jonah’s genre as a satirical work that is meant to ridicule the book of Joel’s view of the nations. The thematic and verbal connections between the two works suggest that Jonah should be read with Joel in mind, and Schart presents Jonah as Joel’s foil. The complete destruction of the nations is prophesied in Joel 3, but in Jonah the opposite happens as the inhabitants of Nineveh repent and the city is spared. Some of the shared vocabulary in the two works supports the idea that Jonah critiques Joel’s exclusionary views on foreigners. For example, in Joel 2:14 the Israelites are asked to have faith and confidence in God as a rhetorical question is posed to them. “Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, a grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God?” A similar sentiment is expressed in Jonah 3:9, only this time it is found on the lips of the king of Nineveh. “Who knows? God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish.” According to Schart, the Jonah passage echoes the one in Joel in order to challenge the latter’s xenophobic perspective by presenting a foreign leader uttering similar words that lead to his people’s salvation. Schart believes that Jonah was added to the Book of the Twelve as a rejoinder to Joel’s negative view of the foreign nations. A consequence of Jonah’s insertion was that its satirical dimension was downplayed or ignored, so that it came to be viewed as an account of actual events rather than the mocking critique of another prophetic book that it was intended to be. In this way, the redactor(s) of the collection unwittingly set in motion the wheels that led to a more literal reading of Jonah that endures into the present day.16

15  Ben Zvi, “Books,” 125–156. 16  Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 109–128. Zapff, “Perspective,” 299, also discusses the significance of the verbal connections between Jonah and Joel.

Jonah

169

Another effort to identify redactional activity in the Book of the Twelve is evidenced in the work of Jakob Wöhrle, who attempts to understand the literary connections among the five books of the collection that contain words found in the passage from Exodus 34 mentioned above: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod 34:6–7a). Wöhrle refers to this passage as the Gnadenformel, or grace formula, portions of which are found most fully in Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2, while Mic 7:18–19, Nah 1:2b–3a, and Mal 1:9a all contain vocabulary related to it.17 Wöhrle posits that Jonah shows evidence of primary and secondary redactional levels, and he assigns the grace formula to the secondary level. He sees a similar two-stage redactional process in the other four books that contain the formula, so he believes that the same hand was responsible for inserting all these texts that focus on God’s willingness to forgive. Wöhrle argues that this redactional activity creates an elaborate structure within the Book of the Twelve in which the grace formula gives order to the whole collection because it is found in books at each end of it and three books in the middle. In addition, only the first and last books that have the formula (Joel and Malachi) contain an imperative form that urges a turning to God, which creates an overall framework for the Twelve. Wöhrle calls this the Grace-Corpus, which specifies the reasons and limits of divine forgiveness. Jonah plays a critical role for him as the theological centre of the Grace-Corpus because each of its first three chapters describes an example of human repentance and divine forgiveness through the experiences of the foreign sailors, Jonah himself, and the people of Nineveh, which are followed by a detailed explanation of God’s willingness to forgive in chapter four.18 Schart challenges Wöhrle’s theory on a number of grammatical and thematic fronts, and he believes that the relationships among the books that contain the formula can be explained in a simpler way. This is especially the case regarding Joel and Jonah, the two books that have the most developed versions of the formula. Appealing to his idea that Jonah is a satirical work that serves as Joel’s foil, Schart claims that Jonah cites the formula found in Joel to ridicule further that book’s position.19 Klaas Spronk is also critical of Wöhrle’s work 17  Employing different terminology, Muldoon, Defense, 103–104, refers to this as the “Divine Attributes Formula.” 18  Wöhrle, “Reflection,” 13. 19  Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 120–121. For an argument that the direction of influence goes in the other direction with Joel drawing upon Jonah, see Kelly, “Jonah,” 805–826.

170

Kaltner, GRAYBILL and MCKENZIE

as too “pentateuchal” an approach that breaks up the unity of Jonah. In addition, he does not think that the presence of the grace formula in the Twelve is particularly noteworthy because it is found in its complete form seven times in the Hebrew Bible and an additional twenty times in an abbreviated form.20 4

Shared Vocabulary and Themes in the Book of the Twelve

4.1 Vocabulary The claim that the Book of the Twelve is a unified collection is sometimes supported by calling attention to the presence of repetitions within its works in the form of linking words and phrases. Nogalski has been a proponent of this idea, and he has identified many examples of “catchwords” that were later insertions meant to create connections at the borders between adjacent books.21 Nogalski points out that, unlike the other books of the Twelve, there are very few catchwords between Jonah and the works that precede and follow it in the MT. He finds only two in Obadiah and Jonah and none between the end of Jonah and the beginning of Micah, although he does identify six catchwords between the beginning of Micah and the prayer in Jonah 2.22 Diana V. Edelman has noted that words related to six different Hebrew roots are found in both the last chapter of Jonah and the first chapter of Nahum, and this suggests to her that the order of the books in the LXX is more original than that found in the MT.23 In a study that addresses intertextuality among the books of the Twelve, Richard L. Schultz discusses how to identify and evaluate vocabulary similarities that exist within the works of the collection.24 He points out the problems with too broad a definition of intertextuality, and he believes that the best approach is to focus on those verbal parallels that suggest or indicate an intentional relationship between two or more books. Schultz argues that this can be done only if attention is given to issues related to both the author and the reader, and not just the former. Whether the repetition is intentional or 20  Spronk, “Jonah,” 3–4. 21  See Nogalski, Precursors; idem, Processes; and idem “Intertextuality,” 102–124. 22  Zapff, “Perspective,” 306–308, challenges Nogalski on the presence of catchwords in the prayer in Jonah 2 and Mic 1 because, other than the phrase “holy temple,” they are all common terms like “water,” “earth,” and “idols,” and this lessens the possibility that they are intentional links between the two works. At the same time, Zapff identifies a number of lexical and thematic connections between Jonah and Mic 7. 23  Edelman, “Jonah,” 161. 24  Schultz, “Ties,” 27–45.

Jonah

171

unintentional, it is important to consider whether these parallels would be apparent to any competent reader or only to a highly specialized or motivated reader like a Bible scholar. Schultz privileges those examples of repetition and correspondence that comprise more than a single word or phrase that is commonly used in the biblical corpus because they indicate contextual awareness and interpretive reuse that is conscious and intentional.25 A prime example of intertextuality that meets these criteria for Schultz can be seen in the grace formula based on Exod 34:6–7 mentioned above and found in various forms in Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2, Mic 7:18–19, Nah 1:2b–3a, and Mal 1:9a.26 He thinks the other four books might form a sub-group within the Twelve because of the way in which they modify and reuse the formula in Joel 2, and the evidence in Jonah plays a key role in that conclusion. Joel and Jonah contain the two fullest forms of the Exodus formula, and the Ninevites perform the very acts mentioned in Joel 2 when they fast, mourn, and turn from evil. In addition, the Ninevite ruler’s initial words in Jonah 3:9—“Who knows? God may relent and change his mind.”—are almost identical to how Joel 2:14 begins. Interesting connections between Jonah and two of the other books emerge in how they cite the grace formula. Jonah and Micah are the only two books of the five that attribute at least a portion of the formula to God directly. In addition to its use of a term from the Exodus grace formula, the Nahum text also contains the word “great,” which is found repeatedly throughout the text of Jonah. It is therefore apparent that, to use a phrase from the title of Schultz’s article, the book of Jonah plays an important role within the Book of the Twelve by helping to establish “the ties that bind.” 4.2 Themes Edelman identifies thirteen themes found in Jonah and at least one other book of the Twelve, but she is quick to point out that many of these themes are in tension with what is said in other passages within the collection.27 In this way, Jonah offers a somewhat ambiguous relationship with the other works, since it both affirms and challenges their messages. As noted above, the presence of the grace formula in Jonah and four other books of the Twelve creates a thematic coherence among them that is striking.28 Similarly, the following themes 25  Schultz, “Ties,” 31–32. 26  For a study of the relationships among these passages, see Dozeman, “Interpretation,” 207–223. 27  Edelman, “Jonah,” 162. She believes the differences between Jonah and the books of the Twelve suggest that it can serve as an interpretive key for the entire collection (ibid., 150, 163–164). See also Ben Zvi, Signs, 100–115. 28  Redditt, “Formation,” 10, also treats the thematic links within the collection.

172

Kaltner, GRAYBILL and MCKENZIE

present in Jonah that Edelman highlights are found in at least one-half of the books of the Twelve: 1) The honouring or worshipping of Yahweh by foreigners (Hos 9:7; Mic 4:1– 4; Zeph 2:11; 3:8–9; Zech 8:22–23; 14:16–19; Mal 1:11, 14) 2) Yahweh’s equal concern for other nations (Amos 9:7; Obad; Nah; Mic 1:2; Zeph 1:18; 3:6; Mal 1:1–5) 3) Torah as an expression of the divine will and nature (Hos 4:6; 8:1, 12; Amos 2:4; Mic 4:2; Hab 1:4; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11; Zech 7:12; Mal 2:6–9; 3:22) 4) Yahweh relents under certain circumstances (Hos 11:8–9; Amos 7:3, 6; Joel 2:13–14; Nah 3:7; Zech 1:17; 8:14) The sharpest difference between Jonah and the other books of the Twelve emerges in its much more positive assessment of the foreign nations. Nowhere is this contrast more apparent than in Nineveh’s fate as a city that is saved in Jonah but utterly destroyed in Nahum (2:8–3:7).29 From one angle this presents a clash of perspectives, since Jonah differs from Nahum (and other works of the Twelve) on the question of God’s relationship to non-Israelites. But looked at in a different way, these might simply offer alternative ways of addressing a shared theme—how God treats foreigners. In this way, Jonah appears as representing the minority view on an issue that concerns all of the works in the collection. This opens the possibility of giving Jonah a more significant role within the Twelve beyond that of a mere appendage to the collection at a late date. Its presence raises a dissenting voice on a matter of great importance and helps to create a conversation among the works about God’s relationship with foreigners. Spronk traces some of the contours of that conversation in his discussion of the connections between Jonah and Nahum. He believes that both books address Joel, as Jonah criticizes its position that foreigners must be punished by having God save the Ninevites while Nahum sides with Joel and Nineveh is destroyed.30 In this way, Jonah makes a unique contribution by introducing the idea that the nations can experience divine mercy, thereby changing the overall message of the Book of the Twelve.31 29  Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 117–188, discusses three ways of explaining the difference between Jonah and Nahum on Nineveh’s fate: (1) the repentance of the city’s inhabitants did not last for long; (2) Jonah reflects God’s final will, while Nahum expresses God’s temporary will; and (3) God eventually fulfilled Jonah’s message about Nineveh’s destruction one hundred years later. 30  Spronk, “Jonah,” 7–9. Muldoon, Defense, 26 n. 115, believes that Jonah’s placement before Nahum in both the MT and the LXX makes it unlikely that Jonah is meant to be a corrective to Nahum. 31  This is a point made by Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 127.

173

Jonah

5 Conclusion The evidence supplied by Jonah is important for the question of the order of the books of the Twelve, though the question itself remains open. The reason(s) for the divergent orders of the MT and LXX, in particular, are uncertain. Nor is it clear exactly when or why the books became fixed in the sequence in which we have them today. Jonah is also crucial for the matter of the unity of the Twelve. The commonalities of vocabulary and themes are intriguing but insufficient in quantity and emphasis to completely override Ben Zvi’s understanding of the Twelve as an anthology. The grace formula indicates why caution should be urged. The occurrence of just a word or two of the Formula in certain books of the Twelve, on the one hand, and its attestation beyond the Twelve (i.e., in Psalms), on the other, raises doubts about the extent to which it identifies coherence among the collection. Schart’s observation of interaction between Jonah and Joel in part by using the Grace Formula has a more solid basis but does not address the other books in the Twelve. Commonalities of vocabulary and themes must be weighed against the extent to which these items occur beyond the Twelve, especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but even further in, for instance, the Former Prophets. In the end, Spronk’s idea of Jonah’s role as fostering conversation among the books of the Twelve may be the most productive. Such conversations are not limited to the topic of Yhwh’s relationship with the nations, but also concern the very essence of prophecy and its role in the history and religion of Israel and Judaism. Bibliography Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud. JSOTSup 367. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character.” JBL 108 (1989): 207–223. Edelman, Diana V. “Jonah Among the Twelve in the MT: The Triumph of Torah over Prophecy.” Pages 150–167 in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2014.

174

Kaltner, GRAYBILL and MCKENZIE

Guillaume, Philippe. “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa).” JHebS 7 (2007). Fuller, Russell Earl. “The Minor Prophets Manuscripts from Qumran, Cave IV.” Harvard Dissertation 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1988. Publication No.: AAC8901676. Kelly, Joseph R. “Jonah, Joel, and the Yhwh Creed: Determining the Trajectory of the Literary Influence.” JBL 132,4 (2013): 805–826. Muldoon, Catherine L. In Defense of Divine Justice: An Intertextual Approach to the Book of Jonah. CBQMS 47. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” Pages 102–124 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah. SHBC 18a. Macon; GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Pajunen, Mika S. and von Weissenberg, Hanne. “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve.’” JBL 134,4 (2015): 731–751. Redditt, Paul L. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” Pages 1–26 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by idem and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Schart, Aaron. “The Jonah-Narrative within the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 109–128 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Schultz, Richard L. “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 27–45 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Spronk, Klaas. “Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jakob Wöhrle.” JHebS 9 (2009). Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by idem and James D. Nogalski. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–34 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012.

Jonah

175

Wöhrle, Jakob. “A Prophetic Reflection on Divine Forgiveness: The Integration of the Book of Jonah into the Book of the Twelve.” JHebS 9 (2009). Zapff, Burkard M. “The Perspective on the Nations in the Book of Micah as ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah, and Nahum: Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 292–312 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003.

Chapter 10

Micah in the Book of the Twelve Rainer Kessler In the Hebrew text of the Book of the Twelve, Micah marks the centre of the collection. According to the full final Masora at the end of the Book of the Twelve (cf. BHS), the central verse of the book as a whole is Mic 3:12, the announcement of the destruction of Zion. This verse cannot be read without the verses which follow, namely the vision of mount Zion as the central place where the nations will receive Torah from Yhwh (4:1). Zion destroyed and Zion reconstructed form the middle of the Book of the Twelve. Before we have a look on the consequences to be drawn from the central position of the book, two preliminary remarks are necessary. The first concerns the form of the text. Micah is the centre of the Twelve only in the Hebrew tradition. The Greek translation has a different order. It places Micah in the third position after Hosea and Amos so that Micah no longer is in the central position.1 The second remark is of hermeneutical character.2 Reading the Twelve as a unity is possible on two different levels. One is the level of the reader. The reader is able to read any text as a unity; he or she constructs the unity. This need not happen without hints within the text, but they are not decisive. What is decisive is the recipient who has the intention to read the text as a unity even if the text were the result of the mere juxtaposition of isolated books. The other level is that of the author or authors or compilers of the text. They may have had the intention to form a unity out of their material by making intentional allusions between the books. The reader’s task then is not to construct unity but to find out how the author(s) or compilers formed it. The two levels are more or less identical with synchronic or diachronic reading of a given text. In the first section, I will concentrate on synchronic reading. I do not insinuate that any author had the intention that the text should be read as I do it. I just note my observations as a reader.

1  Some considerations on the position of Micah in the LXX and in other traditions can be found in Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 6–7. 2  For the hermeneutical question cf. Kessler, “Twelve,” 216–219.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_012

177

Micah

1

Synchronic Approach

For a synchronic reading of the Twelve, one can draw several consequences from the central position of the book of Micah. 1.1 Samaria’s End and Jerusalem’s Future The central position of Micah highlights a fundamental difference between the two capitals Samaria and Jerusalem. In the first part of the Book of the Twelve, Samaria plays a prominent role. The first two books, Hosea and Amos, are dedicated to the Northern Kingdom and mention its capital Samaria several times (Hos 7:1; 8:5–6; 10:5, 7; 14:1; Amos 3:9, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 8:14). Though Jonah does not mention the Northern capital he is supposed to be a prophet from the North who, like Hosea and Amos, prophesied in the days of King Jeroboam son of Joash (2 Kgs 14:23–25). However, the end of Samaria comes in the first chapter of Micah, i.e. before we reach the centre of the book: “I will make Samaria a heap in the open country, a place for planting vineyards. I will pour down her stones into the valley and uncover her foundations” (Mic 1:6).3 Micah’s oracle announces the definitive destruction of the town. “Uncovering her foundations” means that there is no hope for Samaria. It is effaced forever. Jerusalem is also mentioned in the first half of the Twelve but only in a marginal position (Amos 1:2; 2:5; Obad 11, 20), with the exception of Joel (3:5; 4:6, 16–17, 20). In the first part of Micah, the question remains open whether Jerusalem will face the same fate as Samaria. The verses directed against the two capitals are formulated in nearly identical words. Samaria is threatened with becoming “a heap in the open country, a place for planting vineyards” (Mic 1:6), and Jerusalem will be “ploughed as a field” and become “a heap of ruins” and a “wooded height” (3:12). The difference between the destinies of the two capitals can only be seen after passing from the first half of the Twelve which ends with Mic 3:12 to the second half. It begins with the upheaval of mount Zion whereas Samaria is never mentioned again in part two of the Book of the Twelve. Only once, Mic 6:15 refers to Omri and Ahab, two northern Kings, but they are nothing but a warning for Judah not to behave like they did. After her destruction announced in Mic 1:6–7, Samaria has disappeared from the literary map of the Book of the Twelve. That this is merely a literary device can be seen from the fact that historically Samaria was rebuilt soon after her destruction and played an important role in the Persian period. For the Book of the Twelve, however, Samaria has come to an end in Mic 1. 3  If not indicated otherwise, English translations of biblical texts are taken from the NRSV.

178

Kessler

1.2 Jerusalem’s Future and Her History Samaria’s fate is sharply contrasted by that of Jerusalem. At the centre of the Book of the Twelve, i.e. in Mic 3:12, we only know that both capitals will be devastated. However, passing from Mic 3:12 to 4:1–5—in a piece of music one would say: after a general pause—it seems clear that Jerusalem’s future shall be glorious. Zion will be the centre of the world, the nations will stream to her and will receive Torah from the God of Israel. The former Davidic dominion shall come to Jerusalem (Mic 4:8), Zion herself will “beat in pieces” the nations who threaten her (4:13), she will repent and be brought “out to the light” by Yhwh (7:9). Jerusalem’s glorious future will not be achieved in a straight line. Mount Zion will be on the top of the mountains only “in the last days” (KJV) or “in the latter days.”4 Before this happens, Jerusalem can be threatened again (Zeph 1; 3:1–4). However, Jerusalem will not come to an end. She will be purged (Zeph 3:9–20), the temple will be rebuilt (Haggai and Zech 1–8), and after an act of purification “the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years” (Mal 3:4). It is the book of Micah in the centre of the Twelve where the different fates of Samaria and Jerusalem are decided. 1.3 The Fate of the Nations Micah in the centre of the Twelve is surrounded by two books which deal with the fate of Nineveh. In the book of Jonah, Nineveh is saved. The book of Nahum on the other side of Micah announces the final destruction of the Assyrian capital. The book of Micah is able to explain the apparent contradiction concerning the fate of Nineveh. Micah begins with a summons to the nations to listen: “Hear, you peoples, all of you” (Mic 1:2). In the book of Jonah, Nineveh is ready to hear, so she can be saved. However, the composition of Mic 1–5 ends with the announcement of Yhwh’s vengeance to be executed “on the nations that did not obey” (Mic 5:14). In Nahum, Nineveh is portrayed as a city which did not obey and consequently is effaced. The book of Micah in the centre marks and gives reasons for the transgression from the sparing to the final destruction of Nineveh. Observations noted until here exclusively refer to the final form of the text of the Twelve. They do not ask whether any layer had the intention to connect the texts and to formulate a certain message. The message taken from the text

4  Waltke, Micah, 191.

179

Micah

is the result of the recipient’s construction. This, however, is not the last word.5 In the next section, I am going to collect hints that indicate intentions of authors or redactors to place Micah within the collection of the Twelve. 2

Diachronic Approach

As it is not possible to discuss all the proposals made during the last decades, I will concentrate on the most obvious ones. 2.1 The Superscription The superscription to the book of Micah shares mainly two characteristics with the headings of other books within the collection of the Twelve. Firstly, it is introduced as “The word of the Lord that came to Micah” (1:1), as it came to Hosea, Joel, and Zephaniah. And secondly, Micah is situated within the chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel in the same style as Hosea, Amos, and Zephaniah. These observations lead James Nogalski to the “tentative” conclusion “that Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah experienced a protracted transmission as part of a single corpus.”6 The thesis that a so called “Book of the Four”7 formed one of the precursors of the Book of the Twelve was widely accepted by a great number of scholars.8 Though questions about the character of the redaction remain open—is it “deuteronomistic,” and what does this mean?—it is highly probable that the similarity of the superscriptions is due to the will of a redaction which formed a smaller collection than the Book of the Twelve. 2.2 The End of Samaria in Micah 1 Synchronic reading of the Twelve has shown that Samaria plays a role only in the first half of the book. The northern capital is mentioned last in Mic 1:2–7 where her definite end is announced. Within these verses we find two references to the books of Amos and Hosea which probably were placed here to allude deliberately to the two books of the northern prophets. Mic 1:3–4 describes a theophany of Yhwh who is “coming out of his place.” The next words are literally identical with one of the so-called hymn fragments in Amos, 5  To come back to the last point 1.3: for Zapff, Studien, 241–279, it is a post-exilic layer of Fortschreibungen (FSM = Fortschreibungsschicht im Michabuch) which is responsible for the integration of Micah in the midst of Jonah and Nahum. 6  Nogalski, Precursors, 278; cf. Corzilius, Rätsel, 47–48. 7  Albertz, Exilszeit, 165–167; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 51–284. 8  But cf. Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch,” who fiercely contests the thesis.

180

Kessler

Amos 4:13: “and treads on the heights of the earth.” The same God who in Amos threatened the Northern Kingdom—Amos 4:1–4 explicitly mentions Samaria and the northern sanctuaries at Bethel and Gilgal—in Mic 1 comes to announce the end of Samaria. The reason why Yhwh will destroy Samaria forever is given in Mic 1:5a. The indictment speaks of “the transgression of Jacob” and “the sins of the house of Israel” (Mic 1:5a) without indicating of what they consist. The reader is expected to have read Hosea and Amos to understand why Yhwh has come to put an end to Samaria. Later in the text a list of transgressions and corresponding punishments is given: “All her images shall be beaten to pieces, all her wages shall be burned with fire, and all her idols I will lay waste; for as the wages of a prostitute she gathered them, and as the wages of a prostitute they shall again be used.” It is difficult to understand the verse without having read Hosea before. Not only the accusation of idolatry, but nearly the whole vocabulary is taken from the first Book of the Twelve: the “images” (Hos 11:2), the “wages” (2:14; 9:1), the “idols” (4:17; 8:4; 13:2; 14:9), and especially the central metaphor of the “prostitute” (1:2; 2:6–7; 3:3; 4:10–15, 18; 5:3–4; 6:10; 9:1). Scholars have made different proposals to explain the diachronic history of Mic 1.9 But nearly all agree that the respective verses were formulated to connect the beginning of the book of Micah with Hosea and Amos, be it by the author of Mic 1, or be it by a redactor who introduced the allusions. 2.3 Micah’s Critique Many of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are critical against their contemporaries and their religious, economic, social, and political behaviour. In the Book of the Twelve, this is especially true for Amos and Hosea as well as for Micah and for Zephaniah (perhaps another hint at a former “Book of the Four”). Hosea’s religious critique against Samaria was alluded to or even quoted in Mic 1:7. Amos’s social critique also reappears in Micah, especially in two places. Mic 3:1–4 is an accusation of the “heads of Jacob” and the “rulers of the house of Israel.” Micah here “is inveighing against wicked and cruel government.”10 After having summoned them to listen, the text says: “Should you not know justice?—you who hate the good and love the evil …” (3:2b–3a). Three characteristics of these few words are identical with Amos 5:15a: “Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate.” Both texts have the oppositions of love and hate as well as good and evil, and both substantiate loving good by knowing or establishing justice. There can be little doubt that there is mutual 9  See the short summary in Corzilius, Rätsel, 30–32. 10  McKane, Micah, 100.

Micah

181

influence between the two texts11 though it must remain open whether the compilers of the text of Micah knew the formulation of Amos 5 or, vice versa, the author of Amos 5 already had the text of Micah in mind. The second example also displays verbal similarities between Micah and Amos. As in the first case, we must leave it open whether the text of Amos is influenced by Micah or vice versa. The oracle in Mic 6:9–16 accuses the rich in a “city”—probably Jerusalem, but no name is given (6:9). The vocabulary of the next verses is very close to that of Amos 8:4–7, words also directed against rich people. In both texts we find the “ephah” as a measure adulterated by the rich, the false “balances,” and the noun ‫“( מרמה‬deceit”) for “deceptive” balances and weights (Amos 8:5 and Mic 6:10–11). Both texts probably are part of a later redaction within their respective books. The redactors follow a tendency to bring the two prophets in line with each other. The Last Verses of Micah, the Book of Amos, and the Beginning of Nahum A last example for the strategy to anchor Micah within the Twelve can be found in the last verses of the book. Mic 7:18–20 is full of allusions to the so-called grace formula of Exod 34:6–7a. In Exodus it reads: “The Lord, the Lord, a God (‫ )אל‬merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin …” The last verses of Micah also use ‫ אל‬for “God,” they speak of his “anger” which he does not retain for ever (v. 18), they mention God’s mercy (v. 19) and attribute “steadfast love” and “faithfulness” to him. There is no doubt that the author of these verses knows and cites the grace formula from the book of Exodus. One formulation in Mic 7:18–20 has no literal correspondence in Exod 34:6– 7. Whilst the Exodus text says: “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,” Mic 7:18 uses “passing over the transgression.” What seems to be a mere variation of words is, in fact, of high significance. For the Hebrew phrase for “passing over,” ‫עבר על‬, is prominent in Amos 7:8; 8:2 where God says that he will “never again pass them by.” The God who once did not spare the Northern Kingdom of Israel is going to pass over Judah’s transgressions.12 It seems clear that by the choice of these words the author of Mic 7:18–20 deliberately links Micah with Amos. Obviously, the author of the last verses of Micah stops his quotation of the grace formula at a certain point. He omits the negative part of the formula: 2.4

11  Schart, Entstehung, 185. 12  Kessler, Micha, 52, 310.

182

Kessler

“… yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exod 34:7b). However, this part of the formula, at least its theology, is taken up by the first verses of Nahum: “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord, the Lord is avenging and wrathful … The Lord is slow to anger but great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty” (Nah 1:2–3). The end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum read together contain the full grace formula with both its positive and negative parts. Only the reading of the two books completes the formula. So we can conclude that the reception of the grace formula at the end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum forms one text out of the two books.13 3

Allusions to Micah in the Twelve

Micah is (the central) part of the Twelve not only by a reading strategy. The book is linked to the Twelve not only by references within Micah to other books of the Twelve; Micah is also integrated into the Twelve by allusions or quotations made in books other than Micah. 3.1 Joel and Micah A clear allusion to Micah can be found in Joel 4:10. A heavenly voice calls to prepare war: “Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears.” According to the text, weapons are necessary to overcome the “great wickedness” of the nations (4:13). God who dwells on Mount Zion is a stronghold for his people. No enemy will ever again pass through Jerusalem. The verses are at the same time complementary and a contrast to Mic 4:1–4. Here too, Yhwh dwells on Mount Zion and his people live in absolute security: “they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid.” Yet the nations will not come to fight Israel but to learn Torah from Yhwh. So there is no more need of weapons: “they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.” Both texts speak of the future. Read in sequence, however, Joel 4 aims at a nearer future to come before the “end of the days” (Mic 4:1). First, the nations must be tamed, then they can come to Zion to receive instruction from Yhwh. The two texts clearly refer to each other and form a logical sequence in time. However, although the literal allusion between the two texts is unambiguous, 13  Cf. Baumann, Gewalt, 94–102.

183

Micah

the reading strategy depends on the text basis. In the Greek tradition where Joel follows Micah quite a different interpretation is needed. 3.2 Micah and Zephaniah As evident as the allusion of Joel 4:10 to Mic 4:3 is that of Mic 4:6 to Zeph 3:19. In Mic 4:6, Yhwh announces that he will “assemble the lame and gather the outcast,” Zeph 3:19 repeats that he will “save the lame and gather the outcast.” At the end of the book of Zephaniah, the author or redactor reminds that God’s final will is to save his people in spite of the announcement of the terrible “day of the Lord” in Zeph 1. Micah and Zephaniah are linked together. It is hardly possible to decide whether this occurred on the level of an assumed “Book of the Four,” or whether this is a device to underline the unity of the Twelve. 3.3 Micah and Habakkuk A last link should be mentioned though it is not of great weight for the composition of the Twelve. Mic 3:10 accuses the one who builds “Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity.” Hab 2:12 uses the same words in a woe-oracle: “Woe to him who builds a town with blood, and founds a city on iniquity!” (RSV) In Micah, it is clear that the accusation is directed against the leadership of Judah. Habakkuk is much more ambivalent. The town has no name. It could be Jerusalem, but also Babel—note the Chaldeans mentioned in Hab 1:6. Perhaps Hab 2:12 has a distributive meaning: whoever builds a town with blood and iniquity is going to perish like Jerusalem, which was destroyed in the centre of the Book of the Twelve (Mic 3:12). 4

A Final Warning

I hope I have been able to demonstrate that Micah is the centre of the Twelve not only by pure coincidence. The book is well integrated in the context. Reading strategies to read Micah as part of the Twelve are not based on arbitrariness. Yet two warnings are necessary. The first was already uttered in the course of this essay: nearly everything depends on which text we read, the Hebrew tradition or the Greek text. The Greek text, not only by the diverging order of the books but also by the vocabulary employed, offers perspectives which are not identical with those of the Hebrew tradition. Secondly, it must be added that some of the intertextual allusions between Micah and other books of the Twelve are not exclusive. The opposition of good and bad and their perversion shared by Amos 5:15 and Mic 3:1–4 also appears in Isa 5:20. Because the vision of Mic 4:1–4 of the nations coming to Mount

184

Kessler

Zion has a nearly literal parallel in Isa 2:2–4, the link between Mic 4:3 and Joel 4:10 should be extended to a possible redactional layer covering Isaiah and the Twelve. In addition, Micah has other parallels with Isaiah that lead Gary Stansell to conclude “that fairly early in the tradition and redaction of their sayings, their (i.e. Micah’s and Isaiah’s) prophecy was understood as standing in the closest possible relationship.”14 Later layers of the book of Micah have significant similarities with texts from Jeremiah.15 A common tradition within the same group of scribes or even a common redaction cannot be excluded. Micah is a well-integrated part of the Book of the Twelve. However, Micah is also part of the corpus of the later prophets. There is still much work to do to trace a redaction history of this corpus.16 Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. BE 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Andersen, Francis I. and Freedman, David N. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24E. New York, NY et al.: Doubleday, 2000. Baumann, Gerlinde. Gottes Gewalt im Wandel: Traditionsgeschichtliche und intertextuelle Studien zu Nahum 1,2–8. WMANT 108. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Corzilius, Björn. Michas Rätsel: Eine Untersuchung zur Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches. BZAW 483. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2016. Kessler, Rainer. Micha. HThKAT. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Kessler, Rainer. “The Twelve: Structure, Themes, and Contested Issues.” Pages 207–223 in The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets. Edited by Carolyn J. Sharp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–235. McKane, William. The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993.

14  Stansell, Micah, 135; Zapff, “Book of Micah,” 134, even speaks of “an ‘Isaianization’ of Micah.” 15  Cf. the short summary in Kessler, Micha, 49–50. 16  I underline the words of Zapff, “Book of Micah,” 144: “When concentrating on the relations between Micah and the Book of the Twelve, interpreters should not neglect its relationship to the tradition of Isaiah,” adding myself: … and that of Jeremiah.

Micah

185

Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 269. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Stansell, Gary. Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison. SBLDS 85. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988. Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1997. Zapff, Burkard M. “The Book of Micah—The Theological Centre of the Book of the Twelve?” Pages 129–146 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012.

Chapter 11

Nahum in the Book of the Twelve Daniel C. Timmer Here we survey, in roughly chronological order, recent compositional proposals focused on the developing book of Nahum in relation to earlier stages of the Twelve before turning to holistic interpretations focused on Nahum in relation to the Twelve, each in essentially its final form. 1

The Development of Nahum and of the Book of the Twelve in Diachronic Perspective

Although a few earlier studies postulated the interrelation of various books of the Twelve during their literary development, James Nogalski’s 1993 work broke new ground. His case for the formation of the corpus is based on the catchwords that link (especially adjoining) books. Some catchwords appear to be secondary additions, others may be original, and still others were perhaps part of “a pre-existing block of material specifically incorporated into a writing to further the interests of the Book of the Twelve.”1 On his view, Nahum entered the Twelve as part of the “Joel-related layer,” in which Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi were added to the exilic deuteronomistic corpus (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah) and the early post-exilic Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 corpus.2 Noting similarities between Nahum and Habakkuk involving their citations of Joel and their theophanic hymns, he suggests that “Nahum and Habakkuk entered the corpus of the Book of the Twelve simultaneously.”3 The Micah–Nahum link in the Masoretic order is evident in catchwords and redactions linking Micah 7 with Nahum 1,4 which presupposes the Micah text.5 Nahum 1 is also tied to Joel in various ways6 and to Jonah 4:2 via the reuse of Exod 34:6 in Nah 1:3.7 Finally, Nahum 3 1  Nogalski, Precursors, 13–15, further 21–57. 2  Nogalski, Processes, 274. 3  Nogalski, Processes, 181, 275–276. 4  Nogalski, Precursors, 39–40; idem, Processes, 110–111, 113–115. 5  Nogalski, Precursors, 170. 6  Nogalski, Processes, 116. 7  Nogalski, Processes, 116.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_013

Nahum

187

was influenced by, and influenced, the “Babylonian oracle and commentary” in Hab 1:12a*b, 15–17.8 Contrariwise, Ehud Ben Zvi stresses the historically and literarily discrete nature of the writings that constitute the Twelve. He argues that ancient readers would not have perceived the lexical links that Nogalski and others see connecting the books;9 that the collection’s various orders belie the significance of the perceived links in the Masoretic tradition;10 that many lexical correspondences are merely coincidental;11 and that the incipits of the different writings identify them “as separate prophetic books.”12 He proposes that the Twelve is a “repertoire” of books with “a (largely) shared discourse, a common linguistic heritage, implied ‘intertextuality,’ and shared literary/ideological tendencies.”13 Klaas Spronk shares a similar view, recognizing the intertextual relationships between Nahum and other books in the Twelve but interpreting them as the result of “one prophet influencing the other” rather than as “editorial activities.”14 In his 1997 Habilitationsschrift, Burkard M. Zapff identifies 2:4–3:19 as Nahum’s core.15 On his view, Nahum’s hymn (1:2–8) was added when Yhwhtheophany texts were also inserted in Amos (1:2) and Micah (1:3–6), at which point Nahum was integrated into the deuteronomistic Hosea–Amos–Micah– Zephaniah corpus, shifting the focus of Yhwh’s judgment from Israel and Judah to Assyria.16 This likely took place in the fifth or fourth century bce, but before the incorporation of Obadiah and Joel and before the linking of the D-corpus with Haggai–Zechariah 1–8.17 Contra Nogalski, Zapff argues that the catchwords linking Micah 7 to Nah 1:2–8 are evidence that Mic 7:8–20 used Nahum’s hymn (and not vice versa) in the Fortschreibung of Micah (ca. third century bce).18 Aaron Schart develops Nogalski’s argument that earlier forms of Nahum and Habakkuk (Heilsprophetie) entered the D-corpus simultaneously.19 After the subsequent addition of hymns to Nahum and then to Habakkuk as part of the hymn-layer, redactional “cross-linkages” in Nah 1:4b; 1:9b, and in Hab 2:20; 8  Nogalski, Processes, 143, 146–150. 9  Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 129. 10  Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 134. 11  Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 135–37, 139–142. 12  Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 137. 13  Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 155. See further Ben Zvi and Nogalski, Two Sides. 14  Spronk, Nahum, 9. 15  Zapff, Studien, 256. 16  Zapff, Studien, 257–258. 17  Zapff, Studien, 258. 18  Zapff, Studien, 268–273, 292. 19  Schart, Entstehung, 234–247.

188

Timmer

3:17 connected them to the writings that had constituted the D-corpus.20 Nahum’s incorporation in the D-corpus was feasible especially because the theophany tradition linked Nah 1:2–8 to passages like Mic 1:3–4 and Amos’s hymn-layer, and because Nahum’s condemnation of Assyria develops the critique of Judean social, cultic-political, and religious wrongs in the D-corpus.21 Subsequently, more links appeared between Nahum and Habakkuk and this new multi-prophet book,22 and during the later formation of the Joel–Obadiah corpus parts of Nah 3:15–16 and Hab 3:16–17 were added to connect them to the Day of Yhwh theme.23 Rainer Kessler’s 2002 study disputed Schart’s conclusion that Nahum and Habakkuk entered the Twelve as an already-joined pair of writings before the addition of their respective hymns.24 “Significant correspondence” between the hymns (esp. Nah 1:3b–6; Hab 3:3–12), the way in which Nahum’s hymn accommodates Habakkuk’s focus on Babylon, and the similarity of the books’ bipartite superscriptions (Nah 1:1ab; Hab 1:1; 3:1) convince Kessler that Nahum 1:2–8 was composed with a view toward tying Nahum and Habakkuk together before their inclusion in the developing Twelve.25 Kessler also argues that much of the lexical overlap that Schart sees between Nah 1:2–8 (apart from Habakkuk) and the rest of the Twelve extends to passages beyond the Twelve, thus weakening the ties between Nahum (without Habakkuk) and the rest of the collection.26 Zapff’s 2003 study develops his earlier reflections on Nahum. He too thinks that the theophanic psalm was added to Nahum during its integration in the Twelve, tying it to “Hos 4:3, Amos 1:2, and Mic 1:3 by means of the theophany of Yahweh.”27 He concludes that Jonah presupposes Nahum given their common theme, shared interrogative ending, and contrasting use of Exod 34:6–7.28 Zapff suggests that revision of Nahum 1 as part of the Fortschreibung of Micah helped bridge “the opposing conceptions of the fate of Nineveh found in Jonah and Nahum.”29

20  Schart, Entstehung, 244, 245. 21  Schart, Entstehung, 246–249. 22  Schart, Entstehung, 250. 23  Schart, Entstehung, 274–275, 282. 24  Kessler, “Zweiprophetenschrift,” 156–157. 25  Kessler, “Zweiprophetenschrift,” 152–155. 26  Kessler, “Zweiprophetenschrift,” 156–157. 27  Zapff, “Perspective,” 300. 28  Zapff, “Perspective,” 300. 29  Zapff, “Perspective,” 304–305, 311.

Nahum

189

In his 2004 commentary, Lothar Perlitt contends that the historically and literarily different superscriptions of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah show that those who collected the writings of the Twelve made no attempt to level or interrelate them.30 Perlitt agrees with Ben Zvi that there is no ancient evidence that the Twelve, even though written on one scroll, were read as one book, and finds rather that Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah speak with fundamentally different voices.31 He also argues that ties thought to bind together books of the Twelve also extend to other books in the OT, and concludes that the Twelve is not a redacted literary unity.32 Like the commentaries of Spronk and Perlitt, Heinz-Josef Fabry’s 2006 commentary on Nahum rejects Schart’s proposed exilic hymn-layer and generally avoids integrating Nahum’s literary development with that of the Twelve, preferring to speak of more generic intertextual connections.33 Writing in 2005, Martin Roth affirms the literary interdependence of Mic 7 and Nah 1:2–8, but doubts that the direction of dependence can be determined.34 He mentions but does not explore the possibility that before the addition of 1:2–8, Nahum may have been a “Nineveh-complex” appended to Micah.35 Roth accepts the arguments of Nogalski and others that the D-corpus of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah arose earlier, and thinks that Nahum’s integration in the growing collection (before the framing of Amos by the Zion theology-influenced Joel–Obadiah pair) “added to it an eschatological perspective on the nations.”36 Although he affirms that a synchronic reading of the Twelve is possible, he holds (with Ben Zvi) that the books’ superscriptions prevent reading the collection as one book. The Twelve is the “product of diverse discourses treating different themes by different scribes […] working at different times,” and reticence regarding multi-book redactions is appropriate.37 In a two-volume study of the formation of the Twelve, Jakob Wöhrle proposes that Joel displaced Hosea from an exilic-period Vierprophetenbuch to form the fifth-century Joel-corpus (Joel–Amos–Micah–Zephaniah).38 The earliest form of Nahum (1:2–14*; 2:1–3*, 12–14; 3:1, 4–6, 8–12*, 13–15*) was a late pre-exilic collection of judgment speeches against Judah that entered the developing 30  Perlitt, Propheten, xiv. 31  Perlitt, Propheten, xiv–xv. 32  Perlitt, Propheten, xv. 33  Fabry, Nahum, 97, 100–104. 34  Roth, Israel, 250–252, 272, 299–300. 35  Roth, Israel, 299. 36  Roth, Israel, 299. 37  Roth, Israel, 300–301. 38  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 54–58, 387–460.

190

Timmer

Twelve via the late Persian-period Fremdvölker I redaction (1:1a, 9b, 10, 12–13; 2:1*, 4–11; 3:2–3, 7–8*, 15aγ–19). This layer is characterized by the “expectation of Yhwh’s comprehensive judgment of the entire non-Israelite world,” and redirected Nahum’s judgment speeches against Nineveh.39 A Hellenistic-period grace-redaction (Joel 2:12–14; portions of Jonah; Mic 7:18–20; Nah 1:2b–3a; Mal 1:9a) “took Yhwh’s readiness to forgive as its theme” and called its readers to repent.40 Wöhrle demurs before R. Kessler’s argument that Nahum and Habakkuk formed a Zweiprophetenbuch prior to their inclusion in the Twelve, arguing that the hymn-frame’s language is typical of theophany texts, that on Kessler’s theory Habakkuk’s hymn would also be acrostic, and that Habakkuk’s achronological location with respect to Zephaniah reflects the predominance of semantic and formal features over chronological ones.41 Within a few years, Klaas Spronk and Aaron Schart challenged Wöhrle’s grace-redaction hypothesis. Spronk argues that the grace-formula is integral to Jonah 3–4 and Nah 1:2–8; that the reuse of Exod 34:6–7 in over twenty OT texts argues against its being a specifically redactional feature within the Twelve; and that similarities between the books that cite Exod 34:6–7 are better explained by seeing Nahum as a sequel to Micah, and Jonah as a “reaction” to Nahum and Joel.42 He also favours simpler theories of textual development over more complex ones.43 Schart contends that close verbal parallels involving Exod 34:6–7 are evident only in Joel and Jonah, and that Jonah may even be citing Joel; that Joel 2:12–13 includes a call to repentance and so should not be seen as the foundational text for the grace-formula; and (with Spronk) that Jonah’s literary unity is undeniable.44 The logoprosodic analysis of Duane Christensen offers a different type of argument “for a close editorial connection” between Micah 7 and Nahum 1, while various correspondences link Jonah and Nahum. However, due to the “wide divergence of opinion” regarding the Twelve’s unity and the potential implications of “word-count patterns,” Christensen doubts that solid conclusions as to the formation of the Twelve are possible at present.45 Brian Tidiman concludes similarly, albeit for different reasons, and interprets Nahum in its canonical context without according the Twelve a special standing (although recognizing its homogeneity). While Nahum is closely related to Habakkuk 39  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 60–63, 23, 64–66, 161–164. 40  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 363, 412. 41  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 325–327. 42  Spronk, “Nahum,” 3–7. 43  Spronk, “Nahum,” 8. 44  Schart, “Jonah-Narrative,” 121, 123. 45  Christensen, Nahum, 51–52.

Nahum

191

and Zephaniah due especially to “their historical setting and their theological themes,” Tidiman interprets the books independently of one another, being sceptical of complex redactional theories proposed “without any material proof.”46 Anselm Hagedorn’s 2011 monograph investigating “othering” in Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah, and Joel proposes that Nah 1:2–8 was the final (late Persian or early Hellenistic) addition to the developing book.47 This date implies that Nahum’s relationship to Habakkuk, and thus its place in the Nahum– Habakkuk–Zephaniah corpus, was not finalized before that time. Nahum’s condemnation of Assyria is the book’s earliest (late pre-exilic) perspective on non-Israelites, to which correspond the earliest forms of Habakkuk and Zephaniah.48 During the Persian period this focus on particular states was replaced by the spectre of a worldwide judgment which summarized “the individual oracles against the nations,” although the idea of worldwide judgment remained absent from Nahum.49 Still later, the nations were divided into those who will, and those who will not, survive this worldwide judgment, completing the movement from an ethnic to a predominantly religious understanding of identity.50 In light of Obadiah’s Babylonian-era setting and its strong emphasis on the otherness of a foreign group, Hagedorn considers it to be closer to Nahum than other books or proposed redactions in the Twelve.51 He is sceptical of “far-reaching multi-book redactional processes” because recent redactional theories are so dissimilar and because the different books’ diverse perspectives on the nations imply that each is a distinct literary work. He therefore interprets each writing by itself before exploring its potential involvement in multibook redactional processes.52 Walter Dietrich’s 2014 commentary locates Nahum’s origins in the midseventh century bce. Its earliest form condemned Nineveh and the Judean elite for their respective excesses, while an exilic redaction transformed the condemnation of the Judean elite into “a comforting message” of liberation.53 Similar changes were made to the developing book of Habakkuk, and (following Rainer Kessler, but without presuming the presence of the books’ theophanic psalms) Dietrich argues that the two books were probably combined at this 46  Tidiman, Nahoum, 17, 18. 47  Hagedorn, Anderen, 72–73. 48  Hagedorn, Anderen, 291. 49  Hagedorn, Anderen, 299. 50  Hagedorn, Anderen, 299. 51  Hagedorn, Anderen, 9–10, 15. 52  Hagedorn, Anderen, 295, 232–233, similarly 289, 294. 53  Dietrich, Nahum, 11–19 (15–16).

192

Timmer

time.54 The addition of Nah 1:2–8, Hab 3:1–19, and Zeph 3:9–20 reflects a later, “transpolitical” stage in which Israel-Judah are Yhwh’s community, the nations are his opponents, and Yhwh is the absolute ruler of the world.55 2

Nahum and the Book of the Twelve in Synchronic Perspective

Here we survey topically some of the recent scholarship focused on the place of Nahum in its final form (or nearly so) within the Book of the Twelve as a (nearly or completely) finished literary work, with special attention to the import of the books’ sequence. 2.1 Nahum in Relation to Particular Books 2.1.1 Micah and Nahum, Nahum and Habakkuk Roth suggests that Mic 7:18 and Nah 1:3a are part of the same literary layer,56 and Spronk argues that Nahum was written as a sequel to Micah.57 Ruth Scoralick speaks of a “contrasting” relationship between the use of Exod 34:6–7 in Micah 7 and Nahum 1, as does Ko.58 While various lexical links between Nahum and Habakkuk have been identified,59 Baumann sharpens this observation by noting that the “unrighteousness of Nineveh and the unrighteousness of Israel are thus two facets of unrighteousness which Yhwh must oppose.”60 Dietrich considers the catchwords that Nogalski sees linking Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah to be “intentional,” and thus to explain Nahum’s inclusion (as part of Nahum–Habakkuk) in the older Four-prophet book of Hosea–Amos–Micah– Zephaniah.61 Dietrich, like Hagedorn, finds the Nahum–Habakkuk sequence “logical,” with Nahum predicting the end of Assyria and Habakkuk predicting the fall of Babylon during the exile (and thus after the fulfilment of Nahum’s prophecy).62

54  Dietrich, Nahum, 17. 55  Dietrich, Nahum, 17. 56  Roth, Israel, 257. 57  Spronk, “Nahum,” 6–7. 58  Scoralick, Güte, 194, 212; Ko, “Ordering,” 323. 59  Baumann, Gewalt, 246; Roth, Israel, 243. 60  Baumann, Gewalt, 247. 61  Dietrich, Nahum, 18–19. 62  Dietrich, Nahum, 17; Hagedorn, Anderen, 294.

Nahum

193

2.1.2 Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk Fabry suggests that Nahum is the central hinge in an interwoven three-writing reflection on Yhwh, who as “the only and universal God” will destroy Assyria. But “the grace-formula confirms that” Yhwh is also gracious and compassionate, especially (but not only) for Israel.63 Gerlinde Baumann also concludes that Micah and Habakkuk are most closely related to Nahum, being “buttoned together […] by means of a dense network of correspondences” that includes judgment theophanies that stress Yhwh’s commitment to repay the guilty, his unlimited power, and the possibility of escaping this judgment, all under the theme of Yhwh’s actions involving Israel and the nations.64 She argues, as does Fabry, that the hymn of Nah 1:2–8 serves as a hinge that informs the messages of all three books.65 Russell Mack reads these three writings in light of Neo-Assyrian prophecy, but situates them in the early Persian period.66 Reacting to the fall of Jerusalem, their authors “emphasize Yhwh’s protection and intervention on behalf of the people instead of the king” and “Yhwh’s universal dominion and historical purpose.”67 The books’ late date and reactionary nature make it likely that Nahum emerged as a literary unity in the Persian period, with no identifiable diachronic development.68 2.1.3 Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah Paul House’s survey of the Twelve approaches these three writings under the rubric of “covenant and cosmic punishment.”69 The plot of the Twelve “revolves around Yahweh’s attempt to forge Israel into a faithful nation,” and a “secondary, but vitally important, goal is to redeem all the peoples of the world.”70 In this plot, Nahum–Habakkuk is the “crisis point of the Twelve.”71 “Nahum and the first part of Habakkuk […] complicate God’s relationship to Israel” and the nations, while Habakkuk “marks the apex of the conflict between the Lord and the world,” with universal judgment looming.72

63  Fabry, Nahum, 100. 64  Baumann, Gewalt, 224. 65  Baumann, Gewalt, 224–226. 66  Mack, Prophecy, 338. 67  Mack, Prophecy, 330. 68  Mack, Prophecy, 179–181, 227–231. 69  House, Unity, 88. 70  House, Unity, 117–118. 71  House, Unity, 143. 72  House, Unity, 118, 119.

194

Timmer

Julia O’Brien situates these books in the early Persian period, proposing that they affirm “Zechariah’s message regarding Yhwh’s sovereignty over the nations” (cf. Zech 1:14–15).73 This theme is also prominent in Dietrich’s understanding that the books’ redactors “remembered only one major Mesopotamian power.” Nahum’s hope that this one empire would be destroyed was initially delayed by Habakkuk but ultimately realized in Zephaniah, unintentionally creating a “thinly veiled theodicy” of Yhwh’s apparent inaction following the subjugation of the Israelite states.74 2.1.4 Nahum and Jonah Jonah is sometimes thought to be a reaction to the negative message of Nahum, focusing on Nineveh’s repentance rather than on Assyria’s violence.75 Contrariwise, Zapff argues that Nahum presupposes Jonah in light of their common theme, interrogative endings, and contrasting use of Exod 34:6–7. Like Fabry, he sees Nahum as “a correction of the perspective of the book of Jonah, without, however, cancelling its validity,”76 and proposes that “the book of Jonah was deliberately composed for its place in the Book of the Twelve.”77 Christensen concludes similarly.78 Regardless of the two writings’ chronological relationship, Baumann, Scoralick, and Timmer argue that they need not be seen as mutually contradictory, since Nineveh’s contrasting fates correspond to its contrasting characterizations (repentant in Jonah, refractory in Nahum).79 2.2 Nahum’s Relationship to the Twelve Here we examine themes or perspectives that tie Nahum to the Twelve more broadly. 2.2.1 Exodus 34 Roth sees the reuse of the grace-formula in Jonah 4:2 in harmony with its earlier uses in Micah and Nahum, while Joel 2:13–14 and (probably) Jonah 4:2 appropriate it critically.80 Similarly, Scoralick thinks that the echo of the graceformula in Nah 1:2–3 ties it most closely to Joel and Micah, with Nahum developing the themes of judgment for the “innocently shed blood” of Judah/Israel 73  O’Brien, “Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah,” 172, 175, 180. 74  Dietrich, Nahum, 13–14. 75  E.g., Spronk, “Nahum,” 3–7; Schart, “Jonah-Narrative.” 76  Zapff, “Perspective,” 300–301; Fabry, Nahum, 101–102. 77  Zapff, “Perspective,” 301; similarly Bosman, Identity, 221. 78  Christensen, Nahum, 21–39 [36]. 79  Baumann, Gewalt, 227; Scoralick, Güte, 185; Timmer, Nations, 88, 135. 80  Roth, Israel, 257.

Nahum

195

(cf. ‫ נקה‬in Joel 4:21) and of Yhwh’s retribution against the nations (cf. ‫ נקם‬in Mic 5:14).81 Jan Bosman sees this diversity differently. Although the various uses of Exod 34:6–7 in the Twelve “do somehow point towards Yahweh’s mercy toward Israel,” divine forgiveness and presence are ambiguous in terms of their effects and uncertain in terms of their realization.82 Since the grace formula “seems to be used in a theologically paradoxical manner” across the Twelve,83 its presence in Nahum and elsewhere demonstrates its final redactors’ “respect for the [Twelve’s] disunity.”84 Raymond Van Leeuwen proposes that the final editor of the Twelve stitched “together […] Hosea–Micah and Nahum–Malachi” by adding Nah 1:2b–3a.85 The joining of these two corpora “emphasizes the dialectic of God’s mercy and justice in history,” with Nahum (alongside Habakkuk) explaining “Yhwh’s use of wicked Assyria and Babylon to judge his own people.” This trajectory reaches its endpoint in Zephaniah, being followed by “postexilic promises of salvation in Haggai and Zechariah.”86 2.2.2 The Nations Barry Jones suggests that the prominence of future judgment against all the nations in Joel and Obadiah makes them “serve as an introduction to the oracles against the nations in Nahum and Habakkuk.”87 In the LXX order, the “juxtaposition of Jonah and Nahum may have been motivated by an attempt to balance the portrait of divine justice toward the nations […] with the message of Yahweh’s sovereign mercy.”88 Rolf Rendtorff suggests that “reading Nahum after Jonah” conveys the message that “Nineveh as the representative of Gentile powers had a chance to repent and to be saved, yet the real Nineveh did not seize this chance.”89 One of Marvin Sweeney’s investigations of the sequence of the Twelve concludes that in the Masoretic order, “Micah’s concern with the defeat of Assyria provides a suitable introduction for the book of Nahum,”90 while in the LXX order Assyria’s role in Nahum as a symbol for the nations is clearer still.91 81  Scoralick, Güte, 193, 196. 82  Bosman, Identity, 218–219. 83  Bosman, Identity, 196, 195, 218. 84  Bosman, Identity, 219. 85  Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom,” 47. 86  Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom,” 48. 87  Jones, Formation, 239. 88  Jones, Formation, 228. 89  Rendtorff, “Book,” 83. 90  Sweeney, “Sequence,” 60. 91  Sweeney, “Sequence,” 60.

196

Timmer

Daniel Timmer’s study of this theme across the Twelve argues, in agreement with Sweeney, that the potential conceptual and thematic coherence of individual books as literary unities comprises the framework within which diversity should be identified and evaluated.92 He proposes that the varied characterizations of the nations and their different chronological settings in their respective books (in accord with Hagedorn) better account for their diversity than historically and ideologically distinct redactional layers.93 Nahum, condemning Assyria while announcing deliverance for Judah and non-Israelite nations alike,94 can be located near the middle of a spectrum ranging from Obadiah’s negative characterization of all nations as opposed to Yhwh and so doomed to destruction to the positive perspectives of Joel, Amos, and other books, in which non-Israelites can enter a saving relationship with Yhwh and his chosen people.95 2.2.3 Repentance Jason LeCureux’s study of repentance follows Sweeney’s proposal that sequence affects interpretation, and argues that the occurrences of ‫ ׁשוב‬across the Twelve authorize its thematic exploration.96 He concludes that repentance in Nahum continues “to work out the effects of the return (‫ )ׁשוב‬of Jonah.”97 Gary Yates builds on LeCureux’s study, identifying a three-fold pattern of “repentance and relapse” following Hosea’s paradigmatic presentation of failed repentance “1) repentance (Joel) and relapse (Amos, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah); 2) repentance (Jonah) and relapse (Nahum); and 3) repentance (Haggai–Zechariah) and relapse (Malachi).”98 He proposes that the “day of Yahweh against Nineveh in the book of Nahum becomes the day of Yahweh against Judah in Zephaniah.”99 2.2.4 History While Roth and others doubt that the Twelve offers a historiographic or panoramic perspective on ancient Israel, Christopher Seitz explores the Twelve as “a piece of history writing” that recognizes the historical setting of each 92  Timmer, Nations, 4–13, 240–242. 93  Timmer, Nations, 225–239. 94  Timmer, Nations, 116–135, 227. 95  Timmer, Nations, 228–239, 225–228. 96  LeCureux, Thematic Unity, 234, 240. 97  LeCureux, Thematic Unity, 159. 98  Yates, “Repentance,” 249. 99  Yates, “Repentance,” 257.

Nahum

197

writing but when taken as a whole offers “a mature, seasoned perspective on Israel’s history that only time could teach, and that the earlier witnesses could only adumbrate.”100 While “Jonah shows that God has no mechanical attitude toward the nations,” Nahum makes clear “that Assyria’s day of judgment has come.”101 Grace Ko also thinks that the “dated superscriptions and incipits” of many of the writings imply that a historical perspective facilitates their interpretation.102 Following House’s proposal of a sin-punishment-restoration plot for the Twelve and taking Yhwh’s character as a central theme, Nahum’s opening emphasis on divine justice applies Exod 34:6–7 to Judah’s late seventh century bce experience, and contrasts with Jonah’s and Micah’s earlier emphasis on divine mercy.103 3 Conclusion Marvin Sweeney’s overview of interpretative issues in the Twelve, and especially the interface of synchronic and diachronic approaches, highlights many of the methodological issues that lie behind the varied interpretations surveyed here.104 He argues that the role of the final form in “setting the agenda for diachronic study of the text,” the notable textual and sequential differences between the MT and LXX Twelve, the need for better methods by which to understand a text’s coherence in relation to its possible redactional origins, and a deeper appreciation of the reader’s role in interpreting the text are of fundamental importance, but have not received sufficient attention.105 While the diversity documented above is not inherently problematic, Sweeney’s challenge and Barry Jones’s conclusion that methodological diversity in recent prophetic studies has made “consensus concerning methods and results […] an increasingly remote goal” deserve continued reflection.106

100  Seitz, “Lesson,” 447, 449; contrast Roth, Israel, 301. 101  Seitz, “Lesson,” 461. 102  Ko, “Ordering,” 319–320. 103  Ko, “Ordering,” 323. 104  Sweeney, “Synchronic.” 105  Sweeney, “Synchronic.” 106  Jones, “Prophets,” 130, 165–166.

198

Timmer

Bibliography Baumann, Gerlinde. Gottes Gewalt im Wandel: Traditionsgeschichtliche und intertextuelle Studien zu Nahum 1,2–8. WMANT 108. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve.’ A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud, and James Nogalski. Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Thomas Römer. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Bosman, Jan P. Social Identity in Nahum: A theological-ethical enquiry. Biblical Intersections 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. Christensen, Duane L. Nahum. AB 24F. New Haven: Yale University, 2009. Dietrich, Walter. Nahum, Habakuk, Zefanja. IEKAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. Nahum. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2006. Hagedorn, Anselm C. Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel. BZAW 414. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. House, Paul R. The Unity of the Twelve. JSOTSup 97. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Jones, Barry. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Jones, Barry. “The Seventh-Century Prophets in Recent Research.” CurBR 14 (2016): 129–175. Kessler, Rainer. “Nahum-Habakuk als Zweiprophetenschrift: Eine Skizze.” Pages 149– 158 in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah …” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Ko, Grace. “The Ordering of the Twelve as Israel’s Historiography.” Pages 315–332 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. LeCureux, Jason T. The Thematic Unity of the Book of the Twelve. Hebrew Bible Monographs 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Mack, Russell. Neo-Assyrian Prophecy and the Hebrew Bible: Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. PHSC 14. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. O’Brien, Julia M. “Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah: Reading the ‘Former Prophets’ in the Persian Period.” Int 61 (2007): 168–183.

Nahum

199

Perlitt, Lothar. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ATD 25,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Rendtorff, Rolf. “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” Pages 75–87 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “The Jonah-Narrative within the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 109–128 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Scoralick, Ruth. Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HBS 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Seitz, Christopher. “What Lesson Will History Teach? The Book of the Twelve as History.” Pages 443–469 in “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew et al. Scripture and Hermeneutics 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003. Spronk, Klaas. Nahum. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. Spronk, Klaas. “Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jakob Wöhrle.” JHebS 9 (2009). Sweeney, Marvin. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Tidiman, Brian. Nahoum, Habaquq, Sophonie. Commentaire évangélique biblique. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 2009. Timmer, Daniel C. The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets. BibInt 135. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 34–48 in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Edited by Leo Perdue et al. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1993.

200

Timmer

Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Yates, Gary E. “The Problem of Repentance and Relapse as a Unifying Theme in the Book of the Twelve.” Themelios 41 (2016): 248–262. Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1997. Zapff, Burkard M. “The Perspective of the Nations in the Book of Micah as a ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah and Nahum: Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis.” Pages 292–312 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003.

Chapter 12

Habakkuk in the Book of the Twelve Michael H. Floyd 1 Introduction Over the past few decades the hypothesis that the Minor Prophets constitute a single literary work—the Book of the Twelve—has gained considerable momentum in biblical scholarship. When this corpus of prophetic literature is seen as one book in twelve sections, which reflect different historical contexts and were not all produced at the same time, the main challenge is to explain how these twelve sections were progressively integrated and how this process informs their thematic unity. Most versions of the hypothesis consist of arguments concerning 1) the developmental stages through which the literary precursors to the Twelve were assembled and sequenced; 2) the ways in which the various sections were modified and augmented in the process of being assembled; and 3) the affinities and thematic connections that resulted from such redactional processes. Additional concerns of some scholars include: 4) the socio-cultural context in which the Twelve took shape; and 5) synchronic readings of the Twelve as a whole.1 Here I will review these arguments, specifically as they relate to the interpretation of Habakkuk. 2

Habakkuk as Literary Precursor of the Twelve

In most versions of the hypothesis Habakkuk is viewed as closely related to its neighbour Nahum, and the two—sometimes with the addition of Habakkuk’s other neighbour Zephaniah—constitute one of the basic building blocks in the progressive construction of the Twelve.2 Habakkuk entered the collection as part of a secondary or tertiary phase. This bloc was added to a previous bloc consisting of either the eighth century prophets (Amos, Hosea, and Micah), or 1  Schart, “Reconstructing,” 34–48; Reddit, “Formation,” 1–26; Wöhrle, Abschluss, 2–14. 2  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 324–327, is the main exception to this generalization. He holds that Nahum was included early on in the process, along with other books and parts of books mainly concerned with the judgment of foreign nations. Habakkuk developed independently and was later added all by itself, not as part of a larger precursor bloc.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_014

202

Floyd

these prophets plus Zephaniah (“the Book of the Four”) in a process that went on to include a bloc of books reflecting a post-exilic context, at least including Haggai and Zech 1–8, and perhaps also Malachi. Subsequently Zech 9–14 was added, and Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah were inserted at varying points, thus resulting in the variety of sequences evident in MT, LXX, and 4QXIIa.3 Others suppose that the books at the beginning and end of the chronological sequence were established in the first two stages of development, respectively, and that the inclusion of Habakkuk was one of several still later additions that filled in the intervening gaps, both chronologically and thematically.4 3

The Redactional Processes That Shaped Habakkuk

As the major blocs of material were coming together, the books within each bloc also underwent modifications that made them more integral parts of the ever-larger whole. Most proponents of the Twelve hypothesis think that Habakkuk had an original form antedating its bonding with Nahum and their incorporation into the larger whole. There is little agreement, however, among the several redactional analyses. For example, proto-Habakkuk is variously imagined as 1) a wisdom treatise on the problem of why the wicked prosper, which provided the basis for subsequent reflection on the injustice of Babylonian oppression;5 2) a condemnation of the ruling class of Judah that was subsequently reformulated into a critique of Babylonian imperialism;6 and 3) a condemnation of imperial aggression implying salvation for Judah.7 From its original form—whatever that may have been—Habakkuk was reworked so as to bond it more closely to Nahum and reinforce its thematic connections with the emerging corpus as a whole. 4

Intertextual Links with Nahum

The claim that Habakkuk became more tightly connected with Nahum as they jointly took their place among the Twelve depends primarily on two sorts of 3  E.g., Schart, Entstehung, 156–233; Curtis, “Zion-Daughter Oracles,” 166–167. The extent to which these differing sequences affect the interpretation of the Twelve is debated (e.g., Sweeney, “Sequence,” 49–64) but in any case, this is not an issue that impinges very much on Habakkuk because beginning with Nahum the MT and LXX sequences are the same. 4  Nogalski, Processes, 145–154; see also Collins, Mantle, 61–66. 5  Nogalski, Processes, 129–181. 6  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 291–323; Dietrich, “Prophets,” 152–153; Kessler, “Nahum-Habakuk,” 137–138. 7  Schart, Entstehung, 246.

Habakkuk

203

evidence. First, some scholars emphasize intertextual allusions that show linkage between the end of Nahum and the beginning of Habakkuk, as well as the similar linkage of Nahum to Micah and of Habakkuk to Zephaniah. Nogalski defines these links as catchwords, while other scholars point to more general thematic connections at these key junctures.8 Second, a near consensus of scholars regards the “framing device,” created by beginning Nahum and concluding Habakkuk with similar theophanic poems (Nah 1:2–8; Hab 3:2–19a), as the sign of a close redactional connection between the two books. In addition, some scholars regard the use of similar terminology in the superscriptions of both books as an indication of editorial affinity. The substantive ‫ משׂא‬occurs together with the root ‫ חזה‬only in Nah 1:1 and Hab 1:1.9 5

Habakkuk’s Contribution to Thematic Development within the Twelve

5.1 Yhwh as Ruler of Creation The crisis situation reflected in Habakkuk is primarily due to an enemy attack, but in 3:17 it is also described in terms of drought and famine. This echoes references in other books to similar calamities, most notably Hos 4:3 and Amos 1:2, as well as references to a plague of locusts in Joel 1:4 and Nah 3:15–17. Such imagery of ecological crisis further resonates with Habakkuk’s theophanic description of Yhwh as lord of creation whose power is manifest in earthquake and flood, as he wages victorious combat with the sea monster representing the forces of chaos (3:3–15), and resonates also with similar descriptions in other books, such as Mic 1:3–4, Zeph 1:2–3, and Zech 14:3–9, as well as Nah 1:3b–8. This network of associations ultimately extends to include the hymnic fragments in Amos, celebrating Yhwh as creator (Amos 4:13, 5:8–9, and 9:5–6). The addition of the theophanic description in ch. 3 is thus seen as part of a larger redactional process, intended to give a cosmic dimension to the actions of Yhwh that throughout the Twelve are otherwise described largely in terms of historical events involving Israel and Judah. This shows that Yhwh is not just a local god in a covenant relationship with his own people, but rather the universal God of all creation, and hence also the lord over all nations.

8  E.g., Collins, Mantle, 65. 9  J.D.W. Watts, “Superscriptions,” 110–124; Schart, Entstehung, 245–251; Kessler, “NahumHabakuk,” 141–142.

204

Floyd

5.2 Theodicy For Van Leeuwen the Twelve are held together by the tension between the harsh reality of Israel and Judah’s downfall and the characterization of Yhwh as “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin …” (Exod 34:6–7). This tension was created redactionally by the explicit citations and echoes of this formula at key points (Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Jonah 3:10; Mic 7:18–20; Nah 1:2b; Mal 1:9a). Habakkuk contributes to both the heightening and the reconciliation of this tension by first questioning Yhwh’s use of the Babylonians to punish Judah, and then anticipating Yhwh’s punishment of Babylon for pursuing conquest for its own sake.10 According to Everson, theodicy is the dominant theme in Habakkuk. He imagines that the death of Josiah in 609 bce was the disorienting crisis that caused Yhwh’s people to question his justice. In his view, it is not theodicy per se that links Habakkuk to the Twelve as a whole, but rather the way in which the themes of theodicy and “the day of Yhwh” are intertwined.11 6

The Cult as a Formative Influence on the Redaction of the Twelve

Several scholars have noted that at key points there are passages related to cultic practices: the penitential prayer in Hos 6:1–3; the call to communal complaint in Joel 1–2; the doxologies in Amos 4:13, 5:8–9, and 9:5–6; the song of thanksgiving in Jonah 2:2–9; the communal prayer in Mic 7:14–20; the hymnic description in Zeph 3:14–17, etc. Habakkuk figures prominently in this set of texts because of the complaint language that predominates in ch. 1 and the psalm—together with directions for its liturgical performance—in ch. 3. Reflection on the significance of this phenomenon has led to theories about how the cult may have affected the formation of the Twelve. Gerstenberger argues that the original nucleus of each prophetic book was a collection of short anonymous oracles which could be liturgically recited in order to challenge or encourage the congregation. The recitation of such a composite prophetic text would be followed by an appropriate congregational response—a call to repentance, a hymn of praise, or a confession of guilt, etc. This combination of a set of anonymous oracles plus congregational response was subsequently reworked to form each of the prophetic books as we now

10  Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom.” 11  Everson, “Location,” 167–172.

Habakkuk

205

have them, a process which finally entailed inventing a fictional prophetic figure after which each book was named.12 Nogalski sees liturgical passages as secondary additions to the oracular raw materials from which prophetic books were formed, reflecting the interests of the redactors who were related to the cult but were not necessarily intending to produce texts designed for cultic use. He identifies the Levites of the Persian Period as the likely composers of the Twelve and other prophetic books.13 7

Habakkuk in Synchronic Readings of the Twelve as a Whole

Most proponents of the hypothesis of the Twelve consider the redactional analysis of its gradual formation as the key to interpreting it as a unified work. Some scholars, however, regard the premise of the unity of the Twelve as a pretext for a purely synchronic reading. Paul House has developed this approach the most extensively. He views the entire corpus in terms of dramatic action, represented by the alternating voices of various characters, including Yhwh, prophets, and others. The action progresses through a U-shaped plot, moving downward as Yhwh’s people are convicted of their sins (Hosea–Micah), to the bottom where they fully experience the consequent punishment in its various dimensions (Nahum–Zephaniah), and then upward to restoration (Haggai– Malachi). Habakkuk is the turning point in the development of this plot, foreshadowing the new possibilities that Yhwh can bring forth.14 Collins does not see the continuity among the various sections of the Twelve as progressing in so linear a fashion. For him continuity is achieved by a concatenation of themes that run like colored threads through the fabric of the whole, sometimes evident in the overall design and sometimes not, sometimes closely intertwined with one another and sometimes separate. Habakkuk is the point at which two of these themes—theodicy and (in)fertility—react in a novel and creative way.15

12  Gerstenberger, “Psalms,” 72–89; idem, “Twelve,” 119–136. 13  Nogalski, “One Book,” 30–46. J.W. Watts, “Psalmody,” 222, similarly maintains that the cultic nature of ch. 3 shows that Habakkuk came from a literary setting in which the conventions of cultic poetry were familiar and could be adapted to reflect on historical developments. 14  House, Unity, 72–16; idem, “Dramatic Coherence,” 146–147. 15  Collins, Mantle, 75–76.

206 8

Floyd

Critical Reflections

8.1 Redaction Critical Methodology 8.1.1 The Difference between Cohesion and Coherence Redactional analysis, as practiced by proponents of the Twelve hypothesis, typically entails looking for apparent discrepancies in the text. These are assumed to indicate one or more redactional layers that were at some point added to the text with which they stand in tension. This method often fails to take sufficient note of the difference between what linguists call cohesion and coherence. Coherence refers to the semantic integrity of the text’s overall message, the infratextual conceptual system in terms of which the disparate parts of the text hang together. Lack of surface-level cohesion at various points is not problematic as long as there is a conceptual basis that encompasses the parts of the text that ostensibly stand in tension with one another.16 If this distinction were taken into account, many of the textual tensions noted in analyses of the Twelve—like those in the complaint passages of Hab 1—would not need a redactional explanation.17 8.1.2

The Inevitable Subjectivity and Circularity of an Initially Diachronic Approach In most versions of the Twelve hypothesis redaction analysis begins with a hypothetical original form of the text, and then works forward through each successive hypothetical layer to the final form of the text. The problem with this methodology is evident in the already mentioned fact that any consensus about the original form of Habakkuk has proved elusive. Was it a wisdom treatise, a prophecy of judgment against Judah, or a prophecy of salvation for Judah? These differing views arise, not from any explicit signals in the text itself regarding an original layer, but from each scholar’s subjective sense of what should have priority in the literary-developmental process. The analysis is circular in the sense that it assumes as its premise what it purports to prove. This is inevitably the case with any approach that begins with a hypothetical original text and works forward. Sweeney notes this problem and therefore advocates starting with the final form(s) of the text and working backward, taking fully into account the above-mentioned distinction between cohesion and

16  Sanders and Maat, “Cohesion,” 591–595. 17  Compare, e.g., Wöhrle’s assignment of Zeph 3:9–10 to a distinct redactional layer (Wöhrle, Abschluss, 335–361) with Timmer’s demonstration that there is no need for this (Timmer, “Non-Israelite Nations”).

Habakkuk

207

coherence before concluding that any apparent tension in the text necessarily indicates an earlier level of composition.18 8.1.3 Lack of Empirical Corroboration The redaction critical methodology used in most studies of the Twelve assumes a particular model of an ancient textual editor for which there is little or no hard evidence. Comparative investigation of ancient Near Eastern scribal techniques has only just begun, and the focus has been on narrative rather than prophetic texts, but studies done thus far cast doubt on the idea of a redactor who inserts verses or phrases here and there in a text to produce multiple levels of connections.19 8.2 Intertextuality 8.2.1 Catchwords and Allusions In some versions of the Twelve hypothesis it seems that lexical parallels of any sort are automatically assumed to be the result of redactional activity linking books to one another. The need for greater precision has been acknowledged.20 What verbal parallels are to be explained in terms of redaction, and what constitutes an intertextual parallel in the first place? Wöhrle recognizes that the repetition of a word or phrase in several books does not necessarily indicate a redactional process affecting the corpus as a whole. He proposes that the repeated word or phrase must be shown to result from the redaction of each book where it appears, and that the redactions of each of these books must be shown to converge with one another, if the repetition is to be seen as indicating a redaction of the evolving corpus as a whole.21 Given the problems with redaction critical methodology mentioned above, it is doubtful whether this more rigorous application of that same methodology would necessarily result in more firmly grounded conclusions. With regard to what constitutes an intertextual parallel, Schultz argues that one should look for verbal and syntactical correspondence extensive enough to indicate an interdependence that is “conscious and purposeful,” so that “one’s knowledge of the quoted text will facilitate the proper interpreting of the quoting text.”22 Schultz helpfully clarifies one important point. Although there 18  Sweeney, “Concerns,” 22; idem, “Studies.” Sweeney does not use the terminology of cohesion vs. coherence, but he takes account of this distinction in effect. See also Ben Zvi, “Hypothesis,” 62–63. 19  Berman, “Models,” 1–4, 15–16; Carr, Formation, 13–101; Van Seters, Edited Bible, 185–401. 20  Jones, Formation, 137–138; Schultz, “Ties”; Wöhrle, “Cross-References.” 21  Wöhrle, “Cross-References.” 22  Schultz, “Ties,” 32.

208

Floyd

are many types and concepts of intertextuality, the hypothesis of the Twelve entails the sort of textual interdependence in which one text is designed so that reference to another text is necessary for the former to be fully understood. Schultz does not, however, reckon squarely with the fact that this kind of textual interdependence is not necessarily indicated by either the number of parallels, the frequency of their repetition, or the extent to which they are verbatim quotations. For example, let us take the most extreme case, verbatim repetition, where one text is obviously quoting another. One end of the spectrum can be represented by 1 Chr 16:8–26. Within the narrative of David’s bringing the ark up to Jerusalem and founding a sanctuary there, the account of his appointment of cultic musicians includes a description of a song that they are commissioned to perform. This song is a direct quote of Pss 105:1–15; 96:1–13; and 106:1, 47–48. Despite the verbatim repetition, there is no need for the reader to know where the quotation came from. The writer assumes that readers will know that this sort of singing is done in a cultic context, but in order to understand the Chronicler’s narrative it is not necessary to know that this particular song is a composite of parts of other songs found in the Book of Psalms, or which of the Psalms it is drawn from, or even that there is such a thing as the Book of Psalms. The other end of the spectrum can be represented by the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab). This document quotes the text of Habakkuk verbatim as it gives a running commentary on it. The reader cannot understand the commentary without simultaneously reading the text that is quoted. Between these two extremes there are differing degrees to which the quoting text may be dependent upon the quoted text, and, as is evident from the examples above, it is the genre of the quoting text that indicates the extent to which its reader needs to know the quoted text in order to understand the former.23 8.2.2

The Relationship between Habakkuk 3 and the Beginning of Nahum In most versions of the hypothesis of the Twelve, the key development that brought Habakkuk and Nahum into a complementary relationship with one another, and at the same time integrated them more deeply into the growing corpus of the Twelve, was the addition of theophanic hymns at the beginning of Nahum and the conclusion of Habakkuk.24 To call both of these passages 23  Floyd, “Deutero-Zechariah,” 232–239. 24  E.g., Christensen, “Book,” 193; Kessler, “Nahum-Habakuk,” 139–141.

Habakkuk

209

“theophanic hymns” implies that they are analogous in form and content, and that they can thus convey a shared redactional intent. The problem is that neither of them is actually a hymn. The poem at the beginning of Nahum is not a hymn because, first of all, it lacks the basic element that is the definitive characteristic of the genre, namely, a call to praise.25 Moreover, one of the key features of this passage is an element that hymns definitely do not have, namely, accusatory questions. After the first set of Yhwh’s praiseworthy attributes in 1:2–5 there comes in 1:6 a pair of rhetorical questions addressed to any and every one. Then after the second set of Yhwh’s praiseworthy attributes in 1:7–8 there comes in 1:9a a much more pointed question addressed directly to the readers. The function of the theophanic description in 1:2–5 and 1:7–8 is not to praise Yhwh per se, but to substantiate the basis for these questions that accost the reader with a warning, as if to say, “Don’t you dare oppose Yhwh.” This opening to the book prepares the reader for the main body of Nahum, which describes how one particular empire that failed to heed this warning (Assyria) suffered the dire consequences.26 The poem in ch. 3 of Habakkuk is likewise not a hymn. It, too, lacks the essential element of a call to praise, and key elements of its composition are not typical of the hymn genre: a petition for help (3:2b), a description of the supplicant’s distress (3:14), and an affirmation of confidence (3:17–19). These are all definitive characteristics of the complaint genre.27 The theophanic description of Yhwh is relatively extensive (3:3–15) and includes a stirring variation of the combat myth, in which Yhwh’s victorious struggle with the sea monster is conflated with the divine warrior’s victorious defense of his people against enemy nations. Although these heroic exploits are indeed laudable, here again the function of the theophanic description in 3:3–15 is not to praise Yhwh per se, but to give the motivation for the supplicant’s affirmation of confidence (3:17–19). When the prophet undertakes the oracular inquiry described in 2:1a, he does so not only to see how Yhwh would respond to him (2:1bα), but also to see how he in turn would respond to Yhwh (2:1bβ). This conclusion to the book provides a liturgical dramatization of how and why the prophet responded positively.28 25  Gerstenberger, Psalms, 16–19. 26  Floyd, Nahum-Malachi, 35–44. 27  Gerstenberger, Psalms, 11–14. J.W. Watts, “Psalmody,” 216–217, recognizes that the hymnic elements are set “within the framework of a lament,” but does not consider how the former functions rhetorically in relation to the latter. 28  Floyd, Nahum-Malachi, 147–161.

210

Floyd

In view of how very different these two passages are with respect to their rhetorical purpose, and also how very different they are with respect to the way the theophanic description functions in relation to their rhetorical purpose, it seems highly unlikely that both were added at the same time, by the same hand, in order to express a similar redactional intention. 9 Conclusion In the wake of the demise of the conventional historical-critical treatment of prophecy, the hypothesis of the Twelve has generated a burst of creative scholarship that moves in a new direction. However, some of the methods and arguments, particularly as they relate to the treatment of Habakkuk, remain inconclusive. Bibliography Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Is the Twelve Hypothesis Likely from an Ancient Reader’s Perspective?” Pages 47–96 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Berman, Joshua. “Empirical Models of Textual Growth: A Challenge for the Historical Critical Tradition.” JHebS 16 (2016): 14–25. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Christensen, Duane L. “The Book of Nahum: A History of Interpretation.” Pages 187– 194 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Collins, Terence. The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. BibSem 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Curtis, Byron G. “The Zion-Daughter Oracles: Evidence on the Identity and Ideology of the Late Redactors of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 166–184 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Dietrich, Walter. “Three Minor Prophets and the Major Empires: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” Pages 147– 156 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological

Habakkuk

211

Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Everson, A. Joseph. “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk.” Pages 165–174 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Floyd, Michael H. Nahum-Malachi. Vol. 2 of Minor Prophets. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Floyd, Michael H. “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.” Pages 225–244 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms: Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Literature. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Psalms in the Book of the Twelve: How Misplaced Are They?” Pages 72–89 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Twelve (and More) Anonyms: A Biblical Book without Authors.” Pages 119–136 in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda et al. ANEM 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015. House, Paul R. The Unity of the Twelve. BLS 12. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. House, Paul R. “Dramatic Coherence in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” Pages 195–208 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Jones, Barry A. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Kessler, Rainer. “Nahum-Habakuk als Zweiprophetenschrift: Eine Skizze.” Pages 137– 152 in Gotteserdung: Beiträge zur Hermeneutik und Exegese der Hebräischen Bibel. Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 2006. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “One Book and Twelve Books: The Nature of the Redactional Work and the Implications of Cultic Source Material in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 11–46 in Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Redditt, Paul R. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” Pages 1–26 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003.

212

Floyd

Sanders, Ted and Maat, Henk P. “Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches.” Pages 591–595 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Edited by Keith Brown et al. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Schart, Aaron. “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets: Problems and Models.” Pages 34–48 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Schultz, Richard L. “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 27–45 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Three Recent European Studies on the Composition of the Book of the Twelve.” RBL (1991): 22–37. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Timmer, Daniel C. “The Non-Israelite Nations in Zephaniah: Conceptual Coherence and the Relationship of the Parts to the Whole.” Pages 245–263 in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda et al. ANEM 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 31–49 in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Edited by Leo G. Perdue et al. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Watts, James W. “Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context.” Pages 209–223 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Watts, John D.W. “Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 110– 124 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006.

Habakkuk

213

Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis.” Pages 3–20 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012.

Chapter 13

Zephaniah in the Book of the Twelve Walter Dietrich 1

The Place of Zephaniah within the Book of the Twelve (Synchronic View)

The Structure of the Dodekapropheton and the Role of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah within It The superscriptions show that the writings of the Dodekapropheton are—or are at least intended to be—arranged chronologically. In the first six, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah still exist; in the next three only Judah remains; in the last three there is no longer a state as such.1 Zephaniah as the ninth book marks the end of the era of the Kingdom of Judah. King Josiah (639–609 bce) appears in 1:1 as an historical point of reference. After him the end of independent statehood followed very quickly, brought about by the Babylonians. And yet there is no trace of Babylon to be found in Zephaniah; instead of it appears, in 2:13–15, Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the power that preceded Babylon. The seventh book, Nahum, also speaks extensively of Nineveh, while the eighth, Habakkuk, mentions Babylon, or rather the “Chaldeans.”2 The sequence Assyria (Nahum)—Babylon (Habakkuk)—Assyria (Zephaniah) seems illogical. There is, certainly, something aesthetic about it: concentric structures are an artistic device used in many places within the Hebrew Bible.3 But the chiasm of Nah-Hab-Zeph has not only a formal but also a deep content dimension: in Nahum and Zephaniah the imperial power is threatened in the name of Yhwh, while in Habakkuk, by contrast, it appears—at least for a time—as the instrument carrying out Yhwh’s will. This ambivalence is also found, for example, in (Proto-)Isaiah and Jeremiah: there Assyria and Babylon appear sometimes as instruments of judgment commissioned by Yhwh,4 sometimes as Yhwh’s opponents.5 This reflects a twofold experience on the part of Israel/Judah: at times being helpless and handed over to overwhelming 1.1

1  This indicates, in broad terms, a distribution over the eighth, seventh, and sixth centu­ries bce. 2  Hab 1:6. According to the book of Jeremiah this is an alternative term for “Babylonians.” 3  Two examples may suffice: 2 Sam 16–19 and Pss 15–24. 4  E.g., Isa 5:25–29; 7:18–20; Jer 1:13–16; 27:1–11. 5  E.g., Isa 10:5–15; 14:24–27; Jer 50–51.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_015

Zephaniah

215

forces, at times being amazed at their unexpected end. It seems that God’s plan for history contains phases of both oppression and liberation. God allows enemy powers to prevail—but not forever. Habakkuk reflects the former, Nahum and Zephaniah the latter. There is another possible explanation for the peculiar sequence of Nah-Hab-Zeph. It may be that there is a deliberate intent to erase the historical lines of separation between the two world powers. Fundamentally, they were both alike: the grave-diggers of Israel’s and Judah’s independent existence as states. Now, however, Israel and/or Judah are no longer perceived as states; they are a people of God not limited to certain boundaries. Unfortunately, they are still repeatedly confronted by enemies, but the fall of those mighty Eastern empires is a powerful sign for the future. 1.2 Structure and Internal Logic of Zephaniah Zephaniah is made up of three parts: I) 1:2–2:3; II) 2:4–3:8; III) 3:9–20. I) Criticism is levelled at abuses and certain groups of people that are drawing Judah into a maelstrom of evil. There are false priests (‫ )כמרים‬in Jerusalem who are apparently connected with “Baal” and “Milcom” (1:4), as well as adherents of astral cults who have no interest in Yhwh (1:5–6). Princes are accused, and those who wear foreign garments (1:8), people who “hop over the threshold”6 and “fill their master’s house with violence and deceit” (1:9). A “day of Yhwh” is announced, one that will bring destruction especially on a business district in the new city of Jerusalem and there above all on the “weighers of silver” (1:10–11). Threats are issued against people who “become fat from the yeast”—an image of luxurious living—and who say that Yhwh will do neither good nor evil, and therefore may be ignored (1:12). Dark notes of war are sounded (1:14–16), hints of people wandering about without purpose, of blood and body parts in the alleys (1:17–18a). This philippic is framed by announcements of the end of all life in the land, perhaps on the whole earth (1:2–3, 18b). Nevertheless, in the end, in 2:1–3, a muted light of hope shines: “Do what is right, seek righteousness, seek humility—perhaps you will be rescued on the day of Yhwh’s wrath.” II) In the second part, the prophet turns against four foreign peoples, arranged by the points of the compass (West to East; South to North) and by size (small neighbours—great empires). He begins with the Philistines (2:4–7). No reason is given for the destruction of their cities, but it is foreseen that “the remnant of the house of Judah” will take possession of their land. Then follow 6  This apparently describes a religious ritual Zephaniah regards as pagan.

216

Dietrich

the peoples of Moab and Ammon from east of the Jordan (2:8–10);7 they are accused of having acted arrogantly against others, especially the “people of Yhwh.” For this they are threatened with the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and their land shall also become the inheritance of the “remnant of my people.” A grandiose monotheistic verse is inserted at 2:11: Yhwh will show all the gods of the earth to be nothing, and their worshipers will revere Yhwh, “each from its place.” Finally, it is the turn of the great powers: first, briefly, Egypt, called “Cush” after its southern region and threatened with a military disaster (2:12); then, at greater length, Assyria, addressed as its capital city, Nineveh, which will very soon be a landscape of ruins (2:13–15). Then, surprisingly, the foreign nations yield the stage again to Yhwh’s own people (3:1–8abα)—a sequence that recalls the great poem of the nations in the book of Amos (Amos 1:3–2:16). For Zephaniah the target is Jerusalem, “the stubborn and unclean, the violent city” (3:1); its “officials” are “roaring lions,” its “judges” are “wolves in the evening.” There is no respite even for the priests and prophets. Yhwh, by contrast, is “righteous, he does no injustice. Morning by morning he issues his justice at sunrise; it never fails.” Yhwh will “gather nations, bring kingdoms together”— but not, as one might expect, to use them to punish Yhwh’s corrupted people; instead, it is “to pour out my indignation upon them” (3:8bβ). This surprising twist begins the third part of the writing. III) The book ends with sounds of jubilation. Foreign nations will worship Yhwh with “a pure language” (3:9); the Cushites will bring gifts to Yhwh (3:10); within the people of God will arise a “humble and lowly people” who “will not do injustice and will not speak lies” (3:12–13). The daughters of Zion shall rejoice because “Yhwh, the King of Israel, is in your midst” (3:14–15). And God will “exult over you with joy” (3:17)—a God who rejoices: an expression as rare as it is precious. Scarcely less precious are the concluding promises: “I am rescuing the limping and gathering the scattered” (3:19) and “Surely I bring upon you fame and a name among all the peoples of the earth, when I change your fate before your eyes” (3:20). The three parts of the book can be given the superscriptions “Evil things against Judah,” “Evil things against the nations (and Judah),” and “Salvation for Judah and the nations.” The books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah (in its Septuagint version) are also structured according to this scheme. It is correct to say, in a sense, that the whole Book of the Twelve Prophets follows it as well, insofar as the threats of destruction against Israel and Judah primarily shape the first books (especially Hosea, Amos, and Micah), while thereafter the judgment on 7  It is astonishing that Edom is missing here, since from the time of the exile it was regarded as Judah’s archenemy.

Zephaniah

217

the other nations increasingly comes to the fore (especially in Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk), until at the end (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) the salvific tones clearly dominate. Links between Zephaniah and the Other Books of the Dodekapropheton Zephaniah is not isolated within the Twelve Prophets. It has its “historical” link to Nahum and Habakkuk, the two writings that also purportedly stem from the end of the royal period. There are especially striking links between Habakkuk 3 and Zephaniah 1: in both we find the terms “earth,” “hills,” “land,” “sea,” “thunder,” “evil/wickedness,” “day of distress.” On the other side there are some striking links which hold Zephaniah 3 and Haggai 1 together, for example, the frequently repeated formula “on that day” and the concept of “people/ peoples.”8 But the lines of connection extend much farther. The key expression in Zeph 1 is the “day of Yhwh,” addressing a major theme that appears again and again throughout the whole of the Dodekapropheton (and beyond it in Isa 2:12–17).9 Here two contrary tendencies are revealed: sometimes that “day” is to bring good things for Israel/Judah and bad things for their enemies (Joel 4:9–17; Obad 15–17); sometimes, though, it will bring evil on Israel/Judah (Amos 5:18–20). Zeph 1 is clearly in this second category; in fact, the theme is sharpened here in comparison with Amos, insofar as that “day (of woe)” is described as rapidly approaching and imminently arriving, and there is a naming of particular social groups who will be stricken especially hard by it. The formula “the day of Yhwh is near” (1:7, 14) also appears in Joel, however,10 though not to announce the approach of bad things but instead to promise salvation for Judah (Joel 4:14). But that same Joel had previously described the arrival of a horde of “locusts,” that is, an evil event, with the vocabulary of the “day of Yhwh” (Joel 2:1–12). Writings that will follow Zephaniah will adopt intermediate positions between these two basic expectations: According to Zech 14, the day of Yhwh first brings evil, then salvation, and that equally for all peoples; according to Mal 3:13–24 the evil will be directed only at the “arrogant and evildoers,” while salvation will come for the “righteous.” Hence 1.3

8  This kind of linkage between the neighbouring books within the Dodekapropheton has been extensively investigated by Nogalski, Literary Precursors. 9  For what follows see Beck, Tag, and Schwesig, Rolle. 10  We may remark in passing that this very formulation becomes standard in the NT: Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11.

218

Dietrich

Zephaniah assumes an important position within an intensive intertextual discourse. There is another, narrower and yet impressive bridge extending from Zephaniah to a number of other writings within the Dodekapropheton. Zephaniah 1:7 sounds the mysterious cultic cry ‫חס‬, “be silent!”—one should be silent before the proximity and presence of God. The expression occurs only six times in the Hebrew Bible, four of them in the Dodekapropheton: once in its first part, reflecting the eighth century (Amos 6:10), again in the second, from the late-royal period (Hab 2:20), and finally in the third, post-exilic part (Zech 2:17).11 This means that through all the ages the prophets have repeatedly called for silent veneration of God and God’s actions. 2

The Incorporation of Zephaniah into the Book of the Twelve (Diachronic View)

The book of Zephaniah was not part of the Dodekapropheton from the outset; it became such in the course of an extended development, beginning with an authentic preaching by the prophet, still visible in fragments, and continuing through a collection of his sayings to their integration in a book of four, and then many, prophets. 2.1 The Authentic Core The wording of the superscription of the book of Zephaniah is: “The word of Yhwh that came to Zephaniah ben Cushi ben Gedaliah ben Amariah ben Hezekiah in the days of Josiah ben Amon, King of Judah” (1:1). It is usually supposed that Zephaniah worked before the so-called cultic reform in Josiah’s eighteenth year,12 that is, before 622 bce.13 This fits with the fact that in the genealogy of 1:1 a certain Hezekiah is named as his great-great grandfather; he could certainly have been the King of Judah of the same name (725–686 bce). Thus, it is possible that Zephaniah was a shoot from a collateral line of the House of David. Notwithstanding, as the content of his message shows, he was certainly a Judean and a Jerusalemite. Thirteen sayings or fragments of sayings can be attributed to him: 1:2; 1:4–5; 1:7; 1:8aβ, 9; 1:10aβb, 11; 1:12aβb, 13a; 1:14–16; 1:17aαb; 2:1–3; 2:4–6; 2:9*; 2:13–15; 3:1, 3–4(, 5*). 11  The two other instances are Judg 3:19; Neh 8:11. 12  See 2 Kgs 22:3. 13  Thus, e.g., Edler, Kerygma, 117; Irsigler, Zefanja, 67–71.

Zephaniah

219

These passages show Zephaniah to have been an extremely serious, critical, and sceptical observer of the situation in Jerusalem and Judah at that time, as well as of the international context. He sees a violent overthrow coming; in Jerusalem at most some of those on the margins of society will survive it. Probably that message was proclaimed in the time after the death of the extremely Assyrian-friendly King Manasseh (686–641) and the enthronement of the young Josiah, that is, around 630 bce. Assyria’s star was then sinking but not yet being extinguished. Despite his exalted origins,14 Zephaniah felt sympathy for Judah’s social underclass.15 He regarded the upper class as part of an international system of exploitation and injustice led by Assyria, and he saw its fall as coming not from earthly enemies but from the God of Israel. He clothed that expectation in words about “the day of Yhwh,” which since the days of Amos and Isaiah had lost its original promise-laden tone and taken on a somber, threatening note. Zephaniah was convinced that the “day was near” when everything that was now on top would be cast down, while those who found themselves on the bottom might still hope to survive. It may have been voices like his that drove the religious and social reform programme of the deuteronomic movement and the reform-friendly King Josiah. 2.2 The Creation of a Late-Pre-exilic Collection Zephaniah’s preaching must have made such an impression that it was not forgotten, but instead was preserved in written form.16 Meanwhile, the sceptre had come to Babylon, and for a time also to the Egyptians, yet these new arrangements gave little cause for a more optimistic worldview. A new system of injustice had simply taken the place of the previous one, with other imperial powers and new Judahite lackeys but just as unbearable as before. Still, the supposedly invincible Assyrian Empire had collapsed with incomprehensible speed; in the year 612 bce the brilliant capital city of Nineveh had been levelled, just as announced in Zeph 2:13–15. Might something like that also happen to the new rulers of the world?—even though this time little Judah would finally be drawn into the maelstrom with it? The first collection of Zephaniah’s sayings comprises the by far greater part of 1:2–3:8bα. Other sayings critical of the local upper class were added in 1:2–18 14  Besides the genealogy in 1:1, see the sayings in 1:4–9, which betray intimate knowledge of habits among the upper class. 15  See esp. 1:9; 2:1–3. 16  Ben Zvi, Study, 291–295, comes to a similar conclusion, though he does not venture to postulate the stage of an authentic preaching of Zephaniah retained in memory as proposed above.

220

Dietrich

and 3:1–8bα, along with new prophecies against neighbouring lands in 2:4–15. A closing word in 3:6–8bα, fashioned explicitly for this collection, reveals very little hope for a time beyond the catastrophe. We can see from 2 Kings and Jeremiah how swiftly Judah’s situation in face of foreign powers declined after Josiah’s early death in 609 bce. It may be that the Zephaniah collection brings us into the years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 bce,17 with which the expectation of the “day of Yhwh” was fulfilled in the most horrifying manner. 2.3 Incorporation in the Book of the Four Prophets After the catastrophe, redactors of a deuteronomistic mindset created a book consisting of four writings in which they documented the prophecies of the royal period and tried to fashion an etiology for the fall of the states of Israel and Judah.18 Yhwh’s prophets had foretold all this, had given reasons for it, had appealed for repentance by the responsible parties and by the whole people, but they had not succeeded—and so everything had happened as it had to. It was not Yhwh—no, it was Yhwh’s people and in particular the leadership groups who were responsible for the catastrophe. The deuteronomistic redaction is most readily visible in the superscription in Zeph 1:1, which is very similar to those at the head of Hosea, Amos, and Micah. Each of the prophets was associated with the Kings reigning in his time. Synchronic royal dates such as we know from the book of Kings were used for Hosea and Amos, who worked before 722 bce: in Amos 1:1 the Israelite Jeroboam II is set alongside the Judahite Uzziah; Hos 1:1 speaks also of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (which means that Amos worked somewhat before Hosea). Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah also figure in Mic 1:1, while in Zeph 1:1 only the last of the three appears, although solely in the prophet’s line of descent; Josiah is named as the reigning ruler and thus Zephaniah is clearly shown to be the last of the four prophets. The chain of four superscriptions suggests a kind of prophetic succession, beginning in Northern Israel and continuing in Judah. The two brother-kingdoms were thus linked to form a single whole: the people of the God Yhwh, who sends these prophets and puts his “word” in their mouths. The key concept “word,” “words” (‫דבר‬, ‫ )דברים‬in the superscriptions signals that prophets are essentially conveyers of words. The real speaker whose words they are to transmit is Yhwh. God wants to communicate with people, namely with members 17  This is Irsigler’s theory: Zefanja, 359. 18  In recent years this hypothesis has found a broad group of adherents. The rejections by Ben Zvi, “Redaction,” and Levin “Vierprophetenbuch,” are not persuasive.

Zephaniah

221

of God’s own people, but the transmittal of the divine words in human language requires a mediator. That is the service of the prophets—which means that the words we read in their writings, no matter how human (or, more precisely, Hebrew) they sound, are God’s own, eternal, and universally valid word. The deuteronomistic editors only occasionally took a hand in the traditions of the four prophets as they had thus far been collected; that intervention was especially small in the case of Zephaniah, who was closest relatively to their own time. The first chapter of his book addressed themes they knew well, for example, from Deuteronomy and 1–2 Kings. The keywords “Baal,” “Milcom,” “false priests” (‫)כמרים‬, “host of heaven,” “to seek, to inquire of Yhwh,” “Canaan,” “to fail Yhwh,” were all familiar to them. It seems that, apart from the superscription, they themselves formulated only a few secondary text passages that are clearly deuteronomistic in style: 1:6, 13b; 2:8; 3:2. 2.4 Accommodation to the Growing Book of Many Prophets In the post-exilic-Persian period a comprehensive prophetic anthology was assembled, based on the Book of the Four Prophets. First the two books of Nahum and Habakkuk, which had grown together, were inserted; since in terms of their content they belong to the late royal period, their placement after Micah and before Zephaniah seemed appropriate.19 The block of three writings (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah) invoked and celebrated the fall of the empires of Assyria and Babylon. In Haggai–Proto-Zechariah, a double writing that had likewise already come together and naturally followed Zephaniah, the Persians were added; they, however, stand out not because of their violent actions but because of the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple. Under their aegis the Book of the Twelve Prophets was gradually formed.20 This process is also reflected in Zephaniah, in some late, universalistic additions in parts I and II (1:3, 17aβb–18; 2:7, 9b–11), but above all in part III, which is saturated with rejoicing over salvation (3:8bβ–20). These passages contain an intensive intertextual play of different reach and radius. First of all there are continuations of older Zephaniah material; compare, for example, 3:11 with 2:15; 3:12 with 2:3; 3:13 with 2:7. Added to these are echoes of other writings in the Dodekapropheton:21 2:11 is in contact with Mal 1:11 (worldwide worship of 19  This also explains the situation alluded to above, in which Nahum speaks of “Nineveh” while in Habakkuk the “Chaldeans” are already present. 20  Schwesig, Rolle, with summary on 282–300, posits stepwise expansions from a Book of the Four to a Book of the Six (with Nahum and Habakkuk), then to a Book of the Eight (with Haggai and Proto-Zechariah), then a Book of the Ten (with Joel, Obadiah, and Deutero-Zechariah), and finally the Book of the Twelve (with Jonah and Malachi). 21  On this topic, see Nogalski, “Zephaniah 3,” and Beck, “Tag YHWHs-Verständnis.”

222

Dietrich

Yhwh); 3:10 with Hos 10:6 (“bringing tribute”); 3:13 with Mic 4:4 (“no one shall make them afraid”); 3:14 with Zech 2:14; 9:9–10 (joyful shouts on Zion); 3:20 with Hos 6:11; Amos 9:14 (“change of fortune”). A great number of contacts with the book of Isaiah are also evident: compare 1:18a with Isa 30:27, 30; 33:11, 14 (devouring fire); 1:18b with Isa 10:23; 28:22 (God’s “decree of destruction over the whole land”); 2:11 with Isa 41:1; 49:1; 51:5 (“coastlands” and “nations”); 3:11 with Isa 13:3 (“proudly exultant ones”); 3:14 with Isa 12:6; 54:1 (shouts of joy on Zion); 3:15 with Isa 44:6 (Yhwh as “king of Israel”); 3:16 with Isa 54:4 (Zion called to fearlessness); 3:17 with Isa 62:5; 65:19 (God’s rejoicing over Zion); 3:19 with Isa 60:14 (“your oppressors”). And finally, there are echoes of the Pentateuch: the cosmic judgment announced in 1:3 on the “earth,” “people” and “animals” and “birds of the air” and “fish of the sea” is at the same time a retraction of creation and repetition of the Flood (cf. Genesis 1; 6–9). Zephaniah 3:17 and 3:18–20 are also in touch with Deut 30:9 and 30:3–4 respectively. Interestingly, we find that the latest textual passages in the OT are missing from these lists: these include the late-Priestly layers of the Pentateuch, Ezra–Nehemiah, 1–2 Chronicles, Isaiah 24–27, and Daniel. That could indicate that Zephaniah was no longer being edited in the latest OT period, the Hellenistic era—or that Zephaniah was not “modernized” all that much but was instead intended to remain recognizably a prophet of the (departed) royal period. Certainly the basic grimly pessimistic attitude was thoroughly lightened. Apparently at that point encouraging promises were more urgently needed than warnings and threats. But the latter were not eliminated from the Zephaniah traditions, if only in order not to leave Judah’s earlier history of evil unexplained. The combination of (older) perspectives on evil and (later) views of salvation makes the little book of Zephaniah something like a guide to the whole of Old Testament prophecy. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’” Pages 232–252 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Albertz, Rainer et al. eds. Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005.

Zephaniah

223

Beck, Martin. “Das Tag Yhwhs-Verständnis von Zephanja iii.” VT 58 (2008): 159–177. Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. BZAW 198. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1991. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among the ‘Twelve’? A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah.” Pages 232–261 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Berlin, Adele. Zephaniah. AB 25A. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994. Bornand, Rachel. “Un ‘livre des quatre’ précurseur des douze petits prophètes?” ETR 82 (2007): 549–566. Dietrich, Walter. “Der Eine Gott als Symbol politischen Widerstands. Religion und Politik im Juda des 7. Jahrhunderts.” Pages 463–490 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Dietrich, Walter. “Zephanja/Zephanjabuch.” TRE 36: 648–657. Dietrich, Walter. “Three Minor Prophets and the Major Empires: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” Pages 147–156 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Dietrich, Walter. Nahum, Habakuk, Zefanja. IEKAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015 (English translation: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Translated by Peter Altmann. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016). Dietrich, Walter and Milton Schwantes. eds. Der Tag wird kommen: Ein interkontextuelles Gespräch über das Buch des Propheten Zefanja. SBS 170. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Edler, Rainer. Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja. Freiburger Theologische Studien 126. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. Gärtner, Judith. “Jerusalem—City of God for Israel and for the Nations in Zeph 3:8, 9–10, 11–13.” Pages 147–156 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Survival, Conversion and Restoration: Reflections on the Redaction History of the Book of Zephaniah.” VT 61 (2011): 570–581. Hardmeier, Christof. “Zwei spätvorexilische Diskurse in Zefanja 1,1–3,8: Jhwhs Schlacht­ opfertag (1,7) und der Tag seines Ingrimms (1,15.18).” Pages 139–183 in Diasynchron: Beiträge zur Exegese, Theologie und Rezeption der Hebräischen Bibel: Festschrift für Walter Dietrich. Edited by Thomas Naumann and Regine Hunziker-Rodewald. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009.

224

Dietrich

House, Paul R. Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama. JSOTSup 69. Sheffield: Almond, 1988. Irsigler, Hubert. Zefanja. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–235. Lux, Rüdiger. “‘Still alles Fleisch vor JHWH …’ Das Schweigegebot im Dodekapropheton und sein besonderer Ort im Zyklus der Nachtgesichte des Sacharja.” Leqach 6 (2005): 99–113. Neef, Heinz-Dieter. “Vom Gottesgericht zum universalen Heil: Komposition und Redaktion des Zephanjabuches.” ZAW 111 (1999): 530–546. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Zephaniah 3: A Redactional Text for a Developing Corpus.” Pages 207–218 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Thomas Krüger. BZAW 300. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2000. Perlitt, Lothar. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ATD 25,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Ryou, Daniel H. Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8. BibInt 13. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Seybold, Klaus. Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ZBK 24,2. Zürich: TVZ, 1991. Striek, Marco. Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch. BBET 29. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999. Sweeney, Marvin A. “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah.” CBQ 53 (1991): 388–408. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Zephaniah: A Paradigm for the Study of the Prophetic Books.” CurBS 7 (1999): 119–145. Udoekpo, Michael U. Re-thinking the Day of YHWH and Restoration of Fortunes in the Prophet Zephaniah: An Exegetical and Theological Study of 1:14–18; 3:14–20. An Outline of an Old Testament Dialogue 2. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010. Vlaardingerbroek, Johannes. Zephaniah. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Wendland, Ernst. “The Drama of Zephaniah: A Literary-Structural Analysis of a Proclamatory Prophetic Text.” JSem 16 (2007): 22–67. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006.

Chapter 14

Haggai in the Book of the Twelve Martin Leuenberger 1 Introduction The small but fine book of Haggai, comprising only 38 verses in two chapters, does not stand at the heart of current research on prophecy. “Haggai may not be a major prophet, but it is easy to underestimate his importance,” as Herbert G. May aptly has summarized.1 After all, he was “in the end one of the most successful prophets.”2 From a present view, it is notably the close and fundamental reference of Haggai’s message to the conditions of daily, social, and economic life that deserves increased interest (see below 3.1). Contrary to a relative contemptuousness which has become common, the prophetic message of Haggai can pointedly be qualified as a great man’s big words. On a literary level, his book develops a distinct temple theology that is rooted in the situation of Jerusalem around the year 520 bce, and thus provides instructive but often rarely considered insights into the religious- and theological-historical changes at the end of the exile and the beginning of the second temple era. Together with Zechariah 1–8* it represents the rear core of the Book of the Twelve and, therefore, is also of redaction historical interest—especially in what concerns “Israel’s” relation to the foreign nations. The book of Haggai represents a prophetic narrative (Prophetenerzählung) that in four sections (compared to Zechariah earlier) relays the proclamation of Yhwh’s words related to the temple rebuilding and its effects. The words of God and of the prophet, in which the I of Yhwh and of Haggai largely coincide, are quoted verbatim; expressed in an elevated, often poetic language, they are launched by narrative introductions including datings to the day during the second year of the hegemony of the Persian King Darius I (522–486 bce), i.e. in the second half of the year 520 bce. Given that the temple has been devastated and now still lays in ruins, Haggai argues against several local objections for an immediate beginning of the temple’s rebuilding despite the prevailing economic crisis. According to Haggai, rebuilding the temple inaugurates the definite turn to a brighter future 1  May, “People,” 197; see also Smith, Micah-Malachi, 59–60; Boda, Haggai, 38. 2  Taylor, “Haggai,” 27; see already Mitchell, Haggai, 36–37.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_016

226

Leuenberger

including economic prosperity, and to new weal and blessing in a comprehensive sense. So, the horizon is mainly regional and temple-centred, related to the agrarian-economic conditions in Jerusalem and Yehud; only gradually in the book’s formatting process does it open up to a political-messianic (2:23) and even worldwide-eschatological perspective (2:6–8, 21–22). 2

Composition and Formation

2.1 Composition Decisive for depicting the book’s composition are formal and content-related indicators;3 most important are the prosaic introductions consisting of: – precise datings to the day (ranging from 6/1/2 = 8/29/520 in 1:1 to 9/24/2 = 12/18/520 in 2:10, 20; they develop older prophetic traditions and testify to the concrete effectiveness of Yhwh’s word resulting in rebuilding the temple), – the word-event formula “the word of Yhwh came to,” – the name of Haggai as the mediator (1:1; 2:1) resp. the recipient (2:10, 20) of the word, – and the addressees for whom the word is finally destined. These introductions are followed by the—nearly completely poetically formulated—prophetic words of God. According to broad consensus, together these markers subdivide the book into the four sections 1:1–15a, 1:15b–2:9, 2:10–19, and 2:20–23.4 More precisely, the thematic correspondences between sections I and III resp. II and IV exhibit an alternating book-structure.5 The diagram in Figure 14.1 summarizes the overall composition of the book of Haggai. This carefully composed structure of the book nevertheless gives clear cues pointing to a longer formation process that only finally resulted in the present shape of the book of Haggai as part of the Book of the Twelve. Thus, with regard to methodology, a “diachronically reflected synchrony” (Erich Zenger) is the most appropriate approach. Based on the oldest text-form which can be reconstructed (2.2), the place and the function of the book of Haggai within the Book of the Twelve can be described (2.3), and these findings need to be 3  See the overview of Clark, “Structure,” 14–23. 4  See the commentaries and esp. Kessler, Haggai, 243–257; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 288–294, 316–317. Correspondingly, 1:15a serves as a concluding formula (see Wöhrle, ibid., 293 n. 19). A rearrangement of 2:15–19 as immediate continuation of 1:15a(–b) remains completely speculative and finds hardly any support since the studies of Koch, “Volk,” and May, “People.” 5  Cf. Clark, “Structure,” and Assis, “Structure.”

227

Haggai i A

1:1–15a 6/1; 6/24

The Right Time for Rebuilding the Temple in the Horizon of the Agrarian Distress

‫ביד‬

1–3 4–11

Introduction + Theme (v. 2) Question/ ‫ועתה‬ Overcoming Distress by Building Call to Reflection Failure + Drought—caused by Yhwh Fear of Yhwh 12–15a Effect: Start of Building Yhwh’s Being-With Messenger Formula

ii B

1:15b–2,9 7/21

The Glorious Future of the New Temple in the Horizon of the Cosmos-/Nation-Wide Salvific Turn

‫ביד‬

1:15b– 2,2 Introduction Question/ ‫ועתה‬ 3–9 Thematic Question: Temple Like Nothing? Fear of Yhwh Call to Build + Yhwh ’s Promises Yhwh’s Being-With Shaking of the World + Treasures Messenger Formula Glorious Temple + Peace iii

2:10–19

A’

9/24

The Turn to Blessing since the Temple’s First Stone Laying in the Horizon of the Priestly resp. Agrarian Distress ‫אל‬ 10 11–14

iv

2:20–23

B’

9/24

Introduction Priestly Torah ([Im]Pureness) Impure People/Sacrificial Cult

Question/‫ועתה‬ Call to Reflection Yhwh’s Not-Being-With

The Cosmos-/Nation-Wide Salvific Turn with Focus on the Political-Messianic Election of Zerubbabel

‫אל‬

20–21a Introduction 21bf Shaking of the World + Annihilation of Kingdoms → 23 Installation of Yhwh’s Servant Zerubbabel as Signet Ring because of Election figure 14.1 Alternating A-B-A’-B’-composition of the book of Haggai

228

Leuenberger

integrated in a comprehensive redaction historical model for the formation of the book (2.4). 2.2 Textual History Very briefly summarized, the textual history of the book of Haggai allows for the reconstruction of the following text-form that represents the oldest stage after the completion of the productive book-formation.6 The Masoretic text probably has to be changed with regard to its vocalization in 1:2 (‫)לֹא ֶעת ַבא‬, 8 (Ketiv ‫ ;)וְ ֶא ָּכ ֵבד‬2:19 (‫ד־הּגֶ ֶפן‬ ַ ‫ )וְ ַע‬and with regard to the consonants in 1:12 (‫כאׁשר‬ ‫)ׁשלחו יהוה אלהיהם אליהם‬, 13 (without ‫ ;)במלאכות יהוה‬2:16 (‫)מה־היתם‬, 17 (‫ואין‬ ‫ אתכם אני‬or ‫)ואין ׁשוב אתכם אלי‬, but otherwise proves to be very reliable. This can be corroborated by a comparison with the Greek text that on the whole is a rather literal, yet comprehensible, Greek composed translation. In contrast, in a number of cases it shows secondary developments such as shortening, lengthening, or content-wise varying of the text. Notably, the lack of a commission of Haggai in 1:13 (cf. above) probably represents an older and shorter Hebrew version (Vorlage), and the same—although less certain—can be discussed for the missing word of covenant in 2:5aα. The other old translations (esp. the Syriac Peshiṭta, the Aramaic Targum and the Latin Vulgate) confirm this view, but do not contribute to further improvements of the oldest text-form. Additionally, they are each of interest for the history of reception. 2.3 Place and Function within the Book of the Twelve The new approaches of redaction and literary history developed over the last decennia have also shed light on the connections of (certain passages of) Haggai with the Book of the Twelve.7 With regard to the narrative plot, the book of Zephaniah, situated during the Babylonian dominion, is always followed by Haggai and inaugurates the beginning of the second temple period under Persian rule. Thus, within this stable sequence of the Twelve, Israel’s and Judah’s fate of exile is intentionally skipped. Focusing on the beginning of the new era, the chronological framework of Hag–Zech 1–8 shows that the people’s conversion to Yhwh (Zech 1:1–6: 10– 11/520) precedes and even represents the pre-condition for the comprehensive turn to weal and blessing since the temple’s first stone laying (Hag 2:10: 12/18/520). 6  For a detailed argumentation, see Leuenberger, Haggai, 14–15, 27–30 (Lit.). 7  See esp. Nogalski, Precursors; idem, Processes; Wöhrle, Sammlungen; idem, Abschluss.

Haggai

229

The catchwords often remain rather unremarkable.8 Pointing upwards, the terms ‫( עם‬Zeph 3:20/Hag 1:2), ‫( עת‬Zeph 3:19–20/Hag 1:2, 4) and ‫( בוא‬Zeph 3:20/ Hag 1:2) are non-specific, quite common, and even used in different ways— they do not provide a clear perspective. Here, the most significant case is the similar motif in Zeph 3:20—Yhwh gives the returnees name (‫ )ׁשם‬and honour (‫ )תהלה‬among the people of the earth (‫—)עמי הארץ‬and in Hag 2:7, where, inversely, the “treasure of all nations” (‫ )חמדת כל־הגוים‬comes. More important are the connections downwards: the granting of the title ‫עבדי‬: “my servant(s)” to Zerubbabel and the prophets (Hag 2:23/Zech 1:6) as well as the combined catchwords ‫( ארץ‬Hag 2:21/Zech 1:10–11), ‫( סוס‬Hag 2:22/Zech 1:8), and ‫רכב‬ (Hag 2:22/Zech 1:8)—although used in different notional horizons—clearly attest intentional connections between to two books. Finally, thematic fields are of great importance, notably the temple theology, the conceptions of dominion (centred on Zerubbabel), and the judgement of the nations and/or the world (cf. below 3.). 2.4 Redaction History On the basis of this compositional analysis of Haggai within the Book of the Twelve (and esp. evaluating the differences between the prosaic framework and poetic words of the prophet with regard to the addressees, the terminologically varying use of titles and formulas, and thematic differences), the formation of the book can be reconstructed redaction historically along the following lines:9 1) A primary or core layer (1:2, 4–11, 12b–13; 2:3–4aα, aγ–b, 5b, 9a, 15–16, 18a, 19) reflects the oral message of Haggai in different situational contexts which has been literarized and arranged as a dialogical, discursive composition: The proclaimed linkage between the temple rebuilding and the agrarian-economic conditions of life (1:2–13*: the right time for rebuilding the temple in the face of the agrarian distress; 2:15–19*: the agrarian turn to blessing inaugurated by the temple’s first stone laying) establishes a frame around Yhwh’s promise of a glorious future for the rebuilt temple (2:3–9*) which forms the compositional and content-related centre of the collection. This “little pamphlet”10 most probably is still close to the events and intends to document the prophetic argumentation for the future and to motivate finishing the temple’s rebuilding.

8  See esp. Nogalski, Precursors, 49–51, 212–215. For ‫רעׁש‬, see below 2.4 (4). 9   For a more detailed argumentation and discussion of alternative positions, see Leuenberger, Haggai, 44–63 (Lit.), and the recent monograph by Hallaschka, Haggai. 10  Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 317: “kleine Streitschrift” (my translation).

230

Leuenberger

Nevertheless, one may ask whether one and just one, exactly determinable beginning—and be it only on the literary level of the first collection—really is recognizable. Alternatively, it may be worth considering a continuing process with several phases of preparing, planning, starting, laying foundations and constructing the new temple building. In any case, this first literary collection shows a great proximity to the events it depicts. 2) An early expansion (2:11–14)—which is difficult to analyse, but in the context of the most recent research may be interpreted as a small Fortschreibung— addresses explicitly the priests. It aims at overcoming the impurity of the people and their offerings (2:14) by establishing a sacrificial service sacredly performed at the (re-consecrated) temple. 3) A chronological-narrative redaction (1:1, 3, 12a, 14–15; 2:1–2, 4aβ, 10, 18b, 20–21a, 23aβ–bβ) produces essentially the present book of Haggai by introducing three new accents. First, the older words are historically contextualized by stressing the prophetic communication act (Haggai, the prophet, tells the words of Yhwh) and by naming the addressees (the people, but also the political and cultic leaders). Secondly, an exact chronology is established (in connection with Zechariah 1–8*) securing the temporal priority of Haggai against Zechariah. Thirdly, the promise to Zerubbabel, the chosen servant of Yhwh, adds a new final climax to the book, which complements the agrarianeconomic turn to blessing by a political-messianic turn centred around Zerubbabel. This last trait indicates a still relatively contemporary location during Zerubbabel’s lifetime for this first redaction with a horizon transcending the book of Haggai (“Two-Prophets-Book”).11 This implies a date prior to the completion of the new temple early in 515 bce, and in this context, the redaction presumably intends to promote the completion of the temple’s rebuilding (leaving open which specific group[s]/person[s] is/are addressed: the Judeans and/or the Gola, Jehoshua and/or Zerubbabel). 4) Later, two universal-eschatological Fortschreibungen (2:6–8, 9b, 21b–23aα) embed the particular, temple-centred perspective universally in a world- and nation-wide salvific turn. Here, further terminological and conceptual interconnections with the Twelve are relevant. They describe the expectation of a universal shaking and judgement of the nations, which expands within the Book of the Twelve from Joel via Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah to Zechariah 9–14;12 in Hag, it is prima­ rily expressed with the verb ‫רעׁש‬: “shake” used in 2:6–7, 21 and linking these 11  So Lux, “Zweiprophetenbuch,” 191, see esp. 205–210, and Rose, Zemah, 142–176. 12  See, in extenso, Wöhrle, Abschluss, 139–171.

231

Haggai

passages with Joel 4:16 (cf. also 2:10) and Nah 1:5. The traditio-historical background is that of Yhwh as a (royal) weather god fighting against chaos and of Yhwh as a warrior god providing victory to Israel.13 Haggai’s reception of this notion probably reflects the massive and ongoing turmoil “shaking” the Persian Empire since Darius II (424–404 bce) for decades.14 In a redaction historical perspective, this backdrop renders it quite probable to place these universaleschatological Fortschreibungen—belonging to the most critical assessments of the Persian or any worldly rule in the whole Book of the Twelve—in the late Persian period around 400 bce or in the first half of the fourth century. 5) Finally, there are good reasons to assume late additions in 2:5a, 17, although they are difficult to correlate precisely with other passages in Haggai or in the Book of the Twelve and therefore remain somewhat floating in their exact localization. 3

Core Topics

3.1 Socio-Economic Conditions and Theological Interpretation Constitutive for nearly all themes appearing in the book of Haggai is the interplay of and relationship between the socio-economic conditions and the theological interpretation. The early Persian circumstances determining the social, economic, and political conditions of life in general set up the situational context; nevertheless, (the book of) Haggai argues in a decidedly theological way that the time for the temple building and all corresponding actions has come. The common basis of the discourse, undisputed between Haggai and his addressees, is the experience of agrarian-economic deficiency: despite hard working, the land simply delivers too small harvests for its inhabitants (1:6, 9–11; 2:16–19). This fact is interpreted by Haggai as the final result of Yhwh’s punishment (see 1:9, 11; 2:17); due to the deferred rebuilding of the temple, the present is recognized as a time of harm and disaster in which the classical topics of the futility curses are already being fulfilled. 3.2 Temple Theology This is exactly where the genuine temple theology of Haggai comes in. Temple theology in the broader sense possesses a broad background of traditions: the temple functions as the guarantor of the divine presence including the prospering of the land and the well-being of the state. The specific form of temple 13  For the big picture, see Bedford, Restoration, 237–264, and Wolff, Haggai, 60–61. 14  See in detail Briant, History, 588–600, and Gerstenberger, Perserzeit, 56–61.

232

Leuenberger

theology in all layers of the book of Haggai (including at a certain stage also Zechariah 1–8* connected with Hag*), however, is characterized by the view that it explains the not yet rebuilt temple resp. the delayed beginning of the rebuilding as the one and only cause of the extensive—in particular agrarianeconomic—distress. Consequently, the temple rebuilding guarantees Yhwh’s comprehensive blessing taking effect immediately after laying the temple’s first stone: overcoming the current distress in a principal manner, it inaugurates a fundamental turn to new weal and blessing. Right from the start, the original prophetic words clarify that the right time for rebuilding the temple has come (1:8 after 1:2, 4), and that Yhwh takes pleasure in it (1:8); this is underlined in the narrative conclusion by the promise of Yhwh’s being-with the addressees (1:13; cf. also 2:4 and 2:17 [with conjecture]).15 The chronological-narrative redaction increases the tendency insofar as it traces even the obedient beginning of the rebuilding (1:12) back to the divine stirring up of the people’s spirit (1:14). The second section again calls for an instantaneous start of the rebuilding and affirms the divine being-with (2:4; see also the addition of Yhwh’s spirit in 2:5). Finally, the third section takes up—after the report of obtaining a priestly Torah (2:11–14)—the discussion of section I and the future perspective of section II, and now formulates positively the temple theological climax of the core layer. The beginning of the temple’s rebuilding (2:15, cf. 2:18) inaugurates a comprehensive change which turns the manifold forms of distress into weal and blessing (2:19), still focusing on the agrarian world (2:16–17, 19). On this level also, the start of the building activities of 2:15 is being explained as the temple’s first stone laying on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (2:18), dating the turn to blessing precisely to the day. It is exactly this perspective which also shapes the overarching view of Hag–Zech 1–8* by being taken up in the final summary of Zech 8:9–13*; from here, temple theological perspectives on the developing Book of the Twelve are being opened up. Thus, the temple theology proves to be the essential glue of the conceptual coherence of the book of Haggai. For this assumption, three observations are relevant: 1) Terminologically, the designation of the temple as Yhwh’s house, pointing to its function, is dominant (‫ ;בית‬1:2, 4, 8–9, 14; 2:3, 7, 9). Additionally, we find the term “temple” used in the same sense (‫ ;היכל‬2:15, 18), and 2:9 stresses its spatial aspect by speaking of ‫מקום‬: “place.” 15  See above 2.2.

Haggai

233

2)

Despite the focus on the beginning of the temple’s rebuilding, nothing specific is said about its size, architecture, or equipment: mentioned are only the need of wood (1:8), some masonry work carried out (2:15; cf. 2:18), and the future glory of the temple outshining everything else (2:3, 9; cf. also the treasures, silver and gold in 2:7–8). What the book of Haggai is anxious to ensure obviously is the mere fact of the (beginning of the) temple’s rebuilding; this alone suffices to assure in general and without concrete specifications a glorious future. 3) In a functional perspective, designating the temple as house of Yhwh implies that it is primarily understood as a place of permanent divine presence (see also the book’s only important divine epithet “Yhwh Sabaoth”). To this fit also the kabod-formulations (implicitly mediated by the divine presence), whereas genuine expressions of Yhwh’s dwelling are missing. Taken together, the temple stands for the “praesentia dei realis among his people,”16 although contrary to the older state theology, in Haggai state and temple are distinct from one another. The late Fortschreibung in 2:6–8 then adds—in line with a material interpretation of ‫כבוד‬: “glory” (1:8; 2:3, 9)—the dimension of the temple being a treasure house to which the wealth of the nations will be brought. Inverting the real flow of goods in the Persian Empire, the peripheral Jerusalem temple is transformed into the economic centre of the world. To be sure, this is an additional function which does not at all compete with the fundamental divine presence, but only accentuates it in an economic perspective. Therefore, it seems to be too one-sided to claim that “Haggai constructs the temple as nothing but a treasure-house.”17 In short: Rebuilding the temple is justified by the fundamental relevance of the (re)new(ed) temple and its sacrificial service for agrarian-economic prosperity, which also legitimizes the absolute priority of the project: the temple functions “als Kern des (lokalen) Kosmos, ohne den ein gedeihliches, gesegnetes Leben nicht möglich ist.”18 Thus, one can define the temple “und die mit ihm geschenkte Heilszusage Jahwes” (cf. 2:19) as “Haggais Generalthema.”19 3.3 Zerubbabel The book of Haggai in its present shape closes with a “messianic” promise to Zerubbabel (2:23), which, as we know, has not come true and exactly therefore 16  Verhoef, Haggai, 34. 17  Clines, “Temple,” 56, see also 57, 60. 18  Keel, Geschichte, 2:1002. 19  Wolff, “Haggai,” 358; see also Baldwin, Haggai, 18, 19–22, 32–33; Boda, Haggai, 46.

234

Leuenberger

probably is “genuine,” i.e. formulated still during Zerubbabel’s activity. In my view, this is a particular addition by the chronological redaction which emphasizes—within the acknowledged Persian rule under King Darius—a new political-messianic restauration for Jerusalem and Yehud with Zerubbabel as Yhwh’s chosen servant. Conceptually, this “messianic” promise is complementary to the agrarian turn to blessing based on temple theology. With regard to tradition history, it roots in the royal ideology of Ancient Israel and the Ancient Orient, which holds both together, the particular promise to Zerubbabel focused on Jerusalem (2:23), and the universal perspective on all the nations and the whole world (2:21–22, cf. below 3.4). Zerubbabel himself is explicitly described neither as King (‫ )מלך‬nor as ruler (‫ ;)מוׁשל‬neither prince/chief (‫ )נׂשיא ;נגיד‬nor commander (‫)ׂשר‬. Instead only the broader term ‫עבד‬: “servant” is being used, thus avoiding political connotations that would sound dangerous to Persian ears. Most important however is the critical reception of Jer 22:24(–26). The metaphor of Yhwh’s signet ring (Hag 2:23) alludes to the David-critical passage, but now declares it obsolete due to the divine election (‫ )בחר‬of Zerubbabel. In this way, the passage rests on royal tradition and ideology which, reaching back over the rupture of the exile, are innovatively reformulated. On the whole, Zerubbabel’s function is thus not strictly restricted to the task of rebuilding the temple but of restoring—to a certain, though intentionally vague degree—the Davidic dominion.20 3.4 The Judgement of the Nations The notion of the nations being shaken and judged in 2:6–8, 9b and 2:21b–23aα is closely connected with the Book of the Twelve and stems probably from a late Persian redaction around 400 bce (see above 2.4[4]): the perspective has changed from the agrarian-economic distress of the Jerusalemite area to a geopolitical horizon. The argument in detail runs as follows. According to 2:6–9*, Yhwh himself will shake the whole cosmos and all the nations in “the near future”21 (v. 6aβ–7aα). Subsequently, the treasures of the nations will come (v. 7aβ), and Yhwh will (simultaneously?) fill the temple with his kabod (v. 7b) establishing the new kabod-glory of the temple, which will surpass the former one (v. 9a), and a dominion of peace (v. 9b). Hag 2:21–22 in general runs paral20  See Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 309–313, and most recently O’Kennedy, “Haggai 2:20–23,” according to whom “the text deliberately uses symbolic language to blur the future” (ibid., 536), which he however wants to interpret as an eschatological future. 21  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, § 121e, interpret the participial construction convincingly as designating “the near future” (futurum instans), “which may be instantaneous.”

235

Haggai

lel, expanding more precisely on the destruction of the nations resp. of their military strength by Yhwh and by self-destruction. These specific expectations nicely fit in the judgment-perspective (usually) for all the nations in the Book of the Twelve: After relevant passages in Joel, Mic and Nah, Zeph 3:18–20 for the first time formulates the hope for Israel’s salvation; following Hag, this perspective continues in Zech 9–14* on several stages climaxing in the baroque picture of Zech 14. Thus, the prophecy of doom over the nations in Haggai text-pragmatically functions as message of the near salvific turn for the addressees of the book. On the one hand, it envisions the nations as bringers of the treasures for the new temple which marks the cultic centre of the world and is now also politically accepted by the nations (2:6–9*). On the other hand, the particular perspective of 2:23 with Zerubbabel as Yhwh’s servant in Jerusalem is embedded into the universal geopolitical horizon of 2:21–22, which allows for politicalmessianic reorganization of the Jerusalemite circumstances. Taken together, the envisioned shaking and judgement of the nations depicts the universal and nation-wide consequences of the impending salvific turn for the Jerusalemite temple and bases the latter one on a geopolitical level. Thus, the classical combination of a nation-wide external perspective and an Israelite-Judahite internal perspective receives a late prophetic actualization, which is—together with the comprehensive temple theology—characteristic for the final shape of the book of Haggai. Bibliography Assis, Elie. “Haggai: Structure and Meaning.” Bib 87 (2006): 531–541. Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 24. London: Tyndale Press, 1972. Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJ 65. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2000. Beuken, Willem A.M. Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. SSN 10. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. Boda, Mark J. Haggai, Zechariah. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Clark, David J. “Discourse Structure in Haggai.” JOTT 5 (1992): 13–24. Clines, David J.A. “Haggai’s Temple: Constructed, Deconstructed and Reconstructed.” SJOT 7 (1993): 51–77.

236

Leuenberger

Fuhr, Richard A. and Yates, Gary. The Message of the Twelve: Hearing the Voice of the Minor Prophets. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2016. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Israel in der Perserzeit: 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 8. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005. Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2010. Joüon, Paul and Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. SubBi 14. Rom: E.P.I.B., 1991. Keel, Othmar. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. 2 vols. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zum Heiligen Land 4,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2003. Koch, Klaus. “Haggais unreines Volk.” ZAW 79 (1967): 52–66. Leuenberger, Martin. Haggai: Übersetzt und ausgelegt. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015. Lux, Rüdiger. “Das Zweiprophetenbuch: Beobachtungen zu Aufbau und Struktur von Haggai und Sacharja 1–8.” Pages 191–217 in “Wort Jhwhs, das geschah …” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Mason, Rex. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1973. May, Herbert G. “‘This People’ and ‘this Nation’ in Haggai.” VT 18 (1968): 190–197. Meyers, Carol L. and Meyers, Eric M. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. 2nd ed. New York, NY et al.: Yale University Press, 1988. Mitchell, Hinckley G. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah. ICC 30. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. O’Kennedy, Daniel F. “Haggai 2:20–23: Call to Rebellion or Eschatological Expectation?” OTE 27 (2014): 520–540. Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi. KAT 13,4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984.

Haggai

237

Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Sweeney, Marvin A. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Vol. 2 of The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Taylor, Richard A. “Haggai.” Pages 20–202 in Haggai, Malachi. Edited by idem and E. Ray Clendenen, NAC 21A. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2004. Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Willi-Plein, Ina. Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ZBK 24,4. Zürich: TVZ, 2007. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wolff, Hans W. Haggai. Vol. 6 of Dodekapropheton. BK 14,6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986. Wolff, Hans W. “Haggai.” TRE 14: 355–360.

chapter 15

Zechariah in the Book of the Twelve Rüdiger Lux Jesus Sirach (second century bce) not only presented the Twelve Prophets as a unity (Sir 49:10), but he was also likely an attentive reader of the books of Haggai and Zechariah. Immediately following his brief praise of the Twelve in Sir 49:10,1 he extols the two temple-builders Zerubbabel (cf. Hag 2:23) and Joshua in Sir 49:11–12. Here he praises the two central figures who mark both the finale of the Book of the Twelve and the end of scribal prophecy, if we may so interpret Zech 13:2–6.2 Thus, the book of Zechariah plays a prominent role in prophetic canon. When it comes to the question of the book of Zechariah’s place in and significance for the Twelve Prophets, we should begin by taking a look at the system of superscriptions that connects the last three prophetic writings together (1.). Subsequently, since the individual prophetic books of the Twelve Prophets— regardless of their formation history—follow a chronological arrangement, I will attend to the historical location that the editors of the book of Zechariah assigned to it (2.). Finally, on this foundation, I will sketch the formation of the book of Zechariah and its interconnectedness in the Twelve Prophets (3.).

1  When Sirach says about their bones, “May they spring up from their place” (ἀναθάλοι ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν), it recalls the one mentioned in Zech 6:12 (LXX) by the name Ἀνατολὴ (Rising One/Shoot), about whom it is said “under him he will shoot forth” (LXX ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ/MT ‫)ומתחתיו יצמח‬. Has Sirach transferred the metaphorical language of the “Shoot” in Zech 6:2 to the prophets? 2  Willi-Plein, Haggai, 205–207, rightly points out that Zech 13:2 does not speak of “false prophets” but of “the prophets” in general (‫)הנביאים‬. Although the context alludes to dubious prophetic practices that are reminiscent of false prophets (cf. Zech 10:12), it does not belabour this point. Does the author of the text here proclaim Zechariah—against the prevailing currents of self-appointed representatives of the prophets and other political oracular entities—to be the last legitimate representative of scribal prophecy and of the prophetic canon? See also Steck, Abschluß, 90, 147–148.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_017

Zechariah

1

239

The System of Superscriptions

Compared to most of the other books in the Twelve Prophets, no superscription in the proper sense is present in Zech 1:1.3 Rather, Zech 1:1 belongs to a system of partial superscriptions that binds together, and at the same time divides, the books of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10 [18, 20]; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1).4 The independence of the book of Zechariah with respect to the book of Haggai is obtained merely through the naming of a new prophetic figure. Further, just as partial superscriptions link Zechariah 1–8 with the preceding book of Haggai, so another system of superscriptions is introduced in Zechariah 9, which then links Zechariah 9–14 with the following book of Malachi (Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1). Characteristic of this system is the nominal phrase ‫משׂא דבר־יהוה‬, which via the noun ‫“( משׂא‬burden”/“saying”) is reminiscent of Nah 1:1 and Hab 1:1 (cf. also Isa 13:1; 15:1; 17:1). This shift in the system of superscriptions from Zechariah 1–8 to 9–14 constitutes a caesura that evinces a clear division in the book and so justifies, based on numerous other idiosyncrasies within the two parts, the nomenclature of Proto-Zechariah (chs. 1–8) and Deutero-Zechariah (chs. 9–14). Malachi 1:1 then stands out from Zech 9:1; 12:1 by the naming of another prophet, “Malachi,”5 and so sets off the last three chapters of the Twelve Prophets as the final prophetic book of the collection. Therefore, the editors of Zechariah, by use of its two systems of superscriptions, have connected it not only to the preceding book of Haggai but also to the following book of Malachi. In this way, the last three books constitute a separate group within the Twelve Prophets. In contrast to the superscriptions of the preceding prophetic books, the prophetic messages of Haggai and Zechariah have their own system of superscriptions which dates them precisely to the year, month, and day (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10; Zech 1:7; 7:1). The date in Zech 1:1, however, does not fit this system, on account that it only gives the month and year of the prologue that follows (Zech 1:2–6). Additionally, Zech 1:1 disrupts the chronological sequence by occurring earlier than the last date mentioned in Hag 2:10, 18, 20. Finally, the orthographic differences in the spelling of names are also conspicuous (‫ בן־ברכיה בן־עדו‬in 1:1 as opposed to ‫ בן־ברכיהו בן־עדוא‬in 1:7). For the reader, who has read Haggai and 3  Superscriptions in the Twelve typically consist of a nominal phrase + relative clause. See Schart, Entstehung, 31–36; Koch, “Prophetenbuchüberschriften,” esp. 170–171. 4  See Lux, Prophetie, esp. 4–8. 5  Regardless of whether Malachi is about an historical or literary prophetic figure, most likely the name should be understood as a name of a person. See also Kessler, Maleachi, 100–101; and Meinhold, Maleachi, 15–16.

240

Lux

followed the portrayal of the events up to the laying of the foundation of the Jerusalem Temple, the impression is inescapable: the information in Zech 1:1 and in the prologue that follows (v. 2–6) has been retrieved and had its (original) chronological setting before Hag 2:10. These conspicuous features are an initial indication that Zech 1:1–6 is a redactional text and that most likely the cycle of the Zechariah’s night visions (Zech 1:7–6:8) originally followed the end of the book of Haggai.6 In this way, with the help of the secondary system of superscriptions, the material traditions of both early postexilic prophets were joined into a “Book of the Two Prophets.” The insertion of the prologue in Zech 1:1–6, with its chronological assignment set before the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag 2:10, 18, 20), on the one hand, has led to a closer redactional connection between the books of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, since the prophetic activity of the two prophets now overlaps (cf. Ezra 5:1–2). On the other hand, the cycle of the night visions was furnished with a new prologue, which underscores the independence of Proto-Zechariah. This prologue transforms Yhwh’s absolute decision to return to Jerusalem (Zech 1:16)— which is unfolded in the night visions that follow—into a conditional promise. The return of Yhwh and the laying of the foundation of the second temple (Hag 2:18) was only made possible because the present generation—unlike their fathers who did not listen to the earlier prophets—complied with Haggai’s exhortation about the reconstruction of the temple (Haggai 1) as well as with Zechariah’s call for repentance (Zech 1:2–6). The second system of superscriptions in Zech 9:1; 12:1 and Mal 1:1 begins with an identical nominal phrase, which is then expanded to specify the addressees of the respective word of Yhwh. Zech 9:1 Zech 12:1 Mal 1:1

‫משׂא דבר־יהוה בארץ חדרך‬ ‫משׂא דבר־יהוה על־ישׂראל‬ ‫משׂא דבר־יהוה אל־ישׂראל ביד מלאכי‬

Here, one gains the impression that editors have strung together in succession different collections of prophetic texts via identical superscriptions; the first two remain assigned to Zechariah, while the third one, assigned to Malachi, forms an independent prophetic text. By naming the messenger of Yhwh’s word with the phrase “through Malachi” (‫)ביד מלאכי‬, Mal 1:1 follows the form of Hag 1:1, 3; 2:1 (there ‫)ביד חגי‬. Moreover, Malachi’s superscription connects to the preceding books of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 by the subtle wordplay on the meaning of the name “Malachi” (‫ = מלאכי‬my [i.e. Yhwh’s] messenger). 6  For further explanation, see Lux, Prophetie, 7–8, 223–240; compare also Wöhrle, Samm­ lungen, 375.

Zechariah

241

First, one can draw a line back to Hag 1:13,7 where—in a fashion unique within the Twelve Prophets—Haggai receives the title ‫( מלאך יהוה‬cf. Isa 42:19; 44:26; 2 Chr 36:15–16). After that, in the night visions of Zechariah, the noun ‫ מלאך‬is repeatedly used for the heavenly messengers, who go between Yhwh and the prophet Zechariah in order to equip him with the word of Yhwh for his earthly prophetic service. In this way, the assertions about Haggai and Malachi being Yhwh’s earthly messengers frame the display of the heavenly messengers in the night visions of Zechariah.8 Remarkably, except for Zech 12:8,9 one does not encounter the noun ‫ מלאך‬in the two appendices of Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14. All this, along with other evidence, permits the preliminary conclusion that the book of Malachi was initially connected to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 and that the two appendices in Zechariah 9–14 only found their place between Proto-Zechariah and Malachi at a later stage of transmission.10 2

The Historical Place of the Book of Zechariah in the Twelve Prophets

The books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi not only connect to one another formally by their system of superscriptions, but they also all date to the postexilic period. This is in contrast to the books of Hosea through Zephaniah, which reflect the pre-exilic period. Between Zephaniah and Haggai lies the end of Judah and Jerusalem, as well as the rift of the exile. The prophet Haggai’s activity, according to Hag 1:1 and 2:10, lasted a mere three months: from the 6th month, 1st day until the 9th month, 24th day of the 2nd year of Darius (i.e. 08/29/520–12/18/520 bce). As for the prophet Zechariah, however, a synchronic reading of the book—including Zech 1:1 and 7:1—yields an estimate of a good two years of prophetic activity: from the 8th month of the 2nd year until the 9th month, 4th day of the 4th year of Darius (i.e., 12/11/520–12/7/518 bce). In any case, regarding Zechariah’s rather limited tenure, the reader knows only three prophetic activities which have corresponding dates (Table 15.1).11 7  See Meinhold, Maleachi, 15–16. 8  Cf. Zech 1:11–14; 2:2, 7; 3:1, 3, 6; 4:1, 4, 5; 5:5, 10; 6:4, 5. 9  Elliger sees the phrase ‫ כמלאך יהוה‬in Zech 12:8 as a gloss (Propheten, 156). Should one draw a redactional bridge from the references to ‫ מלאך‬in Hag 1:13 and Zech 1–8 to those in Mal 1:1; 2:7; and 3:1 (so Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah, 332; and Boda, Zechariah, 709)? However, the angel of Yhwh in Zech 12:8 does not refer to an earthly or heavenly mediator of the word of God, but rather to David, who is compared with a ‫ מלאך אלהים‬in 2 Sam 14:17. 10  With Meinhold, Maleachi, 10–11; and Kessler, Maleachi, 66–68. 11  The extent of the prophet’s activities that the last date in Zech 7:1 encompasses is unclear. The system of superscriptions in Zech 9:1; 12:1; and Mal 1:1 contain no time indicators

242

Lux

table 15.1 Dates in the book of Zechariah

Text

Dating

Activity

Zech 1:1–6

8th month in the 2nd year of Darius = 12/11/520 bce 11th month, 24th day in the 2nd year of Darius = 02/15/519 bce 9th month, 4th day in the 4th year of Darius = 12/07/518 bce

call to repentance

Zech 1:7–6:9 and 6:9–15 Zech 7:1–8:23

reception of night visions and performance of sign-act prophetic proclamation

The division of eras in the Twelve Prophets, which for Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 is indicated by the chronology of the superscriptions, is of a fundamental nature. It marks not only the end of the exile, but also an essential transition in the political organizational structure of the population living in Judah and Jerusalem. While the works of some pre-exilic prophets cite the reigns of the respective kings of Israel and Judah (cf. Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1), the reign of the Persian emperor Darius I (522–486 bce) takes over in Hag 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1. This transition is recorded in sober, protocolar style as matter-offact reality, without positive or negative assessment. The books of Haggai and Zechariah rather restructure the community of Judah and Jerusalem within the framework of the multinational state of the Persians. In all likelihood, this development took place in two phases. During the early Persian era, the religious policy of the Achaemenids had distinguished between officially recognized and unrecognized religious communities. The former the Persians sponsored and granted privileges; the latter they tolerated, but only in so far as they did not contradict the interests of the whatsoever. Formally, one could assign the expansions to Zechariah 1–8 in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 to the last mentioned date in Zech 7:1. Factually, there is much to be said against this, however. The superscriptions no longer mention Zechariah as the recipient and herald of the message. Moreover, we no longer encounter concrete historical figures, such as Zerubbabel and Joshua in Zechariah 3; 4:6–10a*, and 6:9–15. As well, no longer is there any talk about the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. All indications are that what we are dealing with here in Zechariah 9–14 is the phenomenon of anonymous scribal prophecy from a later period. As will be shown, Zechariah 9–14 indeed builds on to Zechariah 1–8 in many ways, but reveals very different historical situations.

Zechariah

243

imperial administration.12 In this context it is telling that the system of superscriptions in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 simply indicates that the two prophets were active at beginning of the reign of Darius I. There is no indication—in contrast to Isa 44:28 and Ezra 1–6—that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and restoration of the temple cult benefitted from divinely inspired Persian sponsorship or privilege. Accordingly, the initial building operations turned out indeed modest (Hag 2:3; Zech 4:10*; 8:6). It therefore stands to reason that in Persian Period I (539–450 bce) the affairs in Jerusalem and the gradually established province of Yehud were tolerated by, but of little interest to, the Persian imperial administration.13 The exceedingly low population and weak economy of Yehud and Jerusalem at that time also suggests this (cf. Hag 1:5–11; 2:15–17; Zech 8:9–10).14 This would have changed gradually around the mid-fifth century bce in Persian period II (450–332 bce). In this phase, rapid population growth as well as considerable economic advancement can be established.15 At this time Jerusalem, as the community’s centre, as well as its temple may have gained in importance for the Persian administration. As such, this was probably the period when the early Jewish community and its temple cult—which were before merely tolerated—gained official recognition and privileged status, along with obligations for collecting taxes within the framework of the provincial administration.16 Persian Period I thus afforded a number of restorative possibilities, such as the return of part of the Gola, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, as well as the renewal of the temple cult. It did not, however, allow for the reestablishment of the monarchy, which had probably been hoped for in the 12  Kottsieper, “Religionspolitik,” esp. 157. 13  Willi, Juda, 30: “Vom Ende des Wirkens Serubbabels bis zur Ankunft Esras und Nehemias in Jerusalem gibt es jedenfalls keine Zeugnisse für eine selbständige Provinz Juda, und beide trafen offensichtlich ein politisches Vakuum und eine nicht genauer definierte Dominanz Samarias und seiner örtlichen Vertreter an.” 14  See also Carter, “Province.” Carter calculates for Jerusalem a population of 500 persons, as well as for entire region of Yehud altogether about 11,000 (ibid., 135). Initially, after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses II (525 bce), the only priority for the Persians was to safeguard the urban centres in Galilee, the Shephelah, and along the Via Maris for the movement of troops as well as the traffic for trade and administration. Jerusalem and the Judean hill country lay off the most important thoroughfares. 15  See Berlejung, “Geschichte,” 159–166. 16  In this period likely lies the roots of the historical picture, theologized and adapted entirely for the Persian imperial and royal ideology, which was later established in the late Persian (Isa 44:28) or even early Hellenistic era. On Isa 44:28 as a late addition to the Cyrus oracle, see Berges, Jesaja, 372–373. On the Aramaic chronicle of the temple’s reconstruction and its dating to the Hellenistic times, cf. Heckl, Neuanfang, 167–171.

244

Lux

Davidide and governor Zerubbabel (cf. Hag 2:23). In contrast to the relative religious independence under Joshua the high priest, the recovery of political autonomy—lost since the downfalls of the southern and northern kingdoms of Israel and Judah respectively—was out of the question for the foreseeable future. The quest for political independence in Persian Period II was then deferred indefinitely, if it was still desirable at all (cf. Zech 3:8; 6:12–14). On the contrary, the political reality at that time was that the existence of Judah and Jerusalem as the province of Yehud was contingent on the regimented administrative system of the Persian Empire. With all this in mind, it is clear that both periods of the Persian era have left their mark on Zechariah 1–8. As for Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14, while they are formally connected to the last date in Zech 7:1, they are nevertheless set off from Zechariah 1–8 by their own superscriptions. In addition, concrete figures from contemporary history, who were mentioned in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, no longer appear. Instead, it is under the generalized metaphor of “shepherds” (‫ )רעים‬that the ruling parties in Judah were subject to summary and severe critique (Zech 10:3; 11:3, 8, 17; 13:7). Consequently, it is not always clear to which elite functionaries the metaphor refers.17 Nevertheless, if one compares the statements about shepherds in Zechariah 10–13 with the image of Zerubbabel and Joshua drawn in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, then it becomes obvious how radically the situation has changed. Zerubbabel and Joshua are imbued with the spirit of Yhwh, listen to the word of prophets, and head up the movement to rebuild the temple (Hag 1:12–14; Zech 4:6–10). Moreover, Joshua is ordained as the high priest before the Divine Council (Zechariah 3), and once Zerubbabel has exited the scene, Joshua eventually experiences his own coronation (Zech 6:9–15). In short, at every turn in Zechariah 1–8, one encounters a positive view of public offices and institutions. Yet in the shepherd oracles in Zechariah 10–13, the shepherds stand under sharp accusation characterized by unsparing elite- and institution-bashing. This opposition to the shepherds becomes even more pronounced when one factors in the image of the prophets from Proto- and Deutero-Zechariah. Whereas the “former prophets” called the people to repentance and they did not listen (Zech 1:1–6; 7:7–14), Zechariah was able to announce to his generation—after they had repented (Zech 1:6)—salvation and the relenting 17  Wöhrle, Abschluss, 128–131, sees the collection of the shepherd oracles in Zech 9:1aα; 10:1– 3a; 11:1–5, 7–8b, 9–17; 12:1a; 13:2–9 as the primary layer of Zechariah 9–11; 12–14. This layer was expanded in a prolonged redactional process of accretion with texts on the attack of Jerusalem, two foreign nation layers that differ only slightly from one another, the Davidic promise in Zech 9:9–10, the promise of salvation for the nations in Zech 14:16–19, and other supplements.

Zechariah

245

and/or returning of Yhwh to Jerusalem, which broadly unfolds in the night visions (Zech 1:7–6:8). The positive image of the prophets in Proto-Zechariah turns completely negative in Deutero-Zechariah. As “diviners” (‫)קוסמים‬, they have proclaimed lies and deceptions, have completely rejected their profession, and now stand in disgrace (Zech 10:2; 13:2–6). All this, as well as the prophetic words directed against foreign nations (Zech 9:1–8, 13–16*; 10:11; 12:3–6, 9; 14:3, 12–13, 17–19), indicates a considerable potential for internal and external conflict in Jerusalem and Judah, which with this level of vehemence is difficult to situate within the Persian period. Admittedly, the fifth century bce did witness severe social and cultic dislocations, but these could still be mitigated through appropriate reform measures (cf. Nehemiah 5; 13:4–22). The injustices depicted in Zechariah 9–14, however, allow only for the hope of Yhwh’s immediate intervention and lead to the expectation of the “Day of Yhwh” unfolding at a cosmic scale (Zechariah 14). Thus, while Zechariah 1–8 portrays a spirit of optimism pervading Persian Period I, and in Persian Period II one would have likely been accustom to these prevailing conditions, Zechariah 9–11; 12–14 convey the dawning of an apocalyptic mood. This sudden downturn can most easily be explained from the time of the death of Alexander the Great and the subsequent wars of the Diadochi in the last quarter of the fourth to the third centuries bce. During this time, Jerusalem and Yehud frequently found themselves between the frontlines and subject to serious internal tensions.18 Against the background of these historical periods, the following seeks to trace the formation of the book of Zechariah and its incorporation into the Twelve Prophets. 3

The Formation of Zechariah and Its Incorporation into the Twelve Prophets

Toward the end of the sixth century bce, it is clear that the following writings were in circulation: a chronicle attributed to Haggai about the reconstruction of the temple (Haggai 1–2*), a cycle of night visions (Zech 1:8–6:8*), as well as a loose collection of prophetic words attributed to Zechariah (Zech 2:10–17*; 4:6–10*, 7:2–8:23*). While Haggai linked the oppressive economic crisis and its remedy to the reconstruction of the temple (Hag 2:15–19), Zechariah’s seven 18  Regarding the conflicts during the Ptolemaic period see Haag, hellenistische Zeitalter, 43–53. A clear indication for the dating of Deutero-Zechariah to the Hellenistic period, in addition to the apocalyptic passages of Zechariah 14, is the mention of the “sons of Ionia/ Greece” (‫ )בני יון‬in Zech 9:13.

246

Lux

night visions depicted an order of salvation for all of Judah and Jerusalem that extended well-beyond economic hopes: the end of Yhwh’s wrath and his return to Jerusalem (1:8–17); the destruction of the enemies (2:1–4); the city’s reconstruction and Yhwh dwelling again in its midst (2:5–9); his symbolic presence in the future temple (4:1–14); the punishment of thieves and perjurers (5:1–4); the expulsion of “Dame Wickedness” into distant Shinar (5:5–11); and the departure of Yhwh’s spirit into the land of the north in order to begin his salvific work among the members of the Gola (6:1–8). The centrepiece of this concentrically arranged cycle of visions is the vision of the lampstand and the two olive trees, which respectively symbolize Yhwh’s presence in the future temple as well as the renewal of the priesthood (and kingship?) via the two sons of oil (4:1–14).19 Thus, both the prophets Haggai and Zechariah referred to the same situation—one which had to be overcome and in which the rebuilding of the temple played a seminal role—in entirely different ways. Nevertheless, the simultaneous appearance of these two prophets in Jerusalem, along with the thematic overlap of their messages, probably led to their messages being bound together into a single “Book of the Two” (R1). The prophetic schools affiliated with the two prophets are the ones who most likely undertook this stage of the formation of the Book of the Two and carried forward the chronological data of Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18, 20 into Zech 1:7; 7:1. In so doing, the resulting Book of the Two was edited with Haggai’s message in mind. At this stage, the prophetic words about Zerubbabel in Zech 4:6–10a* were inserted into the vision of the lampstand.20 This vision relates the heavenly lampstand—symbolic of the seven eyes of Yhwh—both to the temple reconstruction (1:16) and to the governor (‫ )פחה‬Zerubbabel, who is otherwise not mentioned in Zechariah. Instead, it is in Haggai that the role of the royal temple builder finds prominence, as he is always mentioned before the High Priest Joshua (Hag 1:2, 12, 14; 2:2, 21, 23). At the same time, however, the last dates in both the books of Haggai and Proto-Zechariah—i.e., the 9th month, 24th day 19  The most plausible explanation is that the two “sons of oil” (‫ )בני היצהר‬stem from the family of “Izharites” (‫ )היצהרי‬mentioned in Num 3:27–31, who were responsible for maintaining the golden lampstand (among other things) at the temple. See Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 383. They were probably reinterpreted only later in Zechariah 3 and 6:9–15 into representatives of the high priesthood as well as the future kingship. 20  There is no denying that what we have here is two originally independent sayings of Zechariah, which were given their place in Zechariah 4 only in the course of connecting the chronicle of the temple’s reconstruction with the cycle of night visions. The interpretation which the interpreting angel gives for the transcendent heavenly lampstand in Zechariah 4 is anchored in earthly history by Zech 4:6–10*.

Zechariah

247

of the 2nd year of Darius and the 9th month, 4th day of the 4th year of Darius, respectively—are associated with inquiries to the priests (cf. Hag 2:10–14; Zech 7:1–6, 18–19). These dates therefore not only indicate the structural correspondence of these two prophetic books, but given this association they also signal to the reader that the temple cult and the priesthood were reactivated at the laying of the foundation of the temple.21 Further, the salvific message of Haggai (Hag 1:5–11; 2:15–19), which promised an end to the agrarian crisis upon the laying of the foundation of the second temple, appears once more in Zech 8:9–13, summarized into an abridged version with the resumption of numerous characteristic lexemes.22 This resumptive summary in turn forms an initial framework (Haggai 1–2* → Zechariah 7–8*) around the cycle of night visions.23 In this way, the concept of a Book of the Two prophets (Haggai 1–2* + Zechariah 1–8*), under the unifying theme of “temple reconstruction as a prerequisite for salvation,” probably arose in Persian Period I. In a second stage of revision, this Book of the Two was probably supplemented with Zechariah 3 and 6:9–15 (R2). The focus of both texts now shifts to the Zadokite Joshua.24 Facing obvious resistance (Zech 3:1–3), Joshua is ordained as the high priest by the heavenly council.25 Important rights and responsibilities, which in the pre-exilic temple cult were wielded by the king, are bestowed upon him (Zech 3:7). This broadening of responsibility unfolds further in Zech 6:9–11 with Joshua’s coronation, a legitimation visible to everyone. Subordinate to him now is—by borrowing from Jer 23:5; 33:15—a “branch” (‫ )צמח‬from the house of David, who initially was supposed to rule with him at his side and in peaceful concord at some point in the future (Zech 3:8; 6:12–14). Yet Zerubbabel is no longer mentioned at this stage of the Book of the Two’s redaction.26 This increase in the valuation of the high priest suggests that a 21  One must assume that during the exilic period a limited emergency cult functioned at the ruins of the Jerusalem (cf. Jer 41:4–9; Zech 7:3; 8:18–19). On this matter, see Berlejung, “Notlösungen”; and Keel, Geschichte, 784–785. 22  Compare among other things ‫( חזק‬Hag 2:4 → Zech 8:9, 13), ‫( ביום יסד‬Hag 2:18 → Zech 8:9), ‫( היכל‬Hag 2:15, 18 → Zech 8:9), ‫( יבול‬Hag 1:10 → Zech 8:12), ‫( שׁלום‬Hag 2:9 → Zech 8:10), ‫ברך‬/ ‫( ברכה‬Hag 2:19 → Zech 8:13), and ‫( שׁארית העם‬Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2 → Zech 8:6, 11, 12). 23  It is significant that according to Zech 8:9 Haggai is no longer alone in calling for the rebuilding of the Temple. Rather, the words “out of the mouth of the prophets” (‫מפי‬ ‫ ) הנביאים‬in Zech 8:9 can refer to none other than Haggai and Zechariah. 24  Wöhrle (Sammlungen, 360–361) speaks correctly in this context of the “Joshua redaction.” 25  The divine council was represented by the priesthood in the temple cult. See also Nissinen, “Prophets.” 26  All attempts to identify the “branch” in Zech 3:8 and 6:12 with Zerubbabel remain speculative, including the assumption—with Wellhausen, Propheten, 185; and many others who follow him—that the speech in Zech 6:9–15 had originally not concerned the coronation

248

Lux

redistribution of power and responsibility had taken place in the province of Yehud. After Zerubbabel was removed as an actor on the scene for unspecified reasons, and with him any hope for a restored Davidic monarchy (Hag 2:23), the high priest and his priestly colleagues rose up to become the most important role models and representatives of Jewish interests vis-à-vis the Persian governors and their officials in the province of Yehud.27 This development probably did not take place during the early postexilic period, when priestly tribes remaining in the land (Abiatharites, Levites) likely competed with Zadokites returning from exile for leadership in the priestly hierarchy.28 Only in Persian Period II, with the mounting importance of the Jerusalem temple for the Persian administration, did the rank of high priest become vested with “kingly dignities.” Both Zechariah 3 and especially Zech 6:9–15 with the coronation of Joshua reflect this increase of priestly responsibility.29 Already expanded by the two Joshua texts, the Book of the Two underwent a further redaction (R3) via a new frame placed around the cycle of night visions (Zech 1:1–6 + 7:7–14). Important lexemes from the night visions were appropriated and placed into a new context, which now extends far beyond the Book of the Two.30 Whereas the earlier tradition merely mentions the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the editors responsible for the Book of the Two (R1) speak for the first time about “prophets” (‫ )הנביאים‬in the plural. This phrase can refer to of Joshua, but rather the coronation of Zerubbabel. The plausibility of such explanations fails on account that Zerubbabel and Haggai/Zechariah are contemporaries, while the “branch” in Zech 3:8 and 6:9–15 is a figure expected in a not clearly defined future. Moreover, such assumptions cannot adequately explain why the only two texts devoted to the high priest contain a speech about a person who bears the royal title “branch” and yet Zerubbabel is not named. 27  See Kessler, Sozialgeschichte, 154–155. 28  Cf. Schaper, “Hoherpriester.” Wöhrle (Sammlungen, 361) and Tiemeyer (Zechariah’s Vision Report, 150–151, 227) speculate that because of their focus on the high priest, Zechariah 3* and 6:9–15 most likely date around the end of the sixth to the beginning of the fifth century bce. This is not compelling in my opinion. Rather, one must distinguish between the chronological locations of the texts, which is given with the date in Zech 1:7, and between their historical locations. Since Joshua was the first high priest after the exile, it stands to reason that later redactors have retrojected their concept of the high priesthood into this earlier time period, about which the cycle of night visions provides information. That is why I consider a date for the Joshua redaction in Persian Period II to be plausible. Nevertheless, there is hardly any reason to date it to the end of the Persian era or even into the Hellenistic period. So Hallaschka, Haggai, 218–219, 270–271. 29  It is noticeable, among other things, that the high priest Joshua—who was subordinate to the governor and Davidide Zerubbabel throughout Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4—has with Zechariah 3 been compositionally placed in front of the words to Zerubbabel in Zech 4:6–10*. 30  ‫ קצף‬Zech 1:2 → 1:15; 7:12; ‫ שׁוב‬in Zech 1:3–4 → 1:16; ‫ ישׁב‬Zech 1:11 → 7:7.

Zechariah

249

no other prophets than Haggai and Zechariah themselves. Now, however, the new frame (Zech 1:1–6 + 7:7–14) set around the night visions has widened this horizon by referencing the “earlier prophets” (‫ )הנביאים הראשׁנים‬who worked before Haggai and Zechariah (cf. Zech 1:4; 7:7, 12). As such, at this stage of its redaction, the Book of the Two appears to have been comprehensively embedded into an emerging multi-book prophetic corpus. The “earlier prophets” in these verses are probably a veiled reference to the writings of the prophets Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, which were compiled into the deuteronomistic Book of the Four and to which scholars refer repeatedly. In Zech 1:4; 7:7, 12, as in Hos 12:11, Yhwh recalls “the prophets” (‫)הנביאים‬, whom he had sent to the House of Israel. Likewise, Zech 1:6, like Amos 3:7—using typically deuteronomistic phraseology—contains a summary mention of “his servants the prophets” (‫)עבדיו הנביאים‬, through whom Yhwh reveals himself.31 In addition to this overall prophetic perspective, into which Zechariah is now situated, the central theme of the new prologue in Zech 1:1–6 is that of “returning.” The call to return in repentance (‫ )שׁובו אלי‬corresponds to the promise that Yhwh would return to his people (‫( )ואשׁוב אליכם‬Zech 1:3–4), whom he had abandoned in anger (Zech 1:2). This concept of returning is reminiscent of Hos 14:3, 5, where the invitation to return to Yhwh (‫ )שׁובו אל־יהוה‬corresponds to Yhwh’s prior turning away from his wrath (‫)שׁב אפי‬.32 Then in a later stage, when the Deuteronomistic Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah) had been bound to the post-exilic Book of the Two (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8), the call to repentance in Zech 1:3 was again taken up verbatim in Mal 3:7.33 Finally, we again encounter it in characteristic fashion in Joel 2:12–14. While Zech 1:3 and Mal 3:7 assume the certainty that Yhwh will reciprocate to the people’s repentance by his own returning to the people, this assurance of salvation appears to be shaken in Joel. Thus the urgent calls for repentance in Joel 2:12 (‫ )שׁבו עדי‬and 2:13 (‫ )שׁובו אל־יהוה‬lead to the anxious question in 2:14: “Who knows whether he will turn and relent (‫ ”?)מי יודע ישׁוב ונחם‬In the end, this resulted in the book of Zechariah being cross-linked with the beginning and end of the Twelve Prophets.34 Additional thematic connections include the call for silence before Yhwh (‫( )הס מפני אדני יהוה‬Zeph 1:7 → Zech 2:17); the call for Daughter Zion (‫)בת ציון‬ 31  See 2 Kings 9:7; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24,2; Jer 7:25; 44:4; Dan 9:10. 32  For the prevenient return of Yhwh to his people as a call for repentance in Israel, see Jeremias, Prophet, 169–170. 33  The quotation of Zechariah in Mal 3:7, along with other evidences, makes it apparent that the book of Malachi was originally connected to Zechariah 1–8 and that Zechariah 9–11, 12–14 are later supplements (cf. n. 10 above). 34  For details, see Meinhold, Maleachi, 307–308.

250

Lux

to rejoice and be glad (Zeph 3:14 → Zech 2:14); the idea of Yhwh dwelling on his holy mountain (‫( )הר הקדשׁ‬Zech 2:14–15 → Joel 4:17, 21); as well as the notion of a remnant (‫ )שׁארית‬of Israel (Amos 5:15; Mic 2:12; 5:6–7; Zeph 2:9; 3:13; Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2 → Zech 8:6, 12).35 The redactors responsible for Zech 1:1–6 + 7:7–14 (R3) situated all these thematic connections under the overall prophetic perspective in their reference to the “earlier prophets” (cf. Zech 1:4; 7:7, 12). The embedding of Zechariah 1–8 into the emerging Twelve Prophets initiated at this redactional stage therefore triggered a lengthy process of revision—as the references to repentance in Joel 2:12–14 and Mal 3:7 make clear—a process which might have lasted from the late fifth century until the mid-fourth century bce.36 Additionally, the fact that Joel 1:2 and Mal 3:7, 24 again take up the theme of the “fathers” (‫ )אבות‬from Zech 1:2, 5, 6; 8:14 also suggests that at this stage of its redaction the Twelve Prophets had only come to a preliminary conclusion with the integration of the book of Joel and the attaching of the book of Malachi to Zechariah 1–8. The hard look into the past, which was directed at the generation of disobedient fathers in Zech 1:1–6, now turns to the future of the children in Mal 3:24. In this way, the Book of the Twelve ends with the promise to heal the breach between the generations under discussion in Zech 1:1–6. For just as the present generation in Zech 1:6 turned in repentance to Yhwh (‫)יׁשובו‬, so also will Yhwh turn the hearts of the fathers and sons toward one another again (‫)והׁשיב‬. In a final stage of redaction (R4), the two supplements in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 were integrated into what is now the Book of the Twelve. Since the number twelve was likely already reached with the book of Malachi, an independent attachment onto Mal 3:24 was hardly possible. Therefore, the two supplements were inserted between the books of Zechariah and Malachi using the superscription from Mal 1:1 (‫ )משׂא דבר־יהוה‬in Zech 9:1 and 12:1. Yet the fact that these supplements did not come into existence in a single stroke, but are themselves a product of a multi-stage redactional process, is beyond question.37

35  By this, I am by no means assuming a direct literary dependence on the relevant references in each and every case. Rather, some of the motifs presumably were widely known and so entered the prophetic writings independent of each other; e.g., the remnant of Israel, the people’s repentance, or the motif of Daughter Zion. Therefore one must be cautious not to postulate too hastily a separate redactional layer merely on the grounds of broadly distributed motifs. That corresponding motifs were significant stimuli for the gradual formation of the Twelve Prophets is beyond question. 36  Moreover, a broad consensus within scholarship holds that Joel and Malachi did not exist in the present forms prior to the fourth century bce. 37  On that point, see the detailed analysis of Wöhrle, Abschluss, 67–138.

Zechariah

251

The structure in Zech 9–11 and 12–14 already points to this with each section having its own superscription, which in turn suggests two redactional phases. These supplements serve to strengthen further the connections between Zech 1–8 and the other books of the Twelve Prophets. Here, above all, the oracles of judgment against foreign nations merit mentioning.38 Take, for example, the testimony of Yhwh’s wrath toward the foreign nations that contributed to Israel’s destruction and dispersion in Hag 2:6–8, 21–22 and Zech 1:15; 2:1–4, 12–13.39 So also, the prophecies of the destruction of Tyre, Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ekron in Zech 9:4–7, which bear a striking resemblance to Amos 1:6–10 and Zeph 2:4–7. And finally, there is a universal eschatological judgment, which Yhwh and the soldiers of Judah mete out against the nations and which leads to a final great and decisive battle on the Day of Yhwh (Zech 9:14–16; 10:11; 12:2–6; 14:1–19). This motif of international war, in conjunction with the concept of the Day of Yhwh, connects the supplements in Deutero-Zechariah with numerous passages in the Twelve Prophets (cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15–16; Zeph 1:7, 14–18; 2:2; Mal 3:2, 23). However, the prospect of judgment against the foreign nations also leaves room for a vision of their salvation through conversion to Yhwh. Following up on the promises that many nations will enter into covenant with Yhwh (Zech 2:15) and that nations will convert and worship Yhwh in Jerusalem (Zech 8:22–23), Zech 14:16 opens the prospect of salvation for the nations. This too bears a connective resemblance, in this case to the great peace of the nations in Mic 4:1–4. Aside from the theme of the nations, the supplements in Zechariah 9–14 feature many more thematic connections to the remaining books of the Twelve Prophets. Thus the shout of jubilation by Daughter Zion in Zech 9:9a is reminiscent of Zeph 3:14 and Zech 2:14 and connects to the expectation of a new king in Mic 4:8 and Hag 2:23. Similarly, Zech 9:9b again records the theme of the future righteous branch from the house of David (cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15), who in the future is supposed to reign with a priest in peaceful concord (Zech 3:8; 6:12–14). This expectation, however, has obviously undergone massive transformation. The royal branch, cast entirely in the style of the ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, is a temple builder, endowed to sit on his throne with all insignias of power and to take up his sovereignty as the heir of the Davidic dynasty (Zech 6:12–14). Yet in sharp contrast to this, Zech 9:9 introduces the readers to a more meek king, about whom it says: “He is one who is helped, poor, and riding

38  On the theology of the foreign nations within the Twelve Prophets, see above all Roth, Israel. 39  See as well Lux, Prophetie, 241–265.

252

Lux

upon a donkey” (‫)ונושׁע הוא עני ורכב על־חמור‬.40 All military capability has been stripped from his hands. Contrary to the ideal Hellenistic king—according to which the king is revered as a god and takes on the function of the “saviour” (σωτήρ) of his land—one encounters here a poor king, who is completely dependent on the assistance and aid of Yhwh.41 It is therefore apparent that the two supplements in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 are texts which refer to a historical background which is very different from that of the Achaemenid era. Here the newly erupted conflicts in the early Hellenistic period is being processed. These texts assess critically not only the Hellenistic concept of leadership but also the elites of their own people, described as “shepherds,” who opened themselves up to the new way of life, collaborated with foreign rulers, and took personal advantage from it (Zech 11:4–17).42 The same critique applies for the corrupt prophets, who are paradigmatic for the end of prophecy (Zech 10:2; 13:2–6). Now, the prophets’ spirit of uncleanness (‫ )רוח הטמאה‬in Zech 13:2 stands in stark antithesis to the prophetic spirit of Yhwh, which according to Joel 3:1–2 Yhwh will pour out over all sons, daughters and ancient Israel. Finally, it is the verbatim taking up of Amos 7:14 (‫ )לא־נביא אנכי‬in Zech 13:5 that heralds the fall of night on legitimate (scribal) prophecy from Yhwh. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Vom Exil bis zu den Makkabäern. Vol. 2 of Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. ATD 8,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Berges, Ulrich. Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2008. Berlejung, Angelika. “Notlösungen—Altorientalische Nachrichten über den Tempel­ kult in Nachkriegszeiten.” Pages 196–230 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirbnâri: Für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf. OBO 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Berlejung, Angelika. “Geschichte und Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel.” Pages 59–192 in Grundinformation Altes Testaments. Edited by Jan. C. Gertz. UTB 2745. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

40  Only the LXX has rendered “the one who is helped” (‫ נושׁע‬a passive participle) as an active “saviour” (σῴζων αὐτός). 41  See Kunz, Zions Weg, 13–24. 42  See Albertz, Exil, 640–642.

Zechariah

253

Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Unter­ suchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Carter, Charles E. “The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography.” Pages 106–145 in Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Vol. 2 of Second Temple Studies. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Elliger, Karl. Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten II. ATD 25,II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951. Haag, Ernst. Das hellenistische Zeitalter: Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. Heckl, Raik. Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischen Strategien im Esra-Nehemia-Buch. FAT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Hosea. ATD 24,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Keel, Othmar. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 2. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zum Heiligen Land 4,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kessler, Rainer. Sozialgeschichte: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. Kessler, Rainer. Maleachi. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Koch, Klaus. “Prophetenbuchüberschriften: Ihre Bedeutung für das hebräische Verständnis von Profetie.” Pages 165–186 in Verbindungslinien: Festschrift für Werner H. Schmidt. Edited by Axel Graupner et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2000. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine.” Pages 150–178 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002. Kunz, Andreas. Zions Weg zum Frieden: Jüdische Vorstellungen vom endzeitlichen Krieg und Frieden in hellenistischer Zeit am Beispiel von Sacharja 9–14. Beiträge zur Friedensethik 33. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Lux, Rüdiger. Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel: Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja. FAT 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Meinhold, Arndt. Maleachi. BK XIV,8. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2000. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14. AB 25C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993. Nissinen, Martti. “Prophets and the Divine Council.” Pages 4–19 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirbnâri: Für

254

Lux

Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst Axel Knauf. OBO 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Schaper, Joachim. “Hoherpriester.” RGG4 3: 1835–1836. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Steck, Odil H. Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Biblisch-theologische Studien 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1991. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 626. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten. Berlin: Reimer, 1898. Willi, Thomas. Juda—Jehud—Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit. FAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Willi-Plein, Ina. Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ZBK 24,4. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Enstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008.

Chapter 16

Malachi in the Book of the Twelve Karl William Weyde 1 Introduction Mal 1:1 begins with the phrase ‫מׂשא דבר יהוה‬, which also occurs in Zech 9:1; 12:1, but nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.1 Apart from this similarity, the three verses have little in common, but the phrase may indicate that Malachi in some way or other is connected with Zech 9–11 and 12–14. Moreover, Malachi clearly differs from these two collections with regard to genre, composition, and content. These features indicate that Malachi is a prophetic book in its own right.2 This makes it pertinent to examine Malachi more closely before discussing its literary integration into the Book of the Twelve and its role as the last book in this corpus.3 Mal 1:1 may be a good starting point. 2

Malachi’s Authority

In Mal 1:1, as well as in Zech 9:1; 12:1, there is no reference to a divine revelation of any kind, either the coming (‫ )היה‬of a word of Yhwh or a vision. This feature, in addition to the phrase ‫מׂשא דבר יהוה‬, distinguishes the three superscriptions from those in other prophetic books.4 The phrase ‫ דבר יהוה … ביד מלאכי‬in Mal 1:1 is not unique in the prophetic literature, since a similar mode of expression occurs in Hag 1:1; 2:1 reporting that the word of Yhwh came by the prophet Haggai (‫ ;היה דבר יהוה ביד חגי‬cf. also 1:3). The similarity indicates that the authority of the one behind the message

1  This similarity has been a topic for discussion among scholars ever since Ewald (in 1868) suggested that Zech 9–11; 12–14, and Malachi are three anonymous collections, and that the editor of the Book of the Twelve provided Zech 12:1 and Mal 1:1 with the heading ‫מׂשא דבר‬ ‫יהוה‬, which already headed the first collection; see the survey of research in von Bulmerincq, Einleitung, 60–62. In recent studies Ewald’s view remains influential; see Noetzel, Maleachi, 43–48. 2  So Snyman, Malachi, 16; cf. Kessler, Maleachi, 66–68. 3  On this issue, see especially section 5 below. 4  See, e.g., Isa 1:1; Jer 1:1–3; Ezek 1:1–3; Hos 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_018

256

Weyde

in Malachi5 is equal to that of the prophet Haggai; both convey their message with divine authority. However, the comparison with the Haggai texts makes the absence of a verb in Mal 1:1 even more puzzling, but perhaps another striking feature in Malachi can explain it: Malachi, like the superscription in Mal 1:1, has no references to divine revelation, except perhaps in 1:4.6 Even so, the book contains a remarkably high number of formulas marking divine speech relative to its size. These formulas provide the message with divine authority; perhaps they also indicate that the message is based on, and makes use of, material from other authoritative books or traditions. Through the insertions of the formulas in question, the application of such material in Malachi gains divine authority. Who was behind this assumed exegetical activity? Again, the heading in Mal 1:1 may suggest an answer. The phrase ‫דבר יהוה ביד‬, without a connecting verb, also occurs in 1 Chr 11:3 (“by Samuel”); 2 Chr 35:6 (“by Moses”), whereas the parallels in 2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kgs 23:21 use other modes of expression. Also, the reports in 2 Chr 33:8; 34:14 have ‫ ביד‬+ name without a verb (“through Moses”), whereas the parallels in 2 Kgs 21:8; 22:8 prefer other phrases. Similarly, 2 Chr 29:25, which has no parallel in the DtrH, applies ‫ ביד‬without a verb (“through his prophets”). Thus, the heading in Mal 1:1 is closely connected to the terminology in Chronicles. Moreover, Chronicles applies intermediary formulas, such as “the word of Yhwh came to” and “Yhwh spoke to” only to prophets, such as Nathan, Shemiah, and Gad, but not to Levites, priests, or other messengers of Yhwh.7 That also the heading in Mal 1:1, as well as the book itself, is without such formulas may be significant. These features may indicate that Mal 1:1 originated among cult officials in post-exilic Jerusalem8 and that the one behind the message was a priest or a Levite, who interpreted and applied earlier traditions with prophetic 5  In this paper it is unnecessary to discuss whether ‫ מלאכי‬in Mal 1:1 is a proper name or a title (“my messenger”); cf. the earliest translations, which have different solutions: the LXX: “his messenger”; the Targum: the messenger is Ezra the Scribe; Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion: proper name. 6  The occurrences of the formula “thus says (said) the Lord of hosts” in Mal 1:4 and “thus says (said) the Lord my God” in Zech 11:4 may be due to the fact that the former introduces words from Obadiah and Jer 49, and the latter introduces words from Jer 23 and Ezek 34. Thus, in both cases the formula refers to words that God had spoken earlier. These are the only occurrences of this formula in Malachi and Zech 9–11; 12–14. 7  Schniedewind, Word, 62–66. 8  The question whether Malachi originally only contained a small collection of material that was later expanded through different stages of growth will be discussed in sections 4.6 and 5.3 below.

Malachi

257

authority—in line with the prophets of the past including Moses and Samuel.9 Perhaps it is significant to the author of Chronicles that these two leaders of the past are elsewhere referred to as both priest and prophet (Deut 18:18; 34:10; 1 Sam 3:20; 10:8; 13:7–15; cf. Ps 99:6). It means that they could serve as models for how Chronicles presents the leading officials in the Second Temple, who had both cultic and prophetic functions (2 Chr 24:20; cf. 34:30).10 Malachi may be a product of their exegetical activity, which presumably was a literary phenomenon. The word ‫ מׂשא‬in Mal 1:1 points in that direction, since this term in a number of occurrences in the prophetic literature seems to introduce written oracles.11 Thus, Malachi testifies to a change regarding prophecy, which may explain why it was integrated into the Book of the Twelve. Malachi, and probably also Zech 9–11 and 12–14 provide three examples of written prophecy.12 But there is more to say about Malachi’s inclusion in the Book of the Twelve, and this takes us to the next step. 3

Malachi’s Unique Genre and Composition

A striking feature of Malachi is a recurring tripartite structure, which, in most cases, is composed of a statement (by Yhwh or his agent), followed by a quotation of the addressees asking for a motivation of the statement, and finally by the motivation which elaborates the initial statement (by Yhwh or his agent).13 On this basis most scholars identify six passages in Malachi: 1:2–5; 1:6–2:9; 2:10–16; 2:17–3:5(6?); 3:6(7?)–12; 3:13–21. But the composition of Malachi as a whole is coherent, since it displays a contrast between Yhwh’s faithfulness to the addressees (1:2–5) and their faithlessness which appears as disobedience to the law (1:6–14; 2:8–9; 2:11, 14; 3:2–5, 7–9) and lack of confidence in Yhwh (2:17; 3:13–15).14 9  On this issue, see Weyde, “Priests,” 248–251. 10  In the report on the cult reform implemented by King Josiah, 2 Chr 34:30 reads “the priests and the Levites,” whereas 2 Kgs 23:2 reads “the priests, the prophets.” 11  See, for instance, the oracles against the nations in Isa 13:1; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 23:1; cf. the recent discussion of ‫ מׂשא‬in Weyde, “Prophecy,” 359–370. 12  On these collections as Fortschreibung, see Steck, Abschluß, 30–35, 43–55, 100–105, 127–136. 13  The Yhwh-speeches are qualified by formulas marking divine speech, most of which are non-initial, and all except one with the verb ‫אמר‬, which is also used to introduce quotations of the addressees. 14  This contrast or antithesis in Malachi was emphasized by Snyman, Malachi, 12, 32, 55, 87, and 159.

258

Weyde

This tripartite composition is unique in the prophetic literature and has no exact parallels in other biblical passages. The coherent composition also indicates a literary origin. Scholars have suggested different models for this structure: either prophetic disputations or Hellenistic rhetoric or priestly instructions on the law. The last-mentioned explanation seems most plausible, since Malachi has a recurring focus on cultic matters, such as the priests’ conduct of the votive offerings (Mal 1:6–14), the priests’ ancestor Levi (2:1–9), the purification of the cultic personnel (3:3–4), and the supplies for the Temple (3:6–12). However, ever since the breakthrough of historical-critical research, scholars have observed that Malachi also contains forms characteristic of prophetic speech, such as promises of salvation (Mal 1:4–5; 3:4, 10–12, 17–21), accusations and threats (1:6–2:9; 2:11, 14; 3:7–9), exhortations and admonitions (2:15–16; 3:7, 10).15 Thus, Malachi is composed of mixed genres (Mischgattungen), which connect it to both priestly instruction and prophetic speech (or literary) forms. Again, it seems likely that Malachi originated among cult officials who were teaching with prophetic authority. If Malachi is the product of such instruction, on which traditions is its message based, and how are they being used? Can an answer to these questions shed more light on Malachi’s integration into the Book of the Twelve? 4

Intertextuality in Malachi

4.1 Yhwh’s Faithfulness Already the first passage (Mal 1:2–5) can provide important information on some characteristics of Malachi’s exegesis. Threats against Edom versus words of salvation for Israel are related in several prophetic books as well (Isa 34:5–17; Jer 49:7–22; Ezek 25:12–14; 35:3–15; 36:5–12; Obad), but by comparison, those in Mal 1:2–5 exhibit three peculiarities: First, the threat against Esau/Edom occurs without any explanation; her punishment is simply taken for granted.16 Second, the contrast between the brothers Esau and Jacob is expressed by “hate” and “love,” which include the idea of rejection and election respectively, and probably indicate that the Malachi passage draws on the Genesis narratives of these brothers (e.g., Gen 25:23). Such conceptual language is not used 15  See the survey of research in Weyde, Prophecy, 15, 18–19, 30–37. 16  Kessler, Maleachi, 117, correctly emphasizes that the description “hebt den Text ins Grundsätzliche.” Cf. similarly Weyde, Prophecy, 93–94, 102–103; Noetzel, Maleachi, 89–90; Snyman, Malachi, 37.

Malachi

259

in other Edom passages in the Prophets. Third, the characteristic of Edom as the “wicked country” is new. In the Malachi passage it interprets the relationship of Edom to Yhwh and his people throughout history: Edom will be an enemy of Yhwh forever.17 The description has points of similarity with that of the hostile King in Isa 14:12–15.18 Thus, the passage in Mal 1:2–5 develops threats against Edom related in other prophetic passages and connects them with the Genesis narratives of Esau and Jacob. The exegetical technique applied serves to emphasize Yhwh’s enduring faithfulness to Israel. 4.2 The Priests’ Faithlessness The second passage (Mal 1:6–2:9) draws on a wide range of traditions in the Hebrew Bible, especially from the Pentateuch. In the accusations against the priests (Mal 1:6–14) there is a remarkable use of the law in Lev 22:17–25.19 It is applied together with other material from the Pentateuch, Ezekiel, the Psalms, and the wisdom tradition. A similar combination of traditions is apparent in the threats against the priests (Mal 2:1–9).20 The priests are criticized for neglecting the offering laws. Also the exegetical technique applied is remarkable. It develops from a general criticism to specific accusations and ends with a curse; several terms and phrases appear in reverse order compared with the order in the elaboration of the law in the source text, Lev 22.21 The threats in Mal 2:1–9 apply terms and motifs that were adopted from the curses related in Deut 28:15–19,22 and they are motivated by a presentation of their ancestor, Levi, who is portrayed in sharp contrast with the priests, both in prophetic terms (“he turned many from iniquity”) and as a priest who performed his tasks according to the law (“true instruction was in his mouth”). The priest is called Yhwh’s messenger (v. 6–7), a fact that connects it to the wisdom traditions (Eccl 5:5). The elaboration on Levi as the ideal priest also combines traditions related in Num 25:10–13 and Deut 33:8– 11. Moreover, it alludes to Gen 5:22, 24.23 The combination of allusions in this 17  Cf. Meinhold, Maleachi, 52. 18  See Weyde, Prophecy, 94–96. 19  See Weyde, Prophecy, 40–43, 118–122. 20  Compare, for instance, Mal 1:6 and Prov 10:1; 15:2, Mal 1:7, 10, 12 and Ezek 43:18; 44:15–16, Mal 1:9 and Gen 32:31, Mal 1:11 and Ps 113:3, Mal 2:5 and Ezek 3:9, Mal 2:6 and Job 6:30; 27:4; Ps 119:142, Mal 2:6–7 and Prov 15:7; 18:6–7, 15, Mal 2:7 and Eccl 5:5, Mal 2:6, 8 and Deut 9:12; 31:29; Judg 2:17, 19; Ps 119:165. For further examples of traditions applied in Mal 1:6–2:9, see Weyde, Prophecy, 112–214. 21  On this, see Weyde, Prophecy, 120–121. 22  See Kessler, Maleachi, 163, further Meinhold, Maleachi, 71, and the survey of research on this issue by Weyde, Prophecy, 176–180. 23  Snyman, Malachi, 86–89.

260

Weyde

broad description of Levi is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. It served to legitimize the multiple functions of the priests in the Second Temple.24 4.3 Faithlessness in Marital Affairs In the third passage (Mal 2:10–16), the addressees are accused of profaning the covenant of their ancestors because of idolatry caused by intermarriage and divorce (Mal 2:11, 14–16). There are references to faithlessness and abomination in Israel and Jerusalem (v. 11a), which call to mind passages in Deut 7:3–4; 13:15; 17:4. Moreover, the accusation that Judah has profaned Yhwh’s sanctuary (or holiness, Mal 2:11b)25 and the punishment that follows from it, seem to be based on Lev 18:29; 19:8.26 The addressees are also accused of having been faithless to “the wife of their youth” (v. 14) and are exhorted to remain faithful to her (v. 16). In addition to the phrases mentioned, the passage is replete with unique expressions and ideas that probably utilize the potentials of different materials in the Pentateuch, including a sharpening of the marital laws in Deut 24. The unique and puzzling phrase ‫( ער וענה‬v. 12) may refer to the two names Er and Onan in Gen 38,27 and the idea that Yhwh is a witness to marriage (v. 14), which occurs only here, was probably based on an interpretation of the account in Gen 2:18–25.28 Also the phrase “the tents of Jacob” (Mal 2:12) alludes to the narratives in Genesis, perhaps to Gen 31:33, where the same phrase occurs.29 Moreover, the obscure passage in Mal 2:15a (NRSV: “Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring”) probably reflects an exegesis of Yhwh’s creation of man and woman, which is related in Gen 2:18–25.30 Finally, the concluding exhortations and admonitions in Mal 2:15b–16 display points of similarity with speech (or literary) forms in Deut 2:4; 4:15; 23:10; Josh 23:11. Thus, the third passage combines many traditions in the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, and their reinterpretation created new and unique phrases and ideas.

24  Cf. Snyman, Malachi, 94–95. 25  The phrase ‫ קדׁש יהוה‬in Mal 2:11 can have both these meanings, see Weyde, Prophecy, 233. 26  So according to Weyde, Prophecy, 225–228; Kessler, Maleachi, 200, refers to Lev 19:8; Deut 7:1–11. 27  There seems to be a wide consensus on this interpretation in research; see Kessler, Maleachi, 200. 28  This is argued by Weyde, Prophecy, 254–255, whereas Kessler, Maleachi, 204, and Noetzel, Maleachi, 154–155, contend that the background to the idea of Yhwh as a witness to marriage occurs in Gen 31:43–54. 29  Snyman, Malachi, 109, suggests this possibility. 30  Weyde, “Mal 2:15a,” 76–90, provides a survey of recent interpretations of this half-verse.

Malachi

261

4.4 Purifying the Cult Officials Also the prediction of the coming of Yhwh’s messenger, which is a central topic in the fourth passage (Mal 2:17–3:5), offers multiple examples of exegetical innovation. He is called both “the messenger of the covenant” and “the Lord”— both titles are only here applied to a divine messenger—and he is to purify the descendants of Levi so that Yhwh will accept their offerings. That the addressees “seek” this messenger and Lord, and that he will “suddenly come to his temple” suggest that he is a priest, which is also in agreement with the view expressed in Mal 2:7. Moreover, that Yhwh will send the messenger to prepare the way before him (Mal 3:1) echoes the prediction related in Exod 23:20, and partly also the exhortation in Isa 40:3, whereas the question “who can endure the day of his coming?” (Mal 3:2a) is similar to that in Joel 2:11b; 3:4b, but in Mal 3:2 it refers to the coming day of the messenger and not to the coming of the day of Yhwh, as in Joel. The description of Yhwh’s great and terrible day in the Joel texts has precursors in Amos 5:18–20 and other prophetic texts,31 whereas Mal 3:2a is an innovation. The messenger’s refinement of the cult will be followed by Yhwh’s own coming; he will bear witness against the lawbreakers and judge them (3:5). This description applies traditions in both Deuteronomy (especially Deut 24:17; 27:19) and the Holiness Code (especially Lev 19:12–14); the unique phrase “swift witness” (‫ ;עד ממהר‬Mal 3:5) probably echoes the rules concerning witnesses in court (Deut 17:7) and applies them to Yhwh.32 The phrase “the descendants of Levi” (Mal 3:3) probably includes both priests and Levites, since the priests’ misconduct of their duties (1:6–14) required a cleansing of the whole cultic personnel (cf. Neh 13:4–30, especially vv. 28–30).33 Thus, the fourth passage in Malachi reflects a broad range of traditions, especially in the Pentateuch but also in the Prophets; it reinterprets many of them and takes a view on the cult that it shares with Chronicles. The most remarkable innovation is the idea that the coming messenger will have an important function in the cult. 4.5 Breaking the Laws on the Tithe The exhortation in the fifth passage (Mal 3:6–12) provides a similar innovative use of different traditions and also some terminological novelties. The close relationship between obedience to the laws on the tithe and the blessings that 31  E.g., Zeph 1:7, 14; cf. Zech 14:1–5, and also Joel 1:15. 32  Weyde, Prophecy, 304–311. 33  See Weyde, “Priests,” 246–247. Recent commentators, such as Kessler, Maleachi, 237–238; Noetzel, Maleachi, 172–174; Snyman, Malachi, 137, connect “the descendants of Levi” only with the criticized priests (Mal 1:6–2:9) without discussing the possibility that the phrase may have a wider reference.

262

Weyde

follow, versus disobedience and curses, connects to the blessings and curses respectively in Deut 14:28–29; 26:12; 28:1–14, 15–24.34 However, the phrase “the windows of heaven” (Mal 3:10) reflects the priestly source (Gen 7:11; 8:2),35 and the idea that the windows of heaven will pour down an overflowing blessing replaces P’s reference to the falling rain with the term “blessing,” which presupposes knowledge of the Genesis tradition.36 The exhortation to put Yhwh to the test to see whether he is reliable (Mal 3:10) expresses a novelty, since Ps 95:9 criticizes the people’s ancestors who tested Yhwh. Two connections to prophetic traditions occur in the motivated exhortation “return to me, and I will return to you” (Mal 3:7), which is almost identical with that in Zech 1:3,37 and in the phrase “a land of delight” in Mal 3:12, which comes close to the terminology in Isa 62:4. 4.6 The Election of Yhwh’s Servants on Yhwh’s Day The accusation and its motivation in Mal 3:13–15 seem to connect to the charge against the addressees in 2:17 and elaborate on their disbelief in Yhwh. Also, the description of Yhwh’s day in 3:17–21 creates a link to 3:1–5 and adds new aspects to the expectations related there. Finally, in 3:17–21 the idea of election is connected with only a part of Israel, Yhwh’s servants, whereas in 1:2–5 it refers to Jacob (Israel), which seems to mean the whole people. These differences indicate that the sixth passage (3:13–21) is a later addition to the previous passages.38 Both terminology and ideas expressed in 3:13–15 have parallels in other— presumably late—texts, especially in the wisdom tradition.39 In the prediction that follows (Mal 3:16–21) several innovations appear, such as the reference of the term ‫“( סגלה‬special possession,” v. 17), which predicts that only a part 34  See Weyde, Prophecy, 338–340; Snyman, Malachi, 151. 35  Cf. similarly Kessler, Maleachi, 261. 36  Snyman, Malachi, 154, also suggests that “windows of heaven” was a metaphor for a downpour of rain. 37  Kessler, Maleachi, 255, argues that the call to return in Mal 3:7 is a reinterpretation of, and not a quotation from, Zech 1:3, whereas Weyde, Prophecy, 329, contends that the formula marking divine speech in both texts may suggest that Mal 3:7 quotes the words in Zech 1:3. Snyman, Malachi, 149, is cautious about the matter and suggests that the call to repentance was probably a widely used stock phrase. 38  Cf. similarly Koenen, Heil, 52–67. This suggestion may shed light on Malachi’s function in the Book of the Twelve; see section 5 below. Cf. also Noetzel, Maleachi, 211–212, who argues that Mal 3:13–21 is the only passage without references to cultic issues. 39  The phrase ‫ חזק על‬in Mal 3:13 also occurs in 1 Chr 21:4 // 2 Sam 24:4; 2 Chr 8:3; 25:3 (the parallel in 2 Kgs 14:5 has a different terminology); 2 Chr 27:5. Also, compare Mal 3:14–15 with Gen 37:26; Job 21:15; 22:3, 15–23; Prov 11:21; Pss 28:3–5; 30:10; 95:9.

Malachi

263

of the elected people, those who revere Yhwh (v. 16), will be Yhwh’s ‫סגלה‬ on the day when Yhwh acts. This idea is remarkable since elsewhere, for instance in Deut 7:6, the term ‫ סגלה‬refers to the whole people. In the Malachi passage these pious are also called the righteous and Yhwh’s servants, who are contrasted with the wicked, the arrogant, the evildoers, and those who do not serve Yhwh. This contrast connects to a central topic in Isa 65–66, where a similar distinction is made between Yhwh’s servants and their opponents. Malachi also seems to take further an idea expressed in Zech 13:8–9: only onethird of Yhwh’s people will survive on his day of judgment. Moreover, Malachi’s statement that Yhwh’s day itself is the medium—an active force in Yhwh’s punishment—is peculiar and has no biblical parallel: “The day that comes shall burn (‫ )להט‬them up” (Mal 3:19). This statement seems to develop an idea in Joel 1:19; 2:3, where the same verb occurs, but has the subject “flame” in descriptions of what happens, or will happen, on Yhwh’s day. The idea of a burning day as the agent for Yhwh’s coming judgment probably reflects a late stage in the development of the ‫ יום יהוה‬traditions in post-exilic prophecy.40 Mal 3:19 furthermore has links to other prophetic traditions, as well as to cultic language. The prediction that the evildoers will be stubble on the day that will burn them comes close to the fire imagery used in Obad 18; Joel 2:5, and Ps 83:14–15 to describe the punishment on the coming day of Yhwh. Moreover, the description of Yhwh’s punishment that the wicked will be ashes and stubble occurs also in Isa 41:2, and the term “ashes” for one who is struck by divine judgment is used in Ezek 28:18. One should also note Isa 5:24, where much of the imagery in Mal 3:19, 21 appears in a description of judgment, for instance that neither root nor branch will be left for the lawbreakers, who are compared with stubble. Finally, the description in Mal 3:20 produces unique phrases and ideas, such as “the sun of righteousness” with “healing in its wings,” which probably refer to Yhwh, whereas in other texts the solar imagery and the idea of healing are related to the King who provides well-being for his subjects.41 Thus, a characteristic of the sixth passage in Malachi, especially of the prediction related in verses 16–21, is that it combines terms and ideas from a wide range 40  Cf. Snyman, Malachi, 171, who contends that the unique idea that the day itself will be burning is a “contracted simile” which expresses that everything that will happen on that day can be described as burning. 41  See 2 Sam 23:3–4. Ps 72:5–7 seems to use the order of cosmos expressed by the sun and the moon as images of royal stability, which may have its background in the surrounding cultures, especially in Egypt and Persia; see Noetzel, Maleachi, 227–228; Snyman, Malachi, 173. However, also Isa 58:8 may have provided a background for the reference of solar language in Mal 3:20.

264

Weyde

of texts, in particular in the wisdom tradition, reinterprets them, and creates new theological notions. There are hardly any connections with traditions in the Pentateuch. 5

Malachi and the Book of the Twelve

5.1 Why Was Malachi Included in the Book of the Twelve? Its inclusion implies that the editors of the Twelve accepted Malachi as a legitimate prophetic book and its use of authoritative traditions as equal to prophecy based on divine revelation (which seems to have ended with Haggai and Zechariah). A similar change of prophecy is also attested elsewhere (e.g., in Isa 40–55; 56–66 and Zech 9–11; 12–14), but Malachi added new dimensions to this change by clearly connecting prophecy to the exegetical activity of the Second Temple officials, presumably priests and Levites, who became the legitimate heirs of the prophets of the past. In their mission as prophets these temple officials also introduced topics that they did not find in other prophetic books, or they modified and elaborated on topics that had been treated elsewhere, especially cultic matters.42 In its exegesis Malachi draws on a large variety of texts, both in the Prophets and the Pentateuch, and produces new phrases and ideas, including modifications of well-known ones. The Prophets referred to most frequently are Isa 40; 65–66; Joel, Obadiah, and Zech 1–8; 13, while material applied from the Pentateuch includes narratives in Genesis and Exodus as well as laws in the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy. Another peculiarity is that Malachi in its arguments presents as many as five figures from Israel’s past: Jacob (Israel), Esau (Edom), Levi, Moses, and Elijah. This is a high number which is without parallels in the Book of the Twelve, and seems to reflect a late phenomenon in the history of prophecy in Judah. The way these figures are interpreted in Malachi, either negatively (Esau/Edom) or positively (the others mentioned), may have provided a starting point for early Jewish exegesis of the lives of the ancestors, which is documented in Sirach (Sir 44–50: laus patrum) and other extra-biblical Jewish literature in antiquity.43 42  In addition to the examples presented in this essay, see Redditt, “King,” 166–169, who contends that Malachi in its criticism of the priests (Redditt: and the Levites) “is the worthy successor of Zech 9–14, which attacks them for their failures along with those of the Davidides and false prophets.” (ibid., 169). 43  Note, for example, how Sir 48:1–12 (especially v. 10) reinterprets what is related about the tasks of Elijah in Mal 3:23–24. See further Valve, Modes, esp. 90–103, 149–170. Cf. also Wöhrle, “Jacob,” 997–1014, who argues that the passages referring to the Jacob traditions in Hos 12, to Moses and the Exodus in Mic 6, and to the covenant with Levi in Mal 2, are late and presuppose a nearly completed form of the Pentateuch.

Malachi

265

The analysis also revealed another feature of Malachi. The first passage connects to the Prophets (words against Edom) and the Pentateuch (the Jacob/ Esau narratives). The passages that follow, from the second passage through the fifth, have a large number of references to the Pentateuch, but also some to the Prophets. The last passage (probably a later addition) has multiple references to the Prophets, as well as to wisdom traditions and psalms, but hardly any references to the Pentateuch, except for the idea that those who serve Yhwh (obey the law) will be spared on his day of judgment. This “balance” between law and prophecy is significant and can explain why the editors included Malachi as the conclusion of the Book of the Twelve. It also corresponds to a similar juxtaposition in the last three verses of Malachi: the exhortation to obey the law and the expectation of the return of the prophet Elijah (Mal 3:22–24). Moreover, there are other similarities between these verses and the previous six passages, which can shed more light on Malachi’s significance and function in the Book of the Twelve. 5.2 Malachi and Mal 3:22–24 First, in Mal 3:22–24 there are no formulas marking divine speech, although these verses—except v. 23b—relate a speech of Yhwh. This may indicate that earlier material was applied in these verses. The reference to Yhwh in the third person, in a speech of Yhwh (v. 23b), points in the same direction, and this suggestion is strengthened by the fact that this half-verse seems to quote from Joel 3:4b.44 Thus, the editor(s) who inserted Mal 3:22–24 had the same authority as the author(s) of the material in the Malachi passages. More than that, the editor(s) applied—and thus accepted—the exegetical technique that had been used by the author(s) of the Malachi passages. Second, the exhortation to “remember the teaching (‫ )תורה‬of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel” emphasizes that the addressees still stand under the law. The terminology is deuteronomistic (Deut 4:2, 5, 10, 14, 40, 44–45; Josh 1:7), which indicates that the exhortation refers to the Pentateuch and the DtrH.45 It also connects to a central idea in the Prophets, both in the Book of the Twelve and in the Great Prophets, namely the people’s obligation to obey the law.46

44  Cf. Schart, Entstehung, 299–302; Weyde, Prophecy, 391. 45  Cf. also Schart, Entstehung, 302–303. This suggestion does not exclude the possibility that some insertions were added to the Pentateuch later; on this issue, see recently Schmid, “Additions,” 592–604. 46  See Hos 4:1–14; Amos 2:4–8; 5:14–15; Mic 6:8; Zeph 2:3; Isa 1:16–17. Cf. also Ganzel and Kohn, “Message,” 1075–1084.

266

Weyde

Third, the announcement of the coming of Elijah, a prophet of the past, may imply that prophecy in the classical sense had declined. This corresponds to what appears in Malachi: prophecy had changed. Fourth, the prediction that Elijah will come indicates that the situation described in Mal 3:24 was so serious that its restoration had to take place before the advent of Yhwh’s day of judgment and that only the prophet Elijah would be able to solve the problem. This idea probably connects to the expectation that is expressed in Mal 3:1–4 and reinterprets it. These links show that the editors connected Mal 3:22–24 to Malachi and summarized its message by emphasizing the importance of the law and the prophets. Also, Malachi offers a significant and unique contribution to the prophetic message in the Hebrew Bible. This is another reason why Malachi was integrated into the Book of the Twelve. As observed above, however, the two concerns of Malachi and its conclusion also connect it to other prophetic books. For this reason, the concluding three verses in Mal 3:22–24 probably mark the end of the entire corpus propheticum. 5.3 When Was Malachi Integrated into the Book of the Twelve? In recent theories about the formation of the Book of the Twelve there seems to be a general consensus among scholars that Malachi was integrated relatively late into this collection.47 The observations and arguments of this essay can point in the same direction. However, it should be questioned whether Malachi, in its final form, was the product of a successive growth over a (long) period of time, as has also been suggested.48 The book’s structure and content may have paved the way for suggesting another theory: It was shown that Malachi is a coherent whole characterized by an anti­ thetical structure; the contrast between Yhwh’s faithfulness and the addressees’ faithlessness runs like a scarlet thread through its passages. Malachi also draws a contrast between Yhwh’s rejection of Edom (1:4–5) and Yhwh’s blessing of his people (3:12). This structure is spoiled if the passages are separated. Therefore, it is more likely that the passages originated as integral parts of a planned composition. Moreover, Mal 1:2–3:12 seems to reflect problems in the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, which are documented in Ezra and Nehemiah.49 It cannot be excluded that the Malachi passages intend to offer a solution to them.50 47  See, e.g., Wöhrle, Abschluss, 191–287, 335–361, 400–411; cf. Nogalski, Processes, 210–212; Schart, Entstehung, 291–299. 48  This was strongly argued by Steck, Abschluß, 30–35, 43–55, 100–105, 127–136; cf. also Wöhrle in the previous note. 49  See, e.g., Ezra 9–10; Neh 13. 50  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 201–204.

Malachi

267

The assumed-later addition in Mal 3:13–21 shares several terms and views with Isa 65–66, which may suggest that it originated when Isa 65–66, along with Isa 1–2, was produced to form the framework of Isaiah.51 But the passage in Malachi has a different emphasis: it predicts that Yhwh’s servants will be Yhwh’s special possession and participate in the judgment of the wicked on the coming day of Yhwh. This description also differs from that related in Zech 12–14, which looks forward to a universal pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Yhwh’s day. Malachi also shares other topics with Zech 9–11; 12–14, such as Yhwh’s faithfulness to his people, their purification, and the survival of only a part of them, who will be his chosen people on the day of judgment. But the three collections hold slightly different views on these matters. This difference gives another reason why Malachi was integrated into the Book of the Twelve, as a book of its own, when the prophetic books were collected and edited. Bibliography Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Ganzel, Tova and Kohn, Risa L. “Message.” Pages 1075–1084 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Kessler, Rainer. Maleachi. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Koenen, Klaus. Heil den Gerechten—Unheil den Sündern! Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Prophetenbücher. BZAW 229. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1994. Meinhold, Arndt. Maleachi. BKAT 14,8. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006. Noetzel, Jutta. Maleachi, ein Hermeneut. BZAW 467. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2015. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Redditt, Paul L. “King, Priest, and Temple in Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi and Ezra– Nehemiah.” Pages 157–172 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998.

51  See Stromberg, Isaiah, 147–160.

268

Weyde

Schmid, Konrad. “Post-Priestly Additions in the Pentateuch: A Survey of Scholarship.” Pages 589–604 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. JSOTSup 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Snyman, Fanie. Malachi. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Steck, Odil H. Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Biblisch-theologische Studien 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Stromberg, Jacob. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Valve, Lotta. Early Modes of Exegesis: Ideal Figures in Malachi as a Test Case. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2014. von Bulmerincq, Alexander. Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Maleachi. Vol. 1 of Der Prophet Maleachi. ACUD B Humaniora 1. Dorpat: Mattiesen, 1926. Weyde, Karl W. Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi. BZAW 288. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2000. Weyde, Karl W. “Prophecy as massa’: Why are Some Prophetic Oracles Introduced by this Term?” Pages 355–371 in Shaping Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson on his Sixtieth Birthday 28.4.2012. Edited by Kristinn Ólason et al. Reykjavik: Icelandic Literary Society, 2012. Weyde, Karl W. “The Priests and the Descendants of Levi in the Book of Malachi.” AcT 35 (2015): 238–253. Weyde, Karl W. “Does Mal 2:15a Refer to Adam and Eve in the Creation Account in Gen 2:4–25?” Pages 73–90 in Adam and Eve Story in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Jewish Writings Including the New Testament. Edited by Antti Laato and Lotta Valve. Studies in the Reception History of the Bible 7. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University and Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wöhrle, Jakob. “Jacob, Moses, Levi: Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 997–1014 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Part 3 Textual Transmission and Reception History

∵

Chapter 17

The Book of the Twelve at Qumran Russell E. Fuller 1

The Task of the Essay

The goal of this essay is to ascertain if and in how far the Twelve Prophets appear as a coherent entity” in the literary materials from Qumran. To attempt properly to meet the goal of the essay, the limits of the following material must be expanded to include more generally writings from the Second Temple period and beyond. Although the focus will centre on material from the Second Temple period, especially the biblical and non-biblical manuscripts from Qumran, the essay will also look at textual evidence from the Judean Desert more broadly such as the Greek manuscript of the Twelve from Naḥal Ḥever and the Hebrew manuscript of the Twelve from Wadi Murabbaʿat from the second century ce. In addition, in the discussion below on the names of the collection in Judaism and in Christianity, I will also refer to material from as late as the fourth century ce. 2

The Name(s) of the Collection

2.1 In Judaism There are two forms of the name of the collection in Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period, “The Twelve Prophets,” or simply, “The Twelve.” The earliest attestation of the Jewish name for the collection in Hebrew is found in the well-known passage from Sir 49:10: May the bones of the Twelve Prophets (‫ )שנים עשר הנביאים‬send new life from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope. (NRSV) Whether or not this citation from Ben Sira (ca. 180 bce) refers to the existence of a completed collection of the Twelve Prophets, it nevertheless provides what becomes the standard Jewish name of the collection in Hebrew. This name is also reflected in the well-known baraita in Bava Batra 14b from the end of the second century ce (attributed to Judah the Prince, died ca. 217 ce).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_019

272

Fuller

The order of the Prophets is: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve (‫)שנים עשר‬. Now, Hosea came first, as it is written, “God first spoke to Hosea” (Hos 1:2). But, did He first speak to Hosea? Were there not a number of prophets from Moses to Hosea? However, Rabbi Yohanan said that he was the first of four prophets who prophesied at that time, and these are they: Hosea, and Isaiah, Amos, and Micah. Then Hosea should have been placed first? Since his prophesies are written (in the collection together) with Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, Hosea is considered together with them. Then it should have been written separately and placed earlier? Since it is small, it might have gotten lost. Although this passage is primarily concerned with the order of the books of the prophets, it does preserve the name of the collection of the Twelve. In addition, discussion on the placement of the book of the prophet Hosea introduces the principal that—due to the book’s small size—it was combined with the others onto one scroll to prevent its lost. In other words, the idea of the Twelve on a single scroll is both assumed and justified. The Aramaic form of this name, ‫תרי עשר‬, “The Twelve” is later widely used and well attested. 2.2 In Christianity There are three names for the collection attested in Christianity, “the Twelve,” “the Twelve Prophets,” and “the Minor Prophets.” The earliest evidence within Christianity comes from the list of books in the ‘Old Testament’ complied by Melito of Sardis before 180 ce and preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (EH 4.26.13–14). “… of the twelve, in one book …” (των δωδεκα εν μονοβιβλω)1 Melito thus witnesses to the Greek form of the standard Hebrew/Aramaic name of the collection, “the Twelve,” and also to the idea that the collection was “one book.” This detail reflects the interest in establishing the number of the books in the Jewish Scriptures and also indicates that the Twelve Prophets were usually copied on a single scroll from an early period, see below. 1  In Ruffinus’s Latin translation, duodecim prophetarum in liber unus.

Qumran

273

From perhaps the same time period or a little later, is the Bryennios List (ca. 150 ce?). This notable list reflects a form of the Aramaic name of the collection, in Greek transcription, as well as the standard Greek name of the collection, the Twelve or the Twelve Prophets (δααθαρσιαρ δωδεκαπροφητον).2 The name, “Minor Prophets,” (minores Prophetae) is usually attributed to Augustine in his work, City of God (ca. 426 ce),3 but the expression is already used by Hilary of Poitiers (died ca. 367 ce) in his Tractatus super Psalmos which may have been written as early as 357 ce (i.e. 69 years before Augustine used the term!).4 It seems likely then, that the expression “Minor Prophets” was in use in Christian circles (and perhaps in only Latin speaking circles) at least as early as the mid-fourth century ce, well before Augustine explained that the term “Minor Prophets” (minores Prophetae) referred to the short length of these books. Note that both Hilary and Augustine also use the older title Twelve Prophets. Jerome, writing earlier than Augustine, but later than Hilary, uses the Latin equivalent of the Hebrew title for the collection, duodecem prophetarum, Twelve Prophets, in his prologus galeatus written ca. 391 ce. He is also aware of the Aramaic form of the title which he gives as, thareasra (= ‫)תרי עשר‬. 2.3 Conclusions The name for the collection in Jewish circles was simply the Twelve or the Twelve Prophets. This title likely originated as early as Ben Sirah. Greek speaking Christian circles employed the same name: Twelve Prophets or simply the Twelve (δωδεκα/δωδεκαπροφετον). It is not until the fourth century ce, in the Latin west, that the title Minor Prophets is found. This is first attested with Hilary of Poitiers and almost 70 years later with Augustine. Both Hilary and Augustine also use the older title Twelve Prophets (duodecim prophetarum). The conflated title, the Twelve Minor Prophets, seems to be of modern origin. 2  Audet, “List,” 135–154. 3  Dods, Works, 249, “The prophecy of Isaiah is not in the book of the twelve prophets, who are called the minor from the brevity of their writings, as compared with those who are called the greater prophets because they published larger volumes. Isaiah belongs to the latter, yet I connect him with the two above named, because he prophesied at the same time.” (18:29); “Esaias propheta non est in libro duodecim prophetarum, qui propterea dicuntur minores, quia sermones eorum sunt breues, in eorum comparatione, qui maiores ideo uocantur, quia prolixa uolumina condiderunt; ex quibus est hic Esaias, quem propter eadem prophetiae tempora subiungo supradictis duobus.” 4  Zingerle, S. Hilarii, 13, “… duodecim autem minores Prophetae …”; “… and of the twelve minor prophets …”

274 3

Fuller

Evidence for a Coherent Collection

The evidence for the existence of a coherent collection of the Twelve, by which I mean the existence of the collection conceived of as a single composition or book, is twofold. On the one hand, there are apparent references to the Twelve as a whole or as a single book, and on the other hand there is manuscript evidence of the existence of the Twelve written on a single scroll or at least fragmentary remains of what may have been complete scrolls of the Twelve. In addition, there are quotations and allusions to the various books within the collection of the Twelve. These, however, cannot be taken as indicating the existence of a coherent collection. 3.1 Pre-Qumran Evidence There is no manuscript evidence for the existence of a coherent collection of the Twelve until the date of the earliest biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert. The earliest manuscript evidence dates to ca. 150 bce with two manuscripts, 4QXIIa,b. The nature of these manuscripts is disputed. It is a common scholarly assumption that Sir 49:10 indicates the existence, ca. 180 bce, of a completed collection of the Twelve Prophets.5 This modern assumption includes the idea that the collection was copied on a single scroll. If the reference to the Twelve Prophets in Sir 49:10 does indicate the existence early in the second century bce of a completed collection of the Twelve, this only antedates the manuscript evidence by approximately thirty years. Sir 49:10 may be described as indirect evidence for the existence of a coherent collection in the early second century bce, but it is important to stress that this is simply a widespread assumption. Another indirect indication of the existence of a coherent collection already in the second century bce is the Old Greek translation which scholars place no later than the mid-second century bce.6 The Greek translation’s antiquity is indicated by the fact that it is known to the grandson of Ben Sira at the end of the second century bce. What is more, by the second half of the first century bce the Old Greek translation of the Twelve was revised to bring it closer to the Hebrew Text. 3.2 Qumran and the Judean Desert The so-called biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert, especially from Qumran, are the earliest exemplars of the Hebrew text of the various books of the Twelve. In the first generations of scholarship on these manuscripts, most 5  See conveniently, Nogalski, Book, 1–3. 6  Tov, Textual Criticism, 131 and n. 214.

Qumran

275

scholars worked with the assumption that these manuscripts were the fragmentary remains of originally complete scrolls of the Twelve. However, given the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts, as well as the awareness of the wide variety of non-biblical, exegetical compositions which have been preserved from the second temple period, this assumption has correctly been called into question.7 There are differing views concerning which of the manuscripts of the Twelve from the Judean Desert originally contained the entire collection. For example, Emanuel Tov has stated that of the manuscripts from the Judean Desert, MurXII, 4QXIIb, and 4QXIIg probably contained the complete collection.8 This may be because these manuscripts preserve (on the leather) transitions between books in the collection, see below. George Brooke has expressed a more optimistic view. He includes 4QXIIc, 4QXIIe, and possibly also 4QXIId.9 At the other end of the spectrum is Philippe Guillaume who seems to think that only 4QXIIc and 4QXIIg may reasonably be seen as likely originally containing complete collections of the Twelve.10 Presumably, MurXII and 8ḤevXIIgr also contained complete collections. My own position falls between the careful minimalism of Tov and the more optimistic perspective of Brooke. In my view, 4QXIIb, 4QXIIc, 4QXIIe, and 4QXIIg from cave 4 at Qumran, all of which preserve the fragmentary remains of at least two books from the collection, are reasonably likely to have originally held complete collections of the Twelve. This is even more likely for the later manuscripts, 8ḤevXIIgr and MurXII. This likelihood is heightened in those cases where a transition between books is preserved on the leather or reconstructed on the basis of careful calculation of line lengths and column heights. Listed below are all of the Hebrew manuscripts from the Judean Desert which preserve parts of the Twelve. 1) 4Q76/4QXIIa, ca. 150 bce  Partially preserves: Zech 14:18;11 Mal 2:10–3:24; Jonah 1:1–3:2; and an unidentified composition. See discussion below.

7   See the discussion in Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Book,” 733–735; Guillaume, “Reconsideration,” 2–5. 8  Tov, “Biblical Texts,” 142. 9  Brooke, “Prophets,” 33–34. 10  Guillaume, “Reconsideration,” 4–5. 11  The identification of frg. 1 with Zech 14:18 has been questioned by some. See Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Book,” 737–738; Guillaume, “Reconsideration,” 2. Based on a careful reexamination of the infrared images of frg. 1 and the reconstruction suggested in DJD XV, I stand by the identification with Zech 14:18 as both possible and plausible.

276

Fuller

2) 4Q77/4QXIIb, ca. 150 bce  Partially preserves: Zeph 1:1–2; Zeph 2:13–15; Zeph 3:19–Hag 1:2; Hag 2:2–4.  The transition between Zephaniah and Haggai is preserved on frg. 3. 3) 4Q78/4QXIIc, ca. 75 bce  Partially preserves: Hos 2:13–15; Hos 3:2–4; Hos 4:1–5:1; Hos 13:3– 10; Hos 13:15–14:6; Joel 1:10–2:1; Joel 2:8–10; Joel 2:10–23; Joel 4:6– 21; Amos 2:11–3:7; Amos 3:8–4:2; Amos 6:13–7:16; Zeph 2:15–3:2; Mal 3:6–7 (?). 4) 4Q79/4QXIId, ca. 50 bce Partially preserves: Hos 1:6–2:5. 5) 4Q80/4QXIIe, ca. 75–50 bce  Hag 2:18–19; Hag 2:20–21; Zech 1:4–6; Zech 1:9–10, 13–14; Zech 2:10– 14; Zech 3:2–4:4; Zech 5:8–6:5; Zech 8:2–4; Zech 8:6–7; Zech 12:7–12. 6) 4Q81/4QXIIf, ca. 50 bce Partially preserves: Jonah 1:6–8, 10–16; Mic 5:1. 7) 4Q82/4QXIIg, ca. 30–1 bce  Partially preserves: Hos 2:1–5, 14–19, 22–25; 3:1–5; 4:1, 10–11, 13–14; 6:3–4, 8–11; 7:1, 13–16; 8:1; 9:1–4, 9–17; 10:1–14; 11:2–11; 12:1–15; 13:1, 6–8(?), 11–13; 14:9–10; Joel 1:12–14; 2:2–13; 4:4–9, 11–14, 17, 19–20; Amos 1:3–15; 2:1, 7–9, 15–16; 3:1–2; 4:4–9; 5:1–2, 9–18; 6:1–4, 6–14; 7:1, 7–12, 14–17; 8:1–5, 11–14; 9:1, 6, 14–15; Obad 1–5, 8–12, 14–15; Jonah 1:1– 9; 2:3–11; 3:1–3; 4:5–11; Mic 1:7, 12–15; 2:3–4; 3:12; 4:1–2; 5:6–7; 7:2–3, 20; Nah 1:7–9; 2:9–11; 3:1–3, 17; Hab 2:4(?); Zeph 3:3–5; Zech 10:11–12; 11:1–2; 12:1–3. The transition between Amos and Obadiah is preserved on frg. 71. 8) 5Q4/5QAmos, ca. first century ce Partially preserves: Amos 1:3–5 and perhaps Amos 1:2f. 9) Mur88/MurXII, ca. 135 ce  Partially preserves: Col. II: Joel 2:26–4:16; col. III: Amos 1:5–2:1; cols. IV–V missing; col. VI: only two letters; col. VII: Amos 7:3–8:7; col. VIII: Amos 8:11–9:15; col. IX: Obad 1–21; col. X: Jonah 1:1–3:2; col. XI: Jonah 3:2–Mic 1:5; col. XII: Mic 1:5–3:4; col. XIII: Mic 3:4– 4:12; col. XIV: Mic 4:12–6:7; col. XV: Mic 6:11–7:17; col. XVI: Mic 7:17– Nah 2:12; col. XVII: Nah 2:13–3:19; col. XVIII: Hab 1:3–2:11; col. XIX: Hab 2:18–Zeph 1:1; col. XX: Zeph 1:11–3:6; col. XXI: Zeph 3:8–Hag 1:11; col. XXII: Hag 1:12–2:10; col. XXIII: Hag 2:12–Zech 1:4. The following transitions are preserved: Col. 11 Jonah–Micah (3 lines) Col. 16 Micah–Nahum (3 lines)

Qumran

277

Col. 19 Habakkuk–Zephaniah (3 lines) Col. 21 Zephaniah–Haggai (3 lines) Col. 23 Haggai–Zechariah (3 lines) 10) MS Schøyen 4612/1, ca. 50–100 ce Partially preserves: Joel 4:1–5.12 11) DSS F.Amos1, ca. first century bce  F.Amos1 consists of three small fragments, which preserve only sixteen words or partial words from Amos 7:17–8:1.13 12) Unpublished Fragments  Two further unpublished fragments of the Minor Prophets are known which partially preserve Jonah 4:2–5 and Micah 1:5. They will be published in The Green Scholars Initiative Series on Early Jewish Texts (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).14 3.3 Discussion Manuscripts 1–7 above were published in DJD 15 (1997). Manuscript 8 was published in DJD 3 (1962). Manuscript 9 was published in DJD 2 (1961). The editor of The Cave 4 material assumed that seven manuscripts comprised biblical manuscripts which consisted of the fragmentary remains of originally complete scrolls of the Twelve. This assumption has been questioned and it now seems more likely that only some of the manuscripts from cave 4 were complete scrolls of the Twelve. It seems reasonable to assume that 4QXIIg/4Q82 (10), 8ḤevXIIgr/8Hev1 (7), and MurXII/Mur88 (7) most likely were originally complete scrolls of the Twelve Prophets since they all contain the remains of at least seven of the twelve books of the collection. It seems quite possible that the other scrolls from 4Q were either not complete scrolls of the Twelve or contained only a few of the books of the collection. The nature of 4QXIIc is unclear since it contains the remains of at least four of the twelve books of the collection. 4QXIIa is a special case which will be discussed below. 3.4 8ḤevXIIgr, ca. 50–51 bce Partially preserves col. II Jonah 1:14–2:7a; col. III, Jonah 2:7b–4:5a; col. IV, Mic 1:1–7; col. V, Mic 1:7b–8; col. VI, Mic 2:7–9, 3:5–6; col. VII, Mic 4:3–5; col. VIII, Mic 4:6–10, 5:1–4(5); col. IX, Mic 5:4(5)–6; col. XIII, Nah 1:13–14; col. XIV, Nah 2:5b–10, 13–14, 3:3; col. XV, Nah 3:6–17; col. XVI, Hab 1:5–11; col. XVII, Hab 1:13–2:8; col. XVIII, Hab 2:13–20; col. XIX, Hab 3:8–15; col. XX, Zeph 1:1–6; 12  Elgvin, “MS 4612/1. Ḥev(?) Joel,” 223–232. 13  Tov, “Fragments,” 3–13. 14  Green Scholars Initiative: https://www.museumofthebible.org/research/.

278

Fuller

col. XXI, Zeph 1:13–18; col. XXII, Zeph 2:9–10; col. XXIII, Zeph 3:6–7; col. XXVIII, Zech 1:1–4; col. XXIX, Zech 1:12–15; col. XXX, Zech 2:2 (1:19)–2:4 (1:21), 2:6(2)– 12(8); col. XXXI, Zech 2:16(12)–3:2, 3:3–7; col. B1, Zech 8:19–21, 23; col. B2, Zech 8:23–9:5; Note that column numbers are based on the reconstruction of the scroll, i.e. col. I would have contained the beginning of the book of Jonah, etc. No transitions between books are preserved on the leather. For reconstructed transitions in this manuscript, see below. Quotations and Allusions to the Twelve in Second Temple Period Writings Each of the twelve books of the collection is either quoted or alluded to in Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period, including the books of the Apocrypha. See the list below. In addition, there are at least eight pesharim or commentary-like compositions dedicated to six of the individual books in the collection. 3.5

1) Compositions from the Second Temple Period Quoting or Alluding to the Hebrew Text of the Minor Prophets15 1QpMicah (1Q14) 1QpHabakkuk 1QM (1Q33) 1QHa 1QS (1Q28) 1QSb (1Q28b) 4QRPa (4Q158) 4Qpap pIsac (4Q163) 4QpHosa (4Q166) 4QpHosb (4Q167) 4QpMicah (4Q168) 4QpNahum (4Q169) 4QpZephaniah (4Q170) 4QpPsalmsa (4Q171) 4QMidrEschata(4Q174) 4QTanhumim (4Q176) 4QMidrEschatb (4Q177) 4QWords of Judgment (4Q238) 15  Statistics on quotations and allusions are based on the charts in Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations.

Qumran

279

4QapocrDan ar (4Q246) 4QCommMal (4Q253a) 4QCommGen C (4Q254) 4QMiscRules (4Q265) 4QBera (4Q286) 4QMysta(4Q299)4QAdmonFlood (4Q370) 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona (4Q371) 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb (4Q372) 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A (4Q380) 4Qpap para Kings (4Q382) 4QapocrJerCa (4Q385a) 4QapocrJerCb (4Q387) 4QInstructionc,d (4Q417, 418) 4QInstruction-like Composition B (4Q424) 4QBarkhi Nafshia,d,e (4Q434, 437, 438) 4QExpo on the Patriarchs (4Q464) 4QRenewed Earth 4QDibHama (4Q504) 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521) 4QpapVisionb (4Q558) 4QUnid. Text A ar (4Q562) 5QapocrMal (5Q10) CD (4QDa/4Q266) Sir 2) Pesharim to Books of the Twelve 4QpHosa (4Q166) 4QpHosb (4Q167) 1QpMic (1Q14) 4QpNah (4Q169) 1QpHab 1QpZeph (1Q15) 4QCommMal (4Q253a) 5QApocryphal Malachi (5Q10) The Pesharim and the quotations and allusions refer only to single books of the Twelve, which strongly indicates that the books in the collection were thought of primarily as individual compositions. In 1968, with the publication of DJD V, John Allegro tentatively suggested the idea that perhaps there had been a pesher to the entire Book of the Twelve. His reasoning was that because

280

Fuller

4Q168/4QpMicah(?) was written by the same scribe as 4Q167/4QpHosb, it follows that they may have been part of an original pesher on the entire Book of the Twelve Prophets. This idea was reiterated in 1969 by John Strugnell with the qualification that perhaps 4Q168 had been part of a pesher on several of the books of the Twelve. Finally, the idea was raised in the influential dissertation of Dale Schneider who referred to Allegro’s comments.16 Other than these three speculations, the idea that there might have been an original pesher on the entire Book of the Twelve has disappeared. It was based on tenuous evidence at best, that one scribe wrote/copied both 4Q167 and 4Q168. Since both appeared to be commentaries on books from the collection, perhaps they were the remains of a commentary on the Twelve as a whole. The theory is intriguing and if there were a commentary on the entire Book of the Twelve then it would indicate that already in the Second Temple Period the Twelve were viewed as a single, unified composition. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with this proposal. First, we know of several scribes who copied multiple separate compositions found at Qumran.17 Just because the same scribe wrote/copied both 4Q167 and 4Q168 there is no reason to assume they must necessarily be part of the same composition. Second, the nature of 4Q168 is uncertain. It is unclear, because the remains are so fragmentary, whether it was a copy of a pesher on Micah or simply the remains of a copy of the book of Micah. If it were the latter, then obviously this would not support the idea of a pesher on the Twelve. So, unfortunately, there is very little to support the idea of a pesher on the Book of the Twelve. 4

Evidence for the Order of Books in the Collection

Transitions between Books in Manuscripts of the Twelve from the Judean Desert The following transitions are preserved on the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Twelve from the Second Temple Period:18 4.1

4QXIIa 4QXIIb 4QXIIc

Malachi–Jonah*19 (Mal, Jonah, Zech?) ca. 150 bce Zephaniah–Haggai (frg. 3) ca. 150 bce (Zeph, Hag)20 no transitions preserved (Hos, Joel, Amos, Zeph, [Mal?])

16  See Schneider, Unity, 221; Allegro, DJD V, 36; Strugnell, “Notes,” 204. 17  Tov, Scribal Practices, 22–24, see especially chart 2. 18  Listed in roughly chronological order. The symbol * indicates a reconstructed transition. 19  See the discussion below. 20  Note the observation of Tov that 4QXIIb might have been a complete scroll of the Twelve. Tov, “Biblical Texts,” 142.

281

Qumran

4QXIId no transitions preserved (Hos) 4QXIIe no transitions preserved (Hag, Zech) 4QXIIf no transitions preserved (Jonah, Mic) 4QXIIg Amos–Obadiah (frg. 71) ca. 30–1 bce (Hos, Joel, Amos, Obad, Jonah, Mic, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Zech) 8ḤevXIIgr

Jonah–Micah* (col. 4)21 ca. 50–1 bce Nahum–Habakkuk* (col. 16) Habakkuk–Zephaniah* (col. 20) Zephaniah–Haggai* (col. [25]) Haggai–Zechariah* (col. 28) (Jonah, Mic, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Hag, Zech)

MurXII (88) Jonah–Micah (col. 11; 3 lines) ca. 135 ce. (Joel, Amos, Obad, Jonah, Mic, Nah, Hab) Micah–Nahum (col. 16; 3 lines) Habakkuk–Zephaniah (col. 19; 3 lines)? Zephaniah–Haggai (col. 21; 3 lines) Haggai–Zechariah (col. 23; 3 lines) 4.2 Discussion Of the Hebrew manuscripts of the Twelve from Qumran, only 4QXIIg, dating from the last third of the first century bce, preserves a transition between two of the first six books in the collection. The transition between Amos and Obadiah is preserved on fragment 71. This order corresponds to the order of the books in the collection which became normative for the MT. Likewise, MurXII, from the second century ce preserves this same order. These two Hebrew manuscripts show that the order later normative in the MT is known at least as early as the first century bce. If we extend the evidence to include the Greek manuscript of the Twelve from the Naḥal Ḥever, then we can see that this manuscript too, even though it is in Greek, attests to the existence of the Masoretic order in the first century bce.22 These three manuscripts constitute our earliest evidence for the order of books in the collection. 21  Tov, Prophets Scroll, 8 [in the reconstruction the sequence Joel–Mic is sound since the fragments containing col. 3 (end of Joel) and 4 (beginning of Mic) make a convincing join (see plates I, III, IV)]. 22  Note that the book transitions in 8ḤevXIIgr are reconstructed, but the crucial transition for the order of the first six books is confirmed by a physical join. See the discussion in Tov, Prophets Scroll, 8 and n. 18 above.

282

Fuller

4.3 4Q76/4QXIIa There remains the early manuscript, 4Q76/4QXIIa. This manuscript was written in an irregular semi-cursive script from the mid-second-century bce. As reconstructed in the editio princeps, columns 1–4 preserve most of Malachi 2:10 through the end of the book.23 The most interesting part of this manuscript is found in column 4, fragment 9ii, lines 10 and 11 where the remains of additional letters belonging to the next column (5) of the manuscript are found that indicate that another composition followed the book of Malachi in this manuscript. The editor reconstructed the beginning of the book of Jonah in column 5 based on the fragmentary remains of Jonah 1 which were preserved, frgs. 11–18i. The key element to the reconstruction is the physical join which was reconstructed between fragment 9ii and fragment 15 which joins the two columns and provides continuity between the end of the book of Malachi and the beginning of the book of Jonah. This order, Malachi–Jonah, is unattested elsewhere and has led to a great deal of discussion concerning the order of books in the collection of the Twelve during the Second Temple Period and the relationship between the anomalous order of books in this manuscript and the later canonical orders of the Twelve in the MT and the LXX.24 Understandably, there has also been some scepticism expressed regarding the reconstruction.25 Recently, Pajunen and von Weissenberg in a carefully argued article have suggested that Jonah is in fact not the composition immediately following Malachi in 4Q76, but that another unidentified composition comes in between Malachi and Jonah in the manuscript.26 Their argument is based on careful measurements of the damage patterns of the manuscript as well as the implausibility, in their view, of the reconstructed physical join on which the Malachi–Jonah sequence depends. If they are correct, then 4Q76/4QXIIa provides clear evidence that Jonah did follow Malachi in this manuscript, although not directly as the original editor proposed. Furthermore, the positions of Jonah and Malachi were still fluid in the mid-second century bce and the order of the books of the Twelve was not settled at that time. However, based on their understanding of the nature of 4Q76/4QXIIa we must note that Malachi’s position as the last book of the collection was necessarily yet to be established in the mid-second century bce.

23  Fuller, “The Twelve,” 221–232, plates xl, xli. 24  See for example the discussions in Steck, “Abfolge,” 249–253; Jones, Formation, 129–139. 25  See especially Guillaume, “Malachi-Jonah,” passim; Steck, “Abfolge,” 249. 26  Pajunen and von Weissenberg, “Book,” 731–751.

Qumran

283

5 Summary The name of the collection of the Twelve Prophets is very ancient and likely originates in the passage from Sir 49:10 cited above. In Jewish writings the name also appears as simply the Twelve. These two forms of the name of the collection are also preserved in early Christian writings of the Greek Church Fathers such as Melito and later Jerome. It is only with the Latin father Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century that the name Minor Prophets is introduced. The evidence for the existence of a coherent collection of the Twelve is considered by most scholars as found only in the mention of the Twelve Prophets in Ben Sira (second century bce). Most scholars assume from this text that the writer knew and used a copy of the Twelve Prophets. Manuscript evidence for the existence of the Twelve is found in the early manuscripts from Qumran. Most scholars have assumed that the fragmentary remains of these manuscripts were originally complete copies of the Twelve Prophets, but the nature of these manuscripts has been questioned by some. The earliest manuscripts, which scholars agree upon being copies of the Twelve Prophets, come from the end of the first century bce. All twelve of the so-called Minor Prophets are both quoted and alluded to in Jewish writings of the Second Temple Period. They are also quoted in the New Testament. There they are apparently understood to be a part of a “not clearly defined and a widely anonymous prophetic tradition.”27 The same seems to be true in the Jewish writings listed above which quote or allude to individual passages in individual books. The Twelve Prophets may only be considered a coherent collection in Jewish writings of the Second Temple Period because they were copied on a single scroll and then only because otherwise they risked being lost due to their brevity. The evidence for the order of the collection at the end of the first century bce is provided by both Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. All of these early manuscripts preserve books in the order later found in the Masoretic Text. The anomalous manuscript, 4Q76/4QXIIa which was thought by the original editor to preserve the order Malachi–Jonah at the end of the collection has been reanalyzed. It is argued that Jonah did not follow Malachi immediately in this manuscript but that they were separated by another composition. The task of this essay was to explore if and how far the Twelve Prophets appear as a coherent entity in the literary materials from Qumran. I have focused mostly on the biblical and non-biblical writings from Qumran, occasionally 27  Utzschneider, “Flourishing Bones,” 291.

284

Fuller

bringing into the picture later evidence in Hebrew and Greek. It is fair to say that in Jewish and Christian writings from the Second Temple Period the collection known as the Twelve Prophets has a dual nature. On the one hand, they were considered as one “book” of the Scriptures for those interested in determining the number and names of the books of the Jewish Scriptures. On the other hand, they were considered and treated as a collection of twelve individual prophetic compositions with an awareness that they derived from different time periods and addressed different issues. Bibliography Allegro, John. DJD V Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186). Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Audet, Jean-Paul. “A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription.” JTS 1 (1950): 135–154. Brooke, George. “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 19–43 in Congress Volume Leiden 2004. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Dods, Marcus. The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: A New Translation: City of God. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871. Elgvin, Torlief. “MS 4612/1. Ḥev(?)Joel (Joel 4.1–5).” Pages 223–232 in Gleanings from the Caves Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. Edited by Torlief Elgvin et al. LSTS 71. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Fuller, Russell E. “The Twelve.” Pages 221–318 in Qumran Cave 4. XV: The Prophets. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Guillaume, Philippe. “A Reconsideration of Manuscripts Classified as Scrolls of the Twelve Minor Prophets (XII).” JHebS 7 (2007). Guillaume, Philippe. “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa).” JHebS 7 (2007). Jones, Barry A. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Lange, Armin and Weigold, Matthias. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea—Jonah. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Pajunen, Mika S. and von Weissenberg, Hanne. “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve.’” JBL 134 (2015): 731–751. Schneider, Dale A. The Unity of the Book of the Twelve. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, 1979. Steck, Odil H. “Zur Abfolge Maleachi-Jona in 4Q76 (4QXIIa).” ZAW 108 (1996): 249–253.

Qumran

285

Strugnell, John. “Notes en Marge du Volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan.’” RevQ 7 (1969): 163–276. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr). Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts.” Pages 139–166 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. New Castle: British Library and Oak Knoll, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. “New Fragments of Amos.” DSD 21 (2014): 3–13. Utzschneider, Helmut. “Flourishing Bones—The Minor Prophets in the New Testament.” Pages 273–292 in Septuagint Research: Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2006. Zingerle, Anton. S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Tractatus super Psalmos. CSEL 22. Vindobonae: Tempsky, 1891.

Chapter 18

The Book of the Twelve in the Septuagint Barry Alan Jones Manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Twelve Minor Prophets preserve the oldest complete witnesses to the text of the Twelve.1 They also provide the most important source of variant readings for the Hebrew text. LXX bears witness to a period in the history of the transmission of the Twelve when diverse textual forms were in circulation. The antiquity of the text underlying LXX may even provide partial evidence for the formation of the Twelve as a collection. As the first translation, LXX provides an important window into how the Minor Prophets were read and interpreted in the earliest period of their reception. Apart from its witness to the Hebrew text, LXX Twelve developed as a literary tradition with a history of transmission and reception all its own. As such, it had an important influence in early Judaism and early Christianity. In the last two decades, it has received renewed attention as a topic of scholarly investigation independent of its witness to the Hebrew text. 1

Manuscript Evidence for LXX Twelve

1.1 Greek Witnesses Before the discoveries of ancient Hebrew manuscripts from the Judean Desert, Christian manuscripts of LXX Twelve provided the oldest textual witnesses, predating medieval Hebrew manuscripts by several centuries. The oldest complete text is the fourth century ce uncial Vaticanus (B). The oldest Christian Greek witness is Codex Washington (W), a third century ce papyrus. W preserves text from each book of the Twelve, though there are numerous gaps and only the final lines of Hosea survived from the front of the codex. All of the oldest Greek manuscripts preserve the Minor Prophets as a single collection of twelve writings, each writing being named and numbered in headings and/or colophons. W, B, and the other major uncials Alexandrinus (A) and Sinaiticus 1  The term Septuagint (LXX) has a wide range of usages. Unless otherwise noted, the designation LXX in this article refers to the earliest Greek translation of the Twelve as represented in the critical edition of Ziegler (Duodocim prophetae) or similar reconstructions. See the discussion in Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 14–17.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_020

Septuagint

287

(S) arrange the first six books in an order that differs from MT. They group the eighth century prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah together, followed by Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah. MT places Joel after Hosea and Obadiah and Jonah between Amos and Micah.2 A secondary witness to the treatment of the Twelve as one book is found in their placement relative to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in ancient codices. In codices A, B, and V, the Twelve are placed prior to the Major Prophets, while in S they are placed after them. Both placements have justification, but the location of the Twelve either before or after the Major Prophets is a result of their identity as a single book. As Tov explained, “Since the Minor Prophets were joined as one unit, there was no option to place some of them before the Major Prophets and others after them.”3 1.2 Evidence from the Judean Desert The discoveries from Qumran and the Judean Desert revolutionized the understanding of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible in general. The discoveries related to the Twelve, however, illustrated the major developments in the textual history of this book in a dramatic way. Fragments of eight manuscripts of the Twelve from Qumran provide the oldest witnesses to the text while also demonstrating a degree of textual diversity among the earliest surviving witnesses. Fuller, editor of the Cave 4 manuscripts in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series, has summarized their dates and textual affinities.4 The two oldest manuscripts, 4QXIIa and 4QXIIb, date to the mid-second century bce. 4QXIIb contains readings that are closely aligned with proto-MT, the consonantal text that formed the basis for MT, while 4QXIIa contains readings similar to protoMT and LXX, and other readings independent of these two traditions. A consensus among scholars dates the translation of LXX Twelve to the middle of the second century bce in Egypt. This date places the Hebrew source text of LXX Twelve in the same general time period with 4QXIIab. Four other manuscripts from the first century bce are mostly similar to proto-MT but also attest some variants similar in nature to LXX. In sum, the manuscripts from Qumran give evidence that both the proto-MT text and texts like the Vorlage of LXX were in use in the mid-second century bce.

2  The eight century ce Codex Venetus (V) has the order Hosea, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah. Hosea, Amos, and Micah are not preserved in S. See Swete, Introduction, 198–199, 227. 3  Tov, Textual Criticism, 130. 4  Fuller, “Text,” 83–85; idem, “Twelve.” For an assessment of Fuller’s conclusions, see Brooke, “Prophets,” 20–25.

288

Jones

The most dramatic discovery for the history of LXX and proto-MT texts of the Twelve and their relationship to one another during the Hellenistic period was the Greek scroll of the Twelve from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr). The scroll, dated to the second half of the first century bce, preserves parts of the books of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah, including the join between Jonah and Micah.5 In his preliminary report on the scroll in 1963, Barthélemy argued that 8ḤevXIIgr represented a revised translation that was dependent on LXX, but that sought to correct it toward a Hebrew text closer to proto-MT.6 The most complete Hebrew manuscript of the Twelve from the Judean Desert originates from Wadi Murabbaʿat (Mur88), discovered among remains associated with Jewish fighters in the Bar Kochba War (132–135 CE). The scroll preserves parts of the books of Joel through Zechariah. It is dated to ca. 100–110 ce.7 It contains a consonantal text almost identical to MT in a manuscript roughly 900 years older than the oldest complete MT manuscript. These discoveries contextualize LXX within the transmission of the Twelve from the mid-second century bce to the mid-third century ce.8 The oldest witnesses, dated to the mid-second century bce, preserve texts similar to protoMT and also texts that varied in some degree from proto-MT. The Vorlage of LXX belonged to this period of textual diversity. By the middle of the first century bce, a recension of LXX was made in the direction of proto-MT, indicating both the desire to have use of the Twelve in Greek and the preferred status of proto-MT among some Jewish groups in Palestine. By the end of the first century ce as attested by Mur88 and similar texts, proto-MT was the primary text form in Palestine and became the only Hebrew text to survive the two Jewish wars with Rome, emerging as the textual base for Rabbinic Judaism and the medieval MT. At the time that proto-MT was emerging as the dominant text form within pre-rabbinical Judaism in Palestine, the Old Greek translation continued to be read, transmitted, altered, and revised, surviving as the textual base in the Greek Christian Bible and developing a complex transmission history of its own.

5  Tov, Prophets, 8. 6  Barthélemy, devanciers. 7  Benoit, “Grottes.” 8  This summary follows the outline in Tov, Textual Criticism, 28–31.

Septuagint

2

289

LXX Twelve as Witness to Development of the Hebrew Text

2.1 The LXX Vorlage and MT Though the text-critical use of LXX is a complex task, several features of LXX Twelve make such use feasible. The Old Greek translation of the Twelve is fairly well preserved in extant Greek manuscripts and the resources for reconstructing it are readily available in critical editions such as the Göttingen edition and its critical apparatus. The translation of LXX Twelve is of a generally good quality and rates highly in the most important criteria of literalness used to evaluate translations for the purpose of textual criticism.9 Another helpful factor is the evidence that the Twelve was the work of a single translator.10 Overall the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX is judged to be very similar to the consonantal text underlying MT. Gelston, editor of the Twelve in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, counted only thirteen texts where LXX preserved the preferred reading.11 Schart described the LXX Vorlage and MT as similar texts that developed in separate directions from a common Hebrew source text.12 The key point in this description is that the alterations of the source text that were made in both LXX and MT were similar to the kind of compositional or editorial activities that produced elements of the biblical text as a whole. The field of textual criticism has increasingly acknowledged evidence for a chronological overlap between the beginning of the period of textual transmission and the end of the period of textual composition.13 LXX Twelve provides evidence of this overlap and of some of the literary methods of composition behind the production of the biblical text. 2.2 Examples of Textual Alteration in LXX Vorlage and MT Some examples of textual alteration in the LXX Vorlage have been identified by evidence from Qumran. For example, LXX Hos 13:4 contains a lengthy plus that expands the MT reading “I am Yhwh your God from the land of Egypt,” 9  See the summary of translation technique for the Twelve as a whole in Jones, Formation, 83–88. For a detailed discussion using Amos as a sample, see Glenny, Meaning, 31–146, and for detailed analysis of Zechariah, see Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 28–124. 10  The essential case was made by Ziegler “Einheit.” The most recent defense of this view is Muraoka, “Defense,” 25–36. Howard, who previously suggested a different translator for Amos 8:12–9:10, now agrees with Muraoka and suggests that differences can be attributed to corrections that made their way into the Greek textual tradition. Howard, “Prophets,” 780–781. 11  Gelston, BHQ, *7. See also the summary of Howard, “Prophets,” 777. 12  Schart, “Dodekapropheton,” 2279; idem, “Versions,” 158–59. 13  Tov, Textual Criticism, 283–326.

290

Jones

to “I am the Lord your God who makes heaven firm and creates earth, whose hands created all the host of the sky. And I did not display them for you to follow after them. And I brought you up from the land of Egypt” (NETS, emphasis added). The phrase “and I brought you up” harmonizes the language of Hosea with Exodus 20:2, an expansion also found at LXX Hos 12:10. The rest of the expansion is similar to doxologies in Amos. 4QXIIc contains portions of the retroverted Hebrew text underlying LXX, indicating that the alteration was in the LXX Vorlage.14 LXX Amos 1:3 preserves a much smaller variant than Hos 13:4. MT reads “because they threshed Gilead with sledges of iron.” LXX, however, reads “because they cut with iron saws those who are pregnant in Gilead.” The phrase “those who are pregnant” is not represented in MT but is found in the near context of Amos 1:13, where it translates the Hebrew participle ‫הרות‬. LXX Amos 1:3 is a clarifying explanation of difficult language by harmonization with a text in the near context. Fragments of Amos 1:3–5 preserved in 5QAmos, however, show that the harmonizing addition of the single word ‫ הרות‬was already present in the LXX Vorlage.15 The tendency of LXX Twelve toward quantitative equivalence of the wording of its Hebrew Vorlage provides evidence of alterations that were made in the transmission of MT. An example is the use of the title ‫“ אדני‬Lord” with the name Yhwh in Amos.16 The title chain occurs in twelve passages in MT Amos in which the second element ‫ אדני‬is not represented by an equivalent word in LXX. Schart concluded that the word ‫ אדני‬was missing in each case in the LXX Vorlage and subsequently inserted for the purpose of harmonization during the transmission of MT. LXX in these cases represents the preferred text. An example of a lengthier textual expansion in MT occurs in Hag 2:4–5. LXX translates Hag 2:4bβ as, “act, for I am with you, says the Lord Almighty.” MT, however, adds the following plus: “the word which I cut with you when you came forth out of Egypt.” There is no clear text-critical reason for the absence of this phrase from LXX. It was an exegetical expansion in MT that provided a direct object for the imperative verb ‫ עׂשה‬that seemed lacking, while also connecting Haggai’s exhortation to work on the Temple with traditions related to the Sinai covenant.17 14  Fuller, “Critical Note,” 343–357. A similar conclusion is likely for LXX Hos 12:10, not preserved in 4QXIIc. 15  Milik, “Textes,” 173. 16  Schart, “Versions,” 161–163. 17  Jones, Formation, 114–118, with discussion of a similar exegetical expansion in LXX Hag 2:14.

Septuagint

291

2.3 Textual Variants Related to the Formation of the Book of the Twelve Among the variants that illustrate the processes of textual alternation in LXX and MT, two are especially significant in the discussion of the formation of the Twelve. The first is Mal 3:22–24.18 Mal 3:22–24 is the conclusion to the book of Malachi and, in the view of many scholars, the Book of the Twelve. 22 Remember the teaching of Moses (‫ )תורת מׁשה‬my servant which I commanded him at Mount Horeb, statutes and ordinances concerning all Israel. 23 Behold I am sending to you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of Yhwh. 24 And he will turn the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with destruction. The location, content, and presumed late date of Mal 3:22–24 have led many scholars to interpret it as a concluding statement not only for Malachi and for the Book of the Twelve, but for the collection of the prophetic corpus.19 Given the importance assigned to Mal 3:22–24, textual differences preserved in LXX have an added significance. There are multiple differences in the three verses. First, LXX refers to Elijah “the Tishbite,” (‫)התׁשבי‬, not Elijah “the prophet” (‫)הנביא‬. The title “Elijah the prophet” occurs only once in LXX (2 Chr 21:12) and only twice in MT (one occurrence in MT, 1 Kgs 18:36, is not present in LXX). “Elijah the Tishbite” is used six other times in MT and LXX (1 Kgs 17:1; 21:17, 28; 2 Kgs 1:3, 8; 9:6). Second, while MT describes the mission of Elijah to “turn the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers,” LXX describes his mission as turning “the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour.” The LXX phrase “heart of a man to his neighbour” may reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage, the idiom ‫איׁש אל רעהו‬, though it may also be a paraphrase of the translator. In numerous places LXX Twelve avoids rote repetition in order to add stylistic variation in Greek.20 The fact that Ben Sira also quoted Malachi’s description of Elijah’s mission differently (“what is written of you … to turn the heart of fathers to sons and to restore the tribes of Jacob” [Sir 48:10]) suggests the fluid nature of this text.

18  Unless otherwise noted, all references to Mal 3:22–24 will be to the verse numbering in MT. 19  For a summary of this discussion and a recent proposal, see van der Toorn, Culture, 252–256. 20  Muraoka, “Introduction,” xiv–xx; Dines, “Minor Prophets,” 442–444.

292

Jones

The most important difference is that v. 23–24 precede v. 22 in LXX. The translator of LXX Twelve only rarely changed the word order of his Vorlage.21 It is most likely, therefore, that the sequence difference was in the Vorlage. Tov has studied multiple examples of sequence differences in textual witnesses and has argued that such differences often provide evidence for the literary history of the passage.22 Sequence differences often occur in texts where an insertion caused uncertainty about the location of the inserted material. In the case of Mal 3:22–24, both v. 22 and v. 23–24 have frequently been labelled secondary on literary-critical grounds. Opinion varies as to whether both units were added together or if they were added at separate times, and if so, in what order. Fuller argued that the Elijah text was added first, and then the Moses text was added later, but in the order preserved in LXX, which he argues to be the older of the two sequences.23 He argued that at a later point, the Elijah verses were transposed to the end of the book, where they were before the Moses text was added, in order to emphasize its eschatological content. The change in title to “Elijah the prophet” may have occurred at this point as well to make explicit the authority of Elijah and also the “canonical” implications of the ending of Malachi. Fuller’s study shows how LXX can provide textual evidence for literary critical analysis. The case of Mal 3:22–24 offers an important perspective on the most significant sequence difference in the Twelve, the varying arrangements of the first six books. The LXX arrangement is only found in Christian manuscripts of the Twelve, raising the question of whether it arose during the transmission of the Greek text or whether it can be traced back to a different order in a Hebrew Vorlage that has only been preserved in LXX. Redaction critical studies of the Twelve have argued that the MT sequence of books is the result of intentional redactional activity and that the MT sequence is integral to the editorial creation of the Book of the Twelve as a literary unit. Based on redactional analysis and the fact that the internal sequence of Hosea–Amos–Micah and Joel–Obadiah–Jonah in LXX are the same in MT, Schart argued that the different order in LXX was secondary to the MT order and likely arose during the translation or inner-Greek transmission of the Twelve.24 Though the arrangement of books in LXX and MT are closely related, analysis of the LXX translation suggests that the LXX translator is the least likely source of the differences. 21  Jones, Formation, 87. 22  Tov, “Differences,” 151–160. 23  Fuller, “Sequence,” 374–376. Fuller follows the argument of Rainer Kessler regarding the two-stage addition of 3:22–24. See Kessler, “Unity,” 235. 24  Schart, “Redaction History,” 37.

Septuagint

293

Though LXX contains examples of free or exegetical translations, especially for difficult texts, in regard to word order it follows MT very closely.25 It is more probable that the LXX sequence of books originated either in the transmission of the Hebrew text before translation or in the transmission of the Greek text subsequent to the translation. An example of a sequence change in the transmission of the Greek text is Codex Venetus, an eighth century uncial containing the sequence Hosea, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah.26 There are no other examples of sequence changes in the Twelve in Greek manuscripts, indicating that the order of books in the Greek tradition was quite stable. An example of a different order within the Hebrew tradition of the Twelve is 4QXIIa, the oldest manuscript of the Twelve from Qumran, dating to the mid-second century bce It preserves parts of Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah. Fuller concluded that Jonah followed Malachi in this scroll. Though the proposed sequence Malachi–Jonah is not physically attested in the fragmentary scroll, it is clear that Malachi was not the final writing on the scroll.27 Outside of the Twelve, there are numerous examples of differences in sequences of textual units both large and small, such as the variant editions of Jeremiah preserved in MT, LXX, and manuscripts from Qumran.28 The close observance of word order in LXX Twelve, the antiquity of the LXX Vorlage, and the evidence of other sequence differences in Hebrew manuscripts of a similar age, suggest that the alternative arrangement of books in LXX was present in the LXX Vorlage. Arguments from the redactional analysis of the Twelve also support this conclusion. Reconstructions of the literary history of the Twelve agree that the sequence of Hosea, Amos, and Micah attested in LXX formed the beginning section of one of the earliest precursors to the Book of the Twelve, a collection of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah referred to as the Book of the Four.29 Tov’s argument that sequence differences often reflect uncertainty about the location of added material to an older corpus may be applied to the differences in the LXX and MT sequences. Redactional studies argue that one or more redactional layers including parts of books such as Joel, 25  Jones, Formation, 87 n. 17. 26  Swete, Introduction, 132. 27  Fuller concluded that the fragments of Jonah were the most likely text following Malachi. Fuller, “Twelve,” 221–231. This conclusion is disputed by Guillaume, “Malachi-Jonah,” who proposed a different reconstruction of the fragments following Malachi and argued that the fragments identified as 4QXIIa were not a manuscript of the Twelve. 28  Tov, Textual Criticism, 286–293. 29  Nogalski, Precursors, 84–89, 278; Schart, “Redaction History,” 42–44; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 51–286.

294

Jones

Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk were part of the editorial development of an existing collection of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. Following Tov’s thesis, it is reasonable that a scribe who knew of a collection containing Hosea, Amos, and Micah retained the sequence of this earlier collection and placed the “newer” redactional material in Joel and other books after Hosea, Amos, and Micah. A copy of the collection preserving the “older” sequence of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and the “newer” material influenced the Vorlage of LXX and was preserved in the Greek tradition. This explanation of the LXX sequence addresses a question not addressed by redactional studies of the Twelve. What happened to the presumed multi-book “precursors” of the Twelve in antiquity? Qumran and LXX provide evidence that earlier editions of texts remained in circulation. It is possible that elements of one of the precursors of the Twelve was preserved in the sequence of Hosea, Amos, and Micah in LXX. The possibility that the arrangements of LXX and MT Twelve circulated concurrently is strengthened by Dines’s study of the LXX translator’s treatment of catchword links between the books of the Twelve.30 Dines studied how catchword links between books were treated by the LXX translator. Most of the linking words can be attested as present in the LXX Vorlage. Not all of the links were treated as important to the translator, however, partly out of translational concerns that outweighed the catchword phenomenon, but also due to the likely difference in sequence of books in the LXX Vorlage. Some words that were catchwords in MT were not translated as such in LXX. For example, the word Edom in MT Amos 9:12, a catchword with Obad 1, was translated as ‫“ ָא ָדם‬humanity,” in LXX. Obadiah, however, does not follow Amos in LXX. Other words that are not identified as catchwords in MT Twelve, however, could function as catchwords in LXX Twelve.31 Therefore, the LXX translator did not seem to be completely indifferent to the catchword phenomenon. Dines cited evidence of three translations in LXX that seem to be aware of links between books that are contiguous in MT (Hos 14:8 and Joel 1:5; Jonah 1:1 and Mic 1:1, and Mic 7:18 and Nah 1:2).32 She suggested from these translations that the translator’s Vorlage contained the sequence of books in MT. This suggestion, however, is not the only explanation for the three translational links she identified. Scholars have identified numerous verbal links between literary units of the Twelve that are not in contiguous books. Dines’s evidence does 30  Dines, “Links.” 31  An example is the word “transgression/transgressors” in Hos 14:10 and Amos 1:3–2:6 (8×). This link is present in both Hebrew and Greek but more prominent in the LXX sequence. Dines, “Links,” 356–357. 32  Dines, “Links,” 360–363.

Septuagint

295

support, however, the possibility that the LXX translator was aware of both the sequence of the Twelve in MT and the sequence of his presumed Vorlage. In summary, the sequence of books in LXX Twelve fits with the evidence from Qumran of multiple textual forms existing together during the earliest period of textual transmission in the third and second centuries bce. It also provides manuscript evidence in support of redactional arguments for an early collection of Hosea, Amos, and Micah that served as a precursor to the Book of the Twelve.33 3

LXX as a Literary Edition of the Twelve

3.1 Literary Coherence of LXX Twelve Beyond its value as a witness to the Hebrew text of the Twelve, LXX Twelve has a literary identity and history of reception all its own. The separate identity of LXX Twelve can be assessed in the coherence of its unique sequence of books. Sweeney compared the meaning of the LXX sequence of the Twelve to its counterpart in MT and argued that LXX Twelve presents an independent version of a coherent Book of the Twelve.34 Hosea, which begins both versions of the Twelve, provides a programmatic introduction to the book as a whole by raising the primary issues of Israel’s compromised covenant relationship and the possibilities of future restoration following judgment. Amos extends Hosea’s critique of the Northern Kingdom, announcing its destruction and foreseeing a restoration of Israel under Davidic rule centred on the Jerusalem Temple. Micah then extends the announced judgment of the Northern Kingdom to the kingdom of Judah, while also envisioning restoration following judgment at the hands of the nations. Through Hosea, Amos, and Micah, the history of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms in the eighth century provided a template for understanding the divine will for Israel in broad thematic terms. The Hosea–Amos–Micah sequence is also united by overlapping chronological information in the superscriptions (Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1) and by a concern for the implications of the fall of the Northern Kingdom for the future of the Southern Kingdom and Jerusalem/Zion. The literary and thematic connections that give a sense of coherence to the LXX sequence of Hosea, Amos, and Micah are also present in the succeeding 33   L XX does not provide evidence for evaluating the place of Zephaniah in a precursor of the Twelve. The place of Zephaniah in a Book of the Four has been disputed by Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” and Levin, “Vierprophetenbuch.” 34  Sweeney, “Sequence,” 56–58.

296

Jones

books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Joel, which follows Micah in LXX, provides another programmatic overview of Israel’s history using the theme of the day of Yhwh and centred on the Jerusalem Temple.35 Joel also introduces the theme of Israel and the nations that is repeated and extended in the next four books in LXX, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Nogalski has argued on the basis of shared verbal connections that the books of Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk were edited together as part of a “Joel layer” that resulted in their inclusion in the Book of the Twelve.36 These four books, though separated in MT, are in closer literary proximity in the LXX sequence of the Twelve. The book of Jonah stands between Joel–Obadiah and Nahum–Habakkuk in LXX. Jonah shares important verbal parallels with Joel, such as the enumeration of the attributes of Yhwh as one who is “gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing,” (Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), and the use of the question “who knows if [God] will turn and relent” in response to human repentance (Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). Jonah also shares with the book of Nahum the subject of the fate of Nineveh. Zephaniah, whose superscription places the prophet within the reign of King Josiah of Judah, announces a message against Judah and Jerusalem that functions in both LXX and MT as the final word of judgment before the fall of the Southern Kingdom and the Babylonian Exile. The books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi then address the post-exilic return and rebuilding of the Temple in both versions of the Twelve. Glenny noted that the LXX Twelve provides a different perspective on the positions of the books of Joel and Zephaniah in the collection as a whole. The LXX arrangement can be seen as tripartite, with three eighth century prophets at the beginning, a series of books addressing specific nations in the middle (Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk), and three post-exilic prophets at the end.37 In this arrangement, Joel and Zephaniah serve as transitional writings before and after the books addressing the nations, with the day of Yhwh theme in Joel and Zephaniah providing a bracketing structure. This tripartite outline is similar to the arrangement of materials in the LXX version of Jeremiah and in the book of Ezekiel. The tendency of the LXX translator to follow the source text very closely means that most of the verbal connections that have been identified as linking words between books are the same in the Greek tradition as in Hebrew.38 35  Sweeney, “Sequence,” 57–58. 36  Nogalski, Processes, 275–278. He also includes Malachi in his “Joel layer.” For additional verbal parallels between Joel, Obadiah, and Nahum, see Jones, Formation, 194–200. 37  Glenny, Hosea, 12. 38  See the thorough discussion in Dines, “Links.”

Septuagint

297

Nevertheless, some links are more prominent in the Greek arrangement. For example, Hos 14:10 ends with a comparison between the righteous and the ungodly (ἀσεβής). This verse is followed immediately in LXX by Amos 1:3–2:6, where a series of eight oracles denounce the ungodliness (ἀσέβεια) of Israel’s neighbouring nations.39 In two cases, proper nouns at the “seams” of books are highlighted in LXX. Idumea is addressed in Joel 4:19 and Obad 1. The name Nineveh occurs at the end of Jonah (4:11) and the beginning of Nahum (1:1). Dines concluded in her study of verbal links in LXX Twelve that “meaningful connections show up when [the] XII are read in Septuagint order, in Hebrew as well as in Greek.”40 3.2 The Greek Language of LXX Twelve LXX Twelve has a dual nature as a translation of the Hebrew text and as a text in Greek with its own transmission and readership. The Greek is described as “translation Greek,” meaning that it is constrained by a desire to represent its Hebrew source accurately at the expense of Greek literary style. As a result, there are numerous literal translations of Hebrew idioms, both verbal and grammatical in nature. An example of verbal literalism is representation of Hebrew prepositions using the noun ‫ פנים‬by the Greek word πρόσωπον. An example of literalism on the grammatical level is the translation of the emphatic use of the Hebrew infinitive absolute in Hebrew by two Greek verb forms of the same root, as in Hos 1:2 (‫ = זנה תזני‬ἐκπορνεύουσα ἐκπορνεύσει).41 Despite the constraints of the Hebrew source text, the translator found ways to incorporate elements of Greek literary style into the translation. For example, though Hebrew style is characterized by repetition of key words, LXX Twelve often introduces variation of Greek terms for repeated Hebrew words. In Amos 1:3–2:6, for example, the Hebrew preposition ‫ על‬is used eight times to introduce the transgressions of the nations. LXX translates ‫ על‬alternately by ἀνθ’ ὧν and ἕνεκα throughout the series.42 Another example is the translation of the idiomatic exhortation “set your heart” used in Hag 1:5, 7; 2:15, 18 (2×), and represented in a plus in LXX Mal 1:1. The series of six verbs follows the pattern τάξατε, θέσθε, θέσθε, ὑποτάξατε, θέσθε, and θέσθε.43

39  Glenny, Hosea, 8; Dines, “Links,” 356–357. 40  Dines, “Links,” 358. 41  A list of examples of literal translations of Hebrew idioms is provided in Muraoka, “Introduction,” xvi–xviii. 42  Muraoka, “Introduction,” xix; Dines, “Inventions,” 34–37. 43  For other examples of variations that span multiple books within the Twelve, see Dines, “Inventions,” 37–40.

298

Jones

An example of the use of repetition to mark a structural unit is found in LXX Mic 1:2 and 7:18. In Mic 1:2, LXX translates ‫ לעד‬correctly as εἰς μαρτύριον “as a witness.” In Mic 7:18, LXX also translates ‫ לעד‬as εἰς μαρτύριον, while MT vocalizes the word as ‫“ ְל ַעד‬forever.” The translation creates an inner-Greek inclusio for the book of Micah.44 Dines has catalogued similar stylistic and structural features, some unique to LXX Twelve, including the alternation of Greek word pairs to form small, triadic or chiastic constructions, and intentionally varied word pairs that span substantial units of text.45 She also highlighted LXX Amos 9:11 as evidence that the translator was capable of an elegant Greek style.46 The translator has rendered the two Hebrew verb pairs ‫אקים … ובניתיה‬ (“I will raise … and I will repair”) and ‫“( אקים ובניתיה‬I will raise and I will build”) by repeating the single Greek verb pair ἀναστήσω … ἀνοικοδομήσω, with each of the four verbs repeating the prefix ἀνα-. The result is a degree of parallelism, symmetry, alliteration, and assonance that is greater than in the original text. 3.3 The Theology of LXX Twelve Glenny’s analysis of LXX Amos represents well the theological perspective of LXX Twelve as a whole.47 The translator’s primary focus was to represent the Hebrew text as accurately as possible. At the same time, the translator read the text in the context of the historical and religious circumstances of his own times. Evidence of his own theological views as distinct from the Hebrew text emerge only occasionally and primarily through translations of difficult texts. Nevertheless, the result is often a distinctive emphasis that can be detected across the span of the Twelve as a whole. 3.3.1 Scripture The most prominent theological conviction of the translator is perhaps the one most easily overlooked, namely, the importance of the prophetic text. Alongside the literary and thematic unity of the Twelve, the Greek translation reveals the additional category of canonical unity. Reverence for the prophetic text is clearly seen in the fidelity to the Vorlage and in the effort to render it faithfully. In translating difficult passages containing unique or unknown words or phrases, the translator used a variety of methods including contextual clues, general translational equivalents when the precise wording was

44  Utzschneider, “Michaias/Micha,” 2365. 45  Dines, “Inventions,” 23–49. 46  Dines, Septuagint, 55–56. 47  Glenny, Meaning, 257–259.

Septuagint

299

uncertain, and, when necessary, double translations, in an effort to represent the text as accurately as possible. Some renderings make explicit the authoritative status of the prophets in the eyes of the translator. Schart noted that in Amos 5:1, LXX translated the Hebrew exhortation “hear this word that I take up over you” as “this word of the Lord,” emphasizing Amos’s prophetic status.48 Likewise, in Amos 7:14, Amos’s declaration “I am not a prophet” was translated “I was no prophet,” signifying that Amos was a canonical prophet in the eyes of the translator’s community. In the oracle in Zech 13:2 announcing a future day when Yhwh would “cut off the names of the idols from the land and they would no longer be remembered, and also the prophets,” LXX added the qualification “false prophets,” possibly to clarify that the names of the canonical prophets would not be stricken from memory. LXX Amos 3:7 provides another clue to the importance of the prophets for the translator’s community. MT states, “The Lord Yhwh does not do a thing unless he reveals his counsel to his servants the prophets.” LXX translates the word “counsel” as παιδείαν “instruction.” The prophets transmit divine instruction. The word παιδεία and cognates are, in fact, thematic words in LXX Twelve.49 LXX Hos 5:2 introduces the concept of Yhwh as “the teacher” of his people, a concept absent from the Hebrew. The idea of Yhwh as teacher and disciplinarian of Israel portrays the judgments against Israel and Judah in Hosea and the rest of the Twelve as having a disciplinary and instructional purpose that rewards careful study.50 3.3.2 Eschatology The concepts of Yhwh as teacher and prophets as bearers of instruction shed some light on the paradox between the translator’s strict literalism on the one hand and his freedom to paraphrase and contemporize certain texts. Van der Kooij argued that the translator saw the prophetic text as a source of information about the meaning of past events, hence the precision in preserving the meaning of their words, and also as a source of instruction about events in the present and the near and distant future.51 He compares some of the freer translations in LXX Twelve to contemporizing interpretations of prophecy in Daniel 9 concerning Jeremiah or similar interpretations in the Qumran pesharim. The translator was a mediator of the prophets’ instruction acting in 48  Schart, “Versions,” 167–168. See also the comments on Amos 1:1 in Glenny, Amos, 41. 49  Dines, “Minor Prophets,” 449. 50  Bons, “Hosea/Osee,” 2288, 2303–2304. 51  Van der Kooij, “Septuagint,” 56–57.

300

Jones

continuity with the prophets themselves. The translation was occasionally a vehicle for instruction about events in both the near and remote future. Clues to the translator’s eschatology emerge in difficult texts where the Greek underscored and expanded themes that were latent within the Hebrew text. One such text is Amos 9:12, a passage that follows the promise in 9:11 to restore and rebuild the “booth of David which has fallen.” LXX, in a reading with slight modifications to the consonantal text of MT, describes the results of the restoration to be that “the remnant of humanity and all the nations over whom my name has been called will seek [me], says the Lord.” The vision of a restored Davidic rule and a restored Zion drawing the nations to worship the God of Israel appears in other texts that differ from the reading in MT. LXX Zech 9:10–11 announces the coming of a saving king who will receive “abundance and peace from the nations” and “will reign over the waters … the sea … and the rivers …” In the background are texts in the Twelve that depict the nations coming to Zion to worship Yhwh (Mic 4:1–4; Zech 2:15/LXX 2:11; 8:22; 14:16), as well as texts like LXX Nah 1:12, Hab 3:10, and Zech 14:3–4, 8–9 that employ the cosmological imagery of divine combat.52 3.3.3 God as Παντοκράτωρ A translational choice with clear theological significance is the rendering of the Hebrew title “Yhwh of hosts” as “the Lord Almighty” (κύριος ὁ παντοκράτωρ). LXX uses this equivalent for all 107 occurrences of ‫ צבאות‬in the Twelve. It is one of the primary pieces of evidence for a single translator of the Twelve.53 Glenny highlighted the theological significance of the three uses of παντοκράτωρ in LXX Twelve where there is no equivalent in MT.54 Two of them (Amos 5:8 and 9:6) are in doxologies that emphasize Yhwh’s identity as creator. The third is at the end of Amos (9:15) where it translated the Hebrew title “Yhwh your God.” This translation reveals the translator’s emphasis on the universal sovereignty of Yhwh as God not only of Israel but of “the remnant of humanity and all the nations” (LXX Amos 9:12). Some of the theological ideas accompanying the title παντοκράτωρ are visible in the translation of Amos 4:13. There the refrain “the Lord God Almighty is his name” concludes a doxology that praises the sovereignty of Yhwh. Where MT reads “he declares to humanity what are his thoughts,” (‫)מה־ׂשחו‬, LXX reads 52  Fabry, “Lord,” 151–165. Eidsvåg, Greek Translation, 166–171, describes the translator’s changes in LXX Zech 9:9–10 as historical allusions to the beginning of the Hasmonean dynasty rather than eschatological interpretations. 53  Dogniez, “Dieu,” 22–23. For the history of the term and its use outside of LXX, see Dafni, “Παντοκράτωρ,” 443–447. 54  Glenny, Meaning, 187–188.

Septuagint

301

“he declares to humanity his anointed” (‫)מׁשיחו‬. The theological concepts of sovereignty, creation, revelation, universalism, messianism, and eschatology associated with the title παντοκράτωρ coalesce in this text in a unique way.55 The literary and theological tendencies embedded in LXX Twelve are a witness to the understanding of the Twelve among Jewish communities in the mid-second century bce. To the literary and thematic unity inherited from the compilers of the Twelve, LXX added a new level of intertextuality in Greek and a heightened sense of theological unity derived from their status as prophetic scripture. The enhanced and added meanings resulting from translation continued in the Christian communities that accepted LXX Twelve as scripture and transmitted them to later generations as a continuous tradition. As a result, Lim has argued that Christian readers should continue to use LXX Twelve alongside MT as a scriptural resource for Christian theology and practice.56 Recent research suggests that continued study will reward the kind of intertextual analysis of LXX Twelve that has been beneficial in the study of MT over the past three decades. Bibliography Barthélemy, Dominic. Les devanciers d’Aquila. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Benoit, Pierre T. et al. eds. Les Grottes de Murabbaʿat. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Bons, Eberhard. “Hosea/Osee.” Pages 2287–2338 in Psalmen bis Daniel. Vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum greichischen Alten Testament. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel­gesellschaft, 2011. Brooke, George J. “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 19–43 in Congress Volume Leiden 2004. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Dafni, Evangeline G. “Παντοκρατωρ in Septuagint Amos 4:13: Zur Theologie der Sprache der Septuaginta.” Pages 443–456 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Martin A. Knibb. Leuven: Leuven University, 2006. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2004. Dines, Jennifer M. “Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 23–48 in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic

55  For the eschatological dimension of Amos 4:13, see Glenny, Meaning, 236–240. For the significance in Christian theological debate, see Dafni, “Παντοκράτωρ,” 451–454. 56  Lim, “Version.”

302

Jones

Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Eberhard Bons. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Dines, Jennifer M. “Verbal and Thematic Links between the Books of the Twelve in Greek and their Relevance to the Differing Manuscript Sequences.” Pages 355– 370 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Dines, Jennifer M. “The Minor Prophets.” Pages 438–455 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Dogniez, Cecile. “Le Dieu des armées dan le Dodekapropheton: quelques remarques sur une initiative de traduction.” Pages 19–36 in IX Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard E. Taylor. SBLCS 45. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997. Eidsvåg, Gunnar M. The Old Greek Translation of Zechariah. VTSup 170. Leiden, Boston, MA: Brill, 2016. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “The Lord over Mighty Waters.” Pages 151–165 in Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by Hans Ausloss et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Fuller, Russell. “A Critical Note on Hosea 12:10 and 13:4.” RB 98,3 (1991): 343–357. Fuller, Russell. “The Twelve: 4QXIIa, 4QXIIb, 4QXIIc, 4QXIId, 4QXIIe, 4QXIIf, 4QXIIg.” Pages 221–318 in Qumran Cave 4, X. The Prophets. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Fuller, Russell. “The Text of the Twelve Minor Prophets.” CurBS 7 (1999): 81–95. Fuller, Russell. “The Sequence of Malachi 3:22–24 in the Greek and Hebrew Textual Traditions: Implications for the Redactional History of the Minor Prophets.” Pages 371–380 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Gelston, Anthony. BHQ: The Twelve Minor Prophets. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft, 2010. Glenny, Edward. Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Techniques and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos. VTSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Glenny, Edward. Amos: A Commentary based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2013. Glenny, Edward. Hosea: A Commentary based on Hosea in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2013. Guillaume, Philippe. “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa).” JHebS 7 (2007). Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis.” Pages 325–335 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceeding of the Oxford Old

Septuagint

303

Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 531. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Howard, George. “The Twelve Prophets: To the Reader.” Pages 777–781 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. Edited by Albert Pietsma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Jones, Barry A. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995. Kessler, Rainer. “The Unity of Malachi and Its Relation to the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 223–236 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Septuagint of Zechariah as a Witness to an Early Interpretation of the Book.” Pages 53–64 in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence. Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–235. Lim, Bo H. “Which Version of the Twelve Prophets Should Christians Read? A Case for Reading the LXX Twelve Prophets.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7,1 (2013): 21–36. Milik, Józef T. “Textes de la Grotte 5Q.” Pages 167–197 in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumran. DJD 3. Edited by Maurice Baillet et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “In Defense of the Unity of the LXX Minor Prophets.” AJBI 15 (1989): 25–36. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Introduction aux douze petits prophètes.” Pages i–xxiii in Les Douze Prophètes—Osée. Vol. 23,1 of La Bible d’Alexandrie. Edited by Eberhard Bons. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Schart, Aaron. “Reconstructing the Redactional History of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 34–48 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Schart, Aaron. “The Jewish and the Christian Greek Versions of Amos.” Pages 157–178 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Jewish Greek Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2006.

304

Jones

Schart, Aaron. “Dodekapropheton/Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. Einleitung.” Pages 2275–2286 in Psalmen bis Daniel. Vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum greichischen Alten Testament. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Tov, Emanuel. “Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and their Ramifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible.” JNSL 13 (1987): 151–160. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Ḥever: 8ḤebXIIgr. DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012. Utzschneider, Helmut. “Michaias/Micha.” Pages 2362–2380 in Psalmen bis Daniel. Vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum greichischen Alten Testament. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Ziegler, Joseph. “Die Einheit des Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 29–42 in Syllogue: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. Edited by idem. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Ziegler, Joseph. ed. Duodecim prophetae. Septuaginta 13. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Chapter 19

The Targum of the Book of the Twelve Gudrun E. Lier Targum Twelve Prophets or Tg. Minor Prophets is a subdivision of the Jewish Aramaic Bible to the Latter Prophets in Tg. Jonathan of the Prophets. It contains the Aramaic renderings of the twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). The study of Targum began in the nineteenth century and continues to capture the interest of critical scholars with regard to questions of oral and written Jewish Targums, the Sitz im Leben of Targum, and its relationship to para-biblical literature. This contribution critically reviews the developmental stages of Tg. Jonathan to the Prophets/Tg. Minor Prophets through the prism of theological thrust, Aramaic dialect, and variant readings.1 It furthermore examines how rabbinic literature is reflected in Tg. Minor Prophets and what the implications are for understanding their use in the religious context of formative Judaism. Together, these aspects provide a framework for determining the early and later developmental stages of Tg. Minor Prophets, the function of targumic rendering in the Jewish religious context of the Second Temple period, and the role it played when classical rabbinic Judaism took shape.2 1

Early Written Prototypes of Targum Jonathan/Targum Minor Prophets

Since Tg. Jonathan is passed on as an entirety within rabbinic tradition, it makes sense that Rabbis also influenced the redactional process of Tg. Minor Prophets.3 It is therefore fitting to consider at this stage some of the aspects that scholars have contemplated in connection with Tg. Jonathan, before the study continues with a particular focus on the development of Tg. Minor Prophets. 1  Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 1, submit that “the limited variation in the manuscript tradition of Targum Jonathan suggests that once the text assumed its final form great care was taken to preserve this form.” 2  See Smelik, “Targum,” 368. 3  Cf. Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 208, 219–227.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_021

306

Lier

There is now little doubt that the early stages of targumic rendering fit the context of the Second Temple period and even prior, in which the innovative approach was at its peak.4 Although most scholars place the initial composition of Tg. Jonathan at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 135 ce, Paul Flesher and Bruce Chilton argue that the production of the earliest framework of Tg. Jonathan fits the context of the first-century scribal class in Jerusalem, a school associated with the temple.5 The scribal class was seen as the interpreters of the biblical prophets. This is supported from the widespread substitution of “prophets” with “scribes” in Tg. Jonathan, e.g., Tg. Zechariah 7:3 renders ‫“ ואל־הנביאים‬and to the prophets” at Zech 7:3 with ‫“ לספריא‬and to the scribes.”6 Further, in a recent study, Arie van der Kooij proposes that the chief priests were among the scholarly elite, who concerned themselves with the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures in pre-Destruction times. They were the ones invested with the authority to interpret ancient prophecies in adaptation to their own time and in the process produced Tg. Onkelos and Tg. Jonathan.7 In a similar manner, Rabbis may have emended Tg. Jonathan between 73 and 135 ce to extend their influence and to confirm their authority in the context of the Beit Midrash.8 Ingo Kottsieper’s contribution is particularly insightful regarding the use of written Targums. He points out that fragments of Aramaic Bible translation have been found at Qumran, which date back to the second and first centuries bce. Comparable sources stand behind the development of later Palestinian Galilean Targum traditions.9 Recent research agrees well with the picture that Tg. Onkelos was fundamentally complete at the beginning of the third century while the extant copy of Tg. Jonathan enforced itself as “canonical” not much later.10 To be sure, rabbinic literature demonstrates that Tg. Jonathan is the 4  See Bowker, Targums, 15; Gordon, Studies, 138–146; Joosten, “Targumismes,” 54–71; Kottsieper, “Aramäische,” 17–53; Lier, Redaction, 66; Smelik, Targum, 74–75; Breuer, “Aramaic,” 605–606. 5  Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 274. 6   Cf. also t–Hos 4:4; t–Sam 10:5; t–2 Kgs 23:2; t–Jer 26:7. See Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 3. 7  Van der Kooij, “Standardization,” 71–78, specifically 75. Cf. also Alexander, “Jewish,” 17. Hengel, “Scriptures,” 163, submits that the old-style prophet became obsolete in the postexilic period, adding that “The exegete and scholar, normally of priestly descent, took over the function of the prophet.” Golomb, Grammar, 8, describes Targum as a highly technical piece of literature, which has structure, cohesion, literary technique, and above all translation technique; “it is not a vernacular translation.” 8  Smelik, Targum, 36–41, 74; cf. Kaufman, “Job,” 325; Lier, Redaction, 63–78; Schiffman, Text, 179; Tov, “Myth,” 37–45. 9  Cf. Houtman and Sysling, Targum; Breuer, “Aramaic,” 603–605. 10  Cf. Breuer, “Aramaic,” 602–603.

Targum

307

result of a long period of redaction due to the ongoing correlation between the Hebrew and Aramaic text.11 It therefore cannot be excluded that divergences from the Hebrew Vorlage in Tg. Jonathan/Tg. Minor Prophets, are the result of Hebrew variant readings.12 The aftermath of the Destruction and the Bar Kokhba revolt were most likely among the most forceful impetuses for properly assembling and writing down circulating oral interpretative traditions. Certain scholars have pointed out that “some catastrophe in history would cause a literature to be committed to writing” in an effort to preserve traditions in the aftermath of wars and catastrophes.13 While such a situation did indeed contribute to the collection and redaction of Oral Torah, the directive in rabbinic writings not to fixate texts on a word-for-word basis, should not be understood to exclude the existence of written Targum traditions in Second Temple times.14 The main reason for the prohibition on writing was to ensure and preserve openness to change and development in the instruction of Torah. In early temple schools, targumic rendering may have played a role in the course of live discussion to educate young priests in tora.15 In the Mishnaic period, the prohibition on writing should be understood in the synagogue context, where Targum had its Sitz im Leben as part of Oral Tora.16 Significantly, David Golomb points out that the recitation of Targum in the synagogue service involved memorizing a fixed traditional, authorized Aramaic version, which even a child could do.17 Golomb asserts that this must imply a written text.18 The prohibition on writing was to restrict reading the Aramaic version from a written text in the synagogue service in the post-Mishnaic period. The reader was forbidden to prompt the interpreter (meturgeman) to ensure the audience understood that targum was not included in the Written Torah.19 The fact that written copies were in circulation for the purpose of private devotional study and in the school system, attests that the purpose of Targum was not to provide 11  Gordon, Studies, 62–73, 130–151. See also Lier, “Ezra,” 62–70. 12  Cf. Smelik, “Targum,” 372–373. 13  See Safrai, “Torah,” 47; Schiffman, Text, 179. 14  Cf. Smelik, Targum, 41. 15  Alexander, “Jewish,” 18; cf. also Flesher, “Legacy,” 467–508; Lier, Redaction, 63–64; cf. Safrai, “Torah,” 45–69, specifically 49. 16  Cf. Alexander, “Jewish,” 18; Golomb, Grammar, 7; see y. Meg. 4, 74d; Meg. 32a and Giṭ. 60b; Qidd. 49a; Klein, “Aramaic,” 4; Lier, Redaction, 20–80[64]; eadem, Review, 1199–1201; Safrai, “Torah” [38]45–69; Goldberg, “Mishna,” 212. 17  Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 285–324, specifically 323. 18  Golomb, Grammar, 5–7. 19  Golomb, Grammar, 6; Fraade, “Views,” 257–260; cf. Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 10, 12.

308

Lier

a biblical text for the unlearned masses in their own vernacular.20 Albertina Houtman and Harry Sysling agree with Rimon Kasher and Philip Alexander that Tg. Jonathan was used in the schools for the acquisition of Hebrew by nonnative speakers and in the Beit Midrash by scholars for exegesis.21 The early stages of targumic transmission have been demonstrated compellingly in a recent publication The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, edited by Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten (2014). The different contributions in this volume demonstrate how multiple factors played a part and influenced the adaptation of targumic rendering in the early stages of transmission. These factors include the development of Aramaic as a cult language, similarities between the Septuagint and the Targums, theological and religious conceptions, translation of Hebrew expressions, Aramaic glosses that were known in tradition, corresponding historical and religious motifs between exegetical traditions, Aggadah, as well as interpretative practices and traditions of previous generations.22 It is reasonable to conclude that Tg. Jonathan’s individual interpretations may have ancient roots in Second Temple literature.23 From their study of Alternative Targum Traditions, Houtman and Sysling propose that a Palestinian Targum tradition, Tosefta Targums existed side by side with Tg. Jonathan between the second and the fifth centuries.24 Targumic material from both Tg. Jonathan and the Tosefta Targums, as well as other circulating variant traditions, were used by rabbinic scholars. Tg. Jonathan was consulted in the Beit Midrash by scholars as an authoritative translation while the deviating Targum traditions served to render the liturgical reading interpretatively in the synagogue.25 Its final redaction was probably carried out in the fourth century in Babylonia where the highest esteem was bestowed on this revised edition.26 2

Exegetical Frameworks in Targum Minor Prophets

To date, only Tg. Zephaniah and Tg. Malachi have received individual attention, apart from the collective outline and English translation of Tg. Minor Prophets 20  Golomb, Grammar, 8; Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 10. 21  Kasher, Toseftot, 63; Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 36–39, 247; cf. Alexander, “Rabbis,” 71–89; Smelik, Targum, 40–41. 22  Cf. Breuer, “Aramaic,” 605–606. 23  Cf. Smelik, “Targum,” 371–374; Smelik, Targum, 73–74. 24  Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 244–249. 25  Cf. Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 247. 26  Smelik, Targum, 43, for a detailed overview of research on the early history of Targum Jonathan, see 41–75.

Targum

309

by Kevin Cathcart and Robert Gordon (1989).27 Nonetheless, research has shown that Tg. Minor Prophets exhibit a progressive composition.28 The developmental phases are mainly observable from the different theological strata that may be present in a Targum, such as pre-Destruction conceptions, as well as Tannaitic and Amoraic themes, which became inherently part of interpretative levels under the influence of talmudic discussions from Palestine and/or Babylonia. Even so, specifying developmental strata within extant Targumim remains a subjective endeavour since targumic renderings from different historical and social contexts may have been editorially combined, juxtaposed, and interwoven in incongruous ways.29 Ahuva Ho attributes the emphasis on the separation of Judah and the Davidic kings from foreigners in Targum, to an early stage of translation.30 In Tg. Zephaniah 3:1, Ho discerns an opportunity to criticize the leaders of Jerusalem during the late Hasmonean period up to 70 ce, while the denunciation of corrupt judges, whose fate will be exile (t–Zeph 3:15), indicates any time before and after 70.31 Echoes of the destruction of the Second Temple with the social, political, and religious upheavals during the Roman occupation, as well as allusions to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, are indicative of the Tannaitic phase (t–Zeph 1:10, 14b, 17b).32 Criticism of the Romans and the Hellenised Jews with notoriously corrupt judges and leaders, point to the third century (t–Zeph 1:7; 3:1–4, 5, 13, 15).33 Possibly an echo from the Tannaitic phase at Tg. Zechariah 12:10, a Targumic Tosefta from the margin of the Codex Reuchlinianus speaks eschatologically of a mortally wounded Messiah son of Ephraim in confrontation with Gog at the gate of Jerusalem.34 By contrast, the description of Messiah’s name at Tg. Zechariah 4:7 as ‫“ דאמיר שׁמיה מלקדמין‬whose name was stated long ago,” may 27  Ho, Targum; van Zyl, “Translation”; Lier, “Translation”; Cathcart and Gordon, Targum. 28  Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 226–227, discern four levels of exegetical interpretations in Targum Minor Prophets. Cf. Ho, Targum, 420. 29  Cf. Ho, Targum, 420; Fraade, “Targum,” 396. 30  Ho, Targum, 421, notes that this is a subject of utmost importance within the Qumran community. 31  Ho, Targum, 423. 32  Smelik, Targum, 74, submits we possess definite proof of fairly extensive editing of the Targum in the Tannaitic period. Smelik dates the formation of a basic stage of Targum Jonathan between 70 and the end of the second century ce, but emphasises that it was by no means unchangeable at that time. 33  Ho, Targum, 421. 34  For the Codex Reuchlinianus marginal text, see Sperber, latter prophets, 495. For a comprehensive discussion of this Targumic Tosefta, see Mitchell, “Messiah,” 221–232, 240–241. For the dating of this Targumic Tosefta, cf. Mitchell, “Messiah,” 230; Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 221.

310

Lier

be an Aramaic motif (cf. t–Mic 5:1; t–Zech 4:7; cf. t–Zech 6:12–13; t–Mic 5:1; t–Hos 3:5).35 A variant reading at Tg. Malachi 1:1, which has the editorial addition ‫דיתקרי‬ ‫“ שמיה עזרא ספרא‬whose name is Ezra the scribe” links up with the rabbinic appraisal of Ezra as priest-scribe at b. Sanh. 21b and 22a.36 These rabbinic comments in the Bavli suggest that Tg. Malachi may have been subjected to a redactional process in Babylonia before the third century.37 An indication for a post-Destruction setting in Tg. Minor Prophets is the manner in which the Shekinah theme is introduced independent of the biblical text; either as a present reality or a future expectation (t–Hab 2:20; t–Zeph 3:15; t–Mal 3:12).38 After the fall of Jerusalem, the concept of the Shekinah denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God in association with the cult. In this regard, Targums Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi reveal hints of a merger between the Tannaitic phase and the Amoraic period. References to the removal of the Shekinah in Tg. Minor Prophets are for the most part found in Tg. Hosea (t–Hos 2:5; 5:6, 15; 9:12), whereas references to the return of the Shekinah either allude to the future or express God’s pleasure, choice, or promise to restore the Shekinah to his people (t–Hos 2:25; t–Joel 3:27; 4:17; t–Hab 2:20; t–Zeph 3:5, 15; t–Hag 1:8; t–Zech 2:14, 15; 3:2; 9:1, 8).39 In Tannaitic exegesis, with the memory of the Second Temple still fresh in mind, the focus is prominent on the restoration of the Sanctuary (‫( )בית מקדשא‬t–Hag 1:2, 9, 14; t–Zech 1:16; 3:7; 7:3; 8:3; 9:8; 14:20–21; t–Mal 1:10; 2:12; 3:10). The Shekinah 35   Lier, “Targum,” 627; cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 6–8; Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 221. 36  b. Sanh. 21b–22a: “It has been taught: R. Jose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, And Moses went up unto God, and of Ezra it is written, He, Ezra, went up from Babylon. As the going up of the former refers to the [receiving of the] Law, so does the going up of the latter. Concerning Moses, it is stated: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments; and concerning Ezra, it is stated: For Ezra had prepared his heart to expound the law of the Lord [his God] to do it and to teach Israel statutes and judgments. And even though the Torah was not given through him, its writing was changed through him, as it is written: And the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic character and interpreted into the Aramaic [tongue]. And again it is written, And they could not read the writing nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Further, it is written: And he shall write the copy [mishneh] of this law, in writing which was destined to be changed. Why is it called Ashshurith? Because it came with them from Assyria.” Cf. Hengel, “Scriptures,” 161–164. 37  Lier, “Ezra,” 15–25; cf. Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 194–234, 241; Kottsieper, “Aramäische,” 18–27; Smelik, Targum, 74. 38  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 5–6, 16–18. 39  Gordon, Studies, 133–134.

Targum

311

will return to the ‫“ בית מקדשא‬Sanctuary” in response to repentance (t–Hag 1:8; t–Zech 2:9, 14; 3:2; 8:3; 9:1, 2, 8; 10:10; t–Mal 3:12), but the Messiah’s advent is delayed due to Israel’s sinful state (t–Zech 4:7; t–Mic 4:8). Robert Gordon points out that the two themes, land and divine presence (Shekinah), are expressed in a highly standardized and intertwined manner.40 Thus Judah is the land of divine presence (t–Hos 9:3; t–Mic 3:11) and is more particularly described as ‫“ ארע בית שכינתי‬the land of the house of the Shekinah” (t–Hos 2:25; cf. t–Zeph 3:7; t–Zech 9:1; t–Mal 3:12). The Memra concept (‫“ מימרא‬Word” of God), often with pronominal suffix (my/his/your Memra), is conspicuous in Tg. Minor Prophets (e.g., t–Hos 1:7; t–Joel 2:11; t–Amos 5:14; t–Obad 18; t–Jonah 3:5; t–Mic 1:2; t–Nah 1:7; t–Hab 3:2; t–Zeph 3:2; t–Hag 1:12; t–Zech 4:6; t–Mal 3:5 etc.).41 By comparison, the expression ‫“ מימרי בסעדכון‬My Memra is your support” celebrates the conciliatory care of God for the exiles when they return to his Torah (t–Hag 1:13; 2:4; t–Hos 11:11; 13:9; t–Zech 10:5; cf. t–Hos 1:9). A stage of revision by the Amoraim during the late third and fourth centuries entertains a more eschatological outlook where the Messiah will be revealed with the return of the house of Judah from exile, and deliver Zion from the children of the nations.42 Prayer is equated with sacrifice (t–Hos 14:3; t–Joel 2:14; t–Mal 1:11).43 At Tg. Jonah 2:10, prayer is celebrated as means to save the soul: ‫“ פורקן נפשׁי בצלו‬the deliverance of my soul is by prayer” (cf. t–Amos 7:4). The addition at Tg. Malachi 1:11b ‫“ וצלותכון כקרבן דכי‬and your prayer is like a pure offering before me,” is echoed in a saying by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, a first generation Amora (ca. 220–260), that prayers parallel offerings (b. Ber. 26b, ‫)תפלות כנגד תמידין‬.44 Targums Hosea, Amos, Nahum, Obadiah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Zechariah show a further development of exilic theology with the institution of Torah as the basic law (t–Zech 13:1; t–Mic 7:14; t–Obad 18); the synagogue as house of justice (t–Amos 5:14; 6:3; t–Zech 9:17), Jerusalem as the centre of worship (t–Zeph 3:14; t–Zech 2:8, 16; 8:3; t–Mic 4:2, 8), the restoration of the land with the ingathering of the exiles (t–Amos 9:14; t–Zeph 3:10; t–Zech 10:8), the breaking of the yoke of the nations (t–Nah 1:13; 3:18; t–Zech 9:15; t–Mic 2:13; 7:11) and the extermination of the wicked (t–Zeph 1:18; t–Nah 1:8). 40  Gordon, Studies, 130–132. 41  For a detailed discussion on the Memra concept, see Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 4; Smelik, Targum, 107–109. 42  Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 226. 43  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 8. 44  Cf. Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 219–220; Churgin, Targum, 28.

312

Lier

The notion of life and judgment after death in conjunction with the coming of the Messiah is prominent in Tg. Minor Prophets. With the coming of their anointed One (‫) ְמ ִשׁ ֲיחהֹון‬, the dead shall be resurrected (‫( )ייחון מיתיא‬t–Hos 14:8; cf. t–Zech 3:7), and the wicked will be handed over to Gehinnam (‫ורשׁיעיא‬ ‫( )יתמסרון לגיהנם‬t–Hos 14:10; cf. t–Mal 3:6; t–Nah 1:8).45 The frequent mention of the Aramaic term ‫“ כנשׁתא‬congregation/synagogue” in Tg. Minor Prophets, appears to associate synagogues with targumic rendering (t–Amos 8:13; t–Mic 1:13; t–Nah 2:9; t–Zeph 3:14; t–Hag 2:14). The arrangement at Tg. Amos 5:12 where the synagogue is used as a courtroom ‫ודין‬ ‫“ חשׂיכיא בבית כנישׁתכון מסטן‬and turning aside the justice of the needy in your synagogues,” is reminiscent of the first century setting of the New Testament (Matt 10:17; Luke 12:11).46 The Life Setting of the synagogue is furthermore clearly reflected in m. Meg. 4:4. This rabbinic maxim points to the reading of the Haftarah and its interpretation by the meturgeman.47 Targums Joel, Jonah, and Habakkuk emphasize aspects of exilic theology in a more individual mode, such as personal repentance (t–Joel 1:14, 2:13–14; t–Jonah 3:9), the future restoration of the ‫“ בית מקדשׁא‬Sanctuary” following repentance by the priests (t–Joel 1:9, 13, 14, 4:18; t–Hab 2:20), personal prayer (t–Hab 1:2; 2:1; 3:1–2; t–Jonah 1:14; 2:3; 2:10), and the deliverance of the remnant from the enemies (t–Hab 3:17–18).48 3

Rabbinic Parallels in Targum Minor Prophets

This section seeks to explore how exegetical traditions in Tg. Minor Prophets traditions link up with the Book of the Twelve and further, how rabbinic literature echoes and frequently further clarifies the very particular interpretation

45  Cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 6–8. 46  Cf. t–Amos 5:15. See Gordon, Studies, 138; Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 9–12. 47  “Not less than three verses of the Holy Law may be read in the synagogue to each person [called to read]. One verse only of the law may at one time be read to the meturgeman, or interpreter, but it is lawful to read three consecutive verses to him from the Prophets, but if each verse should form a separate section, one verse only may be read to the meturgeman at a time. Passages may be skipped over in the reading of the Prophets, but not in that of the Holy Law. What time may be suffered to elapse to skip from one passage to another?—while the meturgeman does not conclude his interpretation.” (‫הקורא בתורה‬ ‫ היו שלשתן‬.‫ ובנביא שלשה‬.‫ לא יקרא למתורגמן יותר מפסוק אחד‬.‫לא יפחות משלשה פסוקים‬ ‫ עד כדי‬.‫ ועד כמה הוא מדלג‬.‫ ואין מדלגין בתורה‬.‫ מדלגין בנביא‬.‫ קורין אחד אחד‬.‫שלש פרשיות‬ ‫)שלא יפסוק המתורגמן‬ 48  Cf. Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 226–227.

Targum

313

of Tg. Minor Prophets.49 In this regard, the pertinent question is whether rabbinic activity influenced the interpretive process of Tg. Minor Prophets or whether interpretations in Tg. Minor Prophets inspired further interpretative activity among Rabbis?50 In the following, examples of particular targumic interpretations that are paralleled in midrashic writings will be analyzed in an attempt to address questions of mutual dependence on the interpretation of a verse or phrase. This includes inquiries into literacy dependence between texts in terms of recasting, consulting, and incorporating a second text into the new one, and/or where two different texts depend and derive from a third text, which may be unknown or assumed.51 The notion of the ingathering of the exiles on condition of repentance is prominent in Tg. Hosea (t–Hos 3:1; 6:11; 8:10; 10:12; 14:3). The return of the exiles is cause for great celebration in Tg. Minor Prophets, e.g., t–Hos 2:2: ‫ויתכנשׁון בני יהודה ובני ישׂראל כחדא וימנון להון רישׁא חד מדבית דוד ויסקון מארע‬ ‫גלותהון ארי רב יום כנושׁהון׃‬

And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall gather together as one, and will appoint for themselves one head from the house of David, and will go up from the land of their exile, for great is the day of their ingathering. The topic of the ingathering of the exiles, which the targumic rendering of Hosea 2:2 refers to, is discussed at b. Pesaḥim 88A by way of an analogy between the day of creation at Genesis 1:5 and ‫“ יום יזרעאל‬the day of Jezreel” at Hosea 2:2: ‫ ב) ונקבצו‬,‫א״ר יוחנן גדול קבוץ גליות כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ שנאמר (הושע ב‬ ‫בני יהודה ובני ישראל יחדו ושמו להם ראש אחד ועלו מן הארץ כי גדול יום יזרעאל‬ :‫ ה) ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד‬,‫וכתיב (בראשית א‬

Rabban Joḥanan said: Great is the ingathering of exiles similar to the day on which heaven and earth were created as is said at Hosea 2:2: “And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head, and they shall go from 49  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 15. 50  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 15–16; Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 183–227. 51  Cf. Lier, Redaction, 13.

314

Lier

the land because great is the day of Jezreel”; and it is written at Genesis 1:5: “And there was evening and there was morning, day one.” The exposition in the above maxim starts with an allusion to Tg. Hosea 2:2, where Rabban Joḥanan speaks of ‫“ קבוץ גליות‬the ingathering of the exiles” in obvious reference to the two targumic supplements ‫“ גלותהון‬their exile” and ‫“ כנושׁהון‬their ingathering.” The fact that this tradition is ascribed to Rabban Joḥanan and is written in Hebrew indicates an origin from the Tannaitic period.52 Its correspondence with the targumic rendering at Tg. Hosea 2:2 and its reception in the Babylonian Talmud demonstrates how rabbinic schools taught, transmitted, and recorded worthwhile material in the Talmudim.53 The substitution of ‫“ חסד‬mercy” for “offerings” at Hosea 6:6 (“Because my desire is for mercy and not offerings”) is rendered expansively in Tg. Hosea 6:6 ‫“ ארי בעבדי חסדא רעוא קדמי מדדבח‬For in doers of mercy there is more pleasure before me than in sacrifice.” This rendering appears to provide the incentive at The Father’s According to Rabbi Nathan IV:V.2C–D to propose deeds of lovingkindness as a substitute atonement in the absence of the temple: My son, do not be distressed. We have another mode of atonement, which is like [atonement through sacrifice], and what is that? It is deeds of loving kindness. “For so it is said, ‘For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, [and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offering]’ (Hos 6:6).”54 Tg. Amos 9:1 renders the expression ‫[“ נצב על־המזבח‬I saw the Lord] standing by the side of the altar” (Amos 9:1) expansive with ‫חזיתי ית יקרא דיוי אסתלק בכרובא‬ ‫“ ושׁרא על מדבחא‬I saw the glory of the Lord. It was taken up in the cherub and rested upon the altar.”55 The idea of the upward departing Divine Presence, which is entertained in Targum is expanded to ten stages at Pesiqta deRab Kahana XIII:XI.2 (an Amoraic rabbinic collection of homilies and teachings) in a midrashic homily.56 For each stage, a proof text from Scripture is quoted:57

52  Cf. Breuer, “Aramaic,” 606. 53  Cf. Strack and Stemberger, Einleitung, 186. 54  Neusner, Hosea, 111. 55  Cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 94 n. 2. 56  Cf. Strack and Stemberger, Einleitung, 272–273. 57  A similar midrashic description of the departing Presence of God is found at Lamentations Rabbah XXV.i., which belongs to the oldest works of the midrashic literature and Avot deRabbi Natan XXXIV:IX, probably compiled in the Geonic era (ca. 700–900 ce).

Targum

315

In ten upward stages the Presence of God departed: from the ark cover to the cherub (2 Sam 22:11); from the cherub to the cherub, from the cherub to the threshold of the temple-building (Ezek 10:4); from the threshold of the temple to the two cherubim (Ezek 10:18); from the two cherubim to the eastern gate of the sanctuary (Ezek 10:9); from the eastern gate of the sanctuary to the [wall of the] temple court (Ezek 10:4); from the [wall of the] temple court to the altar (Amos 9:1); from the altar to the roof (Prov 21:9); from the roof to the city wall (Amos 7:7); from the city wall to the city (Mic 6:7); from the city to the Mount of Olives (Ezek 11:23).58 The fact that Pesiqta de Rab Kahana expands on the targumic rendering at Tg. Amos 9:1 suggests that Targum was used in consort with teaching and preaching. Tg. Micah 6:10 renders the Hebrew text ‫“ ואיפת רזון זעומה‬and a scant measure, cursed” explanatory with ‫דשׁקר מיתין לוט‬ ַ ‫“ ומכילן‬and measures of falsehood bringing a curse.” This interpretative rendering is reverberated expansively at Ruth Rabbah 1:2: ‫ אם ראית דור שמידותיו‬:‫ דאמר ר׳ בניא בשם ר׳ הונא‬.‫אוי לדור שמידותיו של שקר‬ ‫ מה טעם (משלי י״א) מאזני מרמה‬.‫ מלכות באה ומתגרה באותו הדור‬,‫של שקרים‬ ‫ כתיב‬:‫ אמר רבי ברכיה בשם רבי אבא‬.‫ וכתיב (שם) בא זדון ויבא קלון‬.‫תועבת ה‬ ‫ אפשר כן שדור שמדותיו של שקר זוכה אלא ובכיס‬.‫(מיכה ו׳) האזכה במאזני רשע‬ ?‫אבני מרמה‬

Woe unto the generation which has measures of falsehood; for R. Banya said in the name of R. Huna: If thou hast seen a generation whose measures are falsehoods the government comes and launches an attack against that generation. Whence do we know? [Since it is written], A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, which is followed by, When presumption comes, then comes shame (Prov 11:1). R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Abba: It is written, Shall I be pure with wicked balances (Mic 6:11)? Is it possible for a generation whose measures are falsehood to be meritorious? No! [For the verse continues] “And with a bag of deceitful weights.”

58  Neusner, Amos, 56–57. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, one of the oldest of the homiletic Midrashim, deals with the major festivals and sacred days of the Jewish liturgical year.

316

Lier

Ruth Rabbah is the product of Palestinian Amoraim and written mainly in Mishnaic Hebrew and Galilean Aramaic.59 From a comparison with the rendering of the Hebrew text at Tg. Micah 6:10, it appears that Targum may have contributed to the midrashic compilation at Ruth Rabbah 1:2. Tg. Haggai 1:8 renders the Hebrew text ‫“ וארצה־בו ואכבד‬And I will take pleasure in it and I will be honoured” (Hag 1:8) expansive with ‫ואתרעי לאשׁראה‬ ‫“ ׁשכינתי ביה ביקר‬and I will be pleased to make my Shekinah dwell in it with glory.” In b. Yoma 21b an explanation regarding a variance between the Qere ‫ ואכבד‬and the Ketiv ‫ אכבדה‬at Haggai 1:8 is attributed to R. Samuel b. Inia, who is quoted to have said: “What is the meaning of the scriptural verse: And I will take pleasure in it [we-ikabed] and I will be glorified? The traditional reading is we-ikabedah, then why is the [letter] he omitted [in the text]? To indicate that in five things the first Sanctuary differed from the second: in the ark, the arkcover, the Cherubim, the fire, the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit [of Prophecy], and the Urim-we-Thummim [the Oracle Plate]?”60 The Talmudic maxim, which falls back on Tannaite authority, expands even further on Haggai 1:8 than what the targumic rendering of that verse does, which only refers to the Shekinah. This demonstrates the literary dependency between Targum and Talmud where the targumic rendering first features in a saying attributed to R. Samuel b. Inia, which is later consulted for recasting in the Talmudic context. Habakkuk 3:6 ‫“ עמד וימדד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים‬He stands and shakes the earth, he beholds, and makes the nations tremble” is rendered expansive with ‫אתגלי‬ ‫ואזיע ארעא ואיתי מבולא על עם דרא דעברו על מימריה ואף בתנייתא כד חבו קדמוהי‬ ‫“ בחוביהון כין בלבלינון לעממיא‬revealed himself and caused the earth to shake,

and brought the flood over the people of the generation that transgressed against his Memra; and also a second time when they sinned before him with their sins, thus he confused the nations …” The reference in the targumic rendering to the transgression of the nations against the Torah (Memra) is expanded in various rabbinic discussions, i.e. Sifre to Deuteronomy CCCIII:II; Mekilta R. Ishmael LI:I; Leviticus Rabbah 13:2; b. Bava Qamma 4:3 II.1. II. In b. Avodah Zarah 1:1 reference is made to R. Joseph, who is credited with formulating Habakkuk 3:6 (“He stands and shakes the earth, he sees and makes nations tremble”) in a Tannaite statement: What did he see? He saw the seven religious duties that the children of Noah accepted upon themselves, as obligations but never actually put 59  Strack and Stemberger, Einleitung, 290. 60  According to Guggenheimer, Tractate, 135, Rav Samuel bar Inia is of the generation between the Tannaim and the Amoraim.

Targum

317

them into practice. Since they did not carry out those obligations, he went and remitted their obligation.61 The targumic reference to “[he] brought the flood over the people of the generation that transgressed against his Memra” is echoed in the Tannaite statement “the children of Noah” in b. Avodah Zarah 1:1. From this rabbinic discussion, it appears that the idea of the failure of the nations to heed the Torah, which is alluded to at Tg. Habakkuk 3:6, was expanded upon first in Tannaitic and later in Amoraic circles. Tg. Zephaniah 2:3 interprets the clause ‫“ אשר משפטו פעלו‬who have done his judgments” (Zeph 2:3) with a complement ‫“ דדיני רעותיה עבדו‬who will have done his judgments.” The concepts of judgments and will are co-ordinated at y. Qiddushin 4:1[III:2.N], a saying that derives from the Palestinian context: ‫ מאי אשר‬.‫אמר ר״א כתיב (צפניה ב) בקשו את י״י כל ענוי הארץ אשר משפטו פעלו‬ .‫משפטו פעלו שהוא עושה משפט ופעלו כאחת‬

Said R. Eleazar, “It is written, ‘Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who have done his commands’ (Zeph 2:3). What is the meaning of ‘who have done his commands’? When judgment and action are done concurrently.” The complement at Tg. Zephaniah 2:3 may have contributed to the talmudic coordination of the concepts of judgments and will at y. Qiddushin 4:1[III:2.N]. The maxim reflects a simple method of inferring an argument from a scriptural proof-text (Zeph 2:3), which suggests a Tannaitic context of learning.62 The name ‫“ כרתים‬Cherethites” at Zephaniah 2:5 is rendered interpretatively at Tg. Zephaniah 2:5 with ‫“ עמא דחייבין לאשׁתיצאה‬the people who deserve to be destroyed.”63 Genesis Rabbah 28:5 echoes this targumic interpretation: R. Huna said: What was perpetrated by the coastal cities was not perpetrated even by the generation of the Flood, for it is written, ‘Woe unto the inhabitants of the sea-coast, the nation of the Cherethites’ (Zeph 2:5), indicating by their name (‫ )כרת‬that they deserved to be annihilated. Yet on account of what merit do they stand? It is on account of the merit of a singular gentile, who fears heaven, that the Holy One, blessed be He, 61  Translation according to Neusner, Habakkuk, 53–54. 62  See Lier, Redaction, 249. 63  See the discussion of this rendering by Ho, Targum, 270–273, 418.

318

Lier

receives from their hands [that he spares them while having destroyed Sodom and the generation of the Flood]. [There are some good among them.]’ “The nation of the Cherethites” (Zeph 2:5): Some explain the name in a positive sense, that is, “a nation that makes (‫ )כרת‬a covenant [with God].”64 The rhetorical argument reflected from the above Midrash points to an Amoraic context of scholarly debate where R. Huna links to the interpretative rendering of the name ‫“ כרתים‬Cherethites” at Tg. Zephaniah 2:5 to provide a more expanded, illustrative explanation.65 Although the above-mentioned examples from Tg. Minor Prophets do not conclusively demonstrate that Aramaic bible translation was used in the context of the academy to extract meaning from the sacred text, there is evidence that Amoraim linked Oral Torah firmly to the pedagogy of discipleship training.66 The illustrations also demonstrate how the editing of texts took place during instructions and discussions between learned sages and their students in the context of rabbinic academies.67 In all probability, interpretative traditions in Tg. Minor Prophets (but not limited to Tg. Minor Prophets) inspired further explanatory activity among Rabbis in the shaping of normative Judaism, where targumic rendering may have contributed both to differentiate between Scripture and its interpretation in the context of scholarly learning, as well as to provide motivation for further exegesis.68 The latter is evident from references to words, phrases, or expressions in Tg. Minor Prophets that are not reflected in the Hebrew text, but which are echoed in the broader exegetical discourse of Talmud and Midrash. At the same time, as Ho points out, there are cases where Tg. Jonathan presents a contrary opinion to a Rabbinic source.69 Such deviations may point to a time when targumic exegesis followed orally transmitted traditions in preDestruction times.70

64  Neusner, Zephaniah, 11. 65  See Lier, Redaction, 249. 66  Lier, Redaction, 69; cf. Jaffee, Torah, 152. 67  Cf. Lier, Redaction, 69–70; Safrai, “Torah,” 71. 68  Cf. Lier, Redaction, 74–80. 69  See Ho, Targum, 418–419. 70  Cf. Ho, Targum, 420–423.

Targum

4

319

Linguistic Relationships

The current scholarly debate concerning the origin and redactional process of Tg. Jonathan/Tg. Minor Prophets is complexly linked to questions relating to Aramaic dialect.71 Cathcart and Gordon provide a detailed discussion of the views of (i) nineteenth century scholars, T. Nöldeke, G.H. Dalman, A. Geiger, and Z. Frankel and (ii) a number of distinguished Israeli Aramaists such as E.Y. Kutscher, M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, and A. Tal on the language of Tg. Prophets/Latter Prophets in relation to provenance and dating.72 Nöldeke and Dalman argue for a Palestinian/Judean origin written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic while Geiger and Frankel propose a Babylonian genesis. Tal concludes that Tg. Former Prophets probably took shape in Judaea not later than the Bar-Kokhba revolt because of its correspondence between the vocabularies of Targum and Nabatean, Palmyrene and Qumran Aramaic. Although he concedes that there are elements of “Middle Aramaic,” he describes the prevalent dialect as a “superdialectical language” comparing it with the Greek koinē with emerging features of the later Aramaic dialects. Tal’s theory refutes an origin of Tg. Prophets in Babylonia since the Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic does not feature strongly in it. Cathcart and Gordon attribute forms in Tg. Latter Prophets that are found in “Middle Aramaic” to a later period of revision and some measure of redaction in Babylonia. In this regard, they draw attention to the so-called qeṭîl le syntagma pointed out by Kutscher, which occurs only very seldom in Western Aramaic and is more characteristic of Eastern Aramaic, concluding that the syntagma makes a case for attributing it to a Babylonian redactor.73 The contributions by Yohanan Breuer and Ingo Kottsieper both address the linguistic background of the Targumim, but with diverging designations for the subdivisions of the Aramaic language. Breuer agrees with Tal by placing Tg. Onkelos and Tg. Jonathan into the period of “Middle Aramaic” based on the many features that link their language with Qumran Aramaic. In Breuer’s assessment, these features represent an interim stage between Imperial Aramaic and Late Aramaic.74 Breuer argues that “Middle Aramaic” was used up until the end of the Tannaitic period, adding that the Aramaic of the Targumim was

71  See Flesher and Chilton, Targums, 267–283. 72  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 12–14. 73  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 14. 74  Breuer, “Aramaic,” 605–607.

320

Lier

earlier than that of the Talmudim.75 Breuer concedes that “Middle Aramaic” contains many features that point towards Late Aramaic of which Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is a subdivision of the Eastern branch.76 This proposition is in line with Tal’s description of a “superdialectical language” which has emerging features of the later Aramaic dialects. Breuer adds that Aramaic was not only spoken in the period of the sages, but was also the language in which many literary works were written. Kottsieper’s research adds a new recourse to the current scholarly debate when he argues from two examples (the ‫א‬-forms and the use of ‫ )הדין‬that Jewish Literary Aramaic was used as a cross regional written language amongst the elite. It established itself alongside traditional literature and cult languages as a recognized language form for literary texts; specifically in Jewish circles at the time of the Second Temple where it became the cult language of educated Jews.77 Accordingly, written Aramaic preceded spoken Aramaic. Kottsieper understands Jewish Literary Aramaic to be the basis of the genre “Targum” and suggests that Jewish Literary Aramaic is an early language common to all Targumim. Even so, he recognizes that the languages of Tg. Onkelos and Tg. Jonathan show clear traces of a later regional development of the Jewish Literary Aramaic dialect, which he calls Babylonian Targumic Aramaic. In his view, Babylonian Targumic Aramaic was used in the final redaction of Tg. Onkelos and Tg. Jonathan in the post-Temple period.78 Kottsieper places the development of the Tg. Onkelos tradition in the context of interactive learning activities of Jews living in Babylonia and those living in Palestine and is in support of an early completion of Tg. Onkelos at the beginning of the third century. He discusses the possibility that the Babylonian Jews might have had their own Targumim at the time of the Second Temple.79 Finally, Kottsieper refers to the relationship between Literary and Spoken Aramaic by asking the question whether Targums were only accessible for educated Jews or also for the populace; the point being that Literary Aramaic was not far from the actually spoken languages. However, some words in traditional texts sounded unlike those used in the colloquial language since classical texts were spoken in a different way to the own dialect.80 Kottsieper therefore

75  Breuer, “Aramaic,” 609–610. 76  Breuer, “Aramaic,” 601–605. 77  Kottsieper, “Aramäische,” 17–53, specifically 33; cf. Houtman and Sysling, Targum, 35. 78  Kottsieper, “Aramäische,” 34–37. 79  See Kottsieper, “Aramäische,” 17–53. 80  Cf. Kaufman, “Dialectology,” 1–5.

Targum

321

concludes that Tg. Onkelos/Jonathan were not translations for the uneducated masses but rather for the literary educated people.81 Jan Joosten’s study “Des targumismes dans la Septante?” corresponds with Breuer’s findings that Aramaic was greatly influenced by languages spoken in its vicinity such as Hebrew verbs that made their way into Aramaic and an abundance of Greek words. Breuer’s submission that on occasion “entire sayings are quoted as they appear in Greek” resonates in Joosten’s proposition that some Aramaic words were created from scratch to explain problematic Hebrew words in the Hebrew Vorlage in Aramaic.82 These artificially created Aramaic expressions featured as glosses in later rabbinic Targums, which demonstrates the continuity of the interpretative tradition.83 5

Concluding Remarks

The study reveals that content alone does not adequately serve to date the provenance and redaction of Tg. Minor Prophets. Early stages of targumic rendering fit the context of the Second Temple period where scribes, who featured as interpreters of the biblical prophets, had the authority to adapt ancient prophecies to their own time in the form of written prototypes of Tg. Prophets. During that time, the focus was on the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures. After the Destruction and before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, emendations of Tg. Prophets happened in the context of the Beit Midrash where Rabbis continued to adjust Aramaic renderings in Tg. Prophets in line with Hebrew variant readings, which may have contributed to the long process of redaction of Tg. Prophets. Circulating interpretative traditions from the post-Mishnaic period that correspond to or vary from renderings in Tg. Prophets demonstrate that a type of fixed traditional version probably existed at the time. Exegetical frameworks in Tg. Minor Prophets, which can be linked to preDestruction conceptions or Tannaitic and Amoraic themes, demonstrate the developmental phases in a Targum. The inquiry into literacy dependence between Tg. Minor Prophets and Rabbinic parallels shows how the broader exegetical discourse in Talmud and Midrash was often stimulated from targumic renderings. While Jewish Literary Aramaic seems to have been the early language employed by the scholarly elite for Targum, the language of Tg. Minor Prophets 81  Ho, Targum, 423, comes to a similar conclusion regarding Tg. Zephaniah. 82  Breuer, “Aramaic,” 619–620. 83  Joosten, “Targumismes,” 54–71.

322

Lier

shows clear traces of a later regional development of Jewish Literary Aramaic. There is also evidence of artificially created Aramaic expressions in targumic glosses that demonstrate the continuity of the interpretative tradition. Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “How did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” Pages 71–89 in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda. Edited by William Horbury. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Alexander, Philip S. “What happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?” Pages 5–33 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers et al. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. London: Cambridge University, 2008. Breuer, Yohanan. “The Aramaic of the Talmudic Period.” Pages 597–625 in Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Pt. 2 The Literature of the Sages. Vol. 3 of The Literature of the Jewish people in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud. Sect. 2 of Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Edited by Shmuel Safrai et al. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2006. Cathcart, Kevin J. and Robert P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. ArBib 14. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989. Churgin, Pinchos. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. New York, NY: KTAV, [1927] 1983. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. (Bar-Ilan Project, Miqra’ot Gedoloth). Online: http://cal.huc.edu/. Flesher, Paul V.M. “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in their Social and Linguistic Context.” Pages 467–508 in The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200 C.E. Edited by Birger Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003. Flesher, Paul V.M. and Chilton, Bruce. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2011. Fraade, Steven D. “Targum Jonathan to the Prophets.” JQR 75,4 (1985): 392–415. Fraade, Steven D. “Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries.” Pages 253–286 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York, NY and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Goldberg, Abraham. “The Mishna—A Study of Halakha.” Pages 211–262 in The Literature of the Sages. Pt. 1. Edited by Shmuel Safrai. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987. Golomb, David M. A Grammar of Targum Neofiti. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985.

Targum

323

Gordon, Robert P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. ed. Tractate Berakhot: Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2013. Hengel, Martin. “The Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 149–175 in The Aramaic Bible. Edited by Derek R.G. Beattie and Martin McNamara. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Ho, Ahuva. The Targum of Zephaniah: Manuscripts and Commentary. Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Houtman, Albertina and Harry Sysling. Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan. Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture Leiden: Brill, 2009. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Written and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200BCE–400CE. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. Joosten, Jan. “Des targumismes dans la Septante?” Pages 54–71 in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Kantrowitz, David. Version 3.4 © 1991–2009, Institute for Computers in Jewish Life, Davka Corp., and/or Judaica Press, Inc. The Soncino Talmud (© 1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and © 1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.). Brooklyn: New York. Kasher, Rimon. Targumic Toseftot to the Prophets. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1996. Kaufman, Stephen A. “The Job Targum from Qumran.” JAOS 93,3 (1973): 317–327. Kaufman, Stephen A. “The Dialectology of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.” AS 11,2 (2013): 1–5. Klein, Michael L. “The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation.” Pages 3–18 in Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002. Edited by Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Kooij, Arie van der. “Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 63–78 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Das Aramäische als Schriftsprache und die Entwicklung der Targume.” Pages 17–53 in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Legrand, Thierry and Jan Joosten. eds. The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

324

Lier

Lier, Gudrun E. “Who was Ezra? Deliberations in Oral Torah.” JSem 18,1 (2009): 71–79. Lier, Gudrun E. A Redaction History of the Pentateuch Targums. New York, NY: Gorgias Press, 2010. Lier, Gudrun E. “Translation Techniques in Targum Malachi: A Comprehensive Analysis.” JNSL 41,1 (2015): 51–70. Lier, Gudrun E. Review of The Targums in the Light of the Traditions of the Second Temple Period, by Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten. eds. TLZ 141,11 (2016): 1199–1201. Mitchell, David C. “Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums.” AS 4,2 (2006): 221–241. Neusner, Jacob. Amos in Talmud and Midrash. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007. Neusner, Jacob. Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah in Talmud and Midrash. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007. Neusner, Jacob. Hosea in Talmud and Midrash. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007. Neusner, Jacob. Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi in Talmud and Midrash. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007. Safrai, Shmuel. “Oral Torah.” Pages 35–119 in The Literature of the Sages. Pt. 1. Edited by Shmuel Safrai. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1987. Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition. Hoboken, NJ and New York, NY: KTAV, 1991. Smelik, Willem. The Targum of the Judges. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Smelik, Willem. “3–5.1.3 Targum.” Pages 367–375 in The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1B of Textual History of the Bible. Edited by Armin Lange et al. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Sperber, Alexander. The latter prophets: according to Targum Jonathan. Vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Strack, Hermann L. and Günter Stemberger. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. München: Beck, 1982. Tov, Emanuel. “The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture.” Pages 37–45 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Zyl, Anna F. van. “Translation Techniques in Malachi According to Targum Jonathan.” Unpublished Master’s dissertation. Johannesburg: University, 2012.

Chapter 20

The Latin Versions of the Book of the Twelve Simone Rickerby A discussion of the Latin text of the Minor Prophets is more complex than one might expect. When the Latin version is spoken of often it is the editorial efforts of Jerome, collected together as the Vulgate textual tradition, which are meant. However, this practice obscures the fact that there is evidence for translation of the Old Testament into Latin which is older than Jerome.1 What is also not readily acknowledged is the complexity associated with a study of the Vulgate and this older Latin textual tradition. The “Vulgate” is a modern construct. In this study the term “Vulgate” will be used to refer to the later edition of Jerome preserved in a wealth of manuscript evidence which is more or less similar, and which has been gathered together to form the Clementine Vulgate and other edited texts. Despite the fact that the internal text of each book is generally coherent, these translations were done over a period of time and reflect Jerome’s changing attitudes to translation practice and to the text he is translating (whether Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). This suggests that from book to book the Vulgate is a much more complex corpus than is generally acknowledged. The older Latin textual tradition also preserves a wealth of complexity which is not generally discussed. In this study the reader will find the use of the phrase “older Latin textual tradition(s),” rather than “Old Latin” version. The homogeneity suggested by the use of “Old Latin” belies the realities of the evidence. In the study of the older Latin textual tradition we find countless witnesses attesting various Latin textual traditions. While these various textual traditions may ultimately have their origins in a single original, the identification of this text is a distant prospect.2 The use of the Vulgate version by the later Roman Catholic Church led to the displacement of the older Latin textual tradition in most books of the 1  In this study “Old Testament” refers to the collection of books used within a Jewish Greek milieu and includes the Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also the Wisdom of Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon. 2  Interpretation of the evidence varies. Haelewyck, “Relevance,” 440, states that “Until we find proof to the contrary, we may indeed say that, for each book or collection of books, there was originally only one Latin version.” He is therefore content to continue to use “Old Latin” to refer to the older Latin textual tradition.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_022

326

Rickerby

Old Testament.3 An examination of the Latin version of the Old Testament is therefore constrained by the fact that the manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition, compared with the manuscript evidence extant for the revisions of Jerome, is “very fragmentary.”4 The lack of manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition of most books of the Old Testament means that academic investigation of the Latin text often relies on the information provided by quotations from patristic sources (such as Cyprian, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome) which in turn generates its own textual complexities. That we have any extant evidence for the older textual traditions of the Latin Bible is remarkable. However, the very existence of an older Latin textual tradition is in itself noteworthy. Where (and why) would such a translation have occurred? One might posit that Rome was the place of origin for the earliest translations of the Old Testament into Latin.5 However, this seems doubtful when one considers the fact that the widespread use of Greek in Rome was an issue for comment by Roman satirists of the first century.6 Additionally, up until the middle of the third century ce the official correspondence of the Roman Church was received and composed in Greek!7 The Church Fathers are conspicuous in their silence regarding the origin of the Latin biblical text. Both Augustine and Jerome discuss the existence of older translations of the Old and New Testaments. However, while they are critical of the plurality and dismissive of the quality of the older textual traditions, they do not supply a context of origin.8 Modern commentators too avoid engaging with this issue, preferring to state the problem and move on.9 While these questions are 3  According to Thiele, Sapientia, 11, the extant witnesses to the book of Wisdom (Sapientia), with few exceptions, preserve different forms of one single old text type which can be traced back to Cyprian. The Vulgate text of Sapientia also belongs to this text type and is thus not the work of Jerome. A similar situation may be found in the Vulgate text of the Wisdom of Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees—these texts are representative of the older Latin textual tradition. 4  Ulrich, “Characteristics,” 68. 5  Mohrmann proposes that by the middle of the second century ce the process of Latinization of the Church of Rome was underway. Mohrmann, “Les origines,” 71. 6  Swete, Introduction, 87: “Roman satirists of the first century complained that the capital had become a Greek city; the upper classes acquired Greek; the freedmen and slaves in many cases spoke it as their mother tongue.” 7  Mohrmann, “Les origines,” 69, the complete Latinization of the Roman Liturgy did not occur until the middle of the fourth century ce. 8  In his Prologue to Judith, Jerome refers to Multorem codicum uarietatem uitiosissimam am­ putaui (“Inicipit Prologus Iudith,” Fischer et al., Biblia Sacra I, 691) while Augustine notes the infinita uarietas of the older Latin textual tradition and the aliquantulum facultatis (little skill) demonstrated by the translators (Augustine, Doctr. chr. 11:16). 9  In relation to the Latin version of the Old Testament, Fernández Marcos notes: “No doubt we would like to know more about the origin and circumstances, sociological as well as religious,

Latin Versions

327

important, and deserve fuller engagement, this tendency to focus on the issues associated with the origins of the Old Latin translation of the Old Testament has obscured the significance of the fact that this textual tradition actually exists. No other daughter version of the Old Testament can attest as much early evidence as that found in Latin,10 even though the inhabitants of Rome seem to have been more inclined to speak Greek than Latin. That the majority of our early Latin evidence comes from North Africa supports the suggestion that Rome has taken a back seat in the initial development of the Latin text of the Old Testament. Examination of the textual traditions of the Latin Old Testament has often been overlooked in favour of research into the Latin New Testament text. The notion that research into a particular New Testament book is applicable to other New Testament books and, indeed, to the Latin Old Testament, persists without justification. Little is known about the origins of the Latin translations of either Testament and while a Jewish origin has been suggested for the Latin Old Testament this suggestion has been underexplored.11 Some caution should prevail before we dismiss the suggestion that the Old Latin translation(s) of the Old Testament were Jewish. In the case of the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek much of the context/milieu of translation has been derived from the Letter of Aristeas.12 This document leaves no doubt that in ancient times the LXX was accepted as a Jewish translation. Without this document the strong association between the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and ancient Judaism may not have been as universally acknowledged. This is a cautionary tale for anyone engaging translations of the Old Testament (whether Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or other). To jump to the conclusion that the original translations of the Latin Old Testament were Christian in nature, rather than Jewish, appear premature. The possibility that the Latin text of the Old Testament had its naissance in a Jewish context means that we must be careful not to assume a relationship between the textual that brought forth the Old Latin, but the lack of evidence in the ancient sources is absolute …” Fernández Marcos, Scribes, 85. 10  This early evidence is in the form of quotations from many and various sources including: Tertullian, Tyconius, Cyprian, the Passion of St Perpetua, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, the Epistle of Barnabas, early pseudonymous compositions, etc. 11  There has been some discussion over the years regarding the possibility that the older Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament is Jewish in origin. For the arguments supporting this suggestion, see Blondheim, Les parlers, and Cassuto, “The Jewish Translations.” For the opposing position, see Brock, “Bibelübersetzungen”; Bogaert, “La Bible”; and Gribomont, “Les plus anciennes traductions.” 12  For an introduction to the Letter of Aristeas see Swete, Introduction, 533–550.

328

Rickerby

traditions of the Latin New and Old Testaments.13 Rather, the importance of a book’s individual textual history needs to be respected.14 This may be true also of the individual books of the intra-biblical corpus known as the Minor Prophets. This means that conclusions of previous scholarly examinations of other books of the Old and New Testaments may not be relevant to the texts of the books of the Minor Prophets. Indeed, it cannot be assumed that the results of an examination of one book of the Minor Prophets are relevant to the discussion of another. While the Vulgate is often treated as a single edition, Jerome’s translations of the individual books of the Old Testament were done over a long period of time and reflect his changing translation techniques and attitude to the underlying Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) texts. Jerome is often at pains to inform his audience of the process followed when revising the Biblical books. In his Prologue to the Gallican (= Vulgate) Psalter, Jerome notes his introduction of signs within the edition of his text to indicate the relationship of certain readings to either the LXX translators (translatoribus), the Hebrew books/scrolls (hebraeis voluminibus), and/or Theodotion.15 A different philosophy of translation is apparent in the Vulgate text of Judith. In his Prologue to this text Jerome tells us that his Latin version is based on the original Chaldean (Aramaic) version.16 According to Jerome’s Preface to the Psalterium secundum Hebraeos this text was produced at the request of his friend, Sophronius, who requested “a new translation based on Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.”17 It is apparent that Jerome says much about his process of revision and translation. While these texts are invaluable for establishing Jerome’s intentions, one must also investigate the actual texts to confirm Jerome’s process of revision/translation. What is often not discussed is the role that the younger Greek translators (especially Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion also known as “The Three”) 13  Often theories formed in association with the Latin New Testament text, particularly the Gospels, have been used to inform discussion of the Old Testament. Swete, Introduction, 91–92: “The classification of the O.T. is less advanced [than the N.T.], and owing to the fragmentary character of most of the MSS it is more difficult; but we may assume that it will proceed on the same general lines [as the N.T.].” 14  Fernández Marcos in his discussion of the Septuagint notes that: “… the text history of the Septuagint cannot be treated as a whole. On the contrary, each book has its own history” (Fernández Marcos, Scribes, 12). Ulrich too notes the need to respect the textual history of individual books of the Latin translation of the Old Testament (Ulrich, “Characteristics,” 68). 15  Fischer et al., Biblia Sacra I, 767. 16  Fischer et al., Biblia Sacra I, 690. 17  “Incipit Alia Eiusdem Praefatio,” in Fischer et al., Biblia Sacra I, 768, ut post Aquilam, Symmachum et Theodotionem nouam editionem latino sermone transferrem.

Latin Versions

329

played in Jerome’s engagement with the Greek and Hebrew (and other) Biblical texts. A quick glance at any of Jerome’s commentaries on the biblical books shows us that he was very much aware of the variation within the Greek tradition and at pains to explain it to his readers who must also have had some awareness of this variation. This familiarity with the plurality of the textual tradition is best demonstrated by Jerome’s Letter to Sunnia and Fretela where we find Jerome referring to the text of the Septuagint (LXX), Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Hebrew: Quod nec Septuaginta habent, nec Aquila, nec Symmachus, nec Theodotio; sed sola κοινῆ editio. Denique et in Hebraeo ita scriptum repperi “oser la­ phanoi darchach.”18 What is less clear is how much Jerome relied on The Three when engaging with the Hebrew text and when producing his Vulgate editions. The likely influence of Symmachus on Jerome’s Vulgate version of the Pentateuch and Prophets has been suggested.19 We might also wonder about Jerome’s relationship with the older Latin textual tradition and the influence of these texts on Jerome. Several of the earlier translations of Jerome suggest a familiarity with the older Latin textual tradition. This relationship is most clearly seen in the Gallican Psalter (= Vulgate Psalms) which represents Jerome’s attempt to revise an older Latin version of Psalms according to the Greek.20 Jerome’s familiarity with the older Latin textual tradition is also apparent in his commentaries. While the lemma of these 18  Hieronymi, “Ad Sunnia,” 107. 19  Salvesen, Symmachus, 279, suggests that “Jerome especially favored Symmachus’s version” (279). Salvesen also draws attention to the works of Ziegler and Johannessohn on the influence of The Three on the Vulgate text of the Prophets: “Johannessohn’s article particularly stressed the stylistic influences of Symmachus on the Vulgate in those books [the Prophets] and Jerome’s explicit admiration for the clarity of Symmachus’s version in his commentary” (Salvesen, Symmachus, 265). Whether the influence of Symmachus on Jerome is direct or secondary (i.e. based on other authors such as Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius) is a real question. Duval, Le Livre de Jonas, concludes that the majority of Jerome’s Commentary on Jonah relies on the work of Origen. 20  Kelly, Jerome, 89. See also Estin’s discussion of the work of De Bruyne in Estin, Les Psautiers, 25–28. The Psalter Romanum was at one time considered to be Jerome’s actual revision of the Latin text of the Psalter according to the Septuagint Greek. More recently, however, this association has been questioned and it has been suggested that it “probably represents the text on which he worked and which he corrected” (Kelly, Jerome, 89). The older Latin nature of the Psalter Romanum is also supported by the alliance of this text with that of the Psalter Ambrosianum, Psalter Sangermanensis, Lucifer, and to a lesser extent with that of Julian of Eclanum, who was writing before 418 ce.

330

Rickerby

commentaries invariably reflects the text of Jerome’s Vulgate,21 the type of text associated with Jerome’s use of “LXX” is more difficult to categorise. There is some ambiguity over whether Jerome’s LXX text represents an actual older Latin tradition or his own independent translation of the Greek Septuagint text. These issues are relevant for our discussion of the Minor Prophets where we find continual reference to the LXX text in Jerome’s commentaries on these books. Also, in his “Prologue” to his Commentary on Obadaiah we find Jerome reluctantly admitting that as a young man he had previously composed a work on Obadiah where he had interpreted the book allegorically.22 This passing comment demonstrates that Jerome was familiar with the Minor Prophets in versions other than those found in his own later edition and it is not unlikely that these earlier versions influenced his later works. One of the major issues shaping any discussion of the Latin Biblical text is the nature of the textual evidence. While there is an abundance of manuscript evidence for the text of the Vulgate, access to the older Latin textual traditions of the Old Testament is characterised by its fragmentary nature.23 In the case of the Minor Prophets we are fortunate that various manuscripts preserve parts of our corpus.24 The Codex Constantius (fifth century ce), Codex Wirceburgensis (sixth century ce) and Fragmenta Sangallensis (ninth century ce) all provide access to versions of parts of the Minor Prophets which predate those of Jerome.25 While these manuscripts may contain versions of the Latin text which are older than those produced by Jerome the manuscripts themselves are of a date later than many Vulgate manuscripts. While we are fortunate to have this evidence we are unable to use it to determine anything meaningful about when or where the translation was produced. We are dealing with text without context.26 21  The strict adherence to the “Vulgate” version in the lemma of Jerome’s commentaries may be the result of scribal emendation. This may particularly be the case where the Biblical text is easily identifiable by the scribe, as is the case with the lemma. 22  See the Prologue from Jerome’s Commentary on Obadaiah in Hieronymi presbyteri, Commentarii. 23  Regarding the older Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament, there is an almost total lack of archaeologically dateable evidence. 24  We are fortunate that there is some manuscript evidence for the older Latin text of the Minor Prophets, other books of the Latin bible suffer greatly from a lack of manuscript evidence. See Gryson, Esaias, 10, where the extant manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition of Isaiah is characterized as “very fragmentary.” 25  For a summary of the older Latin manuscript evidence for the Minor Prophets see Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 15–17. As can be seen from Ziegler’s tabulation of the evidence, there is still much of the older Latin textual tradition of the Minor Prophets which is not preserved in the extant manuscripts. 26  Given the prevailing use of the Vulgate textual tradition in the post-Hieronymian period we must wonder how and why these texts were preserved.

Latin Versions

331

While the state of the manuscript evidence for the older Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament is fragmentary we are fortunate that much of the evidence for the Latin textual tradition of the Bible (both Vulgate and preVulgate) is attested in the writings of the Latin Fathers.27 In any discussion of the older Latin textual tradition some of the most important witnesses include Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Ambrose. There are a myriad of issues associated with the use of Patristic citations to establish a version of the biblical text.28 However, while these issues are important, judicious use of citations can help us to establish a likely textual tradition (when manuscript evidence is unavailable) and they can also help to pinpoint a geographical and temporal milieu for textual traditions which would otherwise exist only within a vacuum. A study of the older Latin textual tradition necessarily begins with the oldest witnesses—Tertullian and Cyprian. It has been suggested that Tertullian was aware of an existing Latin textual tradition.29 This implies that already by the late second or early third century there was some form of translation of (parts of?) the Bible into Latin.30 While evidence from Tertullian and Cyprian 27  Citations from the Minor Prophets are widely attested across the Latin Fathers. For example, according to the Vetus Latina Database a total of over 250 individual works reference the Latin text of Hosea. These include works by Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, Cyprian, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Jerome, Julian of Eclanum, Lactantius, Novatian, Quodvultdeus, Rufinus, Tertullian, Tyconius, Verecundus, et al. However, only some of these Church Fathers refer to the older Latin textual tradition. Amos is quoted in over 160 works consisting of a similar range of authors. 28  For a complete discussion of the issues associated with the use of Latin patristic evidence, see Houghton, “The Use,” 388–393. 29  Whether the citations of Tertullian are based on an extant Latin textual tradition or whether they are the result of his own translations from Greek is an ongoing debate. See Billen, Old Latin Texts, 75: “The whole question of the text of Tertullian is a difficult one, owing to our uncertainty as to the extent to which he used a Latin version, and how far he translated for himself from a Greek MS. It is possible that a careful comparison of all his quotations with the surviving witnesses to the Old Latin text would suggest that he used a Latin version much more often than has sometimes been admitted. In the Heptateuch at least his text frequently agrees remarkably with later authorities which show no signs of the direct influence of his works.” See also Capelle, Le Texte, 20: “Les innombrables rencontres avec les témoins africains, jointes à des témoignages assez explicites de Tertullien, attestent qu’il s’est servi d’une version écrite …” 30  Burkitt believed that by 250 ce the Latin Bible already “had a long and complicated history behind it” (Henson et al., Criticism, 74). Ogilvie, Library, draws attention to the use of composite source texts by the early Latin Fathers. These source texts, or testimonia, were a collection of passages from the Biblical text which could be used to support the central propositions of Christianity. The earliest surviving Latin example of this literary phenomena is Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum testimonia aduersus Iudaeos composed ca. 248–249 ce (Moreschini, Greek I, 366). However, Ogilvie believes that evidence for the use of testimo­ nia can already be seen in the work of Tertullian (Ogilvie, Library, 97). Ogilvie suggests that Lactantius († 325 ce), while reliant on Cyprian to some degree, also had access to a

332

Rickerby

are available for some parts of the Latin Old Testament this evidence is sporadic. Very often we find ourselves without access to readings from these two extremely valuable witnesses. As the Latin text of the Old Testament is, at its core, a translation from another language, much of that which characterises the text is identifiable by considering it in relation to its Vorlage. In the case of the older Latin textual tradition it is clear that much, if not all, of the older Latin textual tradition is based on a Greek Vorlage,31 but in the case of the Vulgate the ambiguity associated with Jerome’s text means that the task is more complex. While there is almost a tacit assumption within scholarly circles that Jerome has based his later revisions directly on the Hebrew text, his familiarity with The Three, evidenced by his commentaries and the Letter to Sunnia and Fretela, means that we cannot discount the possibility that he is more reliant on these Greek versions than is generally acknowledged. In the case of the Minor Prophets, further examination of this possibility is required.32 Any investigation of the Latin translations of the Old Testament is generally characterised by an examination of the relationship of the Latin to an underlying Greek and/or Hebrew text. Most often scholars look to the Latin only to see what it can say in support of existing Greek variation. That the Latin textual tradition might preserve older readings no longer extant in the surviving Greek (and Hebrew) traditions is little considered. The Latin translation of the Old Testament, like the underlying Greek (and to a lesser extent the Hebrew), was not a static text. It is likely that as the underlying version changed so did the Latin. These changes may have been ad hoc in nature or represent a concerted attempt to standardise the text as reflected in a particular underlying exemplar. While we may acknowledge the likelihood of these editorial endeavours, identifying these changes and the texts that inspired them may be difficult. Inner-Latin lexical variation is a prominent characteristic of the textual tradition of the Latin Old Testament. This lexical variation demonstrates a collection of testimonia independent of Cyprian (Ogilvie, Library, 100–101). The circulation of testimonia means that some of our biblical citations may not be sourced from full translations but from one or other of these composite texts. This makes the identification of textual traditions within the Latin Minor Prophets that much more difficult. 31  For an alternative position in relation to the older Latin textual tradition of the book of 1 Kings, see Fernández Marcos, Scribes, 87, where the possible association of the Latin text with the Hebrew, or a Hebraized Greek, is discussed. 32  It must be noted that much of the extant evidence for the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion is provided by Jerome himself in his commentaries on these books (see Field, Origenis Hexaplorum).

Latin Versions

333

specific character. Within the textual tradition of the Latin Bible we find word groupings which may be identified by their mutual association with a single underlying item of extant (usually) Greek vocabulary. This type of lexical variation would seem to be especially characteristic of the Latin textual tradition. While variant readings are certainly present within other versions of the Old Testament this variation does not seem to be dominated by variation in vocabulary. The “word groupings” found within the Latin textual tradition have some features in common with the work of The Three. In these witnesses too we often find much the same reading differentiated only by distinct items of vocabulary.33 In both the Latin textual tradition and The Three these alternative renderings, occupying the same position within the verse, are more or less synonymous. While this variation in the Latin may not be important for the history of the Greek or Hebrew text of the Old Testament, they are an important component of the Latin textual tradition and may provide insight into the development of the Latin speaking church.34 Editions of the Latin, particularly the older Latin, text of the Minor Prophets have been limited. The Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae of Sabatier (published 1743) provided access to both Vulgate text (the Vulgata Nova) and Versio Antiqua, supplemented by useful notes. It must be acknowledged that Sabatier’s Versio Antiqua of the Minor Prophets is most often the LXX text from Jerome’s commentaries on these books interspersed with occasional readings from other authors such as Tyconius and Gildas Sapiens.35 The older Latin textual tradition is represented in manuscript form by the Codex Constantius [Cod. Const.], the Codex Wirceburgensis [Cod. Wirce.], and the Fragmenta Sangallensis [Frag. Sangall.]. An edition of the Cod. Wirce. was 33  Only here the underlying item of vocabulary in common is in Hebrew, instead of Greek. That the variation apparent in The Three in some way parallels the variation apparent in the Latin textual tradition may suggest that both these texts are the product of the same textual process. We are aware that the Greek versions are a translation of the Hebrew which have been strongly influenced by the earlier LXX text. Is it possible that the variation in the Latin textual tradition also suggests a similar process i.e. subsequent “translations” of the Greek text which have been made with an eye to the original Latin translation? 34  Burkitt, Old Latin, 4: “Whatever value we may attach to the Latin interpretations of phrases occurring in the original Greek, it is undeniable that they have greatly influenced Western theological thought.” 35  Sabatier, Bibliorum II, 983, presents the text of Hag 2:21–24. Sabatier’s Versio Antiqua is reconstructed at different points from Jerome, Gildas, and Tyconius. As noted above, it is yet to be determined whether the LXX text of Jerome’s commentaries text is in fact representative of an older Latin textual tradition or rather a contemporaneous translation of Jerome from the Greek.

334

Rickerby

published by Ernestus Ranke in 1871.36 The Cod. Const. and the Frag. Sangall. are best accessed via the 1923 edition of P. Alban Dold.37 This volume collects the previously edited and then newly discovered fragments of the Cod. Const. together in one volume.38 An edition of the Frag. Sangall. is also included in an appendix to the volume.39 Dold’s discussion of the character of Cod. Const. and its relationship to the then identified patristic evidence is comprehensive. An article by Meinrad Stenzel provides a more recent discussion (1953) of the Minor Prophets text of the Frag. Sangall. and Cod. Const., in relation to each other and other witnesses to the Older Latin textual tradition.40 A follow-up article (1955) by the same author examines the Cod. Wirce. within a similar context.41 In 1903–1904, around 20 years before Dold, Oesterley published an edition of the older Latin text of the Minor Prophets in fascicules of The Journal of Theological Studies.42 This edition provided a reconstructed version of the older Latin text based on the readings of the then identified fragments of Cod. Const. (identified as Codex Weingartensis) and the quotations of various patristic sources (in the following order of textual significance as determined by Oesterley: Cyprian, Tyconius, the [Pseudo-Augustine] Speculum, Lucifer, the Collatio Carthaginiensis, Fulgentius, Tertullian).43 This eclectic text provides access to what Oesterley considered to be the oldest extant version of the text at any given point. It is notable that evidence from the important Frag. Sangall. (published by Dold ten years later in 1923) was not available for Oesterley’s edition.44 While Dold provides the best access to the manuscript evidence for the Cod. Const. and Frag. Sangall. and the 1871 edition of Ranke provides access to the 36  Ranke, Palimpsestorum, 1871. 37  Dold, Konstanzer, 1923. 38  Prior to Dold the Cod. Const. was identified as Codex Weingartensis. The first edition of this manuscript was made in 1868 by Ranke, Fragmenta, 1868. This edition of the Codex Weingartensis was supplemented and updated in 1912 by a facsimile version of the fragments, see Lehmann, Die Konstanz-Weingartener, 1912. 39  Dold, Konstanzer, 225–278. Additional fragments of the Frag. Sangall. (including Hosea) were published in Dold, Vorhieronymianische, 1940. 40  Stenzel, “Die Konstanzer,” 1953. 41  Stenzel, “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch,” 1955. 42  Oesterley, “Old Latin,” (Hosea); idem, “Old Latin II,” (Amos, Micah); idem, “Old Latin III,” (Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah); idem, “Old Latin IV,” (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi); idem, “Old Latin V,” (Joel, Obadiah). 43  Oesterley, “Old Latin.” 44  Dold, Konstanzer, 1923. The date of Oesterley’s edition (1903–1904) implies that any new material from Lehmann’s 1912 facsimile of Codex Weingartensis must also be lacking.

Latin Versions

335

text of Cod. Wirce., Oesterley’s edition is the only attempt, since Sabatier, to provide a more comprehensive edited version of the older Latin textual tradition of the Minor Prophets. One of the main issues associated with Oesterley’s edition is his decision to reconstruct a single text from his sources, thus presupposing a single origin to the older Latin textual tradition. This conjecture was precipitous. In Zeph 3:2 we find the situation where there are multiple older Latin witnesses for the text. Oesterley chooses to include the text of Tyconius’s Liber regula­ rum in his upper text and relegates the text of (Pseudo-)Cyprian and Lucifer to the apparatus.45 In Table 20.1 we can see the various readings of Zeph 3:2 as found in Tyconius, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Lucifer. Also included are the readings from the Frag. Sangall. and the Vulgate.46 From a quick glance at Table 20.1 we might question Oesterley’s selection of Tyconius as representative of the older Latin textual tradition. Indeed, the correspondence between the text of Tyconius and the Vulgate in part 3 of Zeph 3:2 discourages this. With the support of the Frag. Sangall., we might suggest that the text of Lucifer has an equal claim to be representative of an older Latin textual tradition as is the reading of Pseudo-Cyprian.47 From this example we hope to demonstrate the complexity associated with a discussion of the Latin textual tradition of the Minor Prophets and also highlight the pitfalls of trying to determine the Old Latin text. More research into the relationships between the various witnesses and readings needs to occur before we can establish definitive textual groupings and suggest priority. Despite its difficulties, for nearly 100 years, access to the older Latin textual tradition of the Minor Prophets was best provided by Oesterley’s edition.48 Recently, the online publishing of the Vetus Latina Database (available via paid subscription) has facilitated better access to a collection of readings supporting the older Latin textual tradition.49 The range of evidence preserved in this database supports the premise that the textual tradition of the Minor Prophets

45  Oesterley does not recognize the pseudonymous nature of the Ad Novatianum. 46  Frag. Sangall. is the only surviving manuscript attesting the older Latin text of Zephaniah 1:9–3:20. 47  Lucifer of Cagliari †370/371. 48  Ziegler in his edition of the Septuagint of the Minor Prophets (Duodecim Prophetae) also included readings from the Latin textual tradition. However, these are limited to the apparatus and are difficult to identify. Ziegler’s introduction also includes summaries of the available Latin evidence—both manuscript and patristic. 49  For the Vetus Latina Database product description see, http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9782503585987-1.

336

Rickerby

table 20.1 Zeph 3:1–2

3:1

3:2a

Oesterley’s Text = Tyconius, Liber regularum Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum Lucifer, De Athanasio libri 2 Frag. Sangall.a Vulgate Oesterley’s Text = Tyconius, Liber regularum Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum

Lucifer, De Athanasio libri 2 Frag. Sangall. Vulgate 3.2b

Oesterley’s Text = Tyconius, Liber regularum Pseudo-Cyprian, Ad Novatianum Lucifer, De Athanasio libri 2 Frag. Sangall. Vulgate

o inlustris et redempta ciuitas (see 3:2a: praeclara et redempta ciuitas) o quae ⟨erat⟩ splendida et redempta ciuitas o quae erat splendida et redempta ciuitas vae prouocatrix et redempta ciuitas columba quae non audit uocem, non recepit disciplinam, columba non exaudit uocem, id est ⟨prae­ clara et redempta civitas⟩, non recepit doctrinam ⟨col⟩umba non exaudiuit uocem, non percepit discipinam columba non audiuit uocem, n̄ ⟨percie⟩pit doctrinam columba non audiuit uocem, et non susce­ pit disciplinam in domino non est confisa, et ad deum suum non adpropinquauit 8 et in dominum fidens non fuit in domino non confidit et ad deum suum non accessit In dno non confi⟨debat⟩ et ad dm suum non accessit in Domino non est confisa, ad Deum suum non appropinquauit

a Text between angular brackets indicates Dold’s reconstructed text (Dold, Konstanzer, 1923).

is more diverse than that suggested by Oesterley and justifies a new edition of the Latin text of the Minor Prophets which we hope to undertake. 1

Jerome and the Minor Prophets

Jerome’s prologues to his editions of the Biblical text often provide clues to his textual process. Unfortunately the Prologue to Jerome’s edition of the Minor

Latin Versions

337

Prophets is lacking in details of his actual editorial practice. However, there are several items of interest in the Prologue which may provide us with insight into Jerome’s translation practice in these books. The fact that there is only one “Prologue” to all twelve books is our first clue that Jerome has translated these books as a single entity. While discussing the literary style of some books of the Minor Prophets Jerome warns his readers, Paula and Eustochium, that “the book of the Twelve Prophets [is] one.” This also suggests that Jerome’s translations of the books of the Minor Prophets were produced as one, rather than as individual haphazard translations. While Jerome does not mention specifically that his version of the Minor Prophets is based on a Hebrew Vorlage he does tell us that the order of the books in Hebrew is different to that found “among us” and notes that he has followed the Hebrew order in his version.50 This suggests that Jerome, as may be expected, is likely to be producing a translation closer to the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint Greek text. However, to confirm our suspicions and to understand better Jerome’s translation process in these books we must turn to an examination of the actual Latin text.51 2

A Brief Examination of the Textual Issues Associated with the Latin Text of the Minor Prophets

The Relationship of the Latin Textual Traditions with the Underlying Vorlagen of Hosea 10:1 An examination of the Latin text of Hosea 10:1 demonstrates many of the textual issues raised in the previous discussion. To begin our discussion we introduce the text of Hos 10:1 as found in the Frag. Sangall., a manuscript of the ninth century ce, and the Vulgate (Table 20.2).52 From Table 20.2 we can see that the Frag. Sangall. and the Vulgate attest different but related texts. Our first task is to determine, where possible, whether 2.1

50  Order of the Minor Prophets according to the Hebrew and the Vulgate: Hos, Joel, Amos, Obad, Jonah, Mic, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Hag, Zech, and Mal. Order of the Minor Prophets according to the LXX: Hos, Amos, Mic, Joel, Obad, Jonah, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Hag, Zech, and Mal. No manuscript of the whole of the Minor Prophets is extant, but the Frag. Sangall. follows the LXX order (i.e. Amos follows Hosea and Joel follows Micah) (Dold, Konstanzer, 264–278), as is implied by Jerome. 51  The connection between Jerome’s Vulgate edition of the Minor Prophets and his commentaries on the individual books is unclear. The lemma of the commentaries reflects the Vulgate text of the Minor Prophets but this may be the result of late scribal emendation. 52  The Vulgate text referenced in this study is taken from Hetzenauer, Biblia Sacra. This is the version contained in the Vetus Latina Database.

338

Rickerby

table 20.2 Hosea 10:1 in the Vulgate and Frag. Sangall.

1 2 3

Frag. Sangall. Vulgate Frag. Sangall. Vulgate Frag. Sangall. Vulgate

4

Frag. Sangall. Vulgate

uinea bona palmites habens ihl uitis frondosa Israel fructus uberimi eius fructus adaequatus est ei secundum multitudinem fructuum suorum replebit altaria secundum multitudinem fructus sui multiplicauit altaria secundum bona terrae suae aedificauit columnas iuxta ubertatem terrae suae exuberauit simulacris

these two texts are inspired by the same or different Vorlagen. While there are similarities in the above texts there are several places where the texts differ significantly from one another. The first phrase of Hos 10:1 already suggests different underlying Vorlagen. The bona palmites of the Frag. Sangall. clearly reflects the LXX Greek εὐκληματοῦσα (well-branching).53 The Vulgate omits reference to the branches of the vine, thus suggesting that Jerome’s text may be inspired by the Hebrew. However in the Hebrew, instead of a clear reference to a vine which is “leafy [or] full of leaves” as suggested by the Vulgate’s use of frondosa, we find ‫( בקק‬empty, pour out; spread wide [as of a spreading tree]). In The Three various attempts have been made to remove the ambiguity of the Hebrew. In Aquila we find ἔνυδρος (with water in it, holding water) and in Symmachus we find ὑλομανοῦσα (wildly luxurient).54 That Jerome himself was aware of the ambiguity surrounding the beginning of Hos 10:1 is demonstrated by his elucidation of this part of the verse in his Commentary on Hosea: Pro uite frondosa, Aq. interpretatus est ἔνυδρον, quam nos aquosam, vel ἐξίτηλον [ἐξίτηλος, going out, to become extinct, forgotten] possumus dicere, eo quid uini perdat saporem; Sym. ὑλομανοῦσαν, quae tota in frondibus creuerit.55 While the text of Aquila, as outlined by Jerome, clearly recalls aspects of the Hebrew, it is the more interpretative text of Symmachus which would seem to 53  κλῆμα and palmes are equated in An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 456. 54  The Syro-Hexapla attributes the reading of ὑλομανοῦσα to both Symmachus and Aquila. 55  Field, Origenis Hexaplorum II, 955 n. 1.

339

Latin Versions

have had more influence over Jerome’s Vulgate text. From this brief examination of the Greek and Hebrew text of Hos 10:1 it is unclear whether Jerome is translating directly from the Hebrew or relying on the ὑλομανοῦσαν of Symmachus to inform his version. An examination of vocabulary in the second part of the verse does not help us in our attempt to identify securely the underlying Vorlage of Jerome’s Vulgate text in Hos 10:1. In the second part of this verse we find uber (fertile, abundant) in the Frag. Sangall. and adaequo (equalise, come up to level; be equal) in the Vulgate. Both the Hebrew ‫( רב‬abundance, abundantly) and the LXX εὐθηνός (thriving, flourishing) could be seen to underlie the uber of the Frag. Sangall. However, the adaequo of the Vulgate would seem to find its inspiration from the ἐξισόω (make equal) of Aquila and Symmachus rather than from the extant Hebrew (or LXX Greek) text in this verse.56 In part 4 of Hos 10:1 (Table 20.3) the relationship of the Vulgate with the Hebrew is also strained. While there is no doubt that the Vulgate is based on a text other than the LXX Greek text it is not clear that the underlying text is the table 20.3 Ubertas and exubero in the Vulgate text of Hos 10:1

Vulgate

Hebr

Aquila

Frag. Sangall. LXX Greek

4a

ubertatem (ubertas, richness, fullness)

‫טוב‬

ἀρετήν (ἀρετή, goodness, excellence)

bona (bonus, good)

a) ἀγαθά (ἀγαθός, good)

4b

exuberauit (exubero, to grow luxuriantly, be abundant, abound, overflow)

‫טוב‬

b) ἐσπούδασε (σπουδάζω to be busy, eager)

aedificauit (aedifico, to build, erect a building; to build, raise, erect, or establish anything.)

ᾠκοδόμησαν c) (οἰκοδομέω, build a house; build up, edify)

(good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun) (to be good (as a verb), be pleasing, be well, be glad)

56  In this example the Greek of Aquila and Symmachus is reconstructed by Field from the Syro-Hexapla. See Field, Origenis Hexaplorum II, 955 n. 2.

340

Rickerby

Hebrew. The text of Aquila, while closer than the Hebrew, also does not suggest our Vulgate text. Indeed, we may posit that, as occurred with frondosa and adaequo above, the text of Symmachus may have inspired the Vulgate reading. Unfortunately, evidence for Symmachus is lacking in this part of the verse.57 While the text of the Frag. Sangall. is distinct from the Vulgate, the late date of the manuscript (ninth century ce) means that it is problematic to acknowledge that the text is representative of the older Latin textual tradition without table 20.4 Hos 10:1 in Frag. Sangall., Pseudo-Augustine, Spec., and Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX)

1

2

3

Frag. Sangall. Pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis sive Speculum Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX) Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX) Vulgate Frag. Sangall. Pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis sive Speculum Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX) Vulgate Frag. Sangall. Pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis sive Speculum Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX) Vulgate

4

Frag. Sangall. Pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis sive Speculum Jerome, Comm. Os. (LXX) Vulgate

uinea bona palmites habens ihl uinea in maceria bona israhel uitis frondosa sive juxta LXX bonas habens propagines uitis frondosa Israel uitis frondosa Israel fructus uberimi eius fructus eius uberrimus fructus abundans in ea fructus adaequatus est ei secundum multitudinem fructuum suorum replebit altaria secundum multitudinem fructuum suorum secundum multitudinem fructuum suorum multiplicauit altaria secundum multitudinem fructus sui multiplicauit altaria secundum bona terrae suae aedificauit columnas lac. iuxta bona terrae eorum aedificabunt titulos iuxta ubertatem terrae suae exuberauit simulacris

57  Field, Origenis Hexaplorum II, 956. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 169.

Latin Versions

341

appealing to some form of external support. In the case of Hos 10:1 this support is partially provided by the Pseudo-Augustine Liber de diuinis scripturis siue Speculum. This text of the beginning of the fifth century ce provides qualified support for the later text of the Frag. Sangall. While the text of Hos 10:1 in Pseudo-Augustine is closely related to that of the Frag. Sangall., especially when compared with the Vulgate version, there are two unique aspects to this text—the use of in maceria in part 1 of Hos 10:1 and the change in word order in part 2 of this verse.58 Table 20.2 also includes Jerome’s LXX text (as identified in his Commentary on Hosea). While Jerome’s LXX text is reminiscent of the text of the Frag. Sangall. it also contains echoes of Jerome’s Vulgate text. The main points of association between Jerome’s LXX text and the Frag. Sangall. are the inclusion of bonas habens propagines in part 1 of the verse,59 and the parallel use of aedifico in part 4. The use of abun­ dans in part 2 of the verse also clearly reflects the same Vorlage as that underlying the uber of the Frag. Sangall. However, the use of uitis (instead of uinea), multiplico (instead of repleo), and iuxta (instead of secundum) suggests an association with Jerome’s Vulgate text. While we cannot draw overall conclusions from this one example, it would seem that in this verse it is likely that Jerome is directly translating from the underlying LXX Greek text, thus accounting for the similarity in meaning and form with the Frag. Sangall. but also accounting for the links with the Vulgate text.60 This brief examination of Hosea 10:1 highlights various issues associated with the Latin text of Hosea, and of the Minor Prophets in general. While Jerome professes to base his later (Vulgate) editions of the Latin text on a Hebrew Vorlage, in this verse (where there is evidence from the Hexapla available) we find closer associations with the text of The Three (Symmachus in particular?) than with the Hebrew. Regarding the older Latin textual tradition, the Frag. Sangall. provides us with the best evidence for an older text but this text is itself of the ninth century ce. The quotation from the Pseudo-Augustine Speculum helps to establish an older text, but it must be acknowledged that this text has its own unique elements and that the date of the text (early fifth century ce) is still post/contemporaneous with the revision(s) of Jerome. Our reliance on the Pseudo-Augustine Speculum highlights the important role that patristic citations play in any discussion of the older Latin textual tradition. 58  It is interesting to note that without the ability to refer to the Frag. Sangall., Oesterley uses the text of the Pseudo-Augustine Speculum in his main text. 59  The use of propago (a set, layer, slip, shoot) is unique to Jerome’s LXX text. 60  A possible alternative is the existence of an older Latin textual tradition which better aligns with Jerome’s LXX text. However, extant evidence for this suggestion is lacking.

342

Rickerby

We also gain some insight into Jerome’s LXX text as found in his Commentary on Hosea. This text, while demonstrating elements which support a Greek LXX Vorlage, also contains vocabulary which is closer to the Vulgate than the older Latin textual tradition. This suggests that, in this verse, Jerome is himself translating the underlying LXX text. 3

Inner Latin Lexical Variation

Any examination of the Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament will uncover examples of Latin lexical variation which is not obviously attributable to the underlying Vorlage. While there are vast differences between the texts of some Latin witnesses, what we generally find are relatively static readings which contain some lexical items which have attracted variation. Additionally, when we do find variation this variation is not endless but a circumscribed group of mainly three or four Latin lexical equivalents. This situation may suggest that the translation and revision of the Latin textual tradition has not been as unstructured or as random as has often been suggested. 3.1

Zeph 3:4b

table 20.5 Inner Latin lexical variation in the text of Zeph 3:4b

Tyconius, Liber regularuma

… sacerdotes eius profanant sacra et conscelerant legem Pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diui­ … sacerdotes eius contaminant sancta et reprobant nis scripturis sive Speculum legem Lucifer, De Athanasio libri 2 … sacerdotes eius contaminant se et impie agunt Frag. Sangall. … sacerdotes eius contaminant sca. et impiae agunt legem Vulgate … sacerdotes eius polluerunt sanctum, iniuste egerunt contra legem a Burkitt, “Rules of Tyconius,” xviii; Tyconius’s Liber regularum was written sometime before 383 ce.

The Latin text of Zeph 3:4b reveals variation across four witnesses of the older Latin textual tradition. While the texts of the Frag. Sangall. and Lucifer demonstrate near complete agreement, Tyconius and the Pseudo-Augustine Speculum both disagree with the reading of these two texts to some degree or other. The Pseudo-Augustine Speculum supports the reading of contaminant

Latin Versions

343

(contamino, to corrupt, contaminate, defile) found in the Frag. Sangall. and Lucifer. However, instead of impie agunt (to act impiously, irreverently), the Pseudo-Augustine Speculum introduces reprobant (reprobo, to disapprove). In Tyconius we find profanant (profano, to render unholy, desecrate) and cons­ celerant (conscelero, to stain with guilt, pollute, dishonor) for contamino and impie agunt/reprobro respectively. With each new item of vocabulary our texts become more distant from one another—Tyconius’s Liber regularum with its two discrete readings provides us with the most distinct text. We may wonder what is the inspiration for this lexical variation? An examination of the Greek LXX does not provide us with any answers. Underlying the initial profanant/contaminant we find the Greek βεβηλοῦσιν (βεβηλόω, profane), while ἀσεβοῦσιν (ἀσεβέω, to be impious, act profanely) underpins conscelerunt/impie agunt/reprobrant. Neither of these Greek readings has attracted significant variation.61 From this evidence it is clear that the extant Greek LXX text has not inspired the variation in the Latin. We must also consider whether The Three may have influenced the Latin text. However, this possibility, although unlikely, cannot be confirmed or dismissed due to the lack of Hexaplaric evidence for this part of Zeph 3:4. When we find singular readings in the patristic citations (such as profanant and conscelerunt in Tyconius) we must wonder whether these are representative of a larger effort of translation/revision or ad hoc translations produced by the relevant patristic author. Without further support from the manuscript and/or patristic tradition we can only surmise that these readings may be representative of a larger process of consistent revision across the text. 4

The Older Latin Manuscript Tradition

As noted previously the Codex Constantius [Cod. Const.], Codex Wirceburgensis [Cod. Wirce.] and Frag. Sangall. all provide access to versions of parts of the Minor Prophets which antedate those of Jerome. There is no point in the Minor Prophets where all three manuscripts are extant. However, overlaps between each of the manuscripts are to be found. The nature of the relationship between Cod. Const. and Cod. Wirce. is clearly apparent in Table 20.6. While the bulk of the verse is the same in both texts we find lexical variation akin to that discussed above in the use of ualde (ualidus, strong, stout, able, vigorous) in Cod. Const. and uehementer

61  Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 281, for βεβηλοῦσιν we find βεβηλωσουσιν in 534 and βεβηλουντες in 407.

344

Rickerby

table 20.6 Manuscript evidence for Jonah 4:4

Cod. Const.a (= Oesterley’s edited text) Cod. Wirce. Vulgate

et dixit dms ad ionam si ualde constristatus es tu et dixit dms ad ionam si uehementer constristatus es et dixit dominus putasne bene irasceris tu

a Here identified in the Vetus Latina Database by its alternative nomenclature i.e. Codex Weingartensis.

(eagerly, impetuously, ardently, violently) in Cod. Wirce. for the Greek σφόδρα (very much, exceedingly). In Jonah 4:5 (Table 20.7) the texts of Cod. Const. and Cod. Wirce. are almost identical except for the omission of et sedit contra ciuitatem and in umbram in Cod. Wirce. These omissions are also found in some representatives of the Greek text.62 Whether these omissions truly reflect the Greek or are coincidental examples of scribal error (homoioteleuton … ciuitatem … and the omission of in umbram) is difficult to state without further examination. What is clear is the association of the two Latin manuscripts despite these two omissions. table 20.7 Jon 4:5

Cod. Const. (= Oesterley’s edited text) Cod. Wirce. Vulgate Cod. Const. (= Oesterley’s edited text) Cod. Wirce. Vulgate Cod. Const. (= Oesterley’s edited text) Cod. Wirce. Vulgate

et exiit ionas extra ciuitatem et sedit contra ciuitatem et exiit ionas extra ciuitatem et egressus est Ionas de ciuitate, et sedit contra orientem ciuitatis et fecit ipse sibi tabernaculum et sedebat sub ipso in umbram et fecit ipse sibi tabernaculum et sedebat sub ipso et fecit sibimet umbraculum ibi et sedebat subter illud in umbra donec uideret quid accideret ciuitati donec uideret quid accideret ciuitati donec uideret quid accideret ciuitati

62  Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 251.

345

Latin Versions

In Micah 7:19 we find identical texts preserved in the Cod. Const. and the Frag. Sangall. (ipse revert[i][e]tur et miserebitur nostri et absoluet omnes iniqui­ tates nostras et proicientur in altitudine[m] maris omnia peccata nostra). This is also the case for Joel 1:4 where apart from some orthographic differences the texts are the same.63 This demonstrates that (at least in Joel and Micah) the Cod. Const. and the Frag. Sangall. are very closely related. The Frag. Sangall. and Cod. Wirce. only overlap for Hos 1:1b–2:13a. Unsurprisingly the relationship between these two manuscripts is not dissimilar to that witnessed between Cod. Const. and Cod. Wirce. In Hos 2:12 we find almost identical readings in the Cod. Wirce. and Frag. Sangall. except for instances of synonymous lexical variation within the Latin text (Table 20.8) which do not seem to have been inspired by different underlying Greek readings. table 20.8 Lexical variation in the manuscript evidence for Hos 2:12

Cod. Wirce.

Frag. Sangall.

LXX Greek (Ziegler)a

1

merces (merces, price, hire, salary, reward)

condu⟨c⟩tiones (conductio, renting, taking a lease; hiring)

μισθώματα (μίσθωμα, the price agreed on in hiring; that which is let for hire; no Greek variation extant)

2

uolatilia (uolatilis, equipped to fly, flying fleeing)

uolucres (uolucris, winged; able to fly; flying)

πετεινάb (πετεινός, able to fly, full-fledged)

3

repentia (repo, creep, crawl)

reptilia (reptilis, creeping; reptile)

ἑρπετά (ἑρπετόν, a walking animal, quadruped; a creeping thing, reptile)

a Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 150. b Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, 150, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς omitted in some Greek witnesses.

63  Text of Joel 1:4 according to the Frag. Sangall. with orthographical variants from the Cod. Const. (in brackets): residuum erucae (urucae) comedit locustae (lucustae) comedit brucus (bruchus) et residuum bruchi comedit erisebe (erysibee).

346

Rickerby

From this very brief examination of the extant manuscript tradition of the older Latin textual tradition it is clear that, in those books examined, there is a close relationship between Cod. Const. and the Frag. Sangall.64 While the Cod. Wirce. attests a similar text to these two manuscripts (in the examples given) the lexical variation apparent between it and the Cod. Const. and the Frag. Sangall. respectively reflects the same trend as that witnessed in the Patristic witnesses above (see Table 20.5). That this lexical variation is attested in the manuscript tradition means that when we find similar examples of lexical variation in the Patristic sources we cannot immediately dismiss these as resulting from the author’s own translation of the Greek text into Latin (although this may still be the case). 5

The Older Latin as a Witness to Variant Greek Readings65

While we have established that the Vulgate and the older Latin textual traditions are based on differing Vorlagen, we must also acknowledge the possibility that the Latin may be based on a Vorlage which is no longer extant.66 In some cases this may account for lexical variation within the older Latin textual tradition. An example of this is found in Mal 1:6 where we find evidence within the older Latin textual tradition which supports a variant reading in the underlying Greek text. Table 20.9 presents selected older Latin and Greek evidence for the first part of Mal 1:6. Here we find two versions of the text distinguished by the presence or absence of timeo (fear, dread, be afraid)/φοβέω (put to flight; to terrify, frighten, alarm). Both Lucifer and Paulinus of Nola are representative of the older Latin textual tradition.67 As well as the date of composition the use of honorificat, instead of the Vulgate honorat or the glorificat of Jerome, suggests this. It is significant that while Paulinus of Nola includes timebit in his text, Lucifer does not. This mirrors the variation found in the LXX Greek tradition. 64  For a more complete discussion of Cod. Const. and Frag. Sangall., see Dold, Konstanzer. 65  Haelewyck, “Relevance,” 441–222, provides a list of some instances where the older Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament is known to provide insight into the older Greek textual tradition, independent to that preserved in extant Greek manuscripts. 66  4 Ezra is an extreme example of this possibility. Here we find Latin translation(s) of the Greek text extant while the original Greek and its Hebrew Vorlage are lost to us (apart from 4 Ezra 15:57–59 in POxy.VII 1010 [Hunt, Oxyrhynchus, 11–15], which is considered a Christian addition and identified separately as Sixth Ezra). See Stone, Ezra, 10. 67  According to Trout, “Dates,” 237, the second epistle of Paulinus of Nola was written in the mid-390s.

Latin Versions

347

table 20.9 Mal 1:6a

Lucifer, De Athanasio libri 2 Vulgate Paulinus of Nola, ep 2 Jerome, Commentary on Malachi (LXX) Greek LXX (Ziegler’s text) Greek LXX / λ’ = 86 (Ziegler’s apparatus)

filius honorificat patrem et seruus dominum suum et si pater sum ego filius honorat patrem, et seruus dominum suum si ergo pater ego sum filius honorificat patrem et seruus dominum suum timebit (et) si pater sum ego filius glorificat patrem et seruus dominum suum timebit et si pater ego sum υἱὸς δοξάζει πατέρα καὶ δοῦλος τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰ πατήρ εἰμι ἐγώ υἱὸς δοξάζει πατέρα καὶ δοῦλος τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ (οὗ) φοβηθήσεται / φοβεῖται καὶ εἰ πατήρ εἰμι ἐγώ

Unlike our previous examples of lexical variation it is likely that the presence/ absence of timeo in the Latin of Mal 1:6 is the result of influence from different underlying Greek texts.68 This example demonstrates the possibility that the older Latin textual tradition may contain reference to alternate Greek readings. We are fortunate that in this example we also find these readings preserved in the extant Greek tradition. However, it is not unlikely that we may find other places in the older Latin texts where references to alternative Greek readings are preserved without support from the extant Greek textual tradition. 6 Conclusion Any examination of the Latin text of the Minor Prophets suffers from a number of impediments. Most glaring is the lack of previous scholarship in regards to both the older Latin textual tradition and the more recent editions of Jerome in these books. The fact that our most recent edition of the older Latin text of these books is over 100 years old typifies the issue. The complexity of the evidence—both manuscripts and patristic citations must be used—has also discouraged examination of these books. While the online publishing of the Vetus Latina Database has facilitated access to the greater part of this evidence, it must be acknowledged that much of the evidence of the Vetus Latina 68  It must be noted that the lexical variation associated with the initial glorifico, honorifico, and honoro would not seem to be the result of influence from the underlying Greek.

348

Rickerby

Database deserves to be revisited in its own right with modern editions of both the manuscripts and the Patristic authors. A study of Jerome’s text of the Minor Prophets may seem uncomplicated but our lack of understanding of Jerome’s changing translation habits over time means that we cannot assume a relationship between Jerome’s “Vulgate” text and the Hebrew. When working with the Vulgate text of Jerome we must wonder whether he is relying on the Hebrew or is being influenced by The Three more than we expect. As has been noted for other books of the Old Testament, a brief examination of Jerome’s Minor Prophets Vulgate text does seem to suggest that he has been influenced by the text of The Three. In regards to the LXX text of Jerome’s commentaries we are more inclined to suggest that this is indeed a contemporaneous translation of Jerome from a LXX Greek text.69 While the association of the older Latin textual traditions with the Greek would seem solid, we are sometimes left to wonder what Greek? In the older Latin textual tradition we find variation, the cause of which is not always apparent. Textual variation would seem to be of two types: that inspired by different underlying Vorlagen, and inner-Latin lexical variation the cause of which needs further examination. Textual variation inspired by differing Vorlagen may be important for the reconstruction of an older Greek textual tradition, particularly where variation in the extant Greek text is lacking. As well as this form of variation, we also find the older Latin textual tradition providing us with access to regular lexical variation, usually within word groupings related by synonymy, which would not seem to be inspired by the underlying Greek (or Hebrew). The reason for this variation (whether theological, polemical or other) is little understood but the existence of this variation deserves further examination and explanation. With no context for the origin of the older Latin textual traditions this early period of the development of the text is generally dealt with superficially on the way to a discussion of other issues surrounding the Latin text. By widening our horizons to consider the possibility that the older Latin textual tradition of the Old Testament had its naissance within a Jewish context, we allow ourselves to shed the shackles imposed by Augustine and Jerome and begin to think about the Latin text anew.

69  A caveat must be noted that it is possible that Jerome’s LXX text represents an older Latin textual tradition which is no longer extant.

Latin Versions

349

Bibliography Billen, Albert V. The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. Cambridge: University, 1927. Blondheim, David S. Les Parlers Judéo-Romans et la Vetus Latina: Étude sur les Rapports Entre les Traductions Bibliques en Langue Romane des Juifs au Moyen Âge et les Anciennes Versions. Paris: É. Champion, 1925. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “La Bible latine des origines au moyen âge. Aperçu historique, état des questions (Première partie).” RTL 19,2 (1988): 137–159. Brock, Sebastian P. et al. “Bibelübersetzungen.” TRE 6: 160–311. Burkitt, Francis C. The Rules of Tyconius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894. Burkitt, Francis C. The Old Latin and the Itala: With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah. TS 4,3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Capelle, Paul. Le Texte du Psautier Latin en Afrique. Vol. 4 of Collectanea Biblica Latina. Rome: F. Pustet, 1913. Cassuto, Umberto. “The Jewish Translations of the Bible into Latin and its Importance for the Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions.” Biblical and Oriental Studies 1 (1973): 285–299. Dold, Alban. Konstanzer Altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelienbruchstücke mit Glossen: nebst zugehörigen Prophetentexten aus Zürich und St. Gallen. Texte und Arbeiten 7,9. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923. Dold, Alban. Neue St. Galler Vorhieronymianische Propheten-Fragmente der St. Galler Sammelhandschrift 1398b Zugehöring, Texte und Arbeiten, Beiträge zur Ergründung des älteren lateinischen christlichen Schrifttums und Gottesdienstes, Volumes 31– 35, Kunstschule der Erzabtei Beuron, 1940. Duval, Yves-Marie. Le Livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine: Sources et influence du commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jérôme. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1973. Estin, Collette. Les Psautiers de Jérôme: a la Lumière des Traductions Juives Antérieures. Vol. 15 of Collectanea Biblica Latina. Rome: San Girolamo, 1984. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings. VTSup 54. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1994. Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt sive Veterum Interpretum Graecum in otum Vetus Testamenta Fragmenta. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1875 (reprint 1964). Fischer, Bonifatius et al. eds. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969.

350

Rickerby

Gribomont, Jean. “Les plus anciennes traductions.” Pages 43–65 in Le monde latin an­ tique et la Bible. Edited by Jacques Fontaine and Charles Pietri. Bible de tous les temps 2. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985. Gryson, Roger. Esaias. Vol. 12 of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel. Freiburg: Herder, 1987. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude. “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with special Emphasis on the Book of Esther.” JTS 57,2 (2006): 439–473. Henson, Hensley et al. eds. Criticism of the New Testament. Glasgow: Scribner’s Sons, 1902. Hieronymi, Sophronius E. Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis. ed. Michael Hetzenauer. Oeniponte: Wagner, 1906. Hieronymi, Sophronius E. “CVI: Ad Sunnia Et Fretelam.” in Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Vol. 5. Edited by Jérôme Labourt. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1955. Hieronymi, Sophronius E. Ps. 1: Opera exegetica. Vol. 6 of Commentarii in prophetas mi­ nors. Edited by Marcus Adriaen. CCSL 76. Turnholti: Brepols, 1969. Houghton, Hugh A.G. “The Use of the Latin Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 375–405 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTS 42. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2012. Kelly, John N.D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975. Lehmann, Paul. Die Konstanz-Weingartener Propheten-Fragmente in phototypischer Reproduction, Lugduni Batavorum: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitg.-Mij., 1912. Mohrmann, Christine. “Les origines de la latinite chretienne a Rome.” VC 3,2 (1949): 67–106. Moreschini, Claudio et al. eds. A Literary History. Vol. 1 of Early Christian Greek and Latin literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Oesterley, William O.E. “The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets.” JTS 5,17 (1903), 76–88 [Hosea]. Oesterley, William O.E. “The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets II.” JTS 5,18 (1904), 242–253 [Amos, Micah]. Oesterley, William O.E. “The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets III.” JTS 5,19 (1904), 378–386 [Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah]. Oesterley, William O.E. “The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets IV.” JTS 5,20 (1904), 570–579 [Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi]. Oesterley, William O.E. “The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets V.” JTS 5,21 (1904), 67–70 [Joel, Obadiah]. Ogilvie, Robert M. The Library of Lactantius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Ranke, Ernestus. Fragmenta Versionis Sacrarum Scripturarum Latinae Antehierony­ mianae. Vindobonae: Apud Guilelmum Braumueller, 1868.

Latin Versions

351

Ranke, Ernestus. Palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti Versionis Latinae Fragmenta. Vindobonae: Sumptibus Guilielmi Braumuller, 1871. Sabatier, Pierre and Vincent de La Rue. Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquæ, Seu Vetus Italica, Et Cæteræ Quæcunque in Codicibus Mss. et Antiquorum Libris Reperiri Potuerunt: Quæ cum Vulgata Latina et cum Textu Græco Comparantur. Accedunt Præfationes, Observationes, ac Notæ, Indexque Novus ad Vulgatam è Regione Editam, Idemque Locupletissimus. Remis: Florentain, 1743. Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. JSS 15. Manchester: University of Manchester, 1991. Stenzel, Meinrad. “Die Konstanzer und St. Galler Fragmente zum altlateinischen Dodekapropheton.” Sacris Erudiri 5 (1953), 27–85. Stenzel, Meinrad. “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch im Würzburger Palimpsest-Codex (cod. membr. 64) und seine Textgestalt in Väterzitaten.” Sacris Erudiri 7 (1955), 5–34. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: a commentary on the book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Swete, Henry B. et al. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. New York, NY: KTAV, 1968. Thiele, Walter. Sapientia Salomonis. Vol. 11,1 of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel. Freiburg: Herder, 1977–1984. Trout, Dennis E. “The dates of the ordination of Paulinus of Bordeaux and of his departure for Nola.” REAug 37 (1991), 237–260. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint.” Pages 67–80 in La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos. Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano.” C.S.I.C., 1985. Vetus Latina Database. http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS9782503585987-1. Ziegler, Joseph. ed. Duodecim Prophetae. Vol. 13 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Chapter 21

The Book of the Twelve in Early Jewish Literature Frank Ueberschaer 1 Introduction The Book of the Twelve found its unity before the beginning of the second century bce, as clearly marked by the reference in Sir 49:10. This essay will provide an overview of early Jewish literature, investigate what aspects of the Twelve were received and referred to, and consider how these observations may enable us to draw conclusions regarding the use of the book and its unity. 2

Ben Sira

Ben Sira was written in the early second century bce. This date is clearly indicated by the vivid mention of the High Priest Simon II in Sir 50 as the last reference to the “history of Israel” in the praise of the ancestors (Sir 44–50). This reference serves as the terminus post quem. The grandson’s prologue that he added to the Greek translation, in which he dates his arrival in Egypt to the year 132 bce, presents the terminus ante quem. In his book, Ben Sira introduces himself as a wisdom teacher who gleaned after the grape harvesters (Sir 33:16), but in fact his book is nothing other than a new approach to wisdom thinking and wisdom theology in which he surely aimed to present what we today would call a theology of the Hebrew Bible. As a result, Ben Sira included in his book many different topics, genres, and fields of interest such as traditional wisdom sentences, poetry, prayers, reflective wisdom theology, a cosmology, and with his praise of the ancestors—even a brief “history of Israel.” These last two aspects are found for the first time in the wisdom tradition in Ben Sira. In his aim for an overall reflective wisdom theology, it is not surprising that Ben Sira refers for the first time to the prophets whose words, attributed words, and books are included in the Twelve. More surprising might be that his reference to them as a unit thereby provides the terminus ante quem for the Twelve as a book. 2.1 The Book of the Twelve in Sir 49:10 In Sir 49:10, Ben Sira mentions “the twelve prophets.” Hebrew Ms B 18v (lines 15–16) reads: © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_023

353

Early Jewish Literature

‫וגם שנים עשר הנביאים‬ ‫תהי עצמתם פר[חות מתה]תם׃‬ ‫אשר החלימו את יעקב‬ ]­­--[‫וישעוהו ב‬

And also the twelve prophets— may their bones spr[ing up from] their [place be]low!— who restored the strength of Jacob and saved him with[…]1 In the Hebrew text, the word ‫ וגם‬indicates the continuation of the listing of central characters of Israel’s history. It is used several times in this function in the praise of the ancestors (Sir 44:22; 45:23; 47:1; [49:9]).2 Following the phraseology of the Hebrew, verse 10 has to be understood as a list-like mentioning of the twelve prophets to which a dependent ‫אשר‬-clause was added. In the second line an exclamatory apposition is embedded. Thus, the main focus is on the impact of the Twelve on Israel: their restoration of the strength of Israel and their saving by something that has since then been lost in the Hebrew textual transmission. Unfortunately, the note is so scarce that it is impossible to draw conclusions regarding certain texts to which Ben Sira refers from the Twelve. He presents a more general understanding of the Twelve in this verse. It is obvious, however, that he read the Twelve as a message of salvation3 and that he did not refer, for example, to their claim for social justice, theological grievances, and their polemics against foreign nations or their time-bound aspects. This reading is underlined by the included apposition in line 2 of verse 10. It reminds the reader, for example, of 2 Kgs 13:21, and thereby recalls some kind of miracle-working of their remains. The Greek translation of the same verse emphasizes this aspect: καὶ τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν τὰ ὀστᾶ ἀναθάλοι ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν· παρεκάλεσαν γὰρ τὸν Ιακωβ καὶ ἐλυτρώσαντο αὐτοὺς ἐν πίστει ἐλπίδος.

1  The English translations of the Hebrew texts of Ben Sira are based on Parker’s and Abegg’s translation published in accordance 12.1.5 (November 2017). 2  It is in Sir 49:9 that ‫ וגם‬does not indicate a literary bullet point as in the mentioned instances. The reason is that ‫ וגם‬in verse 9 does not refer to Job as the Job of the book but to Ezekiel’s mentioning of Job in Ezek 14. See Witte, “Hiob,” 29–31, and Hildesheim, Prophet, 210–211, 213. 3  Cf. Mack, Wisdom, 44, who understands this as “hermeneutical judgment.”

354

Ueberschaer

And may the bones of the twelve prophets sprout anew out of their place, for they comforted/admonished Iakob and they redeemed them in confidence of hope.4 The Greek translation reformulates the whole verse. It consists of two main clauses. In the first sentence it adds ‘the bones’ of the prophets and thereby changes the nominative in Hebrew into a genitive in Greek. It also reformulates the mere mention of the twelve prophets in the Hebrew into the subject of the first sentence and it integrates the phrase, which in the Hebrew was an apposition, to the first line by using it as predicate. The second sentence consists of the Hebrew ‫אשר‬-clause that has been converted into a main clause with γάρ. Thus, the Greek translation brings out two main points. First it emphasizes the miracle-working of the bones of the twelve prophets. It thereby treats them as a unit but does not pay attention to them as a book or a literary unity, but rather more as a group of wonder-working individuals who will show their impact on Israel later in the future.5 The second point is more nuanced in Greek than in Hebrew. By using the verb παρακαλέω, the Greek not only translates the Hebrew ‫“( להחלים‬to heal,” “to make someone strong”), but expands the understanding of the verse, as παρακαλέω does not only bear the meaning “to encourage,” but also “to demand.” Thus, the Greek text may suggest that the translator accounted for both the admonitions and the consolations in the Twelve. Of course, one might argue that the last phrase of the verse is exclusively positive, a fact that might urge understanding the third line in a positive way as well. This is indeed what the Latin translation does (nam rogaverunt Iacob). On the other hand, this does not necessarily permit drawing conclusions on the character of the beginning of the second sentence in verse 10. Regarding the Book of the Twelve, the Hebrew text can be read as a text about twelve individuals who function together as a unity.6 In contrast, the Greek text definitively regards the Twelve as individual prophets (with their 4  The English translations of the Greek texts of Ben Sira are based on Wright’s translation published in the New English Translation of the Septuagint. 5  See Di Lella, “Praise,” 165, who emphasizes an eschatological perspective in this text. This perspective is underlined by the use of the same phraseology in Sir 46:12 in terms of the Judges. Here, too, the passage is characterized by a hoped-for future impact of the Judges. 6  This is emphasized by Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 371, who relates this with modern exegesis. See also Beentjes, “Prophets,” 220, and idem, “Canon,” 171, who both emphasize that already Ben Sira read the Twelve as a canonical unit.

Early Jewish Literature

355

physical remains) and only secondarily as a group. In this question, both the Syriac and the Latin versions follow their Hebrew or Greek sources. 2.2 The Book of the Twelve in the Frame of the Praise of the Ancestors By placing Sir 49:10 in the frame of the praise of the ancestors in Sir 44–50, the note on the Twelve is characterized in least two ways: first by its location in the order of the “history of Israel” and second by the framing of the praise of the ancestors as a whole. In his praise of the ancestors, Ben Sira follows the general canonical order: beginning with the Torah, continuing with Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, David and Nathan, Solomon, then Elijah, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Here, the listing of the Torah and the Former Prophets comes to an end. Ben Sira, however, introduces characters from the Later Prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets—into this “order of appearance” and synchronizes them “historically” by mentioning Isaiah in connection with Hezekiah and Jeremiah in the context of the downfall of the city of Jerusalem. He then adds Ezekiel and the Twelve Prophets in the canonical order. Following those, he mentions Zerubbabel and Joshua, who are prominent characters both in the Twelve (Haggai; Zechariah 4) and in Ezra/Nehemiah, and Nehemiah himself. At the end of the listing of these “canonical” characters a résumé provides the end, after which a long and quite enthusiastic account on Simon II is added. Regarding the Twelve, Ben Sira interestingly refers to the Twelve as a unity from the era of the exile. Due to the fact that he takes them as a unity and not as twelve prophets, he can only place them on one spot in history; however, it is astonishing that he, for example, did not refer to the first of the prophets, i.e. Hosea, or to the historical-philosophical consideration at the end of Malachi. He even does not take into account the historical links in the beginnings of the single books. Instead the placement of the note reveals Ben Sira’s understanding of the Twelve as prophets of hope from the exilic period.7 Because of this, he emphasizes their impact for his own present age by expressing his wish that their bones might flourish.8 This is not the only passage with a link 7  To the point, Mack, Wisdom, 40–41, summarizes them under the heading “The Restoration” and understands them as beginning of the post-exilic era which is represented by the Twelve, Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah. 8  See also Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 371–372, who talks of the “lebensspendende Kraft der Prophetie” in this context. In contrast to this topic related argumentation, Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 334, points out a formal argument. He emphasizes that the position of the Twelve in the Praise of the Ancestors corresponds to their position at the end of the prophetic canon. In this he is preceded by Hildesheim, Prophet, 214, 216, who nevertheless emphasizes the restorative power of the Twelve that Ben Sira ascribes to them for his present time.

356

Ueberschaer

to Ben Sira’s present in the praise of the ancestors, but it is a prominent one which might imply that Ben Sira himself read (and maybe taught) these books in this specific perspective and thereby reveals that he read them eclectically. Thereby Zapff, with good reason, emphasizes that Ben Sira just refers to the “heilsprophetischen Ergänzungen und Fortschreibungen.”9 A second aspect is the framing of the note within the praise of the ancestors as a whole.10 In Sir 44:1–15, Ben Sira presents an introduction to this special passage of his book.11 He emphasizes that he will mention important people who were outstanding in the past for their political or intellectual virtue.12 At the end of his introductory remarks, Ben Sira furthermore points out that it not only concerns their merits in the past, but also the ancestors’ honour to be remembered in the future—which is exactly what he hopes for himself and holds out for his students if they become inspired sages who can lead their people. In this context, for the students of wisdom, the Twelve appear as role models or generic figures whose function is to show the sovereignty of wisdom over history and to present perspectives for one’s own aim in life, first as a student of wisdom and later as a sage.13 The main impact that Ben Sira anticipates from the Twelve is restoration or comfort, which may indicate that he himself experienced his times as difficult and challenging. Thus, in a way, this short note on the Twelve might say more about Ben Sira’s view of his times than about the Twelve. Echoes, Allusions, and Receptions of Aspects of the Book of the Twelve in Ben Sira When discussing the reception of the Book of the Twelve in early Jewish literature, it might be helpful to distinguish between echoes, allusions, and reception. Reception is characterized both by quoting words from the text referred to and their integration into the argumentation of the receiving text; allusions refer to phraseology or a notion, but the context or the argument of the “original” text is not referred to in the receiving text; echoes are probable references 2.3

9  Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 372. Cf. Also Stadelmann, Schriftgelehrter, 214. 10  For a general introduction to the topic of prophecy in the book of Ben Sira, see Beentjes, “Prophets,” 210–220. 11  Cf. Corley, “Sirach 44:1–15,” 151–181, and Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 315–320. 12  Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 315, furthermore argues that Ben Sira tries to emphasize national heroes against Greek mythology. 13  Ueberschaer, “Jewish Education,” 37–38. See also Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 302, who emphasizes the praise of the ancestors as “Geschichte von Einzelpersonen.”

Early Jewish Literature

357

to texts of other books by using short phrases or expressions which are either common or rarely found, e.g., in the Twelve.14 Echoes, allusions, and receptions of texts and notions of the Twelve in Ben Sira can be recognized in several instances (cf. the list given by Otto Kaiser in the appendix of his German translation to the book15 or the list of allusions prepared by Lange and Weigold16). In this article, the most important ones will be discussed for illustration. Reception, according to the definition given above, can be found, for example, directly after the mention of the Twelve in the praise of the ancestors in Sir 49:11 and probably also in the opening section of Ben Sira in Sir 1:9–10. In Sir 49:11, the praise of the ancestors continues in verse 10 by referring to Zerubbabel and Joshua: 11 Πῶς μεγαλύνωμεν τὸν Ζοροβαβελ; καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς σφραγὶς ἐπὶ δεξιᾶς χειρός, 12 οὕτως Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ιωσεδεκ, οἳ ἐν ἡμέραις αὐτῶν ᾠκοδόμησαν οἶκον καὶ ἀνύψωσαν ναὸν ἅγιον κυρίῳ ἡτοιμασμένον εἰς δόξαν αἰῶνος. 11 How are we to magnify Zorobabel? He too was like a signet on the right hand, 12 so Iesous son of Iosedek, who, in their days, built a house and raised a holy shrine to the Lord, prepared for everlasting glory. In terms of reference to the Twelve, the characterization of Zerubbabel is most interesting. Although the Hebrew text of Ms B is almost completely destroyed in this passage, the reference to Hag 2:23 is clearly identifiable, especially as in the Septuagint of Hag 2:23 ‫ חותם‬is translated by σφραγίς: ‫ביום ההוא נאם־יהוה צבאות‬ ‫אקחך זרבבל בן־ׁשאלתיאל עבדי‬ 14  See also Beentjes, Tenach, and Beentjes, “Canon,” 169–186. For the sake of completeness, the concept developed by Lange and Weigold has to be mentioned, too: cf. Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 25–29. 15  Kaiser, Weisheit, 157–191. 16  Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations, 306–316.

358

Ueberschaer

‫נאם־יהוה‬ ‫וׂשמתיך כחותם‬ ‫כי־בך בחרתי‬ ‫נאם יהוה צבאות׃‬

On that day, declares Yhwh of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares Yhwh, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares Yhwh of hosts. This example shows that Ben Sira refers not only to the account of the narrative books like Ezra/Nehemiah when he describes the historical phase of the reestablishment of the religious and political society in Jerusalem after the end of the exile but includes also Haggai. This indicates that in his portrait of the history of Israel, he surely used all the sources he had available to select and highlight those aspects that were important to him.17 Furthermore, Ben Sira integrates texts taken from the Twelve not only into their “historical” context but also into passages where they suit thematically. Doing so, he clearly reveals that he used the Twelve for a theological purpose. The primary example is in Sir 48:1–11. This passage portrays Elijah. In verse 10, Ben Sira characterizes him and his task as follows: ‫הכתוב נכון לעת‬ ‫להשבית אף לפנ[י —]׃‬ ‫להשיב לב אבות על בנים‬ ‫ולהכין ש[בטי ישרא]ל׃‬

Who was appointed for the chosen time to cause wrath to cease befo[re …] to turn back the hearts of the parents to the children and to impart strength to the tr[ibes of Israe]l.

17  Furthermore, he used the sources to form his own text. As Zapff has pointed out, Ben Sira first used the note about the Twelve to mark the transition from the exilic time to the restoration of the temple and then secondly used Zerubbabel and Joshua as prefigurations of Simon II, who combined political and religious power (Zapff, Jesus Sirach 25–51, 372).

359

Early Jewish Literature

The fourth stich quotes a sequence of Mal 3:24: ‫הׁשיב לב־אבות על־בנים ולב בנים על־אבותם‬ ‫פן־אבוא והכיתי את־הארץ חרם׃‬

And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction. The end of Malachi expresses the hope that Elijah will return just before the day of Yhwh in order to prevent the destruction of the people of Israel (Mal 3:23–24). Ben Sira takes this “eschatological” hope and places it right in Elijah’s characterization.18 Thereby he presents himself as a “biblical theologian” who combines topics and themes that are scattered in the “canon” and creates a new “full” picture of these traditions.19 In view of the Twelve, Sir 48:10 indicates how much Ben Sira drew from it. He did not just mention the prophets like in Sir 49:10 or refer to sequences taken out of the biblical text that suit his “historical” outline. Rather he let himself be guided by specific texts and notions in the Twelve. In accordance with his positive reception of the Twelve in Sir 49:10, he exclusively refers to a salvific part of the Twelve. It is most interesting to note, however, that Ben Sira quoted the first part of the first sentence in Mal 3:24, by which he exclusively refers to the father. This could be indicative of Ben Sira’s use of scripture, which might be similar to the quoting of the later Tannaim. It might, however, also be a deliberate selection. In that case he would have quoted a sentence which—in a way—contradicts his own teachings, as in Sir 3. It might therefore be more plausible that Ben Sira quoted phrases from the given texts in order to allude to their “original” context, too, just like the Tannaim did. Yet he also takes up the thrust of Mal 3:23–24: Elijah will come back for a purpose—but verse 24a is not that purpose, only the means. While the purpose in Mal is expressed in a negative way (‫“—פן‬lest”), Ben Sira says it in positive wording: ‫“—להכין‬to impart strength,” again in accordance with his positive reception of the Twelve.

18  Hildesheim, Prophet, 101–102, emphasizes the eschatological aspect in his study. Nevertheless, Ben Sira’s this-worldly orientation should caution against too emphatically identifying eschatology in this book (however, cf. Hildesheim, Prophet, 105–107). 19  See also Koet, “Reconciler,” 173–190, and MacKenzie, “Historian,” 322, who includes the second servant song in Isa 49 in his interpretation. The eschatological aspect is not only emphasized by Koet, but also by Marböck, “Jesaja,” 316–317, and Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 200.

360

Ueberschaer

A more central aspect of Ben Sira’s thinking is probably also taken from the Twelve. In his opening section of the book, Ben Sira characterized first wisdom and then God. In Sir 1:9–10 he writes: 9 κύριος αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτὴν καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐξηρίθμησεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξέχεεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, 10 μετὰ πάσης σαρκὸς κατὰ τὴν δόσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐχορήγησεν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 9 The Lord, he created her, and he saw and enumerated her and poured her out upon all his works, 10 among all flesh according to his giving, and he furnished her abundantly to those who love him. In these sentences, Ben Sira strictly connects to God both wisdom herself and her distribution: God is ultimately wise and created wisdom, who is associated with him. God does not hold wisdom for himself, however, but bestows it/her to human beings. According to the Greek account of this passage, God pours her out upon all works. In Greek this is clearly a reception of Joel 3:1. Thus God’s distribution of wisdom parallels his giving of prophecy—a line that can be followed throughout the whole book (most importantly in, e.g., Sir 24:33). In view of the Twelve, this indicates that, at least for the Greek translator, Joel 3 was a hermeneutical key to understanding Ben Sira’s notion of God’s distribution of wisdom in the world. Yet there are limits to understanding Sir 1:9–10 too one-sidedly as reception of Joel 3. In contrast to the Greek and the Latin, which follow the Greek both in Sir 1:920 and in Joel 3:1, the Syriac translation testifies to ‫—ܦܠܓ( ܘܦܠܓܗ‬ “to divide, to distribute, to share”). As this translation does not correspond to the Syriac translation in Joel 3:1, which uses ‫“( ܐܫܕ‬to shed, to pour out”), the Syriac translator may not have seen this connection or, alternatively, the Greek translator created it.21 In consequence, the connection to Joel 3 can be interpreted vis-à-vis the Greek version, but it should not be overestimated in view of Ben Sira’s own theology. Although the reception of Joel 3 is not entirely certain, Ben Sira alludes to Joel elsewhere. In Sir 21:2 Ben Sira cautions against sin: 20  In the counting of the Gryson Vulgate edition, the verse is Sir 1:10. 21  For a further discussion, see Ueberschaer, Weisheit, 252.

Early Jewish Literature

361

ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ὄφεως φεῦγε ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας· ἐὰν γὰρ προσέλθῃς, δήξεταί σε· ὀδόντες λέοντος οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῆς ἀναιροῦντες ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων. As from before a snake, flee from sin, for if you approach, it will bite you; its teeth are lion’s teeth, destroying people’s lives. Although the passage is not transmitted in Hebrew, the phrase ὀδόντες λέοντος οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῆς is clearly an allusion to Joel 1:6: ‫כי־גוי עלה על־ארצי‬ ‫עצום ואין מספר‬ ‫ׁשניו ׁשני אריה‬ ‫ומתלעות לביא לו׃‬

which the Greek translated as follows: ὅτι ἔθνος ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν μου ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀναρίθμητον, οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτοῦ ὀδόντες λέοντος, καὶ αἱ μύλαι αὐτοῦ σκύμνου· In contrast to mere echoes of phrases or expressions, this passage in Ben Sira follows the argument in Joel 1: in both texts, the phrase ὀδόντες λέοντος οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτῆς characterizes something negatively and highlights its danger.22 Sir 21:2 and Joel 1:6 thus indicate how much the Twelve influenced the wording in the Book of Ben Sira, be it Ben Sira’s own wording or the translator’s. This argument is supported by the many echoes in Ben Sira of terms and phrases, found in the Twelve, which are used in later text with no respect to the original arguments in the earlier one. An example can be taken from Joel again: Sir 17:23 (καὶ τὸ ἀνταπόδομα αὐτῶν εἰς κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν ἀποδώσει—“and their repayment he will deliver upon their head”) might echo the phrase ‫ אׁשיב גמלכם בראׁשכם‬in Joel 4:4, which is repeated almost literally in Joel 4:7 and can be found in Obad 15, too. 22  A negative view of dangerous things is not necessarily given, as for example the use of the term μάχαιραν δίστομον resp. στόματα μαχαίρης in Heb 4:12 and 11:34 shows.

362

Ueberschaer

The next verse in Obadiah might also be echoed in Sir 44:9. In the introduction to the praise of the ancestors, Ben Sira distinguishes between those who were important in history, but did not receive attention in the following generations, and those whose remembrance continued in Ben Sira’s days. The first ones he characterizes as follows: ‫ויש מהם אשר אין לו זכר‬ ‫וישבתו כאשר שבתו׃‬ ‫כאשר לא היו היו‬ ‫ובניהם מאחריהם‬

Thereby the phrase ‫ כאשר לא היו היו‬might echo Obad 16 (‫)והיו כלוא היו‬. In this case the distinction between allusion and echo, as defined above, is of value. The proximity between the two phrases is obvious, but nevertheless the context of both is completely different, so that despite almost identical phraseology Obad 16 does not shed any light on Sir 44:9 except that it makes it plausible that Ben Sira had read the Twelve. The same phenomenon can be found in Sir 44:21 which echoes in its phrase ‫ להנחילם ]מ[ים ועד ים ומנהר ועד אפסי ארץ‬the same expression at the end of Zech 9:10: ‫והכרתי־רכב מאפרים וסוס מירוׁשלם‬ ‫ונכרתה קׁשת מלחמה‬ ‫ודבר ׁשלום לגוים‬ ‫ומׁשלו מים עד־ים ומנהר עד־אפסי־ארץ׃‬

The topic of Sir 44:21 is the extent of Abraham’s inheritance; in Zech 9:10 the argument is the extent of the rule of the prince of peace. As there is no further hint in Sir 44 that both texts should be read together, the relationship can be, at best, intertextual by reception of the reader.23 Another echo of the Twelve might be the sentence ‫ יין ונשים יפחיזו לב‬in Sir 19:2 which might refer to Hos 4:11: ‫זנות ויין ותירוׁש יקח־לב‬. All these echoes, allusions, and the reception of topics, expressions, and phrases of the Twelve prove that Ben Sira not only read these writings but was clearly influenced by both ideas and language in the book. This, however, does not prove that he had a special preference for it or studied it more closely than other books. Together with Otto Kaiser’s list of references24 and in combination 23  In this case, beside the Book of the Twelve, Psalms must be taken into account because the phrase appears also in Ps 72:8. 24  Kaiser, Weisheit, 157–191.

363

Early Jewish Literature

with Ben Sira’s own terminology in Sir 49:10 (“the twelve Prophets”), this result strongly suggests that he read the books of the Twelve not as individual books but as a unit. Of course one might say that the short note in Sir 49:10 is not understandable without the biblical pretexts.25 In a way this is true, yet we should see that Ben Sira (and the translators) attributes a meaning to the Twelve by perceiving the prophets as message of hope.26 Thereby Ben Sira appears as a theologian who refers to certain aspects and emphasizes them while he omits others; he did so deliberately, as he clearly knew the whole Book of the Twelve. 3

Wisdom of Solomon

There is neither a reference to the Twelve as a book in the Wisdom of Solomon nor to the Twelve as prophets. Nevertheless, there are several allusions and echoes to the writings of the Twelve, although in many cases the echoes might be understood better as literary topoi that can be found not only in Wisdom and in the Twelve but also in other writings. The most obvious reception of the Book of the Twelve can be found in Wis 11:1, which refers back to Hos 12:14. In Wis 11:1, it says, just in the opening section of the great outline of Wisdom’s re-narration of the Exodus story:27 Εὐόδωσεν τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ἐν χειρὶ προφήτου ἁγίου. She prospered their actions by the hand of a holy prophet. As Moses, aside from Deut 34:10, is referred to as prophet elsewhere only in Hos 12:14, this text clearly refers to this specific prophetic tradition, although— or rather, because—its uniqueness: ‫ובנביא העלה יהוה את־יׂשראל ממצרים ובנביא נׁשמר׃‬

By a prophet Yhwh brought Israel up from Egypt, and by a prophet he was guarded. καὶ ἐν προφήτῃ ἀνήγαγεν κύριος τὸν Ισραηλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ἐν προφήτῃ διεφυλάχθη. 25  Cf. Meiser, “Septuagint Translation,” 616. 26  See also Witte, “Kanon,” 50–51. 27  Schmitt, Weisheit, 53, emphasizes the “Scharnierfunktion” (hinge role) of this passage. Cf. also Engel, “Buch,” 137–138.

364

Ueberschaer

And through a prophet the Lord brought Israel up from Egypt, and through a prophet he was guarded. Thus, the Wisdom of Solomon emphasizes this unique tradition and presents it anew for its own time.28 Another reception, though probably more of an allusion, is the reference in Wis 5:6 to Mal 3:20. ἄρα ἐπλανήθημεν ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης φῶς οὐκ ἐπέλαμψεν ἡμῖν, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος οὐκ ἀνέτειλεν ἡμῖν· Surely, we strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on us, and the sun did not rise on us. The crucial aspect is the mention of the “light of righteousness” in Wis 5:6 and of “the sun of righteousness” in Mal 3:20: ‫וזרחה לכם יראי ׁשמי ׁשמׁש צדקה ומרפא בכנפיה‬ ‫ויצאתם ופׁשתם כעגלי מרבק׃‬

But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. Both literary connections are unique. Thus, it might be that Wis 5:6 refers to Mal 3:20.29 Another difficult case is the relation between Wis 12:2 and 10 to Amos 4:6. Wis 12:2 Διὸ τοὺς παραπίπτοντας κατ᾿ ὀλίγον ἐλέγχεις καὶ ἐν οἷς ἁμαρτάνουσιν ὑπομιμνῄσκων νουθετεῖς, 28  Cf. Hübner, Weisheit, 145. See also the discussion in Winston, Wisdom, 226–227. 29  Winston, Wisdom, 147, also refers to Aristobulus (fragment in Eusebius, Praep Ev XIII 12,9– 19), but Aristobulus does not allude to the Twelve but makes a religious-philosophical remark, that the prime source of light in the creation is metaphorically transferred to the light which comes from wisdom. For a further analysis of the passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, see Manfredi, “Trial,” 166–175. In contrast, Blischke, Eschatologie, 193–196, strongly emphasizes the allusion to Mal 3:20 and presents further echoes of Mal in the Wisdom of Solomon. She points out that the Wisdom of Solomon thereby frames older traditions anew. Unlike all others, Nesselrath, “Sprache,” 151–152, reduces the term τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης φῶς as solemn speech (“Nominalausdrücke, die feierlich und erhaben klingen”).

365

Early Jewish Literature

ἵνα ἀπαλλαγέντες τῆς κακίας πιστεύσωσιν ἐπὶ σέ, κύριε. Therefore, you reprove little by little those who fall into error, and by reminding them of the things through which they sin you warn them in order that, being freed from wickedness, they may believe in you, O Lord. Wis 12:10 κρίνων δὲ κατὰ βραχὺ ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὅτι πονηρὰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν καὶ ἔμφυτος ἡ κακία αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἀλλαγῇ ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. but judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn and that their way of thinking would never change. ‫ וגם־אני נתתי לכם‬Amos 4:6 ‫נקיון ׁשנים בכל־עריכם‬ ‫וחסר לחם בכל מקומתיכם‬ ‫ולא־ׁשבתם עדי‬ ‫נאם־יהוה׃‬

I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me, declares Yhwh. Amos 4:6 καὶ ἐγὼ δώσω ὑμῖν γομφιασμὸν ὀδόντων ἐν πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἔνδειαν ἄρτων ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς τόποις ὑμῶν· καὶ οὐκ ἐπεστρέψατε πρός με, λέγει κύριος. And I will give you an aching of the teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, and you did not return to me, says the Lord.

366

Ueberschaer

Wis 12:2 and 10 might be a reception of the prophetic notion that God takes his time to redress iniquity. In the prophetic tradition, this notion surely was needed to explain why the retaliation by God did not happen in close connection to the prophet’s message. In other words, the prophetic circles found a creative new theological answer to both an intellectual and a social challenge. In the Wisdom of Solomon, it can be built on this. The question arises, however, whether the Wisdom of Solomon refers to these specific texts in the Twelve. It might be more plausible that the Wisdom of Solomon rather referred back to this notion as a notion than to any specific texts because there is no sufficient verbal connection between the text in the Wisdom of Solomon and in the Twelve. Thus, in this aspect, the Wisdom of Solomon is bases on prophetic thinking, but not verifiable on the Twelve.30 The same phenomenon can be seen the possible reference to Zech 13:2 in Wis 14:11. On this continuum from possible reception to allusions and then to echoes of passages and thoughts from the Twelve, there are several instances that might be understood as echoes of the Twelve in the Wisdom of Solomon. As the ties between both texts seem to be rather lax, however, it might be better to classify them as references to literary topoi or notions in both texts than as literary connections between them. The following examples can be understood as such instances: – clouds and dew as a symbol of evanescence and of time passing by in Wis 2:4; 11:22 and Hos 13:3 (see also Hos 6:4); – the notion of being tested in a furnace in Wis 3:6 and Zech 13:9 and Mal 3:2– 3; this metaphor is used in Sir 2 also, which underlines that one cannot think of direct relations between the Book of the Twelve and the Wisdom of Solomon but of a common traditional background; – the talk of fire, flames, or sparks and stubble in Wis 3:7 and Mal 3:17–21, especially as the metaphor has different connotations in both texts; – the talk of bow and lightning in Wis 5:21; Hab 3:9–14; and Zech 9:14; – God’s mercy in Wis 15:1–2 and Nah 1:3, 7; – the leaping of lambs/calves in Wis 19:9 and Mal 3:20. Nevertheless, the Wisdom of Solomon may also contain actual allusions. The reference in Wis 11:26 to the talk that God reprieves people whom he accepted is a good example:31

30  See also the discussion in Winston, Wisdom, 241, who refers more to contemporary literature of the Wisdom of Solomon than to prophetic thinking. Heading in the same direction, Schmitt, Weisheit, 58, points out that the background is some kind of Hellenistic “humanism” and philanthropism without referring to any prophetic notions or ideals. 31  For the role of Wis 11:26 in Wisdom, see Blischke, “Theologie,” 172.

Early Jewish Literature

367

φείδῃ δὲ πάντων, ὅτι σά ἐστιν, δέσποτα φιλόψυχε· You spare all things, because they are yours, O Sovereign Lord, you who love human beings. This text might also allude to Jonah 4:11 (see the use of φείδομαι in both texts): ‫ואני לא אחוס על־נינוה העיר הגדולה אׁשר יׁש־בה הרבה מׁשתים־עׂשרה רבו אדם‬ ‫אׁשר לא־ידע בין־ימינו לׂשמאלו ובהמה רבה׃‬

And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle? ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ φείσομαι ὑπὲρ Νινευη τῆς πόλεως τῆς μεγάλης, ἐν ᾗ κατοικοῦσιν πλείους ἢ δώδεκα μυριάδες ἀνθρώπων, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν δεξιὰν αὐτῶν ἢ ἀριστερὰν αὐτῶν, καὶ κτήνη πολλά; But shall I not spare Nineue, the great city, in which dwell more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who did not know their right hand from their left, and many animals? Thus, it can be concluded that the Wisdom of Solomon includes several echoes of the Twelve, but only very few allusions. It remains more plausible, however, that the Wisdom of Solomon refers to a common background which has been prepared by the prophets, and among those the Twelve have to be included. Thus, in contrast to Ben Sira, the author of Wisdom of Solomon did not study the Twelve as a distinct unit when preparing for the writing his own book. 4 Tobit Tobit does not refer to the Book of the Twelve as a single book, but it contains the closest references in the wisdom literature to single books of the Twelve.32 32  Tobit exists in a great textual plurality, see Hallermayer, Text, and Weeks et al., Tobit. This article refers to the Greek tradition only, which is complex enough, as there are a shorter (G I) and a longer version (G II) in Greek. The shorter version is testified in the Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, the longer version in the Codex Sinaiticus (to which the commentary by Littman refers). As there is no consensus about the direction of the development or even if there was, respectively how there was a development, in this article both versions are used side by side.

368

Ueberschaer

In Tob 2:6, for example, the text of Amos 8:10 is quoted explicitly, and Tob 14:4 includes an explicit reference to the prophet Jonah, respectively Nahum. In the opening chapters of the book, the protagonist Tobit is characterized as pious and devoted to the Torah. When he learns that a murdered Judean lies on the marketplace, he hides the corpse in order to bury it later in secrecy, after it had become dark, because it was forbidden to bury Judeans. Right after this scene, Tobit thinks of words that are introduced as speech of the prophet Amos: Tob 2:6 (G I) καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς προφητείας Αμως, καθὼς εἶπεν Στραφήσονται αἱ ἑορταὶ ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ εὐφροσύναι ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον καὶ ἔκλαυσα. Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, when he said, “Your feasts shall be turned into mourning, and all your merriments into lamentation.” And I wept. Tob 2:6 (G II) καὶ ἐμνήσθην τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ προφήτου, ὅσα ἐλάλησεν Αμως ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ λέγων Στραφήσονται ὑμῶν αἱ ἑορταὶ εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ᾠδαὶ ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνος καὶ ἔκλαυσα. Then I remembered the saying of the prophet, those things that Amos spoke against Baithel, saying, “Your feasts shall be turned into mourning, and all your ways into lamentation.” And I wept. Although the text is not identical with any known version of the Septuagint,33 it is very likely a quotation from Amos 8:10: καὶ μεταστρέψω τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον … 33  In the Göttingen Edition, Ziegler does not present any reading of Amos 8:10 that is identical or closer to the text of Tobit than the text presented above. See Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae, 201.

Early Jewish Literature

369

And I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation. ‫והפכתי חגיכם לאבל‬

… ‫וכל־ׁשיריכם לקינה‬ I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation. This quotation is of interest in many ways. First, it proves that the author of Tobit regarded the book of Amos (in some way) as Holy Scripture. Thus, if Tobit was written in the beginning of the second century bce and probably completed in the middle of the same century, this provides a deadline for this process of acceptance—a deadline that completely suits the mention of the Twelve in Ben Sira.34 Second, the quotation itself raises the question how the known versions of Amos and the text(s) in Tob 2:6 relate to each other. Does Tob 2:6 quote Amos 8:10 freely or from memory? Alternatively, does it represent a text from a different (and not known) version of Amos? How do the versions of Tobit fit into this process?35 Thirdly, the author of Tobit uses the quotation to give insight into the protagonist’s inner feelings and thoughts. This indicates the use of scripture as hermeneutical key to the author’s present—however a key which seems to be used rather incidentally, although clearly indicated. Beside Amos 8:10, there is another explicit reference to one of the twelve prophets. In Tob 14:4, at the end of the book and its story, Tobit directs his last words to his son and says: Tob 14:4 (G I) ἄπελθε εἰς τὴν Μηδίαν, τέκνον, ὅτι πέπεισμαι ὅσα ἐλάλησεν Ιωνας ὁ προφήτης περὶ Νινευη ὅτι καταστραφήσεται, ἐν δὲ τῇ Μηδίᾳ ἔσται εἰρήνη μᾶλλον ἕως καιροῦ, καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ σκορπισθήσονται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγαθῆς γῆς, καὶ Ιεροσόλυμα ἔσται ἔρημος, καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ κατακαήσεται καὶ ἔρημος ἔσται μέχρι χρόνου.

34   Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 39. 35  In the Hebrew text of Tobit, the quoted fragment is identical with the Masoretic tradition, cf. Weeks et al., Tobit, 96–97.

370

Ueberschaer

Go into Media, my child, for I trust what Ionas the prophet said about Nineue, that it will be overthrown. But in Media there will be peace till an appointed time. And our kindred will be scattered over the earth from the good land, and Hierosolyma will be desolate. And the house of God in it will be burned down and will be desolate for a time. Tob 14:4 (G II) καὶ ἀπότρεχε εἰς Μηδίαν, ὅτι πιστεύω ἐγὼ τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Νινευη, ἃ ἐλάλησεν Ναουμ, ὅτι πάντα ἔσται καὶ ἀπαντήσει ἐπὶ Αθουρ καὶ Νινευη, καὶ ὅσα ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται τοῦ Ισραηλ, οὓς ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεός, πάντα ἀπαντήσει, καὶ οὐ μηθὲν ἐλαττονωθῇ ἐκ πάντων τῶν ῥημάτων, καὶ πάντα συμβήσεται τοῖς καιροῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Μηδίᾳ ἔσται σωτηρία μᾶλλον ἤπερ ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι· διὸ γινώσκω ἐγὼ καὶ πιστεύω ὅτι πάντα, ἃ εἶπεν ὁ θεός, συντελεσθήσεται καὶ ἔσται, καὶ οὐ μὴ διαπέσῃ ῥῆμα ἐκ τῶν λόγων· καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ Ισραηλ πάντες διασκορπισθήσονται καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται ἐκ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς, καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τοῦ Ισραηλ ἔρημος, καὶ Σαμάρεια καὶ Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἔρημος καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν λύπῃ καὶ καυθήσεται μέχρι χρόνου. And hurry off into Media, for I believe the word of God about Nineue, the things Naoum spoke, that all these things will come about and happen to Athour and Nineue. Also, everything that the prophets of Israel spoke, those whom God sent, will happen. And not one of all their words will fail, but all will come true at their appointed times. So, in Media there will be safety rather than among the Assyrians or in Babylon. For I know and believe that all things that God said will be fulfilled and will come to pass, and no utterance of his words shall fail. And our kindred, who live in the land of Israel, all will be scattered and taken as captives from the good land, and the whole land of Israel will be desolate, even Samaria and Ierousalem will be desolate. And the house of God will be in grief and will be burned down for a time. The texts of Tob 14:4 reveal how much the versions of Tobit differ not only in their extent but also in their content. In terms of the Twelve, Tob 14:4 indicates that the Twelve were read and understood as prophets of doom. This

Early Jewish Literature

371

perspective—to which the quotation of Amos 8:10 suits perfectly—is so dominant that the tradition in the textual transmission did not see any difference between the prophets Jonah and Nahum, as the first is referred to in G I and the latter is mentioned in G II.36 In G II additionally all the other prophets are mentioned in the same manner, so that the text gives the impression that according to Tobit all prophets can be summarized as prophets of doom.37 Thus, Tob 14:4 is in line with Tob 2:6. In both texts, the words of a prophet— although in Tob 14:4 not explicitly quoted, but nevertheless clearly alluded to with certain textual passages in mind—illuminate the present situation. In Tob 14:4, they furthermore provide advice and guidance for the future.38 In this respect, the following verses, Tob 14:5–6, might allude to Hag 2:9 by mentioning the rebuilding of the temple, and to texts like the end of Zech 14. The salvific dimension of the Twelve is thus not neglected in Tobit but it is assigned to a certain place: as in a drama, the salvific dimension is located at the conclusion not to provide a happy end, but to give a glimpse of hope to the reader of Tobit’s (and thereby Israel’s) story.39 Next to these obvious receptions, Tobit provides some further allusions to the Twelve. There may be an allusion to Zech 1:3 in Tob 13:6, an allusion to Jonah 4:3, 8 in Tob 3:6, and possibly also an allusion to Zech 1:16 in Tob 13:10, although Tob 13:10 uses the term “tent” (σκηνή) while Zech 1:16 mentions the temple as “house” (οἶκός). In addition, the reference to the peoples of the world going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem in Tob 13:11 is surely an echo of traditions of the Twelve, as it may draw on many different passages in the Twelve. To summarize, next to Ben Sira, Tobit indicates a landmark of the process of canonizing the Book of the Twelve. It is clearly regarded as Holy Scripture that can be quoted and that illuminates the present age. This claim is supported furthermore by the observation that almost all the echoes, allusions, and quotations are found in chapters 1–3 and 13–14. This implies a theological 36  The reference to Jonah is given again in Tob 14:9 according to G I, but there is no reference to any prophet in the parallel of G II. 37   Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 178, assumes Nahum to be original and emphasizes that in contrast to Nah (and Tob) the point of the end of the book of Jonah is that Nineveh was not destroyed. See also Littman, Tobit, 155–156, who provides a comparison of the different textual traditions. For a close analysis, see Anderson, “Tobit,” 68–75, who objects to Schüngel-Straumann by assuming that the ancient readers had to think that Nineveh repented, but continued sinning later and, therefore, was destroyed. In this assumption, Anderson draws back to Rendtorff, Hebrew Bible, 292, and argues for Jonah to be original. 38  Cf. Biberger, “Unbefriedigende Gegenwart,” 265–280. 39  For a close analysis of Tob 14:5–6 in the different versions, see Anderson, “Tobit,” 68–75.

372

Ueberschaer

framework for the story itself and underlines the function of the references to biblical scriptures as the hermeneutical key. In contrast to Ben Sira, however, Tobit reads the Twelve as prophets of doom. Both books thus reveal how differently these prophets and their message(s) could be understood in the same era. Likewise, both writings from the second century bce reduce the Twelve to more or less one main message; this suggests that both of them read the Twelve as one single book, i.e., as a literary unit. 5 Judith Judith does not refer much to the Book of the Twelve. The most obvious echo is the designation of Nineveh as great city right in the beginning of the book in Jdt 1:1 (Ναβουχοδονοσορ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν Ἀσσυρίων ἐν Νινευη τῇ πόλει τῇ μεγάλῃ). This statement corresponds with Jonah 1:2; 3:2–3; 4:11, where Nineveh is constantly described as ‫ נינוה העיר הגדולה‬respectively Νινευη ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη. Another echo or maybe even an allusion is the narration about the proceedings of repentance in Jdt 4:9–14. It probably refers to almost the same procedure in Jonah 3:5–8. Theologically more interesting is the echo of Hos 13:4 in Jdt 8:20: Jdt 8:20 ἡμεῖς δὲ ἕτερον θεὸν οὐκ ἔγνωμεν πλὴν αὐτοῦ· ὅθεν ἐλπίζομεν ὅτι οὐχ ὑπερόψεται ἡμᾶς οὐδ᾿ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν. We however have known no other God except him, for which reason we hope that he will not disregard us nor any of our race. ‫ ואנכי יהוה אלהיך מארץ מצרים‬Hos 13:4 ‫ואלהים זולתי לא תדע‬ ‫ומוׁשיע אין בלתי׃‬

But I am Yhwh your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

Early Jewish Literature

373

Hos 13:4 ἐγὼ δὲ κύριος ὁ θεός σου στερεῶν οὐρανὸν καὶ κτίζων γῆν, οὗ αἱ χεῖρες ἔκτισαν πᾶσαν τὴν στρατιὰν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ οὐ παρέδειξά σοι αὐτὰ τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω αὐτῶν· καὶ ἐγὼ ἀνήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, καὶ θεὸν πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐ γνώσῃ, καὶ σῴζων οὐκ ἔστιν πάρεξ ἐμοῦ. But I am the Lord your God who makes heaven firm and creates earth, whose hands created all the host of the sky. And I did not display them for you to follow after them. And I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but me, and apart from me there is no one that saves. Although the setting and the terminology of the two texts differ much, the combination of the terminology “to know,” the talk of the one God, and of his saving acting suggests reading Jdt 8:20 as an allusion to Hos 13:4.40 Thus, Judith admittedly does not refer much to the Twelve, but it does so at a crucial point. As Schmitz and Engel have pointed out, the passage in Jdt 8:17–23 presents the answer to the basic question of the book: “Who is God?” The countertext is Jdt 2 and the references to it later in the book in Jdt 3:8; 6:2 about the Neo-Assyrian claim that the king is god; in Jdt 8:20 this question is answered with this reference to the Exodus tradition.41 Judith clearly refers to the Twelve, but its influence was not nearly as important as in other books of the second century bce. 6

The Books of Maccabees

6.1 1 Maccabees 1 Maccabees features a similar structure to Tobit with regard to the Twelve. There are two main allusions to the Twelve, one in the beginning of the book and one in the opening section of the final narrative phase of it. The first chapter of the book describes the desolate situation of the Judeans, whereby 1 Macc 1:39–40 alludes to Amos 8:10:

40  In terms of the terminology “to know,” cf. Gera, Judith, 278. 41  Unfortunately, Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 258–259, just refer to Exodus and leave the reference to Hosea aside.

374

Ueberschaer

1 Macc 1:39 τὸ ἁγίασμα αὐτῆς ἠρημώθη ὡς ἔρημος, αἱ ἑορταὶ αὐτῆς ἐστράφησαν εἰς πένθος, τὰ σάββατα αὐτῆς εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, ἡ τιμὴ αὐτῆς εἰς ἐξουδένωσιν. 40 κατὰ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῆς ἐπληθύνθη ἡ ἀτιμία αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ ὕψος αὐτῆς ἐστράφη εἰς πένθος. 39 Her holy precinct became deserted as a wilderness; her feasts were turned to mourning, her sabbaths to disgrace, her honour to scorn. 40 Her dishonour was multiplied to equal her former glory, and her exaltation was turned to mourning. ‫ והפכתי חגיכם לאבל‬Amos 8:10 … ‫וכל־ׁשיריכם לקינה‬

I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation…. Amos 8:10 καὶ μεταστρέψω τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον … And I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation…. Amos 8:10 serves as a foil to characterize the situation in Jerusalem after Antiochus IV came to power and oppressed the Jews.42 As in the book of Tobit, the allusion to the Book of the Twelve as literature provides the hermeneutical key to understanding the present situation and its “historical” background. The same pattern occurs at the end of the final section of the book. After the decisive victory in chapter 13, the following chapters narrate the restitution of Jerusalem. The transition between these two parts is marked by a general characterization of the new situation in 1 Macc 14:4–15.43 Thereby many allusions and the reception of visions of peace and prosperity in the Book of the Twelve

42  See also Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 80–81. 43  For a close reading of the passage, cf. Honigman, Tales, 169–174.

Early Jewish Literature

375

are used.44 The main reference texts are Mic 4 and Zech 8. This phenomenon can be observed in verses 8–9: 1 Macc 14:8 καὶ ἦσαν γεωργοῦντες τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν μετ᾿ εἰρήνης, καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐδίδου τὰ γενήματα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ ξύλα τῶν πεδίων τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν. 9 πρεσβύτεροι ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἐκάθηντο, πάντες περὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐκοινολογοῦντο, καὶ οἱ νεανίσκοι ἐνεδύσαντο δόξας καὶ στολὰς πολέμου. 8 And they were farming their land in peace, and the land was giving its produce, and the trees of the plains their fruit. 9 Elders were sitting in the city squares; all were conversing about good things, and the youths were dressing in splendour and uniforms of war. This passage clearly refers to Zech 8:4–5 and 12: ‫ כה אמר יהוה צבאות‬Zech 8:4 ‫עד יׁשבו זקנים וזקנות ברחבות ירוׁשלם ואיׁש מׁשענתו בידו מרב ימים׃‬ ‫ורחבות העיר ימלאו ילדים וילדות מׂשחקים ברחבתיה׃‏‬5 ‫כי־זרע הׁשלום‬12 ‫הגפן תתן פריה‬ ‫והארץ תתן את־יבולה‬ ‫והׁשמים יתנו טלם‬ ‫והנחלתי את־ׁשארית העם הזה את־כל־אלה׃‬

4 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of great age. 5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets. 12 For there shall be a sowing of peace. The vine shall give its fruit, and the ground shall give its produce, and the heavens shall give their dew. And I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things. 44  See also Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 277–278.

376

Ueberschaer

Zech 8:4 τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ Ἔτι καθήσονται πρεσβύτεροι καὶ πρεσβύτεραι ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις Ιερουσαλημ, ἕκαστος τὴν ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ ἔχων ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πλήθους ἡμερῶν· 5 καὶ αἱ πλατεῖαι τῆς πόλεως πλησθήσονται παιδαρίων καὶ κορασίων παιζόντων ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις αὐτῆς. 12 ἀλλ᾿ ἢ δείξω εἰρήνην· ἡ ἄμπελος δώσει τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἡ γῆ δώσει τὰ γενήματα αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς δώσει τὴν δρόσον αὐτοῦ, καὶ κατακληρονομήσω τοῖς καταλοίποις τοῦ λαοῦ μου πάντα ταῦτα. 4 This is what the Lord Almighty says: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Ierousalem, each with his rod in his hand, because of the great number of days. 5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets. 12 Rather, I will demonstrate peace; the vine shall yield its fruit, and the ground shall give its produce, and the sky shall give its dew, and I will cause the remnant of my people to possess all these things. Additionally, 1 Macc 14:12 even seems to quote Mic 4:4: 1 Macc 14:12 καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἕκαστος ὑπὸ τὴν ἄμπελον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν συκῆν αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ ἐκφοβῶν αὐτούς. And everyone sat under their own vine and their own fig tree, and there was no one to frighten them. ‫ ויׁשבו איׁש תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו‬Mic 4:4 ‫ואין מחריד‬ ‫כי־פי יהוה צבאות דבר׃‬

but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. Mic 4:4 καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἕκαστος ὑποκάτω ἀμπέλου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος ὑποκάτω συκῆς αὐτοῦ,

377

Early Jewish Literature

καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἐκφοβῶν, διότι τὸ στόμα κυρίου παντοκράτορος ἐλάλησεν ταῦτα. and each one shall rest under his vine, and each under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken this. One might furthermore see an allusion to another text from the book of Zechariah: ‫ ביום ההוא נאם יהוה צבאות‬Zech 3:10 ‫תקראו איׁש לרעהו אל־תחת גפן ואל־תחת תאנה׃‬

In that day, declares Yhwh of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbour to come under his vine and under his fig tree. Zech 3:10 ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ, συγκαλέσετε ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ ὑποκάτω ἀμπέλου καὶ ὑποκάτω συκῆς. On that day, says the Lord Almighty, you shall invite, each his neighbour, under a vine and under a fig tree. However, the reception of Mic 4:4 in 1 Macc 14:12 is obvious. Thereby it is noteworthy that, in regard to the verb, the text of 1 Macc is closer to the Masoretic Text of Micah than to its Septuagint account. This situation might shed light upon the process of the textual transmission of the Hebrew text, as Siegfried Kreuzer has shown.45 And even the Septuagint account of Micah in which Justin, who gives evidence of the reading καθισεται ανηρ,46 attests almost the same wording as in 1 Macc the phenomenon fits into the picture drawn by Kreuzer. Therefore, even the books of the Maccabees are indications of the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible and in this case, especially of the Book of the Twelve. Besides this, it is of interest that these receptions of and these allusions to the texts of the Book of the Twelve move in two directions. On the one hand, they provide an interpretation of the time of Simon’s reign as a peaceful, 45  See Kreuzer, “Vielfalt,” 124–126. 46  Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae, 215.

378

Ueberschaer

prosperous, and in every way ideal (eschatological) era by sketching this time with the colourful images of the prophetic books.47 This is why Honigman understands the passage as a eulogy.48 On the other hand, they show the extent to which these books were used in order to fulfil this task. In other words: such a use of the Twelve indicates their high esteem in the time of the authorship of 1 Maccabees. 6.2 3 Maccabees 3 Maccabees contains a reference to Jonah’s stay in the fish (3 Macc 6:8). The text of the book of Jonah is not quoted; it is just an explicit reference to the “fact” of his stay. Within the chapter, i.e., within the prayer of the priest Eleazaros, Jonah is mentioned right after Daniel in 3 Macc 6:6–7. Therein Daniel is referred to twice: first to the three men in the furnace (Dan 3) and then to Daniel in the Lion’s Den (Dan 6)—followed by Jonah in the fish (Jonah 2). All three references serve in the same way in this prayer as a reminder to God how he acted soteriologically in Israel’s history, in order to motivate him to act in such a way again in the present days. Although a short note, this use of biblical traditions indicates that at least the book of Jonah was read together with apocalyptic traditions. The story of Jonah was well known so that a short reference was sufficient to invoke it as a motif, as well as an argument towards God. A similar use of these traditions can be found in the novel Joseph and Aseneth (Jos. Asen. 12:11). 7 Enoch Within the apocalyptic tradition, Enoch plays a prominent role. Also, in this tradition there are many instances that can be taken as references to the Book or the books of the Twelve. Most of these references are echoes of phrases, and they do not serve the same function as in the works previously discussed in this chapter. Thus, they are only briefly mentioned here.49 1 En 39:5 So there my eyes saw their dwelling places with the holy angels, and their resting places with the holy ones,

47  See also Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 277–288; Bernhardt, “Judas,” 237. For a close analysis of 1 Macc 14 as a whole, see Schwartz, “1 Maccabees 14,” 72–83. Schwartz understands the references to the Twelve as “messianic colours” in the depiction of Simon’s rule. 48  Honigman, Tales, 161. 49  The translation is taken from Charlesworth, Apocalyptic Literature, 13–89.

Early Jewish Literature

379

and they interceded and petitioned and prayed on behalf of the children of the people, and righteousness flowed before them like water, and mercy like dew upon the earth, and thus it is in their midst forever and ever. The fourth line might echo the motif in Amos 5:24:50 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream. The text of Zeph 1:18 might find an echo in 1 En 52:7: 1 En 52:7 It shall happen in those days that no one shall be saved either by gold or by silver; and no one shall be able to escape. Zeph 1:18a Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. 1 En 101:2 might echo a motif in Hag 1:10, which is an argument in the prophet’s accusation that the Judeans have not build the temple yet.51 1 En 101:2 If he closes the windows of heaven and hinders the rain and the dew from descending upon the earth because of you, what will you do? Hag 1:10 Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce. In this chapter of Enoch, the argument is that the fear of God can be learned from nature because God created it and it serves his ends. Thereby the main example is that of the sailors who throw away their goods in a storm to save their lives. According to 1 En 101, the sea does not act on its own behalf but on God’s only: “All her movements [are] the very work of the Most High” (101:6). The motif echoes the scene in Jonah 1, however the argument is different; thus 1 En 101:4–6 should not be taken as an allusion, but merely as an echo of a motif.52 50  For an analysis of 1 En 39:4–5, cf. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 112–113. They mention the echo of Amos 5:24 as reworking of the Amos text. 51  Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 475, and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 507. 52  Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 477–479, who just talks about “imagery,” and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 507.

380

Ueberschaer

1 En 101:4 Do you not see the sailors of the ships, how their ships are tossed up and down by the billows and are shaken by the winds, and they become anxious? 5 On this account (it is evident that) they are seized by fear, for they will discharge all their valuable property—the goods that are with them—into the sea; they think in their hearts that the sea will swallow them up and they will perish in it. 6 Is it not the entire sea and all her waters and all her movements the very work of the Most High? Has he not ordered her courses of action and her waters—(indeed) her totality—with sand? Jonah 1:5 Then the mariners were afraid, and each cried out to his god. And they hurled the cargo that was in the ship into the sea to lighten it for them. But Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship and had lain down and was fast asleep. 6 So the captain came and said to him, “What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call out to your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we may not perish.” As a last example, a motif can be mentioned that evidently had a frequent reception. Obad 16 (“they shall be as though they had never been”) is alluded to in 1 En 102:11:53 1 En 102:11 But they perished and became like those who were not and descended into Sheol—and their spirits too—with anguish. 8 Summary This brief overview of several representative writings of the Early Jewish Literature proves that the Book of the Twelve or at least the books of the Twelve were read and used frequently in the divergent literature of the Second Temple period, which includes wisdom literature, narrative literature, and apocalyptic literature. Evidently, the many ways of referring to the Book of the Twelve—the many ways of reception, allusions, and echoes of phrases or notions—cannot prove that in any of these single instances the book as a whole stands in the background. A reference to a certain text or a motif can never be more than this. Nevertheless the mentioning of the Twelve as a collective in the book of Ben Sira, together with its (contradictory) one-sided readings in both the book of Ben Sira and the book of Tobit, indicates that the Book of the Twelve was 53  See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 521.

Early Jewish Literature

381

indeed seen as a literary unit, even though—and reasonably—it must have been particular motifs and phrases that inspired the theologians of the second century bce to (?) later refer to the Book of the Twelve. Bibliography Anderson, Gary A. “The Book of Tobit and the Canonical Ordering of the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 67–75 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner et al. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008. Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach: Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26: Proefschrift, Katholieke Theologische Universiteit, Amsterdam. Nieuwegein: privately published, 1981. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach, Ecclesiasticus).” Pages 169–186 in “Happy the One Who meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14:20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. CBET 43. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2006. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 207–229 in “Happy the One Who meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14:20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. CBET 43. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2006. Bernhardt, Johannes C. “Judas und seine Brüder: Zum Bild der Hasmonäerfamilie in den Makkabäerbüchern.” Pages 221–243 in Die Makkabäer. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie et al. WUNT 382. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Biberger, Bernd. “Unbefriedigende Gegenwart und ideale Zukunft: Gesamtisraelitische Heilsperspektiven in den letzten Worten Tobits (Tob 14).” BZ.NF 55 (2011): 265–280. Blischke, Mareike Verena. Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis. FAT II,26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Blischke, Mareike Verena. “Zur Theologie der Sapientia Salomonis.” Pages 155–173 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. SAPERE 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Charlesworth, James H. ed. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1983 (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 52016). Corley, Jeremy. “Sirach 44:1–15 as Introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 151–181 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2008.

382

Ueberschaer

Di Lella, Alexander. “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors of Old (Sir 44–50): The History of Israel as Paranetic Apologetics.” Pages 151–170 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. DCLS. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2006. Engel, Helmut. “Die Sapientia Salomonis als Buch: Die gedankliche Einheit im Buch der Weisheit.” Pages 135–143 in Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer et al. WUNT 286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Gera, Deborah L. Judith. CEJL. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2014. Hallermayer, Michaela. Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit. DCLS 3. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Hildesheim, Ralph. Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer: Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira in Sir 48,1–49,16. TThSt 58. Trier: Paulinus, 1996. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochus IV. Oakland, CA: University of California, 2014. Hübner, Hans. Die Weisheit Salomons. ATD Apokryphen 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Kaiser, Otto. Weisheit für das Leben: Das Buch Jesus Sirach übersetzt und eingeleitet. Stuttgart: Radius, 2005. Koet, Bart J. “Elijah as Reconciler of Father and Son: From 1 Kings 16:34 and Malachi 3:22–24 to Ben Sira 48:1–11 and Luke 1:13–17.” Pages 173–190 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Von der Vielfalt zur Einheitlichkeit: Wie kam es zur Vorherrschaft des Masoretischen Textes?” Pages 117–129 in Horizonte biblischer Texte: Festschrift für Josef M. Oesch zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Vonach and Georg Fischer. OBO 196. Fribourg: Academic and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Lange, Armin and Matthias Weigold. eds. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2008. Mack, Burton K. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. CSHJ. Chicago, IL: Chicago University, 1985. MacKenzie, Roderick A.F. “Ben Sira as Historian.” Pages 312–327 in Trinification of the World: A Festschrift in honour of Frederick E. Crowe in celebration of his 60. birthday. Edited by Thomas A. Dunne and Jean-Marc Laporte. Toronto: Regis College, 1978. Manfredi, Silvana. “The Trial of the Righteous in Wis 5:1–14(1–7) and in the Prophetic Tradition.” Pages 159–178 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on

Early Jewish Literature

383

Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Marböck, Johannes. “Jesaja in Sirach 48,15–25: Zum Prophetenverständnis in der späten Weisheit.” Pages 305–319 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz et al. BZAW 300. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2000. Meiser, Martin. “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Kings in the Context of the History of Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 609–623 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich, 2013. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus et al. SCS 64. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther. “Zu Sprache und Stilistik der Sapientia Salomonis.” Pages 137–154 in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. SAPERE 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W.E. and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2012. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. ed. Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). SAPERE 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Passaro, Angelo and Giuseppe Bellia. eds. The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. DCLS. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2005. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Leiden: Deo, 2005. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schmidt Goering, Greg. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schmitt, Armin. Weisheit. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. Schmitz, Barbara and Helmut Engel. Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2014. Schüngel-Straumann, Helen. Tobit. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2000. Schwartz, Daniel R. “1 Maccabees 14 and the History of the Hasmonean State.” Pages 69–84 in Die Makkabäer. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie et al. WUNT 382. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum. WUNT II,6. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91–108. CEJL. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2007.

384

Ueberschaer

Tilly, Michael. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015. Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2007. Ueberschaer, Frank. “Mit gutem Glauben und vorbildlicher Weisheit: Zwei Ahnentafeln im Vergleich (Sir 44f. und Hebr 11).” PzB 20 (2011): 27–50. Ueberschaer, Frank. “Jewish Education in Ben Sira.” Pages 29–46 in Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context. Edited by Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini. BZNW 228. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2017. Weeks, Stuart et al. eds. The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. FSBP 3. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2004. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Witte, Markus. “Ist Hiob auch unter den Propheten? Grundsätzliche Probleme der Sirachexegese am Beispiel von Sir 49,8–10.” Pages 23–37 in Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuchs: Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira und zur frühjüdischen Weisheit. Edited by Markus Witte. FAT 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Witte, Markus. “Der ‘Kanon’ heiliger Schriften des antiken Judentums im Spiegel des Buches Jesus Sirach.” Pages 39–58 in Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuchs: Gesammelte Studien zu Ben Sira und zur frühjüdischen Weisheit. Edited by Markus Witte. FAT 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Zapff, Burkard. Jesus Sirach 25–51. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 2010. Ziegler, Josef. ed. Duodecim prophetae. Vol. 13 of Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21967.

Chapter 22

The Book of the Twelve in Jesus and the New Testament Craig A. Evans The books that make up the Librum XII Prophetarum or δωδεκαπροφήτον are sometimes called Prophetas Minores, or the “Minor Prophets.” But these shorter prophetic books are hardly minor with respect to their contributions to the theology of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. Apparently all Twelve are quoted or alluded to in the writings of the New Testament. There are more than 200 quotations of and allusions to these prophets.1 The New Testament’s four Gospels, the book of Acts, most of Paul’s letters, the General Letters, and the book of Revelation quote or allude to one or more of the Twelve. The examples I treat below are not in the canonical order of the Twelve, but in what I think loosely approximates the history and chronology of their influence in John, Jesus, and the written traditions that follow these founding figures. 1 Malachi A number of years ago Jeffrey Trumbower made a compelling case that Malachi 3 significantly influenced John the Baptist and Jesus. He acknowledges that the appearance of quotations and allusions here and there in the New Testament Gospels could be the work of scripturally literate and sophisticated tradents, but he thinks it more likely that this Malachian tradition, which is not always easy to sort out, probably originated in the John and Jesus of history.2 I think he is correct. I shall begin with the quotation of Mal 3:1 in Mark. 1  According to the “Index of Quotations” in Aland, Greek New Testament, 916–918. The “Index” suggests that Obadiah 21 is alluded to in Rev 11:15. Perhaps. If there is no allusion to Obadiah, then only eleven of the Twelve Prophets are quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. A recent collection of studies treats the most important passages of the Twelve Minor Prophets in the New Testament. See Menken and Moyise, Minor Prophets. 2  Trumbower, “Role of Malachi,” 29–33, rightly draws attention to a number of figures from the Maccabees to approximate contemporaries of Jesus who followed the examples of the heroes of Israel’s sacred past.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_024

386

Evans

The Gospel of Mark, which contains no Infancy story, begins with a conflation of Mal 3:1 (+ LXX Exod 23:20) and Isa 40:3.3 Mark 1:2–3 reads: 2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ· ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου· 3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ— 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight—” It is probable that the principal passage here is Isa 40:3, not Mal 3:1. I think this is so for three reasons: First, in their parallels both Matthew and Luke omit Mal 3:1 but retain Isa 40:3 (Matt 3:3; Luke 3:4).4 Second, judging by the evidence of Qumran, Isa 40:3 was recognized as an eschatological text that spoke of Israel’s renewal (see 1QS 8:12–17 and context). Although different at points, Qumran’s interpretation of Isa 40:3 approximates its meaning in the New Testament Gospels. That John, a prophet who baptized people at the Jordan in a wilderness setting, would be linked to this text occasions no surprise. Thirdly, at Isa 40:9 Jerusalem is enjoined to act as a herald, proclaiming “good news” (‫)מבׂשרת‬. The herald is to say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” In the Aramaic paraphrase the proclamation becomes, “The kingdom of your God (‫ )מלכותא דאלהכון‬has been revealed.” It is probable that this language, seen also in the Aramaic version at Isa 52:7; 61:1–2, and elsewhere, underlies the language of Jesus: “The kingdom of God is at hand (ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ); repent, and believe in the good news (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ)” (Mark 1:15).5 For these reasons we should conclude that Isa 40:3 is the principal text and that the appearance of Mal 3:1, even if exegetically helpful, is not essential. If we do conclude that Mal 3:1 was not part of the original prophetic witness, at least in connection with Isaiah, it is far from clear at what stage the text became part of the tradition. Did the evangelist Mark inherit the Mal 3:1 // Isa 40:3 combination or was it his creation? The fact that Mal 3:1 does not appear in Matthew and Luke, which follow Mark, could suggest that the later evangelists were not familiar with the combination and so decided—evidently 3  See Breytenbach, “Minor Prophets,” 29–30. 4  It should be noted that Luke 3:4–6 actually extends the Isaianic quotation to include Isa 40:4–5. 5  For convincing argument that the latter written Targum preserves language that approximates the Aramaic diction reflected in Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom, see Chilton, “Regnum Dei Deus Est,” 261–270; idem, Glory, 77–81; idem, Galilean Rabbi, 58–67.

JESUS AND THE NT

387

independently of one another—to omit Mal 3:1. After all, the prophetic testimony is introduced as something “written in Isaiah the prophet,” not “written in Malachi and Isaiah the prophets.” It also should be noted that Mal 3:1 does not appear in John’s Gospel, when the baptizer explains, “I am ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness …’ (ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ)” (John 1:23). Nevertheless, Mal 3:1 is very much part of the primitive tradition linked to John the baptizer. The prophetic text appears in material evidently drawn from Q (Matt 11:10 = Luke 7:27).6 In this tradition it is Jesus himself who declares that John “is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger … who shall prepare the way …’” The evangelist Mark may well have inherited a tradition in which the passages from Malachi and Isaiah, both understood to relate to John, were combined, not least because of their common language (i.e., εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν, “prepare the way”).7 John and Jesus themselves may well have drawn the passages together, with Isa 40:3 describing the task and Mal 3:1 identifying the doer of the task. Given the association of John with Elijah (Matt 11:7–15 = Luke 7:24–30; Mark 9:13 “Elijah has come”; Luke 1:17 “in the spirit and power of Elijah”), it is hardly surprising that a passage from Malachi, a prophetic book that anticipates the coming of Elijah to bring restoration to Israel (Mal 3:23; cf. Mark 9:11– 12; Sir 48:10 “ready at the appointed time … to restore the tribes of Jacob”), appears in the Gospel tradition related to the baptizer. Introducing the quotation of Isa 40:3 with Mal 3:1 identifies the “one crying in the wilderness” of the former passage: he is God’s “messenger,” the promised Elijah figure. The quotation of Mal 3:1 in the tradition shared by Matthew and Luke (i.e., Q) confirms that John the baptizer is indeed the one who is sent by the Lord and who calls for Israel’s repentance as part of the preparation for what will come.8 Jesus goes on to praise John (“among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John”) and criticize his generation for its shabby treatment of John and its failure to heed either the message of John or the message of Jesus (Matt 11:16–19 = Luke 7:31–35). At the time Jesus spoke these words John was either in prison (as the placement of the John material in Matthew 11 and 14 seems to imply) or had perhaps already been executed. When the full context of Malachi is taken into account—both what is quoted or alluded to in the Gospels, as well as what the book as a whole contains 6  See Ham, “Minor Prophets,” 49–50. 7  As argued in Stendahl, School, 51–52. 8  In its own way, the fourth Gospel gives expression to the same tradition, when John says: “I am not the Christ but I have been sent before that one (ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου)” (John 3:28).

388

Evans

and how it was interpreted in late antiquity—we can appreciate how influential, even foundational it was for Jesus and John in understanding their respective yet collaborative ministries. The importance of Malachi’s contribution to the eschatological and redemptive work of John and Jesus seems to have receded somewhat in the early Church, as it gave way to greater focus on Jesus and Christology. But there should be no doubt that this prophet was of immense importance to John and Jesus themselves, justifying and explicating their public appearance in which they call on Israel to repent and prepare for the Day of the Lord.9 2 Hosea Key passages from Hosea contribute significantly to the dominical tradition and to ideas found in Paul and elsewhere in New Testament literature. This should come as no surprise, given Hosea’s reformist and restorationist orientation. The prophet is sharply critical of a cultus that neglects justice and presumes upon its elect status, with the result that Israel has become estranged from her God and faces judgment.10 With a stance like this, along with some catchy and provocative pronouncements, it is not hard see why early Christianity’s earliest thinkers found much to like in Hosea. I begin with the dominical tradition, recognizing that its interaction with Hosea may in fact post-date both Jesus and Paul. But I do so nevertheless because I suspect that Hosean themes likely were part of the theology of Jesus and his earliest followers, even if they were not given explicit reference in the earliest materials. Hosea is echoed in dominical apocalyptic sayings. We may look first at the warning of coming tribulation (Matt 24:15–28 = Mark 13:14–23 = Luke 21:20– 24). In material that has a distinctive Lukan-Septuagintal cast, Jesus prophesies that his disciples will “see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,” at which time they will know “its desolation has come near.” It will be time to flee, “for these are days of vengeance (ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως αὗταί εἰσιν),” Jesus explains, “to fulfill all that is written.” “Alas for those who are with child (ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις) and for those who give suck in those days.” Great wrath is coming upon Israel,

9  For further critical study, see Blomberg, “Elijah”; Dunn, “John”; DeYoung, “Function”; Miller, “Messenger”; Reeder, “Malachi”; Koet, “Elijah.” 10  For recent studies on this theme, see Dearman, “Interpreting”; Hendel, “Ritual”; de Andrado, “Ḥesed.” One will also want to see the older study by Roberts, “Hosea.”

JESUS AND THE NT

389

for “they will fall by the edge of the sword (πεσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρη), and be led captive among the nations,” etc. (Luke 21:20–24). Long ago Charles H. Dodd noted that the language of Hosea (and other prophetic literature) is echoed in this oracle, an oracle likely independent of its approximate Markan parallel.11 In ancient times Hosea had warned his generation that the “days of punishment have come (αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς ἐκδικήσεως), the days of recompense have come” (Hos 9:7), adding later that the rebellious northern tribes “shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαι) ripped open” (Hos 13:16 = LXX 14:1). In another apocalyptic oracle, again distinctive to Luke and exhibiting once again Septuagintal language (Luke 23:26–32), Jesus, as he is led away to be crucified, tells the weeping women that the coming tribulation will be so severe that people will pronounce blessings on women who are barren and will “say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us’ (λέγειν τοῖς ὄρεσιν· πέσετε ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς, καὶ τοῖς βουνοῖς· καλύψατε ἡμᾶς)” (Luke 23:30). The language clearly reflects what we find in Hosea, when the judged and terrified “shall say to the mountains, ‘Cover us,’ and to the hills, ‘Fall upon us’ (ἐροῦσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν· καλύψατε ἡμᾶς, καὶ τοῖς βουνοῖς· πέσατε ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς)” (Hos 10:8). When the dominical oracle declares that these things will take place “to fulfill all that is written” (Luke 21:22), it refers to the written testimony of the prophets, including Hosea. The Septuagintal language shows that the form of the Lukan oracles (and we should also include 19:41–44, as well as 21:20–24 and 23:26–32) were given their final shape some time after Easter and the founding of the Church, but we should not assume that there were no prophetic utterances lying behind them that originated with Jesus. This is probably the same with respect to Jesus’s explicit appeals to Hos 6:6. Two appeals to this text appear in Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke make use of Mark’s story of the call of Levi (or Matthew) the tax collector to follow Jesus (Matt 9:9–13 = Mark 2:14–17 = Luke 5:27–32). When criticized for eating with “sinners and tax collectors,” Jesus asserts, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matt 9:12 = Mark 2:17a = Luke 5:31). Before completing the saying (“I have not come to call the righteous,” etc.), the evangelist Matthew inserts: “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’” (Matt 9:13a).12

11  Dodd, “Fall.” For a recent assessment of the Lukan oracles, see Nolland, Luke, 1001–1003. 12  From time to time Matthew inserts quotations of Scripture into his Markan source. For discussion of the examples under review, see Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 229–230.

390

Evans

We find the same thing in the controversy over plucking grain on the Sabbath. Once again Matthew and Luke follow Mark (Matt 12:1–8 = Mark 2:23–28 = Luke 6:1–5). Matthew and Luke edit in various ways their Markan source, but what really stands out is Matthew’s insertion at Matt 12:6–7, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” Matthew’s ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν matches the Old Greek exactly, whereas the Hebrew reads: ‫“( חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח ודעת אלהים מעלות‬I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings”).13 What is intriguing is the assertion that “something greater than the temple is here.” This remarkable claim may well allude to an important theme in Hosea, in which justice, mercy, righteousness, and God himself are placed above the temple and its cultic activities. Is Jesus saying that he or his ministry, in some sense, is greater than the temple? We immediately think of the accusation leveled against Jesus that he is in league with Satan (Matt 12:22–37). Critics then demand a sign from Jesus. Jesus rebukes his generation, comparing it to the Ninevites, who repented at the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:5), and to the Queen of the South, who journeyed a great distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1–3). The generation of Jesus has not repented, though one “greater than Jonah is here,” and it has not sought wisdom, though one “greater than Solomon is here” (Matt 12:41–42). These utterances are remarkable, not least for their audacity. Nevertheless, if this is christological apologetic on the part of the Matthean evangelist or his community, it is modest. After all, the claim that Jesus is a better preacher than Jonah is not especially weighty. But if these utterances derive from Jesus himself, they take on much greater significance. At the very least, they underscore Jesus’s sense of eschatological fulfilment. In his thinking his ministry is pivotal. There is good reason to think this material derives from Jesus. It does not derive from Matthew, for it is found in Luke (at 11:31–32) and so is presumably Q tradition. If the two “something greater than” sayings are primitive and perhaps originated with Jesus, then perhaps the “something greater than the temple is here” saying in Matt 12:6 also derives from Q and perhaps also originated with Jesus. The Matthean evangelist has inserted the saying into the Sabbath controversy story he inherited from Mark.14 It may be that the evangelist recognized 13  See Ham, “Minor Prophets,” 45–47. 14  Matthew does this elsewhere. See Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10, where in the healing of the centurion’s servant Matthew inserts Q 13:28–29 (// Matt 8:11–12).

JESUS AND THE NT

391

its relevance for the quotation of Hos 6:6. The quotation is also directly relevant for the Sabbath controversy. Jesus replies to his critics by pointing out that David “entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence,” which can only be eaten by the priests (Matt 12:3–4). At 12:5 Matthew bolsters the argument by an appeal to the necessity of priests to work on the Sabbath (i.e., to fulfill the requirements of Num 28:9–10). That Matthew has reworked and augmented the Markan Sabbath controversy story is quite clear. But does the “something greater than the temple” saying derive from Jesus? And does the appeal to Hos 6:6 derive from Jesus? Both might. After all, it is in Mark, not Matthew, that Jesus coaxes the acknowledgment from a scribe that “to love one’s neighbour as oneself” trumps the temple cultus itself. In the encounter with the scribe in the temple precincts Jesus is asked, “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus affirms the widespread view that there are in fact two commandments—first to love God (Deut 6:4–5) and second to love one’s neighbour even as one loves oneself (Lev 19:18).15 The scribe concurs, asserting that love of God and love of neighbour “is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (περισσότερόν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων καὶ θυσιῶν)” (Mark 12:33). Some commentators rightly recognize allusions to 1 Sam 15:22 (“Does the Lord take as much pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices [ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίαι] as in hearing the voice of the Lord?”) and Hos 6:6 (“For I want mercy and not sacrifice [θυσίαν], and knowledge of God rather than whole burnt offerings [ὁλοκαυτώματα]”).16 The Matthean evangelist has a healthy respect for the temple (Matt 5:23–24; 23:16–22), so it is not likely that he would invent sayings that could be interpreted as implying that the temple was in some way invalid. In my opinion Matthew has creatively edited and conflated genuine dominical tradition, part of which in important ways echoed the prophetic criticism of Hosea.17 Hosea’s distinctive language may lie behind Peter’s well known confession of Jesus’s messiahship, at least in the version we find in the Gospel of Matthew. It is one of the most memorable events in the Gospels. In the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is. Peter replies: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). 15   On the widespread recognition of the Double Commandment in Jewish sources, see Allison, “Mark 12.28–31.” Allison’s principal point is not simply that the Double Commandment is ubiquitous in Jewish tradition; it is a summary of the Decalogue. 16  Lagrange, Évangile, 302–303; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:242–243; Gnilka, Evangelium, 2:166; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 840; Focant, Gospel, 501: “recalls Hosea 6:6.” 17  Of course, this is not to deny that the evangelist’s redactional work was in part motivated by important matters in his community, over against a skeptical synagogue. For more on these matters, see Lybaek, “Matthew’s Use”; Viljoen, “Hosea 6:6.”

392

Evans

In a recent study Mark Goodwin has suggested that Peter’s language, σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, alludes to Hosea, where it says in the Greek version (LXX Hos 2:1): οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος (“where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called, ‘sons of a living god’”).18 The Hebrew (Hos 2:1b) reads: ‫אתם יאמר‬ ‫ …“ להם בני אל־חי‬they will be called, ‘Sons of the living God.’” The expression, “living God” (‫ )אל־חי‬is rare in Old Testament literature, occurring only in Josh 3:10; Ps 42:2; 84:2.19 James Mays plausibly suggests that the expression may derive from the oath formula “as Yahweh lives!” (‫)חי־יהוה‬.20 In any case, the expression “living God” appears in only a few passages in later Jewish literature. In Jubilees we have, “And they will all be called ‘sons of the living God.’ And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them” (Jub. 1:25).21 Not only has Hos 2:1 been quoted, but the point of the text has been extended with a great emphasis. The sonship of God’s people will be acknowledged by all spiritual and heavenly beings. God will be their father and he shall love them, which may allude to Hos 2:23, whose declaration ‫ ורחמתי את־לא רחמה‬can mean “I will love ‘Not Loved,’”22 as evidently Paul understood in his citation of the passage in Rom 9:25.23 The addition, “I shall love them,” in Jubilees may well represent the same understanding we see in Paul. In three more texts references are made to the “sons of the living God” of Hos 2:1, though with varying points of application. In the romance Joseph and Aseneth Joseph says to Aseneth, “Blessed are you by the Most High God … because the sons of the living God (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ ζῶντος θεοῦ) will dwell in your City of Refuge, and the Lord God will reign as king over them forever”24 (Jos. Asen. 19:8). In a somewhat convoluted metaphor and analogy, Joseph has told Aseneth that her offspring will be numerous and that God will be their king. Her descendants, in fact, will be called “the sons of the living God.” Because Aseneth through her conversion (“all the idols I have thrown away”) has become a Jewish proselyte (and therefore fit to marry Joseph), Hosea’s ancient 18  Goodwin, “Hosea.” 19  In these three passages the expression is rendered in Hebrew and in Greek the same way as in Hosea. 20  Mays, Hosea, 32. David’s references to the “living God,” defied by the Philistines, reads ‫( אלהים חיים‬1 Sam 17:26, 36; cf. 2 Kgs 19:14, 16; and at Isa 37:4, 17; and elsewhere: ‫)אלהים חי‬. 21  Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 2:54. 4Q216 preserves much of the Hebrew text of Jubilees 1, but v. 16–25 are not extant. 22  Paul’s καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην may well reflect the Aramaic meaning of ‫רחם‬. 23  Moyise, “Paul,” esp. 44–49, on Hos 2:23/1:10 in Romans 9. See also Tanner, “New Covenant.” 24  Burchard, “Joseph,” 233. It remains much debated whether Joseph and Aseneth is a Jewish pseudepigraphon or a Christian pseudepigraphon.

JESUS AND THE NT

393

prophecy applies: Aseneth and her descendants have been transformed from a non-beloved, non-people, to God’s people. In the Greek Additions to Esther we find the letter Artaxerxes wrote in commendation and defense of the Jewish people living in the Persian Empire. (In Hebrew Esth 8:9–12 the letter is mentioned, but its contents are not provided.) Mid-way through the letter the king says: “We find that the Jews … are governed by most righteous laws and are sons of the Most High, the most mighty living God (ὄντας δὲ υἱοὺς τοῦ ὑψίστου μεγίστου ζῶντος θεοῦ), who has directed the kingdom for us and for our ancestors in the most excellent order …” (Add Esth 16:15–16 [= 8:12p–8:12q]). The language of Hos 1:10 has been woven into Artaxerxes’s description of the Jewish people. But God is not simply the “living God” of Hos 1:10, he is the “Most High” and “mighty living God.” The last text is found in 3 Maccabees. Terrified by heavenly opposition to his plan to exterminate the Jewish people, Ptolemy IV, king of Egypt, commands his soldiers: “Release the sons of the almighty and living God of heaven (ἀπολύσατε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ ζῶντος), who from the time of our ancestors until now has granted an unimpeded and notable stability to our government” (3 Macc 6:28). Once again there is little doubt that Hos 1:10 lies behind “the sons of the … living God.” It is also obvious that the Hosean language has been embellished. The “living” God has become the “almighty and living God of heaven.” Goodwin argues that the Matthean disciples’ confession at 14:33, “You are the Son of God (θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ),” anticipates the fuller confession of 16:16.25 I think he is correct. Only moments before this confession, Jesus had saved Peter’s life.26 As “Son of the living God,” as he will be confessed in 16:16, Jesus could hardly do otherwise. Goodwin concludes that the allusion to Hosea in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi “may express the notion of Jesus’s life-giving agency, which brings about the formation of the ἐκκλησία, a formation that … brings the restored Israel into existence.”27 I believe Goodwin makes a significant point. The identification of Jesus as “Son of the living God” is much more than a mere enhancement of a divine title. Rather, the language infuses the identity of Jesus with Hosea’s theme of Israel’s God as a life-giving God of redemption and restoration. Perhaps the Hosean “out of Egypt I called my Son” (Hos 11:1), quoted as fulfilled in Matthew’s infancy narrative, is also part of this narrative 25  Goodwin, “Hosea,” 270–272. 26  That is, in the story of Peter’s unsuccessful attempt to walk on the water (Matt 14:28–31). The Matthean passage augments the parallel story in Mark 6:47–52. 27  Goodwin, “Hosea,” 282–283.

394

Evans

anticipation.28 The call of the Son of the living God, embodied in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, says Matthew, was adumbrated by the call of Israel identified and privileged as God’s first-born son, out of Egypt, to gain freedom and new life in the Promised Land.29 The last Hosean echo that will be considered may also be part of the theme of Jesus as Son of the living God. I refer here to Jesus’s predictions that after his crucifixion, he will be raised up “on the third day,” an unmistakable allusion to Hos 6:2. In Hebrew and Greek the passage reads: ‫יחינו מימים ביום הׁשליׁשי יקמנו ונחיה לפניו׃‬

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (RSV) ὑγιάσει ἡμᾶς μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ἀναστησόμεθα καὶ ζησόμεθα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ· After two days he will make us healthy; on the third day we will rise up and live before him. The passage is metaphorical. The original meaning had to do with national restoration, very much part of Hosea’s theology. God would heal the nation of Israel and “raise it up,” that it might “live before him.”30 In what sense the passage was potentially eschatological is an open question. The literal resurrection of the dead was likely not in view (and more than literal resurrection was in view in Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones). But in the minds of later interpreters, the text could easily be understood in reference to literal resurrection. This is clearly seen in the Aramaic paraphrase: ‫יחייננא ליומי נחמתא דעתידין למיתי ביום אחיות מיתיא יקימיננא וניחי קדמוהי׃‬

He will revive us for the days of consolation that will come; he will raise us up on the day of the resurrection of the dead, and we will live before him. (Targum)

28  Goodwin, “Hosea,” 274. 29  For discussion of the typology of Hos 11:1 in Matthew, see Menken, “Egypt.” 30  Mays, Hosea, 95; Stuart, Hosea, 108.

JESUS AND THE NT

395

Although the Targum post-dates Jesus by two or three centuries, it is probable that the interpretive orientation we see above lies behind his Passion predictions.31 Jesus is remembered to have said (Mark 8:31): Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Jesus has again alluded to material from Hosea. When all of it is taken into consideration, a picture of restoration and renewal begins to emerge. Although the prophet Hosea had warned his contemporaries of judgment, as in Hosea 10 and 13, portions of which are echoed in Jesus’s oracles against Jerusalem, particularly in the Gospel of Luke, the prophet also spoke of Israel’s restoration as “sons” of God, who though defeated, even dead, will be raised up and once again become alive to God. It is also tempting to see a further connection. I refer here to the intriguing eschatological scenario envisioned in the so-called Gabriel Inscription, discovered and published a few years ago.32 Several times in this text, now dated to the first century bce, eschatological things are said to happen “on the third day.” God promises the Messiah: “My son, in my hands I have19 a new covenant for Israel, on the third day (‫ )לשלשת ימין‬you will know it” (lines 18–19). When threatened by an enemy preparing for war, a sign will be given the people of God: “on the third day (‫ )לשלשת ימין‬it will be, as (the prophet) said” (line 54). The cessation of warfare will bring about a restoration of Jerusalem. At the end of the text we read: “On the third day (‫)לשלשת ימין‬: the sign! I am Gabriel, king of the angels, 81 the prince of princes […]82 The sign is for him […] On the third day (‫)לימין שלושה‬, the small one that I took, I Gabriel” (lines 80–83). 31  It has been suggested that the disappearance of the phrase, “on the third day,” from the Targum may have been intended “to make Hos 6:2 unusable as a proof-text for the early Christians.” Perhaps so, but the Targum nevertheless understands the prophecy in reference to resurrection, an understanding so old and so deeply entrenched that even an anti-Christian stance could not eliminate it. The quotation is from Wolff, Hosea, 118. 32  The inscription is made up of some 87 or 88 lines of Hebrew, in two columns, written in ink, on a slab, or stele, of gray micritic limestone, measuring about 37 by 96 centimeters. Analysis of the stone and soil deposits clinging to it suggests that it originated east of the Dead Sea. For results of lab analysis, see Goren, “Examination.”

396

Evans

The vision of the Gabriel Inscription is centred on the redemption of Israel, likely through the Messiah. At this time the new covenant of which Jeremiah spoke will be realized. All of these things—the new covenant and the sign of deliverance—will take place “on the third day,” a phrase that almost certainly derives from Hos 6:2. The collocation of these ideas makes sense against the backdrop of Hosea’s prophecy of the restoration of Israel. Given the appearance of these elements in the teaching of Jesus, where Jesus appeals to Hosea, especially Hos 6:2 in reference to resurrection, and to the new covenant of Jeremiah,33 we must explore the possibility that Hosean theology, and not just a few echoes and phrases, formed significant aspects of the thinking of Jesus and his disciples. Hosea’s prophecy of the restoration of Israel finds expression in Paul, especially in Romans 9, where Paul applies Hos 2:1 to Gentiles who embrace Messiah Jesus in faith (Rom 9:25–26): 25 As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘my beloved.’” 26 And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’34 Paul’s understanding of Hosea’s prophecy should not be interpreted in isolation from the Hosean tradition that appears to lie behind elements of Jesus’s restorative theology. The creation of a new “beloved” people implies the possibility of the inclusion of Gentiles, at which Jesus hints or even commands (Matt 8:11–12 = Luke 13:28–29; Matt 10:18; 24:14; 28:18–20). 3 Zechariah The prophecy of Zechariah comes into play at key moments in the life and teaching of Jesus during Passion Week. They are seen primarily in the following three passages: 1. The manner of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem, 2. his subsequent activity in the temple precincts, and 3. his appeal to Zech 13:7 to explain his anticipated fate and the scattering of his followers. Most interpreters appear to 33  Jesus speaks of the “new covenant” in his blood in the Words of Institution (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20). 34  Paul’s first quotation of Hosea does not follow the Old Greek, but appears to be independent translations of the Hebrew. The second quotation does follow the Greek. See Cranfield, Commentary, 499.

JESUS AND THE NT

397

be willing to accept the first item as historical and authentic, but many dispute the historicity of the second and third items. In my opinion when all factors are considered, the balance tips in favor of the second item but is undecided with respect to the third. However, a nuanced interpretation of the first two items may tip the balance in favor of the third as well. Let us consider in order these possible points of contact with Zechariah. 3.1 Mounted on a Colt Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem marks the beginning of Passion Week. The entrance itself, in which Jesus mounts a colt, appears to be deliberately modeled after Zech 9:9: “Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass.” Mark’s account (Mark 11:1–11) does not quote the passage from Zechariah, but the Matthean and Johannine accounts do (Matt 21:4–5; John 12:14–15). Mark’s failure to exploit an important proof text argues both for his Gospel’s priority and for the essential historicity of the account.35 The explicit and formal quotation of Zech 9:9 in Matthew and John is consistent with their scriptural apologetic, an apologetic it seems that is primarily fashioned with the synagogue in mind. 3.2 Interference with Temple Trade In the Temple incident, which Christians have traditionally (and somewhat misleadingly) called the “cleansing of the Temple” (Mark 11:15–19), Jesus is said to have tried to “prevent anyone from carrying anything through the Temple” (Mark 11:16). Bruce Chilton and others have rightly suggested that Jesus may very well have been acting out Zechariah’s vision that “on that day” everything in the Temple precincts would be regarded as holy and that no merchant would be allowed in the house of the Lord (Zech 14:20–21).36 Chilton argues that Jesus’s actions are consistent with his concerns for purity; and he offers several important examples from Josephus and early rabbinic tradition that document similar actions on the part of religious teachers.37 E.P. Sanders’s dismissal of the historicity of Mark 11:16 and its apparent allusion to Zechariah 14 amounts to little more than special pleading.38 Failure on our part to understand the significance of Jesus’s action does not provide warrant for a negative judgment. Jesus’s action not only reflects Zechariah’s 35  Grant, “Coming,” rightly comments that the “evangelist has not constructed this scene [i.e., Mark 11], for he is apparently unaware” of its relationship to Zechariah. 36  Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise, 65–70; Roth, “Cleansing”; Chilton, Temple, 135–136; Grant, “Coming,” 300; Derrett, “Zeal.” 37  Chilton, Temple, 100–110. 38  Sanders, Jesus, 67, with 364 n. 1.

398

Evans

prophetic hope, it is also consistent with Josephus’s comment that “no vessel whatever might be carried into the Temple” (Against Apion 2.106). 3.3 The Stricken Shepherd Finally, following several verbal altercations with the ruling priests and their allies (see Mark 11:27–12:41), Jesus demoralizes his disciples by speaking of his death and of their betrayal of him (Mark 14:7–8, 17–21, 26–31). Jesus is said to have applied to himself the words of Zech 13:7: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (Mark 14:27). Again the Matthean and Johannine evangelists exploit the association with Zechariah. Matthew alludes to Zech 11:12–13, which speaks of the thirty pieces of silver cast into the house of God as part of his description of Judas’s betrayal of Jesus (Matt 27:3–10). John alludes to Zech 12:10, which prophesies that “They shall look on him whom they have pierced” (John 19:37). Support of the authenticity of this tradition is found in the presence of the Zechariah pattern. That is, if Jesus entered Jerusalem to effect the prophecy of Zechariah, if his actions in the Temple precincts were in part inspired by Zechariah’s eschatological vision, then he may have applied the image of the stricken shepherd to himself as well. Further support for the authenticity of this saying is seen in the improbability of the early Church applying this text to Jesus. In context the stricken shepherd of Zechariah is the target of God’s wrath: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd … Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered …”39 Again, the Aramaic paraphrase makes explicit the royal element implicit in Zechariah’s oracle: “O sword, be revealed against the king (‫ )מלכא‬and against the prince … kill the king (‫ )קטול ית מלכא‬and the princes …” (Tg. Zech. 13:7). Support of the authenticity of this tradition is found in the presence of what might be called the Zechariah pattern. That is, if Jesus entered Jerusalem to effect the prophecy of Zechariah, if his actions in the Temple precincts were in part inspired by Zechariah’s eschatological vision, then he may have applied the image of the stricken shepherd to himself as well. Further support for the authenticity of this saying is seen in the improbability of the early Church applying this text to Jesus. In context the stricken shepherd of Zechariah is the target of God’s wrath: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd … Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered …”

39  In the Hebrew the verb is imperative, “Strike!” (‫)הך‬, whereas in the quotation in Mark 14:27 the Greek verb is a future indicative, “I will strike” (πατάξω). Use of the future tense makes explicit that prophetic nature of Zechariah’s oracle.

JESUS AND THE NT

399

A saying from Q, in which Jesus likens his followers to sheep, may imply that he saw himself in the role of Israel’s shepherd: “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16 = Luke 10:3). In defending his policy of seeking out the lost, Jesus illustrates it with the parable of the Lost Sheep, again implying that he is the shepherd: “What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?” (Matt 18:12 = Luke 15:4–6). In what may be Matthean not Jesuanic utterances, the instructions to “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6), the explanation “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24), and the halakic argument about healing someone on the Sabbath by comparison to rescuing a sheep that has fallen into a pit (Matt 12:11) probably do represent Jesus’s disposition.40 Likewise we should regard the evangelists’ editorial comment “he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd” (Mark 6:34 = Matt 9:36) as a reminiscence of the kind of language Jesus used to describe his mission to Israel, language that suggestively alluded to Old Testament imagery and themes (cf. Num 27:17; Zech 10:2; 1 Kgs 22:17). One will recall the promise in Ezek 34:5 “I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.”41 4 Jonah The prophet Jonah is mentioned a few times in the Synoptic Gospels. What derives from Jesus and what derives from the evangelists and the early Church is debated. The shortest form of the tradition is found in Mark, although the name Jonah does not appear. When Pharisees seek a sign from Jesus, Jesus replies: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12). But in their respective parallel passages, both Matthew and Luke have Jesus respond in fuller form. Luke 11:29–32 reads:

40  See Bruce, “Book,” 342–346; Wright, Jesus, 533–534. Luke’s “Fear not, little flock” (Luke 12:32) may also be genuine dominical tradition. 41  I explore this topic further in Evans, “Jesus.” See also Ham, Coming King. Jesus as Shepherd is early and widespread (John 10:2, 11, 12, 14, 16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17; Mart. Pol. 19:2; Hermas passim).

400

Evans

29 This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. Mark’s “no sign shall be given to this generation” becomes “no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Matthew reads the same way: “… except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matt 12:39). It is clear that Matthew (12:38–42) and Luke (11:29–32) are drawing upon common tradition (i.e., Q), tradition that overlaps with Mark (8:11–12). The overlap with Mark and the parallels shared by Matthew and Luke suggest that the source is common, with Mark either abbreviating his tradition or accessing a shorter form of it. There is, however, a significant difference in Matthew’s form of the tradition. Whereas Luke reads “For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh,” Matthew reads “For as Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). This saying, which is taken from LXX Jonah 2:1, is not found in the Markan and Lukan parallels (Mark 8:11–13; Luke 11:29–30).42 The saying in Matthew does not fit the context well and probably represents a Matthean gloss, not an original part of Q.43 Indeed, the saying in Matt 12:40 could be a post-Matthean gloss, for Justin Martyr quotes verbatim Matt 12:39 but does not quote 12:40. The apologist argues that Jesus’s “obscure” (παρακεκαλυμμένα) sign of Jonah would have been “understood by the audience (to mean) that after his crucifixion he should rise again on the third day” (Dialogue with Trypho 107). Justin’s argument would be strange, had Matt 12:40 been part of the text. The audience would not have had to infer anything, for in this verse Jesus’s resurrection typology is explicit, not hidden or obscure. We have good reason, then,

42  For commentary, see Allison and Davies, Commentary, 355–356. 43  See Bultmann, History, 118: “the interpretation of the sign of Jonah in terms of the death and resurrection of Jesus is a quite secondary formulation of the Church”; Luz, Matthew, 217: “[it is] Matthew’s explanation”; Nolland, Gospel, 509: “[it is] an interpretive element” of Luke 11:30.

JESUS AND THE NT

401

to wonder if the analogy between Jonah and the resurrection of Jesus was even known in the first century.44 The Jonah comparison began with Jesus, who suggested that in his preaching and activities “something greater than Jonah is here” (Matt 12:41 = Luke 11:32). If the wicked heathen of Nineveh had the good sense to repent in response to the preaching of Jonah, how utterly inexcusable is the Jewish failure to repent in response to the preaching of Jesus. So goes the reasoning. But the Jonah comparison that originated in Jesus became a christological typology in Matthew or, as has been suggested above, in the later transmission and interpretation of Matthew. Although Justin Martyr seems to witness Matthew 12 without the Jonah typology, his idea of what should be inferred from the reference to Jonah reflects the emergence of an interpretive tradition that would at some point result in the Matthean text that we now have, a text that may have reached this form in the second half of the second century. 5 Micah Two passages from Micah are especially significant in the New Testament Gospel tradition. The first plays a popular role in Matthew’s Infancy Narrative. In Matt 2:1–12 we are told that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, as “written by the prophet”: καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ. And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel. Matthew’s quotation of this word of the “prophet” is mostly Mic 5:1.45 But it also contains elements from LXX 2 Sam 5:1b–2, where the men of Israel address David:

44  The recent proposal that Jonah is depicted on an ossuary in a Talpiot tomb in reference to Matt 12:40, which in turn implies a Christian presence in the tomb, is problematic at many points. For a critical evaluation, see Evans, Jesus, 190–194. 45  For a critical assessment of the text forms of Mic 5:2, including the text of Naḥal Ḥever’s Minor Prophets Scroll, see Lust, “Mic 5,1–3.”

402

Evans

1 Ιδοὺ ὀστᾶ σου καὶ σάρκες σου ἡμεῖς· 2 καὶ ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην ὄντος Σαουλ βασιλέως ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν σὺ ἦσθα ὁ ἐξάγων καὶ εἰσάγων τὸν Ισραηλ, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς σέ Σὺ ποιμανεῖς τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ισραηλ, καὶ σὺ ἔσει εἰς ἡγούμενον ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ. 1 Behold, we are your bone and your flesh, 2 and yesterday and the third day, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel, and the Lord said to you: It is you who shall shepherd my people Israel, and it is you who shall become a ruler over Israel. It is an interesting conflation indeed. The evangelist Matthew appeals to the prophetic voice of Micah but clarifies its meaning by using the language of the men who spoke to David in 2 Sam 5:1–2.46 Most readers of Mic 5:1–4 would assume that the “ruler” (‫ )מושׁל‬who will come forth from God, who shall care for the flock, and secure peace, was in reference to a king from the line of David, who would be like David. So it comes as no surprise that the Hebrew’s ruler is explicitly identified in the Targum as the Messiah (‫)משׁיחא‬.47 By drawing in language from 2 Sam 5:1–2 the Matthean evangelist makes the Davidic typology explicit. But there seems to be more. Richard Hays suggests that not only is the Davidic identity of the prophesied ruler to arise from Bethlehem made explicit, the passage from 2 Samuel 5 recalls the struggle between Saul and David, with the latter eventually supplanting the former. What makes the passage provocative in the Matthean Infancy Narrative is exactly the same theme: King Jesus has supplanted King Herod.48 The use of Mic 5:1 is not limited to Matthew; it also appears in the Gospel of John, though not in the setting of an infancy story. Following his discourse in the temple discourse, on the occasion of the feast of Tabernacles, the crowd debates the identity of Jesus (John 7:40–43): 40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some said, “Is the Messiah to come from Galilee? 42 Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So there was a division among the people over him. 46  Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 263, thinks the Mic 5:2 quotation is pre-Matthean tradition. 47  “And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah … from you shall come forth before me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel …” (Tg. Mic. 5:1, with italics indicating departures from the Hebrew). 48  Hays, Echoes, 170–171.

JESUS AND THE NT

403

In a give and take that resembles the famous discussion with the disciples in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27–30), some suggest that Jesus is either the prophet or the Messiah, with others implicitly objecting by asking, “Is the Messiah to come from Galilee?” (v. 41). The answer, of course, is no. People object because they understand that Scripture says that “the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was (ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός)” (v. 42). There is no doubt that the primary reference is to Mic 5:1. Israel’s ruler will come from Bethlehem of Judea. But David is not explicitly named; it is assumed. That the crowd is thinking of the eschatological Messiah and not simply an anointed royal descendant of David is also clear. What we have here in John 7:42 is an allusion to Mic 5:1,49 along with its contemporary interpretation: The Messiah comes from the line of David and that means he also comes from Bethlehem. But Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee, so he cannot be the Messiah, right? Commentators suspect that the Johannine evangelist is (again) being ironic. On one level there is doubt about Jesus’s place of birth—is he from Bethlehem or not?—but on another level there is no doubt about Jesus’s origin at all: He is from heaven. This is why the allusion to Mic 5:2 is so clever. The passage references Bethlehem, “the village where David was.” But the mystery surrounding Jesus’s origins are in fact clarified by the last part of Micah’s prophecy, the part that is not quoted in John 7:42 but clearly presupposed. The Hebrew reads ‫“( ומוצאתיו מקדם מימי עולם‬and whose origin is from of old, from ancient days”), while the Old Greek reads καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος (“and his goings forth are from of old, from days of yore” [NETS]) and the Vulgate reads et egressus eius ab initio a diebus aeternitatis (“and his going out is from the beginning, from days of eternity”). The Targum agrees with the Hebrew. It is this element of the mysterious that works so well for the fourth evangelist. Yes, the Messiah, the son of David does indeed hail from Bethlehem, but is that his true place of origin? The prophecy of Micah implies that the origin of the Messiah is in the beginning, as the opening verse of the Gospel of John in fact declares.50

49  In the opinion of Busse, many of the citations in the fourth Gospel, including the allusion to Mic 5:2 in John 7:42, derive from early Christian sources. See Busse, “Tempelmetaphorik,” esp. 395–396. 50  The point is well made in Beasley-Murray, John, 118–119. See also the discussion in Michaels, Gospel, 469–471. The mysterious origin of Jesus, in the very beginning of time, lies behind the statement, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), among others.

404

Evans

The second passage from Micah that plays an important role in the Gospels appears in the dominical tradition itself. It is Micah’s prophecy of family division, where the prophet warns (Mic 7:5–6): 5 Put no trust in a neighbour, have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom; 6 for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. The latter part of the oracle occurs in Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, and in Q. In both traditions Jesus seems to have woven the words of Micah with his own mission: “And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mark 13:12–13a = Matt 10:21–22a). Matthew follows Mark closely, but the Lukan evangelist seems to have paraphrased the saying, particularly the first part, which reflects Micah (Luke 21:16–17).51 Although Luke has paraphrased the saying (“You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death …”), he places it in his eschatological discourse that parallels the Markan discourse. Matthew, however, was placed the Markan tradition in the Missionary Discourse, that is Matthew 10. It is in Matthew’s Missionary Discourse that allusion to Mic 7:6 occurs a second time (at Matt 10:35–36). It is from Q, as seen from the parallel in Luke 12:53, again with some variation. The appearance of the Mic 7:6 tradition in Mark and Q points to antiquity and probably to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. Appeal to Mic 7:6 on the lips of Jesus, recognized by his following as the awaited Messiah of Israel, is consistent with the understanding of the prophetic oracle in the Mishnah. In tractate Soṭah Mic 7:6 is quoted in a very negative eschatological context envisioning moral, spiritual, and social decline.52 Things for Israel will go from bad to worse, until finally the Messiah appears: “With the footprints of the Messiah (‫ )בעיקבות המשׁיח‬presumption shall increase and dearth reach its height … the people of the frontier shall go about from city to city with none to show pity on them … the wisdom of the scribes shall become insipid … children shall shame the elders, as the elders shall rise up before the children, ‘for the son 51  On Luke’ use of Mic 7:6, see Heil, “Rezeption.” 52  In its interpretive expansion, the Tosefta adds: “And the whole kingdom went rotten, declining more and more” (t. Soṭah 14:7).

JESUS AND THE NT

405

treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house’” (m. Soṭah 9:15).53 It would appear that at least one important aspect of Jesus’s eschatology was indebted to Mic 7:6 and the interpretive tradition that was developing around it, in the time of Jesus and on into the Tannaitic period.54 6 Joel The prophecy of Joel is cited by Peter in his well-known Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 and by Paul in his letter to the Christians of Rome. Peter explains the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which had manifested itself, among other things, in tongues. But these “tongues,” or languages, were not the languages of angels (as in 1 Cor 13:1; 14:2); they were human languages and dialects that diaspora Jews readily understood (Acts 2:6–11). The apostles of Jesus are acting and speaking the way they are because the Holy Spirit (and the adjective “Holy” is found in Tg. Joel 3:1) has been poured out on them. Peter then quotes Joel 2:28–32 (i.e., 3:1–5 in Hebrew and Old Greek). The evangelist’s quotation (at Acts 2:17–21) varies from the Old Greek at several points. The evangelist adds a few phrases (“last days,” “God says,” “they shall prophesy”), reverses the dream and vision clauses, and omits the last part of Joel 2:32 (3:5). What I find of greater interest is that words and phrases from throughout Joel appear here and there in Acts 2.55 In my view the evangelist is preparing the context of the Pentecost event so that it mirrors the larger message of the prophecy of Joel. Luke does this out of a conviction that what Joel foretold long ago, itself perhaps intended to remind his original hearers of the mighty acts of God at Mount Sinai, when fire appeared and the word of God was heard in many languages, was now being fulfilled in the birth of the Church. That Joel 2:28–32 was appealed to early in the Church’s preaching is supported by Paul’s appeal to the passage in his letter to the Romans. In the section of the letter in which the apostle explains and justifies the proclamation of the 53  Translation based on Danby, Mishnah, 306. 54  There are several points of contact between the eschatology of m. Soṭah 9:15 and New Testament eschatology. See Evans, “Mishna,” esp. 287–288. See also van de Sandt, “Minor Prophets,” 63–64. 55  For further discussion, including the identification of the words and phrases from Joel that appear in Acts 2, outside the quotation of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:17–21, see Evans, “Prophetic Setting.”

406

Evans

gospel, he quotes the final part of the Joel passage: “11 The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame’ (Isa 28:16). 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. 13 For, ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται)’” (Rom 10:11–13 = Old Greek Joel 2:32a “And it shall be, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved [καὶ ἔσται πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, σωθήσεται] …”). Although Paul only quotes the last part of Joel 2:28–32, we should probably assume that the whole passage was in mind. In Hebrew Joel, the “Lord” is Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬. But in the context of Romans 10, it is Jesus, as clearly implied by Paul when a few verses earlier he says: “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord (κύριον Ἰησοῦν) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (σωθήσῃ)” (Rom 10:9). It is on this Lord that one calls in order to be saved.56 7 Amos The prophecy of Amos comes into play in the book of Acts at two complementary points. Amos 5:25–27 is quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:42b–43. Amos 9:11–12 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16–17. In the first passage the text of Amos is introduced with the words: ἔστρεψεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς λατρεύειν τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθὼς γέγραπται, “But God turned and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets …” (Acts 7:42a). The second quotation of Amos echoes the claim that God “turned”: “And with this the words of the prophets57 agree, as it is written, ‘After this I will return (μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω), and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen’” (Acts 15:16a, quoting Amos 9:11a). In the Hebrew and Old Greek Amos 9:11 begins, “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen.” The clause, “I will return,” does not appear. It is the evangelist’s gloss and it serves the purpose of linking the two Amos quotations. The “turned” (ἔστρεψεν)/“return” (ἀναστρέψω) sequence means the end of one era and the inauguration of a new era. The era of Israel, whose history the martyr Stephen recounts in Acts 7, has ended in failure because the people of 56  Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 107–109. For more detail, see Capes, Old Testament, 116–123. 57  One will note that both Amos passages are introduced as “book of” or “words of” the prophets. It is plural probably because the Scroll of the Twelve Prophets is in view. See Peterson, Acts, 260.

JESUS AND THE NT

407

Israel worship God wrongly, limiting him to a localized house made by human hands (cf. Acts 7:48–50, citing Isa 66:1–2). Accordingly, God gave his people “over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in” Amos 5:25–27. Israel’s idolatry led to deportation (Acts 7:43 = Amos 5:27). But now, in the era of Christ and his Church, God “will return” and “will rebuild the dwelling of David.” He will do this through his Son Jesus, the son of David.58 8 Habakkuk Of great consequence in the history of Christian theology, not least Luther’s insights that contributed to the Reformation, is the prophecy of Habakkuk. Though infrequently quoted, the prophet greatly influenced a key point of theology. In Heb 10:32–39 the Hebrew Christians are urged to continue in their faith and not sin as their ancestors did: “For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised” (v. 36). The author buttresses his argument by appealing to Hab 2:3–4: “37 For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry; 38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him” (v. 37–38). The point is that the righteous person is to live by faith in the sense that God will fulfill his promises, despite contrary appearances. The author of Hebrews will in chap. 11 list a roster of biblical characters who maintained their faith in God despite hardship and persecution.59 For Paul the Christian apostle Hab 2:4 teaches that a righteous person lives by faith, as opposed to works: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’” (Gal 3:11); “For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’” (Rom 1:17). Theologians and interpreters of Paul debate in what sense Paul’s understanding and application of Hab 2:4 is distinctive.60 Does it reflect his own experience of liberation from the burden of the law through his experience of faith in Christ? Or is it something else? I think the answer to this question lies in the context of the letter to the churches of Galatia, in which Paul 58  For more discussion, see van de Sandt, “Minor Prophets,” 73–77. 59  On the text form of Hab 2:3–4 in Hebrews and its interpretive significance, see Gheorghita, “Minor Prophets,” 117–125. 60  See Sanders, “Habakkuk,” esp. 108–109 for the various forms of the text of Hab 2:4b; Moyise, “Minor Prophets,” 97–102.

408

Evans

sharply rebukes Peter for withdrawing from fellowship and eating with Gentile Christians when “men from James” came to Antioch (Gal 2:12). In his polemical response to Peter’s lapse, Paul affirms that “a person is not justified by works of the law (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). Paul’s linking Jewish refusal to eat with Gentiles to “works of law” is clarified by the halachic letter from Qumran. The six fragmentary copies (4Q394–399) have been pieced together, providing us with almost the entire text. The letter articulates almost two dozen “works of law” that must be observed in order to be righteous. Here are three of them: 1. “Concerning works of the law (‫מעשי‬ ‫ )התורה‬that we have determined … no one should eat from Gentile grain” (4Q394 frags. 3–7, col. i, lines 5–8); 2. “[Concerning the blind,] who are not 2 able to guard themselves from all defiling mix[ture.] For they cannot see [the defilement …” (4Q396 frags. 1–2, col. ii, lines 1–2 = 4Q394 frag. 8, col. iii, lines 19–20, col. iv, line 1); and 3. “Concerning lepers, we have de[termined that] they [may not] enter any place containing the sacred pure food, for they shall be kept apart … lep[ers must not enter] inside [any place wi]th sacred pure food” (4Q396 frags. 1–2, col. iii, lines 4–8). All three of these legal rulings are focused on food purity. The letter concludes: “Now we have written to you some of the works of the Law (‫)מעשי התורה‬, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people … you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel” (4Q398 frags. 14–17, col. ii, lines 2–8 = 4Q399 frag. 1, col. i, line 10– col. ii, line 5). According to the halachic letter, eating pure food and therefore avoiding the non-kosher food of Gentiles is one of the essential “works of law.” If one does this, one will be justified and one will be saved “at the end time.” The Hebrew phrase ‫ מעשי התורה‬is the precise equivalent of Paul’s Greek phrase ἔργα νόμου, “works” or “deeds of law.” Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles, his reluctance to eat their food, reflects the theology and practice expressed in Qumran’s halachic letter. This is why Paul condemns Peter, claiming that he and others have embraced a distorted form of the gospel (Gal 1:6–9). If righteousness can be achieved by “works of law,” that is, by maintaining purity and observing kashrut, “then Christ died needlessly” (Gal 2:21). It is not a surprise, then, that the men of Qumran, at least judging by the pesher on Habakkuk, understood the faithfulness, or fidelity, of Hab 2:4 very differently from the way it is understood by Paul. In the pesher Hab 2:4 is understood to mean fidelity to the “Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab 8:1–3):

JESUS AND THE NT

409

1 This refers to all those who obey the Law among the Jews whom 2 God will rescue from the place of judgment, because of their suffering and their loyalty 3 to the Teacher of Righteousness. The men of Qumran are required to be faithful to the Teacher of Righteousness, for his understanding of the “works of law” is proper and in following his understanding, as outlined in the halachic letter, one may be assured of being justified. The theologies of Paul and the Teacher of Righteousness are completely at loggerheads. 9

Summing Up

The Minor Prophets have made remarkable contributions to key theological themes in Jesus and the writers of New Testament literature. The Twelve clarify the very origins of the movement, as seen in the appeal to Mal 3:1 in identifying John the Baptist as the messenger, whose voice cries in the wilderness, and in the appeal to Amos 5 and 9, to transition from the old community of Israel to the new community in Messiah Jesus. Hosea 6 and 10 provide grounds for a critique of the Jerusalem cultus, while Hosea 1–2 provides the prophetic foundation on which a theology of inclusion of Gentiles, a “non-people,” into the new community may be based. Hosea, furthermore, provides the framework for understanding Jesus’s death and resurrection “on the third day” (Hos 6:2). Important components of Passion Week are clarified by Zechariah, from Jesus’s entrance into the city of Jerusalem, to his demonstration in the temple precincts, to his being seized and struck down. In the fourth Gospel Mic 5:1 makes clear that the messianic son of David should hail from Bethlehem, which of course is where Jesus is born in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke, but the lingering uncertainty invites thoughtful readers to consider a far more significant, mysterious origin of Jesus. Joel and Amos clarify important aspects of the foundation and mission of the early Church, as it receives the Holy Spirit and begins to rebuild the fallen house of David. Smallish Habakkuk punches well over its weight in providing Paul with a key text that clarifies what Christian faith is and how it relates to the question of works and righteousness. There are several additional passages that could be considered which could provide further examples of the important contributions that the Twelve made to early Christian theology. It is hoped that the examples provided here in this overview will be sufficient for the present purposes. The Twelve’s theological

410

Evans

contribution overshadows the contributions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and rivals the contribution of Isaiah, the prophecy that was foundational to Jesus movement’s very message and mission. Whereas Isaiah provided the foundation, the Twelve contributed mightily to the superstructure that rests on this foundation. Bibliography Aland, Kurt et al. eds. The Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel­ gesellschaft and United Bible Societies, 1968. Allison, Dale. “Mark 12.28–31 and the Decalogue.” Pages 270–278 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSNTSup 104 and SSEJC 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Allison, Dale and William D. Davies. Commentary on Matthew VIII–XVIII. Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Andrado, Paba N. de. “Ḥesed and Sacrifice: The Prophetic Critique in Hosea.” CBQ 78 (2016): 47–67. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. Dallas, TX: Word, 1987. Blomberg, Craig L. “Elijah, Election, and the Use of Malachi in the New Testament.” CTR 2 (1987): 99–117. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “The Minor Prophets in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 27–37 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Bruce, Frederick F. “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative.” BJRL 43 (1960– 1961): 336–353. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1972. Burchard, Christoph. “Joseph and Aseneth.” Pages 177–247 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Busse, Ulrich. “Die Tempelmetaphorik als ein Beispiel von implizitem Rekurs auf die biblische Tradition im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 395–428 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. ETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University, 1997. Capes, David B. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. WUNT II,47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Chilton, Bruce D. “Regnum Dei Deus Est.” SJT 31 (1978): 261–270.

JESUS AND THE NT

411

Chilton, Bruce D. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum. JSOTSup 23. Sheffield: JSOT, 1982. Chilton, Bruce D. A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time. GNS 8. Wilmington, NC: Glazier, 1984. Chilton, Bruce D. The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice. University Park, PA: Penn State, 1992. Cranfield, Charles E.B. Commentary on Romans IX–XVI and Essays. Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. Dearman, J. Andrew. “Interpreting the Religious Polemics against Baal and the Baalim in the Book of Hosea.” OTE 14 (2001): 9–25. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “The Zeal of thy House and the Cleansing of the Temple.” DRev 95 (1977): 79–94. DeYoung, James B. “The Function of Malachi 3.1 in Matthew 11.10: Kingdom Reality as the Hermeneutic of Jesus.” Pages 66–91 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSNTSup 104 and SSEJC 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Dodd, Charles H. “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation.’” JRS 37 (1947): 47–54 (reprinted in Charles H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University, 1968, 69–83). Dunn, James D.G. “John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture.” Pages 42–54 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSNTSup 104 and SSEJC 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Evans, Craig A. “Mishna and Messiah ‘in Context’: Some Comments on Jacob Neusner’s Proposals.” JBL 112 (1993): 267–289. Evans, Craig A. “The Prophetic Setting of the Pentecost Sermon.” Pages 212–224 in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–Acts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope.” 373–388 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Bruce Chilton. NTTS 28,2. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Evans, Craig A. Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015. Focant, Camille. The Gospel according to Mark: A Commentary. trans. L.R. Keylock. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Gheorghita, Radu. “The Minor Prophets in Hebrews.” Pages 115–133 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010.

412

Evans

Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. EKKNT 2,1–2. Zürich: Benziger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Goodwin, Mark J. “Hosea and ‘the Son of the Living God’ in Matthew 16:16b.” CBQ 67 (2005): 265–283. Goren, Yuval. “Micromorphological Examination of the ‘Gabriel Revelation’ Stone.” IEJ 58 (2008): 220–229. Grant, Robert M. “The Coming of the Kingdom.” JBL 67 (1948): 297–303. Ham, Clay A. The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope. New Testament Monographs 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Ham, Clay A. “The Minor Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 39–56 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. Heil, Christoph. “Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas.” ZNW 88 (1997): 211–212. Hendel, Ron. “Away from Ritual: The Prophetic Critique.” Pages 59–79 in Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Saul M. Olyan. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 71. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Jeremias, Jörg. Jesus’ Promise to the Nations. SBT 24. London: SCM, 1958. Koet, Bart J. “Elijah as Reconciler of Father and Son: From 1 Kings 16:34 and Malachi 3:22– 24 to Ben Sira 48:1–11 and Luke 1:13–17.” Pages 173–190 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Marc. EBib. 3rd ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1920. Lust, Johan. “Mic 5,1–3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism in the Septuagint.” Pages 65–88 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. ETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. Lybaek, Lena. “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6,6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies.” Pages 491–499 in The Scriptures of the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16. AB 27A. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2009. Mays, James L. Hosea. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1969. Menken, Maarten J.J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173. Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 2004.

JESUS AND THE NT

413

Menken, Maarten J.J. “‘Out of Egypt I have called my son’: Some Observations on the Quotation from Hosea 11.1 in Matthew 2.15.” Pages 143–152 in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Edited by Anton Hilhorst and Gerard H. van Kooten. AGJU 59. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Menken, Maarten J.J. and Steve Moyise. eds. The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Miller, David M. “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3.” NTS 53 (2007): 1–16. Moyise, Steve S. “The Minor Prophets in Paul.” Pages 97–114 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Moyise, Steve S. “Does Paul Respect the Context of His Quotations?” Pages 39–50 in Letters and Liturgical Traditions. Vol. 2 of ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 470 and SSEJC 18. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012. Nolland, John. Luke 18:35–20:53. WBC 35C. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. HThKNT 2,1–2. Freiburg: Herder, 1977–1991. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Reeder, Caryn A. “Malachi 3:24 and the Eschatological Restoration of the ‘Family.’” CBQ 69 (2007): 695–709. Roberts, Jimmy J.M. “Hosea and the Sacrificial Cultus.” ResQ 15 (1972): 15–26. Roth, Cecil. “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21.” NovT 4 (1960): 174–181. Sanders, Ed P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985. Sanders, James A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” Pages 98–117 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83 and SSEJC 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Sandt, Huub van de. “The Minor Prophets in Luke–Acts.” Pages 57–77 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU 20. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Dallas, TX: Word, 1987. Tanner, J. Paul. “The New Covenant and Paul’s Quotations from Hosea in Romans 9:25– 26.” BSac 162 (2005): 95–110.

414

Evans

Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist.” Pages 33–40 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSNTSup 104 and SSEJC 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Viljoen, François P. “Hosea 6:6 and Identity Formation in Matthew.” AcT 34 (2014): 214–237. Wintermute, Orval S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. ABRL. New York. NY: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Wolff, Hans W. Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974. Wright, Nicholas T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. London: SPCK and Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996.

Chapter 23

The Lives of the Prophets and the Book of the Twelve Anna Maria Schwemer 1

Literary Character

The Vitae Prophetarum (Liv. Pro.) are a small collection of biographical accounts of twenty-three Old Testament prophets. It is a document of Jewish origin written in Greek language around the turn of the common era, most likely in Jerusalem.1 The influence of the Septuagint is clear even though some traditions suggest also Hebrew or Aramaic sources.2 Each of the short biographies states the name of the prophet, his origin, place and cause of death, and the location of his tomb. This basic structure is supplemented by legendary material about the prophets, although the prophetic writings are seldom consulted. Particularly important in this regard are the prophets’ eschatological prophecies and unusual forms of death. The Liv. Pro. are based on the literary model of the biography (Βίος), a genre that was in use in the Greco-Roman world since the third century bce. It consisted of collections of the vitae of important statesmen, poets or philosophers. Not only were the famous biographies written by Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius in circulation, but also less pretentious ones. One such example of a modest form similar to Liv. Pro. has been preserved in P.Oxy. 1800. This papyrus is a compendium of “Bildungswissen” [educational knowledge] on philosophical and literary figures, with a pronounced interest in unusual forms of death.3 In the Greek collections of vitae there are also shorter texts such as the so-called Genos, alongside the longer Bioi. The Liv. Pro. have been preserved with many variants in different recensions, and only through the Christian tradition. They were translated into all languages of the Old Church and were widespread. No recension is entirely without a Christian redaction. The fewest 1  Schwemer, Studien, 1:65–71; eadem, Vitae, 539–548; see further the excellent introduction by Mittmann-Richert, Einführung, 156–159. 2  Schwemer, “Verwendung.” 3  Citation: Görgemanns, “Biographie,” 684; cf. Schwemer, “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament,” 201: Sappho is supposed to have jumped to her death because of heartbreak; Euripides eaten by dogs because of ungodliness; Aesop thrown down a cliff by the Delphians.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_025

416

Schwemer

Christian additions can be found in the so-called anonymous recension (An1) that is placed as an introduction before the books of the prophets in the Codex Marchalianus.4 This is also the oldest preserved text form.5 Here the prophets are arranged strictly in a chronological order and according to Scriptures. Probably the original arrangement has been preserved in this oldest recension. First are the four Great Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel with detailed vitae, respectively. Then follow the Minor Prophets in a peculiar arrangement: Hosea, Micah, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. At the end there is a selection of seven prophets from the historical books: Nathan, Achijah, Joad, Azariah (2 Chr 15:1–8), Elijah, Elisha, and Zechariah ben Jehoiada (2 Chr 24).6 It is only in the Christian recension of the so-called Pseudo-Dorotheus that the prophets from the Book of the Twelve are explicitly highlighted and enumerated as such in the titles (e.g., “the first of the twelve Prophets” about Hosea). Here Amos is placed explicitly before Micah and designated as ὁ δεύτερoς.7 Each Prophet receives his own profile. The author makes an effort to put together biographical knowledge about the Prophets in the style of Chronicles. It is astonishing how many legendary additions exist beyond the text of the Old Testament in Ancient Judaism. 2

The Lives of the Minor Prophets

2.1 The Prophet Hosea Hosea heads the list of the Twelve Prophets. Since this vita is very short, I will quote it in its entirety (Liv. Pro. 5:1–2): 1 Osee. This one was from Belemoth, [in the territory] of the tribe of Issachar, and he was 2 buried in his hometown8 in peace. 4  Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 2125; sixth century. An1 refers to the anonymous recension. 5  Hare, “Lives,” 379; for more details see Schwemer, Studien, 1:12–22. 6  On the arrangement in the different recensions, cf. the chart in Schwemer, Studien, 1:28–29. 7  On the text, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:32*, 34*. The so-called Pseudo-Dorotheus recensions can be traced back only to the Chronicon Paschale. I thank Benjamin Gleede for having kindly pointed this out to me. 8  In the Liv. Pro., γῆ can be employed in the sense of homeland and hometown, and also as land or earth. This word usage can be found in the Greek tragic poets, but also in the LXX; cf. Schwemer, Vitae, 585 n. 1a.

Lives of the Prophets

417

And he gave a portent, that the Lord would arrive upon the earth when the oak tree which is in Silom was divided from itself, and twelve oaks came to be.9 The birth place of the Prophet, in the text Belemoth, is the same as Jibleam/ Balaam10 and plays a particular role in the book of Judith. According to Josh 17:11 it was situated in the tribal area of Issachar, yet according to 1 Chr 6:55 it was a Levitical city that belonged to the Manasses territory. Thus the grave of the prophet, who according to the title in Hos 1:1 was active during the time of Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom, was in Samaria. Samaria, however, is not expressly mentioned. Presumably, as can be inferred from 1 Chr 6:55, a priestly origin of the prophet was considered. The Liv. Pro. usually take their prosopographical entries from the historical books of the Old Testament. Particularly striking is the prophecy about the portent of the end of the world that, as is often the case in the Liv. Pro., is introduced by ἔδωκε τέρας.11 The Christian additions that appear only in one part of the manuscripts readily recognize it as a portent for the coming of Christ, namely for his Parousia, and of his twelve disciples.12 Yet originally the portent is of Jewish origin. The expectation of the eschatological coming of God in judgment belongs to the basic apocalyptic concepts of early Judaism.13 For God’s action in history—and in particular for his final eschatological action—the Book of the Twelve Prophets refers throughout to this day as the “Day of Yhwh.” This is often done in connection with “expansive descriptions of the coming calamity” which “inculcate the inevitability […] of the last judgment.”14 In the Liv. Pro., however, the “Day” of God terminology is not present. The “Oak in Shiloh (= Silom)” is the sacred tree under which, as he gathered the people to covenant and covenantal obligation (Josh 24:26–27), Joshua 9  Schwemer, Studien, 2:1–19; eadem, Vitae, 610–611. 10  Ḫirbet Bel’ama; TAVO-Coordinates: 1777.2058; Tsafrir et al., Tabula, 78. There was also a “Belemoth” in the tribal area of Reuben. It is for this reason, possibly, that the rabbinical tradition indicates that Hosea comes from the tribe of Reuben. Yet the justification is completely different: he was the first prophet to call upon Israel to repent. See Schwemer, Studien, 2:4. 11  Or: τέρας ἔδωκεv; on this peculiar formula in the Liv. Pro., see Schwemer, Studien, 1:82–87. It was taken from 1 Kgs 13:3–5 LXX and appears also in Liv. Pro. 3:3; 4:21; 10:8; 11:2; 12:10, preferred for the indication of end-time prodigies/prophetic signs. 12  See Schwemer, Studien, 2:15 n. 91. 13  1 En 1:3–9; Liv. Pro. 2:10, on this see Schwemer, Vitae, 580 n. 10a–c; eadem, Studien, 2:382 Index s.v. “Endgericht” and “Gott—endzeitliches Kommen Gottes.” 14  Oswald, “Zukunftserwartung,” 29.

418

Schwemer

erected a stone as a witness. According to the MT (Josh 24:1, 25), this tree was in Shechem. The LXX attests to an anti-Samaritan tendency by relocating the aforementioned covenant ceremony to the Judean Shiloh. The translator of Hosea, who probably lived in Egypt around the second century bce, was often negligent when it came to the names of locations.15 In this case, however, the modification is intentional, as Judeans and Samaritans did not get along in the Egyptian diaspora either. During this time, violent confrontations ensued among them.16 The localization of the “Assembly of Shechem” in Shiloh has, however, also been attested in a document from Palestine originally written in Hebrew.17 Sacred trees in the Liv. Pro. have the particular sense of being trees on tombs. In this case, the tree in Shiloh signifies the coming of God for judgment that Joshua had announced to the rebellious perpetrators in Josh 24.18 This reading is supported in the closing chapter of Hosea. The “oak of Shiloh” is not mentioned there, but Israel is compared in different ways to a tree—one whose roots are going to spread and whose branches are going to grow so that the Israelites can return and sit in its shadow.19 Miraculous signs relating to prodigious trees announcing the coming of God or the sovereign are frequently documented.20 The motif of the judgment of Samaria is taken up in the LXX translation of the book of Joshua with the relocation of the “Assembly of Shechem” to Shiloh and with the LXX translation in Hosea of “Samaria has to atone” as “Samaria will be annihilated.”21 The message of Hosea, the prophet of the Northern Kingdom, is in a particular way directed at these tribes. Hos 7:8 MT announces: “Ephraim, he mixes himself among the people.” The LXX translates: “Ephraim was mixing himself with the peoples”; namely the northern tribes have merged with the nations through marriage and are in danger of disappearing. Hos 8:8: “Israel is swallowed up; now they are among the nations,” refers to the dispersion of the 15  De Vos, “Land,” 95–96. 16  Josephus, Ant. 12.10; 13.74–79; on this see Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 145–146. 17  Not only LXX localizes Josh 24 in Shiloh, but the LAB as well, cf. LAB 23:1: “Congregamini ante conspectum arce testamenti Domini in Sylo.” 18  Josh 24:27 LXX understands the function of the stone that Joshua erects under the oak eschatologically, for it will be for the Israelites “a witness at the last of days, whenever you deal falsely with the Lord my God.” All English translations of the LXX are taken from the NETS by Pietersma and Wright. 19  Hos 14:6–8 LXX; cf. 14:2. 20  Schwemer, Vitae, 611 (with various proofs); they can already be found in the ancient oriental omens, but are particularly common in Roman literature. In the Old Testament, these trees have often a function as oracle-givers. 21  Hos 14:1.

Lives of the Prophets

419

ten northern tribes, but Hosea prophesizes their return, too.22 The hope that these lost tribes will surface again in the endtimes can be found more often in Early Jewish texts. In the Liv. Pro. this hope is combined with the expectation of the coming of God to carry out the final judgment. The expectation of divine salvation thus outweighs the threat of judgment in the Hosea-Vita. The number twelve, into which the oak divides itself, is a miraculous sign of the restitution of the people of the twelve tribes. The hope of its restoration was connected in a particular way to the prophets of the Book of the Twelve. As it is said in Sir 49:10 about these twelve (Sir 49:10 LXX): … may the bones of the twelve prophets sprout anew out of their burialplace, for they comforted Iakob and they redeemed them in confidence of hope. “Jacob” represents the people of the twelve tribes, and “delivery” likely refers to his gathering and return from exile. Aside from the so-called Pseudo-Dorotheus recension, the Liv. Pro. do not discuss the nature of relations of each of the prophets of the Book of the Twelve. Yet Hosea, the earliest among them, with his prophetic sign at the oak of Shiloh refers to the beginning of the Nebiim Corpus in Scripture with the book of Joshua. This corresponds, on the other hand, to the last prophet of the twelve, Malachi, whose vita establishes the connection with the book of Judges expressis verbis. This, too, is reminiscent of Jesus ben Sirach where the wish for the twelve Minor Prophets corresponds literally to the wish for the Judges (Sir 46:12 LXX): May their bones sprout anew out of their burial-place … 2.2 Life of Micah The prophet Micah—unlike in the Book of the Twelve of the MT and of the LXX—comes second,23 probably because he is identified with Micaiah ben Imlah (Liv. Pro. 6:1–2):

22  The word šūb in Hos is rendered in the LXX thirteen times as ἐπιστρέφω—a word that in the Liv. Pro. is the term for the return from the diaspora. Cf. also Hos 11:9 LXX: “I will not abandon Ephraim”; 11:11: “I will restore them to their homes”; 14:2–9. “Ephraim” is interpreted in Ancient Judaism as the ten lost tribes, cf. Marcus, “Tribes,” 439. 23  This arrangement can be also found in Lev. Rab. 10.2 (Margulies 2:197).

420

Schwemer

1 Micah the Morashite was of the tribe of Ephraim. Having done many things to Ahab, he was killed by Jehoram his son [precipitated] at a cliff, because he rebuked him for the impieties of his fathers. 2 And he was buried in his home town, alone [in a grave], near the cemetery of the Enakim. While today this prophet is historically classified according to his earliest mention in Jer 26:18–19 as a Judean from Shephelah who had announced his message of disaster during the reign of Hezekiah in Jerusalem, tradents from early Jewish times are more complex. They did not simply mistake Micaiah ben Imlah for Micah of Moresheth (according to Mic 1:1 the latter was active for thirty years from Jotham to Hezekiah), but identified him consciously with the prophet of the Northern Kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs 22:8–28) who was active during the reign of Ahab. For this reason Micaiah ben Imlah also does not appear with the prophets from the historical books in the Liv. Pro. Micaiah ben Imlah has in 2 Chr 18:27b (MT and LXX) as a last word: “Listen, all peoples!” He is quoting Mic 1:2, the beginning of the proclamation of the prophet in the Book of the Twelve, and thus reveals himself as the one from Moresheth. In 1 Kgs 22:28b (MT only), this identification is taken from the work of the Chronicler. An additional reason for the identification of the two prophets is found in the phrase “slapped him on the cheek” in Mic 4:14 [5:1] and 1 Kgs 22:24.24 In Early Judaism, the preferred way in which biographical information about the prophets was acquired was not directly from the complex books of prophets themselves, but from the historical works of the Chroniclers and from the books of Kings.25 King Ahab threw the prophet Micaiah in prison (1 Kgs 22:27; 2 Chr 18:26). According to the Liv. Pro., he was killed by his son Jehoram who—and the Liv. Pro. tacitly assumes this—was then killed by Jehu and thrown onto Naboth’s farmland. That, too, is a typical legendary addition in the Liv. Pro. The king is not only evil but has the murder of a prophet on his conscience.26 The means of execution, the down-throw from a cliff, is not uncommon.27 The place of the grave is again oriented by Micah the Mora(s)thite.28 It appears that an old tradition has been preserved throughout the centuries. If the 24  Schwemer, Studien, 2:24: “Both passages are connected by means of the Gezera Schawa exegesis”; eadem, Vitae, 612–613. 25  Schwemer, Studien, 2:25. 26  Schwemer, Studien, 2:25–32. 27  Cf. 2 Chr 25:12; 2 Macc 6:10. 28  Eusebius, Onom. (GCS 11.1, 134.10 ed. Klostermann), too, localizes the homeland of Micah Μωραθεί (Jerome: “Morasthi” [GCS 11.1, 135.14 ed. Klostermann]) to the (north)east of Eleutheropolis, the former Beit Guvrin. Cf. Keel and Küchler, Süden, 850–851.

Lives of the Prophets

421

“cemetery of the Enakim” was situated at Beit Guvrin, then the grave of the prophet in this area was venerated as an individual grave. In the fourth century ce it was rediscovered in “Morasthi” and a church was built for pilgrimage.29 2.3 Life of Amos The Amos-Vita is similarly concise, but remains closer to the Book of the Twelve than the Micah-Vita (Liv. Pro. 7:1–2): 1 Amos was from Tekoa. And when Amaziah had tortured him sorely on the rack, at last his son killed him with a club by striking him on the temple. 2 And while he was still breathing he came to his own home town, and after some days he died and was buried there. Tekoa is the famous Judaic city eighteen kilometers to the south of Jerusalem. For this reason, it is not necessary to mention the tribe to which the prophet belongs. Amaziah, the priest from Bethel, is the biblical opponent of the prophet. He expelled Amos from the country, and, as a response, Amos announced to him the coming conquest by his enemies, the destruction of his family, and exile.30 This prophet, too, dies a violent death by the hand of his adversary, whereby the son of the latter deals him a deadly blow with a club on the tympanum.31 From the note in the Liv. Pro. one can conclude that, in Early Judaism, the grave of the prophet was tended and worshipped in Tekoa.32 2.4 Life of Joel Joel is given the shortest vita (Liv. Pro. 8:1): Joel was from the territory of Reuben, in the farmstead of Bethomoron. He died in peace and was buried there.

29  Schwemer, Vitae, 614. 30  Amos 7:10–17. 31  On the means of execution, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:36–38; eadem, Vitae, 614–615; Cook, Crucifixion, 13–15. 32  Eusebius, Onom. (GCS 11.1, 86.15 ed. Klostermann) notes that Amos’s grave was shown in his homeland (likewise Jerome: “hodieque Thecua vicus … de quo fuit Amos profeta, cuius et sepulcrum ibidem ostenditur.” [GCS 11.1, 87.13–15 ed. Klostermann]). Cf. Keel and Küchler, Süden, 665–669, who also remit to the Russian Abbot Daniel who saw in Tekoa around 1106–1108 ce a church that was consecrated to all twelve prophets who were buried in a cave underneath it (668).

422

Schwemer

The genealogy and tribal territory of the clan of Joel that belonged to the tribe of Reuben is recounted in 1 Chr 5:4–10. The information on the prophet is extrapolated from this passage. To designate a small, rural property, the Liv. Pro. uses ἀγρός. The same goes for Joel’s homeland. At the most, one could recognize in this reference to the rural homeland an indication of the plagues of locusts, drought, and catastrophes in the book of Joel. The chronological placement between Amos and Obadiah dates the prophet early in the time of Elijah. That was already the objective of the Greek translation of the Book of the Twelve, the Dodekapropheton. The vita does not orient itself in line with the book of Joel with its annunciations of the “Day of Yhwh.” 2.5 Life of Obadiah The Obadiah-Vita has some more content (Liv. Pro. 9:1–4): 1 Abdiou was from near Shechem, of the farmstead of Bethacharam. 2 He was a disciple of Elijah, and having endured much because of him, he escaped with his life. 3 This was the third captain of fifty whom Elijah spared and he went down to Ochozias.33 4 After these events he left the service of the king and prophesied. And he died and was buried with his fathers. The small, rural settlement in the vicinity of Shechem bears the name of “House of the Vineyard”—a name elsewhere attested.34 The prophet is identified with Ahab’s palace custodian,35 who bore the name Obadiah. Obadiah is also equated with the third captain of the fifty who Ahaziah had sent to Elijah.36 That he had left the service of the king and became a disciple of Elijah is not just a legendary addition, but a scribal exegesis of 2 Kgs 4:1.37 The prosopographical data about the prophet are not derived from his own writings within 33  King Ahaziah, son of Ahab and Jezebel; 1 Kgs 22:40, 52–54; 2 Kgs 1:1–18. 34  Jer 6:1; Neh 6:1. The Samaritan Chronicle Chronik Adler mentions a place of this name as a residence for the Samaritan high priestly family, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:44 n. 1 and 47 n. 17. 35  1 Kgs 18:3–16. 36  2 Kgs 1:13–16. 37  Josephus, Ant. 9.47, too, presupposes this identification. He reports that Elisha had helped the impoverished widow of Obadiah, the palace custodian, with the oil miracle. In 2 Kgs 4:1, a nameless “wife of a member of the company of prophets cried to Elisha, Your servant my husband is dead; and you know that your servant feared the Lord.” The identification is possible because in 1 Kgs 18:3 Obadiah “feared Yhwh” and in 2 Kgs 4:1 the prophet’s disciple does as well. This interpretation stems from the Hebrew text.

Lives of the Prophets

423

the Book of the Twelve, but from the book of Kings.38 Jerome saw the grave of Obadiah in Samaria. Petachiah of Regensburg visited it in the Middle Ages in Upper Galilee at the very high hill on which Joshua and Caleb lay buried under “pretty mausoleums.”39 2.6 Life of Jonah Jonah’s vita is so extensive that we can only paraphrase it here.40 As in the Dodekapropheton, it is placed sixth among the Minor Prophets.41 The vita does not mention the prophet Jonah ben Amittai, the last Heilsprophet of the Northern Kingdom, who was a native of Gat Hefer in Galilee. Rather, it presupposes the story from the book of Jonah while complementing and improving upon it.42 Jonah was born in Kariathmous in the vicinity of Ashdod, “the city of the Greeks.”43 Owing to the lack of more precise details, Jonah, like Amos, is considered a Judean. After his sojourn in Nineveh, he does not return to his homeland but settles with his mother abroad in the regions of Tyrus (Sour), for he is ashamed of his false prophecy.44 Guided by a death wish (cf. Jonah 4:3), he dies there. However, he is again brought back to life by God through the prophet Elijah so that it can be shown to him, once again, that he cannot run away from

38  On this topic, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:43–47; eadem, Vitae, 616. 39  For proofs, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:47; eadem, Vitae, 616–617 n. 4c. 40  Liv. Pro. 10; it encompasses in An1 (cf. note 4)—the most reliable text form—182 words, and is surpassed in the Liv. Pro. Minor Prophets only by Habakkuk, with 209 words, who is very popular in the Haggadah. Significantly longer are the lives of the Great Prophets (for instance: Isaiah with 276; Ezekiel with 325). 41  In the oldest textual witness 4Q76 (4QXIIa) the book of Jonah is attached to Malachi; see García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 273. Perhaps an older arrangement is mirrored here that placed the later oddity—a didactic narrative, not a collection of the words of prophets, presumably from early Hellenistic times—at the end of the older collection of the Minor Prophets. 42  Jonah 1:1 indicates that the prophet Jonah should be identified with the prophet bearing the same name in 2 Kgs 14:25. The LXX on 2 Kgs 14:25 could be interpreted in the sense that the father of the prophet, and not the prophet himself, originated from Gat Hefer. Jonah ben Amittai was active under Jeroboam II (783–743 bce). Conversely, Jonah from the Liv. Pro. is a contemporary of Elijah who lived under Ahab (874–853 bce). 43  Liv. Pro. 10:1; Kariathmaous corresponds to the present Nabí Yunūs (TAVO-Coordinates: 116.135); Tsafrir et al., Tabula, 100; on the location on the coast, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:58–60. 44  The problem of false prophecy is reflected theologically in rabbinical literature: Jonah escapes to a land where God’s glory does not reveal itself. On the specific passages, cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:69–72.

424

Schwemer

God.45 Jonah is therefore identified with the son of the widow from Zarephath (1 Kgs 17). Both motifs—the shame because of the false prophecy as well as the identification with the son of the widow—also appear in later rabbinic midrash. Jonah later makes his way to Judea. His mother dies on the road and he buries her under “Deborah’s Oak.”46 The prophet settles in “Saraar”47 where he dies and is entombed in the (burial) cave of Kenezeos who had been “the judge of a tribe … in the days of anarchy.” In Kenezeos, the Judean Kenaz and the Edomite of the same name are fused into a single character.48 The “days of anarchy” are the “age of the judges” in the Liv. Pro. (cf. 16:3). The taking over of the Edomite patriarch’s grave by the prophet Jonah presumably mirrors the conquest of Idumaea by the Hasmoneans that occupied this region as one of Simeon’s tribe.49 Jonah, as did Hosea, gives an eschatological “sign” (τέρας). It is a twofold prophetic sign about “Jerusalem and the whole earth” (Liv. Pro. 10:8): when they should see a stone crying out piteously the end was at hand. And when they should see all the Gentiles in Jerusalem, the entire city will be razed to the ground.50 The crying out of stones goes back to the ancient oriental science in omens. It also appears in Hab 2:11; Luke 19:40;51 Matt 21:16; Sib. Or. 3:804; and 4 Ezra 5:1– 45  Liv. Pro. 10:4; the Liv. Pro. are the earliest record of this motif, too. For a detailed account, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:73–74; eadem, Vitae, 620. 46  Liv. Pro. 10:6; cf. Gen 35:8: Rebecca’s wet nurse Deborah was buried under the “oak” beneath Bethel; cf. Jub 32:30; in Judges 4:5, Deborah, the judge, had her judgment seat underneath this tree; see Schwemer, Studien, 2:75–76. With that, Jonah’s mother found a grave in her homeland. 47  “The mountain range of Edom Ša‌ʾīr was called šarār since Hellenistic times” (Schwemer, Vitae, 620 n. 7a) and corresponds Seïr that belonged to Idumaea in Early Jewish times. Here Jonah becomes sedentary (κατοικήσας), while in the region of Tyrus he had only lived as stranger. 48  Kenaz the Edomite: Gen 36:11, 15, 42; Kenaz the Judean, brother of Caleb and Othniel’s father: Josh 15:17–19; Judg 1:13; 1 Chr 4:13–15; in Judg 3:9–11 Othniel is the first judge; by contrast, Kenaz is the first judge in Josephus, Ant. 5.182–184, and LAB 25:2; 27:16. 49  Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 89–90; Schwemer, Studien, 2:78. 50  The verb ἠφάνισται is perfect passive; it can also be translated as: “it has completely disappeared.” 51  Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 632–633, does not connect Luke 19:40 with the downfall of Jerusalem and Jesus’s lamentation. For a contrasting view, see Schwemer, “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament,” 222. Luke supplements the rejection of the plea for a portent in Mark 8:11–12 with the “portent of Jonah.”

Lives of the Prophets

425

13.52 The later Christian tradition saw here a clear connection between Jonah and Habakkuk in the Book of the Twelve.53 The expectation of the destruction of Jerusalem by all nations is prophesied in Mic 3:12 and in particular by Zech 14:2.54 The “signs of the end” in the Liv. Pro. give colourful imagery as a whole. They are not chosen in an entirely random way, but are supposed to correspond to each respective prophet’s character. Jonah is thus the prophet who, while being wrong about the downfall of Nineveh, had spoken the truth about the destruction of Jerusalem as well as of the whole earth at the endtimes. Later rabbinic midrash also know of Jonah’s prophecy of the downfall of Jerusalem.55 In the Liv. Pro., the coming period of salvation—after the last judgment—is not expected in Jerusalem or in the temple on Mount Zion. That salvation will come from the desert is depicted in the Jeremiah and the Habakkuk vitae. This historical image corresponds to Josephus’s description of the so-called sign prophets who appeared in the first half of the first century ce in Palestine, and lead the mob, like Theudas or the “Egyptian,” into the desert.56 John the Baptist, too, appeared in the desert, and for the Qumran Essenes, Isa 40:3 played an equally special role in eschatological events.57 2.7 Life of Nahum Nahum was from “Elkesi,” across from “Isbegabarin,” namely across from Beit Guvrin, and he came from the tribe of Simeon. The name of the location was

52  For further passages and their interpretation, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:79–80; eadem, Vitae, 621 n. 8c. 53  The so-called Scholia Patrum recension expands Hab 2:11 LXX: “For a stone shall cry out from a wall, and a beetle shall utter them from wood” to the interpretation “and the κάνθαρος (= scarabaeus) utters sounds from the wood (ξύλου) to God, then salvation will be close …” The “κάνθαρος/scarabaeus” is a Christ epithet and “ξύλον” is interpreted as the wood from the cross of Christ. On this, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:80 n. 175 and 176. 54  Cf. Jer 7:12–14; 26:6–9, 18–19; furthermore Schwemer, Studien, 1:333, 337, 343, 347. 55  See Schwemer, Studien, 2:81–82; eadem, Vitae, 621 n. 8b. 56  Josephus, Ant. 20.97–99; Acts 5:36 (Theudas); Josephus, Ant. 20.169–172; Josephus, B.J. 2.261–263; Acts 21:38 (the Egyptian) and more often; in Ant. 20.167–168 Josephus speaks of a number of seducers. On this Schwemer, Studien, 1:85–87; eadem, “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament,” 221; now, too, Frenschkowski, “Prophet,” 285–287: “Josephus u.(nd) die Zeichenpropheten”: “One leitmotif was the expectation of a new exodus, a time of God’s salvation that will dawn in the desert and that is anticipated emblematically by the p(rophets).” (Translation Michael Thate). In the Liv. Pro., the old prophets give portents; new ones are not expected yet. 57  Mark 1:3 parr.; 1QS VIII 13–16; Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus, 93, 98, 140, 300, 302–303, 314; Schwemer, “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament,” 221–222.

426

Schwemer

extrapolated from the designation of origin, the “Elkoshite” in Nah 1:1, as in the case of Micah.58 Nahum is the first of the three prophets from the tribe of Simeon. With Habakkuk and Zephaniah he forms a triplet.59 In the Book of the Twelve, there is no further information as to the origins of these prophets. In the Liv. Pro., these three do not only come from Simeon’s tribe, but are also natives of smaller places within the same region in the vicinity of Beit Guvrin. Presumably one could in a sense freely extrapolate their origins. Idumaea—conquered and Judaized by the Hasmoneans60—was considered to be the tribal territory of Simeon in early Jewish times. The prophets Micah and Jonah, too, are connected to this land in the Liv. Pro. and lay buried there. It is striking that it is precisely the prophets of the Book of the Twelve whose graves lie in this land that the Hasmoneans had attached to their dominion. The graves of ancestors provide the inhabitants with a sense of spatial protection. This is also the case for the graves of the prophets in Palestine and in the diaspora. The book of Nahum does not have a date. Yet the book reflects the downfall of Nineveh that was destroyed in 612 bce. The Liv. Pro. date it explicitly after the book of Jonah, for the prophet “gave a prophecy after Jonah to Nineveh.”61 This prophecy is referred to as τέρας, but it differs from the usual arrangement of a τέρας-prophecy, namely when one sees “x,” then “y” will come happen. In this case we do not have a portent for the end of the world, but a prophecy whose fulfillment already lies in the past. The τέρας-word of the prophet announced the downfall of Nineveh (Liv. Pro. 11:2–3): 58  Liv. Pro. 11:1. The location of the Elqosch, deduced from Nah 1:1, is unknown; it is not listed in TAVO. Eusebius, Onom. (GCS 11.1, 90.12 ed. Klostermann) calls ᾿Ελκεσέ Nahum’s place of origin, yet he does not pinpoint it; Jerome, on the other hand, knows in his commentary on Nahum of an Elcesi in Galilee (Comm. Nah. Prologo [CCSL 76A, 526 ed. Adriaen]), where he had also been shown the grave of the prophet. Cf. Tsafrir et al., Tabula, 119. For a discussion of the different suggestions, see Mulzer, “Elkosch.” 59  The prophets of the Book of the Twelve form four triads in the Liv. Pro.: Hosea, Micah, and Amos are the prophets whose message—in particular—applied to the Northern Kingdom, and who were active before the conquest by the Assyrians. Joel (?), Obadiah, and Jonah belong to Elijah’s time. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah come from the tribe of Simeon and lived in the time shortly before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Haggai, Zechariah, und Malachi form the last group—they are dated to the time of exile and to the time of the return from Babylon. 60  In 1 Macc 15:33, the high priest and founder of a dynasty, Simeon, justifies these land conquests: “We have neither appropriated foreign land nor have we taken possession of foreign property, but we [reclaimed] the inheritance (κληρονομία) of our fathers”; see Schwemer, “Land,” 74–75. 61  Liv. Pro. 11:2.

Lives of the Prophets

427

2 … that it [the city] would be destroyed by fresh water and an underground fire, which really happened. 3 For the lake which surrounds it inundated (κατέκλυσεν) it during an earthquake, and fire coming from the wilderness burned its higher section. The city is destroyed by water and fire. The vivid description of war conflicts for the city in Nah 1–3 is not addressed.62 There are no explicit quotations but remarkable implicit echoes. Water plays an unusually large role as a destructive element in Nah 2:7–9 and 3:14.63 Destruction by fire appears also in Nah 2:4 and 3:13–15. Thus the τέρας-prophecy describes, on the one hand, historically correct aspects of the conquest of Nineveh, while, on the other hand, traces back the destruction of Nineveh not to its historical enemies, the Elamites, Medes, and Babylonians, but to God alone.64 Similar echoes of the destruction through forces of nature can be found in the description of the theophany in the Psalm of Nahum. The earthquake appears in Nah 1:3 and the flood in 1:8 (Nah 1:8 LXX): And by the flooding (κατακλυσμῷ) of a passage, he will make an end to those who arise … The superelevation of the water catastrophe at the conquest of Nineveh is already present in Nah 1:8.65 In the LXX the term κατακλυσμός designates the deluge. The deluge and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were presumably the model for the catastrophe as it is depicted for Nineveh by the Liv. Pro.66 Yet, while “the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire,”67 underground fire from the desert destroys the upper city quarters of Nineveh. That

62  The shields of the warriors (Nah 2:4), the to and fro of the chariots (Nah 2:5; 3:2), the crack of whip (Nah 3:2), galloping horses (Nah 3:2), the “piles of dead,” and “dead bodies without end” (Nah 3:3), but above all the desecration of the city as a “whore” are not mentioned. 63  Nah 2:9: “Nineveh is like a pool whose waters go away.” The fall of Nineveh is recalled in Nah 2:7–9 as “Day of Yhwh,” according to Everson, “Location,” 169. 64  On the downfall of Nineveh, see Reade, “Ninive,” 428: “the attackers, who must have included experienced Babylonian engineers, could well have blocked the canals upstream of the city, dried much of the moat, distracted the defenders by assaulting Gates […] and breached the Ḫosr reservoirs so as to direct a single mass of water at the city-wall where the river entered the town.” 65  The MT, too, employs this term for the flood ‫ מבול‬in Nah 1:8. 66  Schwemer, Studien, 2:88–91. 67  Gen 19:24.

428

Schwemer

is presumably an indication for the naphtha—the oil in this region.68 As in many other early Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, there are no explicit quotations in the Liv. Pro., only allusions.69 It was more interesting to readers to recognize these allusions. The prophet dies in peace. His grave is in his homeland, also in Elkesi.70 Nahum’s prophecy against Nineveh was remembered. In Tob 14:4, for example, Tobit exhorts his son to go to Media, for he trusts in God’s word that Nahum had spoken about Nineveh. The secondary, later recension GI replaces him—and this is factually wrong—with the more famous prophet Jonah.71 The Nahum commentary from Qumran interprets the book of Prophets in an entirely different way than the Nahum-Vita, and construes it—or, so to say, deciphers it with the pesher method—historically to occurrences in Palestine during the first century bce.72 .

2.8

Life of Habakkuk Ambakum was of the tribe of Simeon, from the farmstead Bethzouchar. Liv. Pro. 12:1

Habakkuk’s origin from Simeon’s tribe connects him with Nahum and Zephaniah. This attribution must have originated in the effort to justify the Hasmonean conquest of Idumaea.73 Habakkuk sees the destruction of Jerusalem already before the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar and grieves deeply. With this, the announcement of God’s judgment in Hab 1:6–9 follows the LXX, for there is an analogy in the wording at the beginning (Hab 1:6; Liv. Pro. 12.4: Χαλδαῖοι) and at the end of the section (Hab 1:9; Liv. Pro. 12.2: αἰχμαλωσία). The motif of grief echoes the prophet’s lament in Hab 1:1–4 and 12–17. It is, however, not quoted verbatim.74 After the withdrawal of the Chaldeans, those that had 68  The oil fields of Mossul still today determine the economic significance of this region. 69  Dimant, “Use”; Schwemer, “Verwendung,” 75–91. 70  The grave was then shown to Jerome in Galilea; in the Middle Ages it was worshipped in ha-Elqoschi close to Mosul; for evidence, see Schwemer, Vitae, 623 n. 4b. 71  Schwemer, Studien, 2:67 n. 103; cf. Ego, “Repentance.” 72  Cf. Frenschkowski, “Prophet,” 283, refers to this pesher technique “as notable inspired decipherings.” 73  See above on the Nahum-Vita. By contrast, Habakkuk is a Levite in Bel 1. On the location of Bethzouchar, see note 77 and 87 below. 74  It is interpreted with respect to the destruction and exile through the “Chaldeans.” By contrast, the Habakkuk Commentary of the Dead Sea Scrolls interprets the “Chaldeans” as “Kittim”; that is, as Romans. The deletion of “Chaldeans” in the Göttingen Septuagint (Ziegler, LXX3, 13:261) is unfounded.

Lives of the Prophets

429

survived in Jerusalem move to Egypt. Habakkuk initially escaped to Ostrakine “in the land of Ishmael” where he lived as a foreigner.75 After that, he lived as a foreigner in his own land as a peasant, and provided his harvesters, namely his reapers, with food. Here a parallel record to the Habakkuk episode in Bel and the Dragon follows (Liv. Pro. 12:6–8): 6 When he took the food, he prophesied to his own fellows, saying, “I am going to a far country, and I will come back quickly. But if I delay, take (food) to the reapers.” 7 And when he had gone to Babylon and given the meal to Daniel, he approached the reapers as they were eating. And he told no one what had happened; 8 but he understood that the people will sooner return from Babylon. The situation is the same in the Habakkuk-Vita and in Bel and the Dragon.76 The meaning of the action, however, is entirely different. In Bel and the Dragon an angel drags the prophet by his hair to Daniel in the lions’ den in order to bring him a pure meal and to keep him alive. In the Habakkuk-Vita, the angel, Daniel’s situation in the lions’ den, and the dialogue between the two prophets are all missing. Here the episode serves only to make Habakkuk recognize that the time of exile in Babylon will soon come to an end. According to the heading, Bel and the Dragon is traced back to Habakkuk’s prophecy. Presumably there was a book of Habakkuk, which is no longer extant, on which both versions may be based. Thanks to the Qumran findings, we now know that such prophet-pseudepigrapha existed. The prophet does not live to see the return of the exiled; he dies two years earlier and receives an individual grave in his farmstead.77 Habakkuk’s τέρας-word refers to the construction of the Second Temple and its destruction. The eschatological renewal of the cult is not expected on Mount Zion, but on Mount Sinai:

75  Liv. Pro. 12:3; Ostrakine by the Serbonian Lake lies on the border between Egypt and Arabia; according to Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.68, Arabia ended here. Ostrakine was, at the time, in the Nabatean area of influence; the indication “Land of Ishmael” is applicable in early Jewish times. Cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:99 n. 27; eadem, Vitae, 624 n. 3a. 76  Identical wording can be found only in the case of the reapers (τοῖς θερισταῖς), the breakfast (τὸ ἀρίστιον/τὸ ἄριστον), and the names Habakkuk, Daniel, and Babylon. 77  Bethzouchar is probably identical with Βετζαχαρ which is recorded on the Madeba map (TAVO-Coordinates: 136.119); Tsafrir et al., Tabula, 99, s.v. Capher Zacharia.

430

Schwemer

10 He gave a portent to those in Judea: “They will see a light in the temple and so perceive the glory of the temple.” 11 And concerning the end of the temple he predicted: “By a western nation it will happen.” 12 “At that time,” he said, “the curtain of the Dabeir will be torn into small pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken away, and no one know where they will be; 13 and they will be carried away by angels into the wilderness, where the tent of witness was set up in the beginning. 14 And by means of them the Lord will be recognized at the end, for they will illuminate those who are being pursued by the serpent in darkness as from the beginning.”78 The light of which the Judeans will catch sight above the temple refers to the dedication of the Second Temple.79 Yet Habakkuk also foretells that the end of the Second Temple will be brought about by the Romans, the “nation from the West.” Since Pompey had conquered and desecrated the temple in 63 bce, in Jewish eyes there loomed the threat of a destruction of the sanctuary by the Romans.80 It is for this reason that the eschatological hopes of salvation in Early Judaism were partly directed toward the desert, Sinai, and no longer towards Mount Zion. This change comes to expression multiple times in the Liv. Pro. Here the promise of the “eschatological relocation of the cult to the salvific place of origin, Sinai,” is ascribed to the prophets.81 It happens in a particularly detailed manner in Jeremiah. Once hidden in Sinai by Jeremiah, the ark of the covenant will be the first to be resurrected. It will be taken out by Moses and Aaron, and the law that was hidden will be read aloud.82 Habakkuk is in line with this description and announces the destruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. The inner curtain will be torn into small pieces. This curtain is described as ἅπλωμα τοῦ Δαβήρ, and symbolized the Earth. The tearing apart into 78  Liv. Pro. 12:10–14. On the translation, see already Schwemer, Vitae, 626–628. 79  Hag 2:3, 7, 9; Zech 2:5(9) are the most closely related passages in the Book of the Twelve; the presence of God in the temple is announced by the apparition of light and the splendor of light (δόξα) above all in the dedication of the temple; on Salomon see 2 Chr 7:1–3; Josephus, Ant. 8.118–120; to the cult etiology of Hanukkah, the “festival of lights,” belonged the remembering of the light and fire wonder during the dedication of Moses’s, Salomon’s and Nehemiah’s altars; cf. 1 Macc 4:50; 2 Macc 1–2 (1:32 and 2:10–12); Josephus, Ant. 12.325; see also Josephus, B.J. 6.290; in detail Schwemer, Studien, 2:116–120; eadem, Vitae, 626. 80  In the Habakkuk Commentary 1QpHab, the Babylonians are identified with the Romans, the “Kittim.” See also note 74 above. 81   Mittmann-Richert, Einführung, 165. 82  Liv. Pro. 2:9–14; one version of the widespread account regarding the concealment of temple devices.

Lives of the Prophets

431

small pieces (εἰς μικρὰ ῥαγήσεται), was for this reason most likely influenced by Hab 3:9 (LXX: ῥαγήσεται γῆ).83 Yet the capitals of Jachin and Boaz were—already before the destruction of the First Temple—saved in the desert.84 Here they take over the function of the cloud and pillar of fire in the Exodus narration. Presumably the promise in Hab 3:2 (LXX) is taken up in this regard: “You will be known in the midst of two living creatures.” The capitals of the two pillars are thus the two living beings among whom God will be recognized. It is common that parts of the temple are represented as animate objects.85 Similarly to the Life of Jeremiah, the flight of the pious to the desert in order to escape the persecution of the eschatological enemy, the serpent, echoes Israel’s escape from the persecution of pharaoh.86 The capitals of the pillars illuminate their way. Habakkuk dies in peace and is buried in his farmstead Bethzouchar, where he is given his own grave.87 The emphasis on the individual grave accentuates the importance of the prophet, and the gravesite in Simeon’s tribal territory again brings forth the ancient Israelite heritage in this area. 2.9

Life of Zephaniah Sophonias was of the tribe of Simeon, of the farmstead Sabaratha. He prophesied concerning the city and about the end of the gentiles and the shame of the impious. And he died and was buried in his farmstead. Liv. Pro. 13:1

83  There is also, however, the possibility of a play on words with ‫( פרוכת‬inner temple curtain) and ‫“( פרך‬grind,” “crumble”). This is presumably an indication for the assumption that a prophet apocryphon is at the basis of the Habakkuk-Vita. Cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:129–131; eadem, Vitae, 627 n. 12c. 84  On Jachin and Boas, cf. 1 Kgs 7:15–22; according to 2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer 52:17–23 they were shattered and they are brought to Babylon. Josephus, Ant. 10.145 writes that they came to Babylon undamaged as war spoils. 85  See Schwemer, Studien, 2:133; eadem, Vitae, 628 n. 14a. 86  Schwemer, Studien, 2:132; cf. also Isa 51:9 (MT), where “Rahab,” the prehistoric dragon, stands for the Pharaoh and Egypt; on this Mittmann-Richert, Einführung, 166 n. 34. Furthermore, Liv. Pro. 2:12, on this Schwemer, Vitae, 582 n. 12e. 87  Liv. Pro. 12:9; Eusebius, Onom. (GCS 11.1, 114.15–18; 88.26–28 ed. Klostermann) indicates Kela and Onom. (70.22–25) Gabatha as the place of the grave. Yet the grave was nevertheless shown to Egeria around 400 ce in the area of Eleutheropolis in “Bycoyca.” The Madeba map and the Tabula Peutingeriana position it here. For more details, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:138; eadem, Vitae, 625–626 n. 9a.

432

Schwemer

Zephaniah is the third from the Simeon tribe and his homeland Sabaratha is probably identical with Berathsatia—located 3.5 km to the north of Beit Guvrin. The contents of Zephaniah’s prophecy are briefly recorded: “concerning the city,”88 “the end of the gentiles,”89 and “the shame of the impious.”90 The short vita thus orients itself remarkably close to the Book of the Prophet itself.91 After his death Zephaniah is buried in his own farmstead. Once again the prophet’s grave in the rural district of the Simeon tribe underlines the ancestral ownership of the area around Bet Guvrin. His grave, as those of Habakkuk and Nahum, gives the inhabitants space and protection. There is no hint of this in the Book of the Twelve. 2.10 Life of Haggai The short vita of Haggai can be quoted in its entirety too (Liv. Pro. 14:1–2): 1 Aggaios, who is also called angel, came early as a youth from Babylon to Jerusalem, and he openly prophesied concerning the return of the people, and saw in part the rebuilding of the temple. 2 And when he died he was buried near the tomb of the priests, in (great) honour as were they. The last three prophets of the Dodekapropheton are again joined together into a subcategory. All three are connected through the fact that they all testify to the end of exile, are active in Jerusalem, and are of priestly origin. In the case of Haggai and Zechariah, this is indicated by their burial. Haggai and Zechariah are buried in the vicinity of the grave of the high priest. Malachi comes from Sopha, that is, from Scopus92—which also suggests priestly origins.93 “Messenger of Ywhw,” as the prophet is called in Hag 1:13, was understood as an “angel.”94 Haggai’s effort in the rebuilding of the temple is mentioned only briefly. The dating of the beginning of the construction of the temple 88  Cf. Zeph 1:4, 10–11; 3:1–3, 14–18. 89  Cf. Zeph 1:18; 2:4–15; 3:6, 8. 90  Cf. Zeph 1:4–6; 3:2. 91  On the points of contact with the Zephaniah apocalypse, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:139– 140; eadem, Vitae, 629. 92  For the location of the antique Scopus, cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 913. 93  Altogether nine prophets in the Liv. Pro. are of priestly origins: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea (?), Haggai, Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo, Malachi, Nathan, Eliah, Zechariah ben Johoiada. On Malachi, see below. 94  The problem of why some prophets were called angels preoccupied the Christian and Rabbinical exegesis, cf. Schwemer, Vitae, 630 n. 1b. On priests as angels, see Mal 2:7.

Lives of the Prophets

433

to the second year of Darius’s reign, which is found in the Biblical book of the prophet, is not communicated.95 Haggai’s call to Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua, the son of Josedech, to build the temple is completely ignored. A promise to both of them can nevertheless be found in the vita of Haggai’s counterpart, Zechariah.96 A legendary extension beyond the book of the prophet concerns Haggai’s youth. He is supposed to have returned— contrary to Zechariah (more below)—from Babylon already as a young man. Whether or not the information on his honourable burial close to the grave of the high priest is historically accurate is no longer verifiable. His grave was, of course, presumed to be there and was venerated there. After all, priestly family graves play a special role in the Liv. Pro. They are also mentioned in the lives of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Zechariah ben Jehoiada. The Copper Scroll from Qumran mentions the grave of the High Priest in Jerusalem and the grave of Zadok.97 Still today the remains of the impressive priestly burial structures from the Greco-Roman period can be seen in Kidron Valley and in Silwan.98 2.11

Life of Zechariah Zacharias came from Chaldea when he was already well advanced in years, and there he prophesied many things to the people, and gave portents as evidence. Liv. Pro. 15:1

Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo was from a priestly family and returned with his father from the Babylonian exile.99 As a member of the priestly aristocracy, he expressly supported the construction of the temple.100 That he was a priest is simply presumed in his vita and only his grave in the vicinity of Haggai is mentioned. 95  Hag 1:1; 2:1–10; cf. Ezra 6:2. 96  Regarding these promises, see the Zechariah-Vita below. Haggai, as the oldest, is always placed before Zechariah for chronological reasons. Cf. Ezra 5:1–2: through the support of the two prophets, Zerubbabel and Joshua continue the construction of the temple. The laying of its foundation by Zerubbabel and Joshua is described in Ezra 3:8–13. Liv. Pro. 15:6: Haggai’s and Zechariah’s graves lie close to one another. 97  3Q15 VI, 14 and XI, 3. 98  Cf. Küchler, Jerusalem, 698–752. 99  Neh 12:16; cf. Neh 12:4. Thus Zechariah returned from Babylon as a young man, contrary to the Liv. Pro where he returned in his old age. 100  Gese, “Anfang,” 221.

434

Schwemer

Three portents (τέρατα) are cited which Zechariah had given to the people in Babylon as proof of their happy return from exile. Josedek, the last high priest at the Temple of Solomon, received from Zechariah the promise of a son. He would beget a son who would become a high priest in Jerusalem.101 The second portent consists of the fact that he had blessed Davidic Shealtiel because of his son,102 giving him the name, Zerubbabel—“Sprout of Babylon.” Through this portent, the nation was promised, already during the Babylonian exile, who among the Davidic heirs would lead the people back to their land. In other words, the prophet already gives him a throne name. The future high priest is already announced by a birth oracle.103 Zechariah’s prophecy about Cyrus the Great appears as a third portent. To him he gave a “portent for his victory” (τέρας ἔδωκεν εἰς νῖκος) over the Babylonians and predicted “the service which he was to perform for Jerusalem, and he blessed him greatly.”104 The service of Cyrus, according to the Ezra/Nehemiah tradition, consists of the construction of the temple.105 The construction of the temple had been from time immemorial the task of the king. Cyrus here becomes the actual temple builder. The Liv. Pro. follow this tradition and for this reason Zechariah prophesied to and blessed Cyrus. These three portents are not contained in the book of Zechariah. They serve to supplement the information about the high priest Joshua and on the Davidid Zerubbabel in Zech 3, 4, and 6. In Ezra the prophets Haggai and Zechariah are named together with Cyrus. For the building of the temple “proceeded through the prophesying of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo. They built and finished it by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes” (Ezra 6:14).106 In Jerusalem, Zechariah saw “the other parts of his prophecy” and “he published (ἐξέθετο)” these “(visions) about the end of the Gentiles, of Israel, of the 101  Jehozadak was the father of Joshua, the first high priest at the Second Temple, cf. Hag 1:1, 12, 14; Zech 6:11; Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Sir 49:12; Josephus, Ant. 11.73; cf. Schwemer, Vitae, 632 n. 2b. 102  Shealtiel is the oldest son of Jeconiah, the last legitimate King of Judah for whose return Jeremiah was hoping (Jer 28:1–3). Shealtiel is stated as the father of Zerubbabel: Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; 1 Chr 3:17. 103  On the nativity announcement, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:155–158. 104  Liv. Pro. 15:4. 105  Ezra 1:1–3; 15:13–16; cf. 2 Chr 36:22–23. 106  Apart from this, Cyrus is mentioned in 2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–8; 3:7; 4:3–5; 5:13–17; Isa 44:24–28; 45:1–9; Dan 1:21; 6:29; 10:1. The prophecy of (Deutero-)Isaiah is transferred to Zechariah.

Lives of the Prophets

435

temple, and about the laziness of prophets and priests and the twofold judgment” (Liv. Pro. 15:5). Notwithstanding the other vitae, we have here a somewhat generalized table of contents of the book of the prophet. The prophet is described as an author who himself writes down his own prophesies and makes them available to the public. His relation to the other books within the Dodekapropheton is not explained. The final destiny of the nations is a central theme of the book of Zechariah. The topic of what will ultimately happen to Israel is also a significant theme.107 The laziness of the prophets can be found in Zech 13:1–8. In ch. 14 the priests no longer have a function at the eschatological temple. The “twofold judgment” must be related, on one hand, to the judgment over the nations, and, on the other hand, to the judgment over Israel.108 Among others, the Revelation of John shows how Zechariah’s prophecy is interpreted eschatologically. The four horses and their riders are now universally concerned with “the entire cosmos.”109 The two “Sons of Oil” are understood as two Christian prophets of the end times.110 With the figure of the woman “Wickedness,” who is brought to Babylon in a bushel by two winged creatures, the “apocalyptic whore of Babylon,” who stands for Rome in the Revelation to John, is “created.”111 The expectation of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple resounded in the Habakkuk-Vita, also finds expression in the Life of Zechariah ben Jehoiada. In the case of this prophet, the story of Yoḥanan ben Zakkai can be cited. Forty years before the destruction of the temple, its gates had opened themselves in an inexplicable way. Yoḥanan is supposed to have said to the temple, citing Zech 11:1: Temple, why do you startle us? We know that you will be destroyed in the end. For it has been said: Open your doors, oh Lebanon, so that fire may devour your cedars!112 107  Since the τέλος (end or end-goal or end-fate/destiny?) of Israel is ambiguous, “Israel” is missing in some manuscripts. See Schwemer, Vitae, 633 n. 5c. 108  Cf. Zech 9:12; 14. See Schwemer, Studien, 2:170–172. 109  Rev 6:1–8; cf. Zech 1:7–17; 6:1–8; on this Jauhiainen, Use, 63–66; Lichtenberger, Apokalypse, 139. 110  Rev 11:4; cf. Zech 4:2–3, 11, 14; Lichtenberger, Apokalypse, 169–170. 111  Zech 5:5–11; Rev 17; Gese, “Anfang,” 212–213 (Quote: 213). 112  Y. Yoma 6:3, 43c; b. Yoma 39b; also Tg. Esth. 1:2 quotes Zech 11:1 for the destruction of the temple, on this Ego, Targum Scheni, 79, 182. The metonymy of “Lebanon” and “temple” is already recorded in 1QpHab XII, 3–5 and often in Rabbinical literature. On further parallel passages, see Avemarie, Yoma, 168 n. 88.

436

Schwemer

Zechariah’s close relationship to Haggai reveals itself finally in the fact that the former lays buried very close to the latter.113 2.12

Life of Malachi Malachias. This one was born in Sopha after the return. Liv. Pro. 16:1

Malachi—the prophet that cannot be grasped easily historically because dates about him cannot be found either in the Dodekapropheton or in the historical books—remains, despite the importance of parts of his work in reception history, somewhat pale in the Liv. Pro. In this manner, he represents the ideal conclusion of the Old Testament prophecy, uniting within himself the functions of prophet, priest, and angel.114 There may have been—according to the epilogue to the Liv. Pro.—other prophets after him, but there are no relevant extant traditions about them.115 The birthplace of the prophet, Sopha, is Mt Scopus in the north of Jerusalem. Here the priesthood had preserved the ashes of the red heifer. This suggests a priestly settlement.116 Mal 2:7 may have been interpreted as suggesting that Malachi was a priestly prophet (Mal 2:7 LXX): Because the lips of a priest shall guard knowledge, and the people shall seek law from his mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord Almighty. The depiction of the prophet is above all derived from his name and not so much from the content of his book. He was venerated by the people and called “Malachi; that is, angel,” for he was pious, and gentle and exceptionally beautiful as well. As a young man, he corresponds to the ancient Jewish ideal of beauty that the angels embodied.117 In addition, an angel repeated on the same day everything that he “prophesied.”118 This is derived from Mal 1:1, for the prophet is supposed to have 113  On the later burial traditions, cf. Schwemer, Vitae, 634 n. 6c. 114  Cf. Tertullian, Scorp. 8.3: “ipse clausula legis et prophetarum nec prophetes, sed angelus dictus.” 115  Liv. Pro. 24:1–2; Schwemer, Studien, 2:329–334; eadem, Vitae, 655–656. 116  On the identification of the place and on the problem of whether it is identical with the priestly city of Nob, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:178–179; eadem, Vitae, 634–635 n. 1c; TAVO-Coordinates: 172.134. 117  Liv. Pro. 16:2; for an explanation, see Schwemer, Studien, 2:183 n. 32; eadem, Vitae, 635 n. 2c. 118  Liv. Pro. 16:3.

Lives of the Prophets

437

spoken “through the hand of his angel.”119 The vita interprets this in the sense that the prophet had a personal angel who affirmatively repeated or explained his prophecies. In this regard, the vita points with the words “as written” to an incident “in the days of anarchy” at the beginning of the Nebiim prophetic corpus, in “Sfarfotim,” ἐν βίβλῳ κριτῶν.120 Here the wife of Manoah believes that a man of God had announced to her the birth of her son. When he appears again before Manoah and his wife and repeats the announcement, it becomes clear that he was an angel.121 With this biblical reference, the end of the Book of the Twelve is connected to the beginning of the Corpus Nebiim, as the Hosea-Vita had done in the beginning with the reference to the book of Joshua. Here it is striking that the reference to Moses in Mal 3:23, which expands the connection, is not taken up.122 He flourished early, yet Malachi dies young as a νέος. That is, he is not yet of a marriageable age and is laid to rest alongside his fathers. 3

Summary and Outcome

The prosopographic knowledge of the prophets of Israel, especially of the Twelve, has been preserved in the Liv. Pro. as it was collected in early Judaism before 70 ce. Surprisingly little is quoted from the writings of the prophets themselves. Instead indications for dates and other information were sought in the historical books. The Liv. Pro. are in close contact with the book of Sirach. Sir 49:10 LXX wishes that the remains of the Twelve Prophets may spring up from their graves. This corresponds to the wish for the judges to do likewise in Sir 46:12 LXX. Thus Jesus Sirach builds a bridge between the book of the Twelve Prophets and the book of Judges. That is, he builds a bridge between the eschatological hope of the Judges’ work and the prophetic comfort of the Minor Prophets. In addition, Sirach and Liv. Pro. have in common an interest in the graves of the prophets and in the hope of eschatological resurrection. Tending to 119  The Liv. Pro., in this case, are closer to the text of the LXX. LXX writes “by the hand of his messenger/angel” and not as in MT “by the hand of my messenger” (‫)ביד מלאכי‬. 120  It is only here in the Liv. Pro. that an explicit quote is introduced in this way. 121  With this, the change between îš ha-elôhîm, namely ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ (Judg 13:6, 8, 10–11) to mal’āk, namely ἄγγελος (Judg 13:3, 9, 11, 13, 15–18, 21) is explained; this interpretation can be also found in the Rabbinical literature; cf. Schwemer, Studien, 2:187 n. 51. 122  Moses does not receive a vita in the Liv. Pro., yet he plays a decisive role in the eschatological arrival of salvation during the resurrection; see Liv. Pro. 2:11–15; Schwemer, Studien, 2:217–235; eadem, Vitae, 581–584.

438

Schwemer

the graves of prophets—and the hope of resurrection—was a matter of the Pharisees in the first century ce. Jesus scolds them and the scribes and calls this interest hypocritical.123 With this tending to the graves, the Pharisees claimed to be the heirs of the prophets.124 In the Liv. Pro., Pharisaic ideas of the prophets from the Book of the Twelve have presumably been preserved. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Ana Ilievska and Michael J. Thate for their English translation. I am most grateful to my friends Hermann Lichtenberger and Johanna Jebe for the proofreading and corrections of the text. Bibliography Avemarie, Friedrich. Yoma: Versöhnungstag. Vol. 2,4 of Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi. Edited by Martin Hengel et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Die Pharisäer und die Gräber der Propheten.” Pages 13–32 in Judäo-Christentum: Die gemeinsame Wurzel von rabbinischem Judentum und frü­ her Kirche. Edited by Andreas Bedenbender. Paderborn: Bonifatius and Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Cook, John G. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. de Vos, J. Cornelis. “Das Land Israel in der Sicht der Septuaginta: Beispiele aus Exodus, Josua und Jesaja.” Pages 87–105 in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum: The Septuagint and Christian Origins. Edited by Thomas S. Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 277. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Dimant, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepi­ grapha.” Pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin J. Mulder. CRINT. Assen: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. Ego, Beate. Targum Scheni zu Ester: Übersetzung, Kommentar und theologische Deutung. TSAJ 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Ego, Beate. “The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction: A Coherent Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Reflected in 123  Matt 23:29–33; Luke 11:47–51; cf. Schwemer, “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament.” 124  Baumgarten, “Pharisäer,” 31–32: The Pharisees tended to the graves of the prophets for the purpose of proving themselves as their heirs.

Lives of the Prophets

439

the Aggada.” Pages 155–164 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Everson, Joseph A. “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk.” Pages 165–174 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Frenschkowski, Marco. “Prophet (Prophetie).” RAC 28: 274–320. García Martínez, Florentino and Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Vol. 1: 1Q1–4Q273. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2000. Gese, Hartmut. “Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik, dargestellt am Sacharjabuch.” Pages 202–230 in Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. Edited by idem. BEvT 64. München: Kaiser, 1974. Görgemanns, Herwig. “Biographie.” DNP 1: 682–689. Hare, Douglas R.A. “The Lives of the Prophets.” Pages 379–399 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and legends, wisdom and philosophical literature, prayers, psalms, and odes, fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer. Jesus und das Judentum. Vol. 1 of Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Jauhiainen, Marko. The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. WUNT II,199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Jeremias, Joachim. Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt 23,29; Lk 11,47): Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Keel, Othmar and Max Küchler. Der Süden. Vol. 2 of Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studien-Reiseführer zum Heiligen Land. Edited by idem. Zürich et al.: Benzinger and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Küchler, Max. Jerusalem: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zur Heiligen Stadt. Vol. 4,2 of Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studien-Reiseführer zum Heiligen Land. Edited by idem and Otmar Keel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Lichtenberger, Hermann. Die Apokalypse. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 23. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014. Marcus, Joel. “The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora (James 1.1).” NTS 60 (2014): 433–447. Mittmann, Siegfried and Götz Schmitt. eds. Tübinger Bibelatlas/Tübingen Bible Atlas: Auf der Grundlage des Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (TAVO)/Based on the Tübingen Atlas of the Near and Middle East. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. Einführung zu den historischen und legendarischen Erzäh­ lungen. JSHRZ 6,1,1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2000.

440

Schwemer

Mulzer, Martin. “Elkosch.” Neues Bibel-Lexikon 1:525. Oswald, Wolfgang. “Zukunftserwartung und Gerichtsankündigung: Zur Pragmatik der prophetischen Rede vom Tag Jhwhs.” Pages 19–31 in Le Jour de Dieu. Der Tag Gottes. Edited by Anders Hultgård and Stig Norrin. WUNT 245. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright. eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (= NETS). New York, NY: Oxford University, 2007. Reade, Julian E. “Ninive (Niniveh).” RlA 9: 388–433. Schwemer, Anna Maria. “Die Verwendung der Septuaginta in den Vitae Prophetarum.” Pages 62–91 in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Schwemer, Anna Maria. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden: Vitae Prophetarum. 2 vols. TSAJ 49–50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–96. Schwemer, Anna Maria. Vitae Prophetarum. JSHRZ 1,7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1997. Schwemer, Anna Maria. “Vitae Prophetarum und Neues Testament.” Pages 199–230 in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature: Yearbook 2008: Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2009. Schwemer, Anna Maria. “Das Land Abrahams in der frühjüdischen eschatologischen Erwartung und die urchristliche Mission in Syrien.” Pages 59–87 in Eschatologie— Eschatology: The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Eschatology in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, September, 2009). Edited by Hans-Joachim Eckstein et al. WUNT 272. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Tsafrir, Yoram et al. Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea—Palaestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Maps and Gazetteer. Union Academique Internationale. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1998. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Ziegler, Joseph. ed. Duodecim prophetae. Vol. 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societas Litterarum Gottingensis editum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Chapter 24

The Book of the Twelve in the Rabbinic Tradition Mark Leuchter 1

Introduction: the Concepts of Prophecy in Rabbinic Texts

Rabbinic references to the events and institutions addressed by the Hebrew Scriptures are, for the historian, uneven in their value. Some possess wisps of dim historical memories, but most are clearly mythological in orientation and mythopoeic in purpose, reflecting the social and cultural conditions of the Rabbis themselves far more than the figures or groups from the distant past that are invoked in rabbinic texts. This is especially the case with the prophetic tradition in the Hebrew Bible. The relics of Israelite prophecy preserved in the biblical record derive from the Israelite and Judahite antiquity and are deeply bound to ancient Near Eastern prophetic conventions.1 In contrast, the rabbinic movement emerges in a completely different era—from a Hellenistic cultural/intellectual context and a background characterized by Roman rule. Despite this temporal and cultural chasm, the Rabbis understood themselves as deeply indebted to the prophets. In some cases, the prophets are authoritative founders of concepts and praxes of which the Rabbis saw themselves as trustees. In others, the relationship is characterized in less circumspect ways. The passage in m. Avot 1.1 provides a salient example: Moses received torah at Sinai, and transmitted it to Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly … This brief narrative—which continues into a listing of sages down to the end of the Second Temple era—offers a foundation myth for the rabbinic movement, providing a sort of genealogy of revelation that extends from Sinai down to the redactors of m. Avot itself (and the Mishnah as well).2 The genealogy 1  The connections between Israelite prophecy and prophecy across the ancient Near East are well known and need not be enumerated here in detail. For a recent overview of scholarship, see Kelle, “Phenomenon,” 321–352. 2  Tropper, Wisdom. See also the parallel traditions in m. Pe’ah 2.6 and t. Yadayim 2.16, which draw from the same tradition presupposed in m. Avot 1.1. So also the citation in b. Nazir 56b.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_026

442

Leuchter

of revelation in m. Avot 1 presents the Rabbis as subsequent to the prophets, but not subordinate to them; the rhetoric of the chapter makes the case that rabbinic wisdom is an outgrowth of the same revelatory power that resided in the institution of prophecy. Rabbinic authority preserved the world-making presence of the divine that had once characterized prophetic activity. Other passages express this in clear terms as well, establishing the Rabbis as fitting successors to the prophets (b. Bava Batra 12a; b. Menachot 59b). One can detect here an attempt to create a body of literature that normalized rabbinic culture, bringing it from the social periphery to the centre of Jewish life in Roman Palestine of the second-fourth centuries ce.3 But while the Rabbi might succeed the Prophet in this network of tradition, the question of prophetic text is more complicated. The genealogy of revelation in m. Avot 1 noted above shows a chain of torah transmission, but not an initiator—that is, Moses receives torah at Sinai and transmitted it to others, but the passage does not say that anybody (divine or otherwise) gave it to Moses. Torah as a textual concept, an intellectual impulse, or both, is its own self-generating mythotype, neither subordinate to nor dependent upon God’s authorship.4 It is, rather, a divine hypostasis in its own right.5 This is significant for our present inquiry because while the Rabbis as a social type viewed themselves as on par with (or even superior to) the prophets as a social type, they also regarded prophetic texts as part of the torah that they inherited from the mythic past.6 The miqra’—“Scripture”—included the written oracles of the prophets, and were every bit as potent in their revelatory power as the Pentateuch (b. Shabbat 88a). 2

The Book of the Twelve in Rabbinic Discourse

All of this sheds some light on how the Book of the Twelve is addressed in the canon of rabbinic literature. While rabbinic texts regularly invoke prophets by name and by book, there is a surprising paucity of references to the Book of the Twelve itself as a distinct literary work.7 The Rabbis generally annex its 3  On the marginality of the Rabbis in Jewish society until the fourth century ce (at the earliest), see Schwartz, Imperialism, 103–128. 4  Pace Cohen, Maccabees, 156, who reads God into the passage as a master who bequeaths torah to Moses. 5  Freedman, Psalm, 89–90, broached this possibility in his discussion of Psalm 119. The rabbinic development of this concept is discussed in more detail by Yadin, Scripture, 11–33. 6  Neusner, Rabbis, 3. 7  I leave aside from the current study and extensive discussion of whether the Book of the Twelve was redacted to be a single book or a distinct collection of independent books.

Rabbinic Tradition

443

contents in a manner that assumes an anthology of independent prophetic material, not a single work with a single message or, for that matter, a single author.8 This occurs in several ways, the first of which is the simple assignment of a prophetic oracle to the titular prophet of the book in which it appears. The following passage from b. Pesahim 87a contains a discourse on the prophet Hosea’s early activity and lack of experience: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: What shall I do to this Elder? I will say to him: Go and take a prostitute and bear for yourself children of prostitution. And after that I will say to him: Send her away from before you. If he is able to send [her away], I will also send [away] the Jewish people. As it is stated: “The Lord said to Hosea: Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution.” Hosea 1:2

This passage does not hesitate to identify the prophet as an historical individual to whom the words of the book are assigned. These types of assignments are frequent in rabbinic texts, often accompanying the use of prophecy in establishing some sort of halakhic or theological precedent. The prophets are invoked by name, by deed, and by word to demonstrate that a given institution or idea is not a rabbinic invention but was already in practice at a much earlier time. Whatever ultimate purpose is served by such invocations, in these cases the Rabbis are entirely comfortable in crediting the oracles of Micah to the prophet Micah, the oracles of Nahum to the prophet Nahum, the oracles of Zechariah to the prophet Zechariah, etc. These types of references accompany other ostensible biblical authors prophetic or otherwise as well (David is the author of various Psalms, Solomon of various wisdom texts, Jeremiah of oracles in the book of Jeremiah, and so forth).9 Such assignments appear at On contemporary approaches to this issue, see the recent collection of essays in Sweeney and Nogalski, Reading; Albertz et al., Perspectives. My own position on the matter occupies a somewhat mediating view, which I have laid out in detail in my article “Another Look.” Briefly: the redaction critical features of the Book of the Twelve attest to stages of redactional growth over time leading to the formation of a distinct work in the late Persian period, but this work is best viewed as a curriculum that sets distinct prophetic traditions in hermeneutical conversation with each other. 8  See Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 131–132. The rabbinic concept of authorship with regard to prophetic texts is itself a more complicated matter, influenced by but not limited to Hellenistic concepts or categories. See further below, section 3. 9  Yet when the Rabbis claim that David authored the Psalms or that Solomon authored Proverbs, the semantic range of their locution speaks to categories far beyond fixed collections of texts (let alone “canonical” ones). See Mroczek, Literary Imagination.

444

Leuchter

first glance to be simple and straightforward—but this is a red flag to the attentive reader, for very little in the rabbinic literary imagination is ever simple or straightforward. The simplistic crediting of a verse or oracle to a particular historical figure might constitute somewhat of a bait-and-switch, with an ostensible peshat assignment giving way to a more esoteric meaning in the context of the larger unit of rabbinic discourse. But on the peshat level, at least, such assignments are frequent within rabbinic tradition, perhaps as qualified concessions to older or more popular modes of reading such Scriptural sources. Another rabbinic approach to the contents of the Book of the Twelve is where a passage from a prophet book is associated with the prophetic name carried by that book. This appears at first glance to have much in common with the aforementioned peshat-type assignment, but a closer look reveals a more complex hermeneutic: Amos went to give comfort. He said to the city “the Holy One, blessed be He, has sent me to you to bring you comfort.” She said to him “what do you have in hand?” He said to her “On that day I will raise up the fallen tabernacle of David” (Amos 9:11). She said to him “Yesterday, you said to me ‘the virgin of Israel is fallen, she shall rise no more’ (Amos 5:2) and now you say this to me? Which shall we believe, the first statement or the second?” Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16.8

Here, the words in the book of Amos are written into a fable on how oracles of comfort in various prophetic texts are challenged by oracles of woe in those same texts. The passage is not a legend or anecdote about the deeds and doings of prophets; rather, prophetic characters in the passage such as Amos are literary embodiments of prophecy, the same way that Lady Wisdom is a literary embodiment of human awareness and intellect in the book of Proverbs.10 The terms of this symbolic fable are clear in their association of the Scriptural verses in question with the memory of an historical prophet, but only in a figurative and symbolic sense. A third way that the Rabbis engaged the contents of the Book of the Twelve is the abstraction of prophetic lemmas from any historical context or speaker whatsoever. In these cases, the oracles in the Book of the Twelve are treated exactly the same as verses elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. The passage below from y. Mo’ed Qatan 3.3 (which also engages the oracles of Amos), 10  Fox, “Ideas,” 630. On the “voice” of a text in antiquity, see further below.

Rabbinic Tradition

445

provides a salient example.11 After posing a question regarding the Scriptural basis for mourning rites, a chorus of sages are invoked who all are presented as agreeing on a prophetic source: R. Yose, R. Hiyya in the name of R. Simon b. Laqish, R. Jonah, R. Hiyya and R. Simon b. Laqish in the name of R. Yudan the Patriarch [state]: “I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth upon all loins and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day” (Amos 8:10). In the aforementioned example, the (ostensible) prophetic author, literary setting, purpose or history of reception of this textual unit do not factor into how it is deployed. Rather, a portion of a prophetic oracle has been abstracted as a philological lemma for the purposes of building a rabbinic argument or serving as a prooftext for such an argument.12 To a degree, this dovetails with the implications of Avot 1 that torah (inclusive of written prophecy) can be received and transmitted without any mention of an author. The divine word is its own mythotype, and prophets—like the later Rabbis—are transmitters, not originators.13 In this category of textual engagement, the words’ origin as prophetic oracles are irrelevant. It is sufficient that they are canonized in the miqra’, and thus share the same revelatory status as any other part of Scripture.14 A final rabbinic approach to the oracles in the Book of the Twelve stands somewhere between the two aforementioned examples, and that is the assignment of their contents to “the Prophets” in a generic manner. A brief text in m. Ta’anit 2.1 provides an example: The manner of fasting: how [was it done]? They bring forth the ark into the street of the town and put wood ashes on the ark, on the head of the patriarch, and on the head of the head of the court. And each person puts 11  The Talmud Yerushalmi is typically dated to early fifth century CE Galilee; see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 170–171. 12  Neusner, Rabbis, 81. 13  See further below, section 3. 14  On the largely rabbinic impact on the categorizing of the miqra’, see Mroczek, Literary Imagination, 156–183. Precursors to the rabbinic canon, of course, existed well beforehand, but distinctions should be drawn between the authoritative status these traditions held as holy documents and the concept of a fixed canon. For a proposed series of such stages in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, see van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 233–254, 259 (though van der Toorn uses the problematic term “canon” or “canonical” in reference to these stages).

446

Leuchter

[ashes] on his head … and in the Prophets it is said, ‘rend your heart and not your garments.’ In this mishnaic passage, a verse from the Book of the Twelve (the italicized quotation at the end of the passage, Joel 2:13) is recognized as a distinctively prophetic utterance, but no attempt is made to associate it with a particular prophet or even an era of prophecy (pre-monarchic, monarchic, exilic, postexilic, etc.).15 Temporal, form-critical, rhetorical, linguistic, and ideological distinctions between Israel’s prophetic figures are ignored. This, however, also applies to the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel). Their words, too, are regularly simply assigned generically to “the prophets,”16 evidencing no special interest in establishing categorical distinctions between the larger and smaller prophetic books or any collections of which they were a part in antiquity. Rather, there is an implied coherent meta-message or hermeneutical purpose assigned to any and all prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible. From these examples, it would seem that the Rabbis did not recognize the Book of the Twelve as a collection whose contents cohered in some significant manner. But we know this was not the case. Though the vast majority of rabbinic references to prophecy fall into the categories above, the Babylonian Talmud (“Bavli”) preserves a few discourses where the Rabbis explicitly acknowledge the existence of the Book of the Twelve as a unique, distinct work. The remainder of this study will examine those discourses in greater detail, but even if these references to the Book of the Twelve are set aside, the larger Jewish intellectual culture from which the Rabbis emerged was fully aware of the Book of the Twelve as a distinct work, making it very likely that they, too, recognized it. The New Testament writers make reference to the Book of the Twelve that presupposes a well-known collected sequence,17 as does Ben Sira, who makes clear mention of the Book of the Twelve as a single work in the famous “praise of heroes” closing his book (Sir 49:10). In the case of Ben Sira, some Rabbis appear to regard him as an ideal sage, his words actually attaining a Scripture-like status (b. Bava Batra 98b), while others are more circumspect

15  Many contemporary editions of the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmudim, and Midrashim will provide specific source citations for the invocation of Scriptural material, but this is a late addition. The original versions of these documents would not have included such source citations with chapter and verse, as attested by old manuscript evidence. 16  The deployment of such a generic label is not a rabbinic innovation; see Ben Zvi, “Prophets,” 555–567. 17  Steyn, “Observations,” 49–67.

Rabbinic Tradition

447

about the viability of his book as a source for instruction.18 In either case, the Rabbis know his book, and Ben Sira’s invocation of “the twelve prophets” in Sir 49:10 certainly did not go unnoticed.19 The paucity of rabbinic references to the Book of the Twelve as a distinct book may constitute some sort of response to its cultic profile in the Second Temple period. As I have discussed elsewhere, the original purpose of its redaction was to provide an alternative intellectual “space” for written prophecy beyond the context of temple cult/ritual.20 It was arranged and redacted to provide an intellectual model for how a sage could discern the collective esoteric meaning of earlier prophetic texts apart from their function in the temple cult. Yet even if the Book of the Twelve was initially created apart from the cult, the dominance of the Aaronide priesthood and its influence over the process of textual transmission ensured that in time, it would become part of a Scriptural curriculum that reinforced its ritual authority.21 In a hierarchy that saw ever-increasing Aaronide priestly hegemony, the orchestration of prophetic oracles within the Book of the Twelve would invariably remain subordinate to the cultic use of those same oracles by the Aaronides.22 Even if the Book of the Twelve itself was conceived as a work situated beyond the temple cult, the ongoing use of its prophetic materials within that cult may have seen it shift into a repository of ritual prophetic texts rather than a source for scribal wisdom (as it was originally conceived).23 If by the end of the Second Temple period the Book of the Twelve was primarily viewed as a cultic artefact, it is no wonder that the Rabbis so often dislodged its oracular contents from their literary environs. The freeing of prophetic material from a sequence so closely connected to a cultic setting affirmed the vitality of that material beyond such a setting, which consequently affirmed the Rabbis’ own sacral authority in the wake of the temple’s destruction (over against other post-70 groups who relied on the residual prestige of priestly or Levite status in synagogue communities).24 Likewise, it is no 18  Rabbinic invocations of Ben Sira include t. Yadayim 2.13; y. Berakhot 7.2, 11; b. Bava Qamma 92b; b. Sanhedrin 100b. For a full discussion, see Labendz, “Book,” 347–392; Schechter, “Quotations,” 682–706; B.G. Wright, “B. Sanhedrin,” 41–50. See Ellis, “Boundaries,” 46–63. 19  See, however, Troxel, Literature, 81, who notes that Ben Sira’s reference to this work highlights individual characters, not a single literary work. The reference speaks to a collection, but not necessarily a book. 20  Leuchter, Levites, 246–247. 21  Carr, Formation, 195–201, 213–214. 22  On the enduring Aaronide hierocracy, see Watts, “Scripturalization,” 6.1–15. 23  Leuchter, “Another Look,” 264–265. 24  On the residual social capital of priestly status in the aftermath of the Second Temple period, see Grey, “Jewish Priests.”

448

Leuchter

wonder that so few rabbinic traditions highlight the Book of the Twelve as a distinct literary work with a meaning and significance greater than the sum of its parts. With the destruction of the temple still fresh in Jewish memory, emphasizing the role that the Book of the Twelve played as a cultic artefact might work against the Rabbis as they attempted to find a more prominent social location among the Jewish communities of the Galilee.25 The rabbinic texts show greater enthusiasm in discussing new formats for collecting and reading prophecy precisely because they provided hermeneutical outlets that were not bound to an inaccessible temple cult. Yet the Rabbis did not reject or repudiate the temple cult. The abundance of attention paid to that cult in their writings evidences an attempt to discern ways to survive its collapse and to extend some of its dimensions into their own day.26 The Rabbis still valued the temple priesthood’s legacy, and some significant corners of the rabbinic movement included former members of their ranks.27 It is for this reason that while references to the Book of the Twelve as a cohesive work appear in very few places, it was not ignored or written out of rabbinic memory altogether. If the Book of the Twelve played a role in the Jerusalem temple cult, its contents could—and should—continue to play a role in the textual/conceptual sanctuary space provided by the rabbinic texts themselves, but in a transformed manner adapted to dramatically altered circumstances. 3

The Discourses on the Book of the Twelve in the Bavli

A closer look at the few explicit references to this work within the Bavli sheds significant light on how the Rabbis understood the relationship between it and its contents in relation to their own literary project/s.28 The first passage we will consider appears in b. Megillah 24a, a tractate dealing with the production, handling, transmission, studying, and public reading of Scriptural works: 25  Schwartz, Imperialism, 103–128, 238–239. 26  Klawans, Purity, 123–129, 178, 184–188, 204–211. 27  Yadin, Scripture, 166–168. See further below. 28  A brief overview of the Bavli’s layers is warranted. The oldest levels of tradition are derived from the Mishnah (redacted ca. 200 ce in the Galilee), followed by a consequent layer of discussion known as gemara (derived from third-fifth century ce meditations on the mishnaic material, from both the Galilee and Babylon); this layer periodically refers to other sources such as the Tosefta (redacted ca. 250–300 ce in the Galilee). All of this was arranged by the Bavli’s mid-sixth century ce redactors (in Babylon), who also introduced additional material that circulated on the oral level down to their day. See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 108–222.

Rabbinic Tradition

449

It is taught in another baraita: One may not skip from prophet to prophet, i.e., from one book of Prophets to another, even if the selections address the same topic. However, one may skip from one prophet to another among the twelve books of Prophets, which are grouped together, provided that he does not skip from the end of the book to the beginning, i.e., that he does not read a later section and then an earlier section. The reference to the Book of the Twelve here appears in a unit of discourse concerned with whether or not one may skip verses in a Scriptural work that is being read aloud in a liturgical setting. The first thing to catch our eye is the redactional framework and rhetoric deployed in the introduction of this material. The teaching concerning the Book of the Twelve is identified as a baraita, i.e., an ancient oral teaching textualized only by the redactors of the Bavli.29 These types of traditions differ from the more common invocation of teachings transmitted through a chain of named sages (“Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y,” etc.). Our baraita appears at the very end of the discourse unit; it is immediately followed by a new citation from the Mishnah, which marks the beginning of a new discourse unit. The placement of this passage at the end of the unit renders it the “last word” on how one should deal with the contents of a Scriptural work when read aloud. That it is a baraita unaffiliated with an extant chain of rabbinic discipleship allows for this last word to adjudicate between various perspectives or arguments and to settle the matter. Though other opinions on reading/skipping through the Book of the Twelve are not provided, the setting suggests that such debates existed, and the redactors clearly felt that a reminder of how at least some ancient predecessors understood the Book of the Twelve carried sufficient weight to end the conversation. We must observe that before this baraita, the discourse unit claims that when reading aloud in a liturgical setting, it is not permissible to skip between the verses of major prophetic books (such as Isaiah or Jeremiah), though other traditions reveal that it is permissible to skip verses within these books (provided one skips only forward, not from a later passage to an earlier one). Our baraita claims that skipping from one prophet to another in the Book of the Twelve (in canonical order) is like skipping from verses within Isaiah or Jeremiah, but it is not like skipping between these books. This indicates that for both the originators of the baraita and the redactors of the discourse unit, the Book of the Twelve should be regarded as a single work like one of the major prophetic books subjected to public liturgical reading in the Second Temple 29  On the varied provenances and dates of baraitot in the Bavli, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 198–199.

450

Leuchter

period.30 But if the redactors of the Bavli shared in the rabbinic attempt to transform those relic traditions (and in this case, a relic text) into new iterations, what end is served by the invocation of the baraita with no subsequent debate or discussion in that discourse unit? A consideration of Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16.8—an excerpt from which was cited above regarding Amos—provides some clarity.31 In Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16:8 the prophets of the Book of the Twelve are directed by God to speak words of comfort to Jerusalem, revealing the deeper meaning of a passage from Isaiah cited at the end of the unit (Isa 40:1–2). Like Amos, they are used as symbolic embodiments of the oracles in the books bearing their names. The prophetic citations in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16:8 run as follows: Hos 14:6 and 9:16 Joel 4:18 and 1:5 Amos 9:11 and 5:2 Mic 7:18 and 1:5 Nah 2:1 and 1:11 Hab 3:13 and 1:22 Zeph 1:12 and 1:15 Hag 2:19 and 1:6 Zech 1:15 and 1:2 Mal 3:15 and 1:10 One notices here the absence of Obadiah and Jonah,32 but the remainder of the prophets in the Book of the Twelve are cited in canonical sequence, and following the essential demands of the baraita in b. Megilla 24a. Though verses within oracular units are regularly cited out of sequence in this rabbinic passage (i.e., Hos 14:6 is cited before Hos 9:16, etc.), the larger sequence follows the requirement that skipping between these prophetic oracles within the Book of the Twelve must follow their canonical order—oracle citations cannot run from later prophet to earlier ones. So, Mic 7:18 is cited before Mic 1:5, but

30  The tradition of prophetic liturgical reading/chanting is attested already in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 25) and appears also in early discourses on the haftaroth in m. Megillah 1.2; 3.4–5; b. Megillah 21a; 31a–31b. 31  Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 295, date Pesiqta de Rab Kahana to the fifth century ce. 32  The absence of Obadiah and Jonah may be attributed to the former as composed primarily of repetitions from other prophetic works (see Nogalski, Processes, 92), and the latter as a prophetic narrative rather than an oracular collection.

Rabbinic Tradition

451

material from the book of Micah is only invoked after material from the book of Amos, and before material from book of Nahum. The redactors of Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16:8 appear to know the baraita in b. Megillah 24a and defer to its requirements in building an exegetical discourse.33 The truths encoded in one book (Isaiah) are demonstrated through the patterns evident within another (the Book of the Twelve), and together they reveal that apparent contradictions in a Scriptural work provide opportunities to discern divine portents. We obtain a sense here of how the Rabbis devised a way for both Second Temple conventions and earlier rabbinic conventions to re-emerge through textual re-invention. While the contents of the Book of the Twelve were deployed in the temple cult,34 this Second Temple work is read/applied in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana through the prism of the baraita. Indeed, the rapid-fire litany of verses in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16:8 dovetails with the allusion to our passage in b. Yoma 69b–70a: It is taught in a mishnah in [tractate] Megillah (24a): “One may skip sections when reading the haftara in the Prophets, but one may not skip sections when reading in the Torah.” [The gemara answers] This is not difficult. Here, in the mishnah in tractate Megilla that teaches that one may not skip, the intention is that one should not skip if the sections are so far apart from one another that the delay caused by doing so will be of such length that the translator who recites the Aramaic translation will conclude his translation before the next section is reached … one may skip only when the section skipped is of such short length that when furling is completed the translator will still not have concluded his translation. The literary topography of Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16:8 actualizes Yoma’s discourse through its textual topography, graphically mapping out how the brevity of skipping from verse to verse carries hermeneutical significance. By moving deftly from one verse to the next, the passage reinforces the Book of the Twelve’s liturgical value by revealing what emerges from adhering to the baraita’s stipulations. By implication, similar depths of revelatory meaning must emerge from other prophetic texts explicated in conversation with the baraita as well. 33  One might posit that the authors of Pesiqta de Rab Kahana here know and allude to the parts of the Bavli that repeat or allude to the baraita in b. Megillah 24a (that is, b. Yoma 69b–70a; b. Sotah 41a), but the 5th century date of the original work (as per Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 295) point instead to the widely known status of the baraita upon which subsequent discourses in the Bavli are based. 34  Fishbane, Haftarot, xx–xxix.

452

Leuchter

Our next passage comes from b. Bava Batra 13b, commonly translated as follows: The gemara states: When different books are included in the same scroll, four empty lines of space should be left between each book of the Torah, and similarly between one book of the Prophets and another. But between each of the books of the Twelve Prophets only three empty lines should be left [because they are considered one book]. And the scribe may finish a book at the bottom of one column and begin the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space in between. For decades, scholars have invoked this passage from the Bavli as evidence that the Book of the Twelve was regarded as a unity in antiquity.35 The argument usually runs that if each unit of oracles within the Book of the Twelve was indeed considered an independent book, the four-line rule characterizing the separation of other canonical works copied onto a single scroll would also be applied to the copying of each oracular collection within the Book of the Twelve. That is, if the oracular collections in the Book of the Twelve were indeed distinct works, then four lines would separate Hosea from Joel, Joel from Amos, and so forth just as four lines separate the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) from each other when they are copied onto a single scroll. That this gemara states that only three lines should separate these oracular collections shows that they resided together in a special category, i.e., a single and cohesive collection. This has led many to see the gemara in question as affirming the Book of the Twelve as a single book. Given the other references to the Book of the Twelve in the Bavli that also identify it as a single book (b. Megillah 24a as discussed above; also b. Yoma 69b–70a; b. Sotah 41a; see also further below), such a view is reasonable, but it is far from conclusive. A strike against this view is found in the first part of the gemara, namely, that the four lines demanded to separate the Major Prophets are also applied to the copying of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy onto a single scroll. This logic would therefore demand that the Rabbis did not view the Torah as a single unified work—obviously, an untenable position. One must also be cautious in assuming that the phrase “three empty lines should be left” necessarily means that they are “one book” (as per some English translations). The Bavli’s prose possesses deliberate syntactical and grammatical gaps and assumes that the learned reader can infer meaning 35  Nogalski, Precursors, 3; Seitz, Prophecy, 203–204.

Rabbinic Tradition

453

through context.36 English translations often engage in such gap-filling, but in the case of our gemara, the original language demands such gap filling (represented by material in brackets) only in certain places: ‫בין חומש לחומש של תורה ארבעה שיטין וכן בין כל נביא לנביא ובנביא‬ ‫של שנים עשר ג׳ שיטין ומסיים מלמטה ומתחיל מלמעלה‬

Between section to section (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, etc.) of the Torah, four empty lines, and so also between each prophet(ic book) and prophet(ic book); and (as to) the prophet(tic books) of the twelve (prophets), three empty lines; and when completing at the bottom (of a column, one should) begin at the top (of the next column). The gemara is a quasi-shorthand set of directions about how a scribe should copy these Scriptural sources into new scrolls.37 One can assume that the phrase “when completing at the bottom” means “when completing the copying of the source into a newly written column on the new scroll” (or something to that effect) since the gemara is here describing a scribal method; the assumed “fill in” material is demanded by the context in order to be grammatically sensible. But the same safe assumptions about “three empty lines” cannot be made; it functions on grammatical grounds as is without any implied additions to fill syntactical lacunae. Moreover, while the Book of the Twelve is regarded as a single work/book in other passages in the Bavli, b. Bava Batra 13b makes clear in an earlier section that some sages held a different opinion of how to regard its contents: The Sages taught: A person may attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one [scroll]; a statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the Torah should be a scroll by itself, the Prophets a scroll by themselves, and the Writings a scroll by themselves. And the sages say: each 36  On the rhetorical function of this shorthand prose, see Lightstone, “Rhetoric,” 77–112, esp. 81; idem, Rhetoric, 247–248; idem, “Form,” 23–36. 37  The rhetoric/locution carries a semiotic significance as well, since the copying of scrolls had, for centuries and indeed millennia (by the Rabbis’ day) been the duty of priestly scribes. The text thus implies that the rabbinic sage who engages in this act is, in a sense, still a “priest” engaging in priestly duties (Lightstone, “Rhetoric,” 98). It is perhaps not a coincidence that the Levites were (apparently) the group responsible for textual copying in the Second Temple period, the conventions of which weigh most heavily upon rabbinic memory and rhetorical expression; see further van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 91–94. The particular syntactical profile of rabbinic texts may also have points of contact with Mesopotamian scribal hermeneutics; see Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 174–176.

454

Leuchter

one [of the books of the Prophets and the Writings] should be a scroll by itself. In this section of b. Bava Batra 13b, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Judah, and anonymous sages all speak of “the Prophets” collectively, without any sense that the Book of the Twelve constitutes a unique or distinct literary entity—consistent with the very frequent rabbinic references to prophetic texts and prophetic individuals in collective terms. Bava Batra 13b elsewhere asserts that alternate collections of prophetic materials—a reported prophetic scroll belonging to a certain Baitos ben Zunin with only eight of the minor prophets—existed, as well as a passage even earlier in b. Bava Batra 13b proclaiming that all prophetic works should be written on their own scrolls (that is, a scroll of Hosea, a scroll of Zechariah, etc.).38 In brief, b. Bava Batra 13b presents a plurality of views regarding how to transcribe collections of prophetic oracles. This, I suggest, derives from rabbinic memory regarding pre-rabbinic antiquity, when a variety of priestly families, scribal groups and sectarian movements in the Second Temple period no doubt transcribed and transmitted disparate collections of prophetic texts.39 Invariably, these praxes persisted among those circles who amalgamated into the early rabbinic movement and thereafter became the points of departure for further debate and study.40 It is in this context that we must reconsider the three-line rule applied to the transcribing of the Book of the Twelve into a new scroll. If the remainder of b. Bava Batra 13b proffers vastly different opinions on how prophetic literature should be characterized and transcribed, the three-line rule may constitute a sort of mediation between these different views. The contents of the Book of the Twelve are like the Major Prophets insofar as lines should separate one oracular unit from another; each might therefore be viewed as a unique and distinct “book.” But they are also unlike the Major Prophets because only three lines rather than four separate these oracular units from each other. In this way, they function more like Genesis–Deuteronomy, i.e., they accumulate into a sequence that constitutes a larger work. Yet they are clearly unlike the Torah because verses can be skipped when read aloud.

38  For commentary on Baitos ben Zunin, see Steinsaltz, Tractate, 55. 39  For the sociological background reflected in literary evidence, see Sivertsev, Households. See now also my discussion in “Unlocking,” 405–409; there is evidence that precursor collections to the Book of the Twelve existed in the fifth–fourth centuries bce, and those collections surely did not simply disappear once the Book of the Twelve itself was redacted toward the end of the Persian period. 40  Cohen, “Significance,” 27–51.

Rabbinic Tradition

455

The three-line rule thus accounts for the variety of views regarding the Book of the Twelve (and prophetic texts more broadly) within b. Bava Batra 13b, rendering the Book of the Twelve as somewhat unique when compared to the Torah and the other prophetic texts, yet containing some aspects of both—it is a distinct collection that coheres and yet does not. Why do the redactors of the Bavli equivocate in this manner? What does the simultaneous likeness/unlikeness of the Book of the Twelve to the other Scriptural works suggest about the rabbinic understanding of its provenance and purpose? Our next passage, a baraita preserved in b. Bava Batra 14b–15a, points toward an answer to the foregoing questions: And who wrote (‫( )כתב‬Scripture)? Moses wrote his own book (the Torah) and the portion of Balaam, and Job. Joshua wrote his own book and (the last) eight verses in the Torah. Samuel wrote his own book, Judges, and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten elders (before him, including:) the psalms by Adam the first (man), by Melchizedek, by Abraham, by Moses, and by Heman, and by Jeduthun, and by Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book, and the book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (‫)כתבו‬ YMSK [a mnemonic]: Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Koheleth. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (‫ )כתבו‬KNDG [a mnemonic]: Ezekiel, the Twelve [prophets], Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles [down to his day]. In b. Bava Batra 14b–15a, writing is less of a task or act that an individual or group carries out and more of a tradition in which individuals participate, something ongoing that continues even after an individual scribe completes work on a given scroll. It is evident from the way the baraita utilizes the words ‫ כתב‬or ‫כתבו‬, “wrote,” that the passage here does not envision authorship as a creative literary enterprise but rather as a matter of literary transmission.41 And it is from this angle of vision that we must consider the note that the men of the “Great Assembly” wrote the Book of the Twelve (“the Twelve [Prophets]”). In a previous study, I have discussed how the “Great Assembly” in this baraita is a literary topos referring to the historical memory of the scribal guilds in 41  The parallels to the “chain of revelation” in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition are noteworthy. See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 210–211; Lenzi, “Mesopotamian Scholarship,” 178–180. The definition of the term as “edited” or “arranged” sometimes proposed (e.g., Gottlieb, “Rabbinic Reception,” 394) does not consider the conceptual/cultural background to the rabbinic concept of writing.

456

Leuchter

early Second Temple-era Jerusalem; in particular, the Levites scribes of the late Persian through early Hellenistic periods.42 As discussed earlier in this essay, the Book of the Twelve is best seen as a product of Levite scribes in the late Persian period who arranged prophetic sources into a collection geared for sapiential meditation as a vehicle for revelation. This dimension of the Book of the Twelve is recalled in the assignment of its redaction/transmission to the “Great Assembly,” alongside other rabbinic traditions that preserve (in oblique ways) genuine memories from the scribal culture of the Persian period.43 What stands out in the invocation of this memory, however, is that the “writing” of the Book of the Twelve is set within a process of ongoing revelation similar to the genealogy of revelation evident in m. Avot 1.1. As with that mishnaic source, the men of the Great Assembly stand at the end of a particular tradition where they have received torah directly from the prophets. Though the locution of our baraita expresses this in somewhat coded terms, it nonetheless reflects precisely what we find in the Book of the Twelve when evaluating its rhetorical shape and its redactional features. The Book of the Twelve equates its own Levite redactors with the prophets within it, and treats the act of redaction along with the act of sapiential reading as forms of prophetic revelation.44 When our baraita presents the Great Assembly (= late Persian period Levite scribes) as the “writers” of the prophecy it contains, it presupposes the aforementioned equation. And yet a deeper significance is implied in this invocation: if the Great Assembly “wrote” prophecy through textual explication and transmission, then the Rabbis behind the baraita (and, arguably, the redactors of the Bavli itself) do the same through their own explication/transmission of the tradition regarding that institution and their work.45 We find in a number of traditions in and beyond the Bavli a view that the Great Assembly was built around the prophetic tradition (b. Bava Batra 12a [cf. b. Nazir 53a]; b. Yoma 9b; Avot de Rabbi Nathan 1.3). We must also recall that in the genealogy of revelation in m. Avot 1, the Great Assembly inherits torah from the prophets, and the Tannaitic sages who follow inherit torah from the Great Assembly. In the aggregate, these rabbinic traditions present the wisdom of the rabbinic sages as an extension of 42  Mark Leuchter, “Book,” 337–353. The classic critique provided by Kuenen (Abhandlungen, 143–158) notes the problems with a plain-sense equation of the term with an actual institution of the same name, but does not adequately consider the persistence of cultural memory on the rabbinic use of the term. 43  Leuchter, Levites, 224–225; Steiner, “mbqr at Qumran,” 636–637. 44  Leuchter, “Another Look,” 261. 45  For a different perspective that leads to similar conclusions, see Fishbane, “Scribalism to Rabbinism,” 64–78.

Rabbinic Tradition

457

prophetic revelation in keeping with a variety of Second Temple traditions that witness against the view that prophetic phenomenology ended with the decline in “classical” prophecy.46 Within our baraita, the Great Assembly are authors of a prophetic work (the Book of the Twelve) because their scribal production of that work was a form of prophetic revelation; the authors of the baraita and the redactors of the Bavli are simply following in their prophetic footsteps. A look at the remainder of b. Bava Batra 15a provides some important substantiation. The tractate continues with a discussion of how books that our baraita assigns to a given author were completed by someone else. The Pentateuch is still the “Torah of Moses,” but Joshua completed it; the “book of Jeremiah” is still the product of the titular prophet, but Baruch completed it;47 the “book of Joshua” is still the product of Joshua’s efforts, but Eleazar took over after Joshua’s death—only for Phinehas to take over this duty after the death of Eleazar! In essence, the completion or orchestration of a book by authorized secondary hands does not compromise the assignment of the tradition’s origin to an originating authority. It may be more accurate to suggest that the original tradent’s legitimizing “voice” persists through the efforts of their trustees.48 Thus what begins in the baraita in b. Bava Batra 14b–15a as a simple list of (ostensible) authors becomes a far more elaborate exploration of the legacy of a textual tradition and the revelatory legitimacy of its successive agents. This, in turn, is part of the larger discourse beginning even earlier in b. Bava Batra 14b, where we encounter a meditation on how, and why, the canonical Scriptures should theoretically be set in an alternate order: The Sages taught: The order of the Prophets: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve [Prophets]. Consider: Hosea preceded [other prophets] as it is written: “The Lord spoke first to Hosea” (Hosea 1:2). But did God speak first with Hosea? 46  See Jassen, “Presentation,” 307–337, who observes that the Qumran authors conceived of prophecy as consistent with their own textual enterprises, setting up the latter as an iteration of prophecy. To this group, prophecy never ceased, and it is not unlikely that similar sectarian ideologies inherited by the Rabbis contributed to their own efforts to connect themselves to prophetic phenomenology. 47  The Jeremiah tradition itself provides hermeneutical justification for this view, subsuming clearly secondary work from later scribes within the “words of Jeremiah” (MT Jer 1:1 // 51:64b). See Leuchter, Polemics, 152. Baruch’s presumed role in the production of this work (cf. Jer 36:1–8, 32) provided the basis for his elevation in Second Temple thought; see J.E. Wright, Baruch. 48  A much earlier antecedent to this is found in the “scribal transmission paradigm” of Deuteronomy 31–32; see Leuchter, Levites, 180–187.

458

Leuchter

Were not there many prophets between Moses and Hosea? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He was the first of four prophets who prophesied in that period (i.e., the eighth century bce), and they were: Hosea and Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Thus Hosea should precede [the other prophets]. Consider: Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel; let Isaiah precede [the other Major Prophets]. Since Kings ends with the destruction [of the Temple] and Jeremiah [deals] entirely with destruction, and Ezekiel begins with the destruction [of the Temple] but ends with consolation, and Isaiah [deals] entirely with consolation, we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation. Contrary to some scholars who conclude from this passage that the Rabbis possessed an alternate canonical sequence of prophetic writings,49 the redactors of the Bavli concern themselves here with the unleashing of additional revelation by theoretically dislodging these texts from their canonical moorings.50 The prophetic canon is simply a point of departure for discerning a deeper, more esoteric understanding of philosophical categories of experience—and that revelation emerges through the Bavli’s own exegetical explications and, notably, the Rabbis’ own proposed restructuring and arrangement of the prophetic sources. The redactors of the Bavli, in short, do precisely what the redactors of the Book of the Twelve did in pre-rabbinic antiquity—they create new revelation through the orchestration of prophetic oracles in a new textual context independent of earlier literary sequences or iterations.51 4 Conclusion The explicit references to the Book of the Twelve in the rabbinic tradition are few but potent, and we may thus draw a few potent conclusions from our 49   For examples, see Levin, Old Testament, 18; McDonald, Formation, 218; O’Brien, Relationship, 172; Evans, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 75. 50  Cheyne argued that the sequence in b. Bava Batra 14b was in fact historically credible, though the hermeneutical logic used by the Rabbis was “imaginary” (idem, Introduction, xvii, 238–239 n. 3)—a precipitous conclusion given what is now known of the hermeneutical traditions current in the scribal culture directly preceding the rabbinic period that no doubt left a deep impression upon their own methods (Fishbane, “Scribalism to Rabbinism”). The more likely explanation is that the Rabbis here challenge assumptions about the peshat understanding of a canonical sequence by providing a derash meditation upon an envisioned theoretical meaning through re-structuring. 51  Pace Childs, Introduction, 309, whose view that the Rabbis are engaging in homily seems too narrow a description.

Rabbinic Tradition

459

investigation. First, the rabbinic texts appear to uniformly recognize the authority of prophecy, but drew distinctions between prophets and prophetic oracles in their written forms. Prophets were historical figures bound to historical circumstances, while written prophetic oracles had their own voices once transcribed that could be mined, reconfigured, and repackaged to create revelation in rabbinic discourse just as they had when first spoken or written by the historical prophets (or the prophetic characters that the Rabbis assumed to be historical).52 But this was justified by the rabbinic view that the transmission of torah existed as a mythotype of its own. A prophet who wrote oracles in biblical Israel and a rabbinic sage re-writing those oracles in a mishnaic, midrashic, or Talmudic passage were engaged in the very same process of scribal communion with torah-transmission itself conceived as a type of divine hypostasis.53 The persistence of the material manifestation of this torah concept leads to our second observation, namely, that the Book of the Twelve is both distinct from other canonical prophetic books and simultaneously exactly like those prophetic books. In liturgical settings, the reading of the contents of the Book of the Twelve was to be treated precisely like the reading of the contents of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and was to be inscribed on a new scroll in similar terms as well. This was, no doubt, part of the rabbinic inclination to memorialize dimensions of the long-gone Jerusalem temple cult in which the contents of the Book of the Twelve were read aloud in ritual settings. However, the rabbinic literature also remembers that the ritual standardization of this work reflected only one of its purposes in the pre-rabbinic period. The variant traditions in the Bavli regarding the preservation of its component parts (such as the alleged “book of the eight” of Baitos Ben Zunin), establishes that written prophecy was not solely a fixture of liturgy. It could, and did, serve other purposes valued by sages in days past that were not inconsistent with temple 52  The antecedents to this concept of a distinct textual voice can be found already in Persian period scribal hermeneutics and text-building; see Vayntrub, “Book,” 112–113. Yadin discusses this concept as it applies to third century ce midrashic tradition (Scripture, 11–32). 53  Yadin argues that within rabbinic tradition, this concept is found exclusively in the midrashic works associated with the figure of Rabbi Ishmael (Yadin, Scripture, ad. loc.). Insofar as the Rabbi Ishmael works make this concept explicit, Yadin is correct, but the idea undergirds the passage in b. Avot 1.1, the baraita in b. Megillah 24a, and b. Bava Batra 14b–15a in more subtle ways. Yadin observes points of contact between the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim and Ben Sira’s idea of Scripture as sentient Wisdom (Yadin, Scripture, 162–165); considering Ben Sira’s own very strong affinities for priestly tradition and the rabbinic passages that hold him in high esteem, it is entirely possible and even likely that the idea of torah-transmission as a sentient divine hypostasis was shared across different rabbinic groups.

460

Leuchter

liturgy but complementary to it—precisely the reason why Levite scribes in the late Persian period set about creating the Book of the Twelve.54 Third, the assignment of the redaction of the Book of the Twelve to the “Men of the Great Assembly” constitutes a textual memory of this late Persian Levitical enterprise as a vehicle for securing revelation through sapiential meditation. While a number of rabbinic traditions point to Ezra as the direct inheritors of prophecy following the end of the “prophetic age” (b. Yoma 9b; 21b; t. Sotah 13.2; Numbers Rabbah 15.10), a counter-tradition places the Men of the Great Assembly in this role, even counting prophets among their early ranks (b. Megillah 17b).55 Crediting them with the creation of the Book of the Twelve dovetails with the rhetorical implications of the Book of the Twelve itself and with other Second Temple literary works where Levite scribes bore the mantle of prophecy.56 Yet the same rabbinic traditions that stress this point also attempt to write rabbinic status back into this earlier era and social institution (Tg. Song 6.5; b. Megillah 2a; b. Shabbat 119b [prophets as “torah scholars”]). The Rabbis themselves carried on in the same tradition—and with the same numinous, revelatory power—as the Men of the Great Assembly. The 54  Leuchter, Levites, 241–247. 55  These variant traditions are often assumed to be integrally related, linking Ezra to the Great Assembly and even considering him to be its apparent “founder” (see e.g., Ginzberg, Legends, 4:11:44–45). But nowhere in the Tannaitic or Amoraic sources is this association made explicit; it is only inferred by later writers who read these sources as related and consistent. b. Bava Batra 15a mentions Ezra and the Great Assembly in different breaths, signaling no recognition of their alleged association; this constitutes the perseverance of an early perception of independence between the former and the latter. It is more like that a rabbinic tradition developed between 70–135 ce that 1) sets up Ezra as their own forebear and 2) makes Ezra the inheritor of the prophets (see, e.g., b. Sotah 48b; b. Sanhedrin 11a). This dovetails with earlier priestly traditions that had developed around Ezra (who was, according to the biblical sources, a priest, cf. Ezra 7:1–5; Neh 8:2) throughout the Second Temple period. These traditions developed independently of the “Great Assembly” traditions, and are consistent with the early rabbinic affinities with priestly typology; see Yadin, Scripture, 166–168; Lightstone, “Rhetoric,” 98. Following the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 ce, broad-ranging priestly/temple based models for rabbinic typology connected to Ezra diminished in value (for background, see Schwartz, Imperialism, 112–113), with attention turned instead to other scribal figures such as the Levites behind the Book of the Twelve (refracted through the “Great Assembly” topos) who fostered ideologies not bound to temple ritual. At this point, existing connections to prophecy around this institution were emphasized, and features of the earlier rabbinic Ezra traditions were somehow transferred to the Great Assembly tradition (e.g., b. Megillah 17b). In time, Ezra was obliquely identified with this group as well, both through exegetical readings of Ezra 7–8/Nehemiah 8–10 (Leuchter, “Book,” 339–343) and through ongoing midrashic mythopoesis. I examine this process in greater detail in a forthcoming study. 56  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 91–94; Schniedewind, Word, 170–188, 231–252. See also Petersen, Prophecy, 65–87 (though Petersen worked with an older scholarly model that saw Chronicles originating in the late sixth century bce).

Rabbinic Tradition

461

latter’s production of the Book of the Twelve in pre-rabbinic antiquity licensed the rabbinic enterprise as a continuation of the same phenomenon. This characterization of the rabbinic enterprise carries much significance when we consider the words preserved in b. Berakhot 5a that every word of torah (including the contents of the Bavli) was given to Moses at Sinai. Just as the passages referring to the Book of the Twelve examined above connect the rabbinic method of text production back to the days of the Second Temple, b. Berakhot 5a extends the relationship back to the prototypical sacred space, Sinai itself. Yet we may also see a different myth at work here, namely, that the rabbinic texts somehow become a mythic iteration of both Sinai and the Second Temple.57 Several decades ago, Jon D. Levenson noted that in ancient Jewish thought, Zion absorbs Sinai, and the rites of the temple somehow embody and actualize the Sinai revelation.58 A similar phenomenon accompanied the formation of the Mishnah, which was conceived as a literary iteration of the temple as Ishay Rosen-Zvi has noted.59 In building the network of rabbinic text traditions extending beyond the Mishnah (culminating in the Bavli), the divine voice at Sinai speaks anew, and text becomes a conceptual space where this divine voice can be encountered and experienced in new and perpetually renewing ways. The brief but powerful references to the Book of the Twelve in the rabbinic literature signals that the Rabbis recognized or remembered that this was not their innovation, but something that had obtained much earlier in a work whose character served similar purposes of renewal in antiquity—as in their own day. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer et al. eds. Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’? A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John W.D. Watts. Edited by James D. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.

57  See especially Lightstone, “Rhetoric,” 98, regarding the language of the Mishnah as symbolic of conventional priestly rhetoric in the Greco-Roman Near East. 58  Levenson, Sinai. 59   Rosen-Zvi, Ritual, 244–254. The shift toward textual “sanctuaries” prefigures the Mishnah; see Schmid, “Canon,” 291–307.

462

Leuchter

Ben Zvi, Ehud. “‘The Prophets’—References to Generic Prophets and their Role in the Construction of the Image of the ‘Prophets of Old’ within the Postmonarchic Readership(s) of the Book of Kings.” ZAW 116 (2004): 385–400. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University, 2011. Cheyne, Thomas K. Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. Cohen, Shaye J.D. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the end of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA 55 (1984): 27–53. Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. LEC 7. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1987. Ellis, Teresa A. “Negotiating the Boundaries of Tradition: The Rehabilitation of the Book of Ben Sira (Sirach) in b. Sanhedrin 100b.” Pages 46–63 in Sacra Scriptura: How “Non Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Jewish and Christian texts in contexts and related studies 20. London and New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Evans, Craig A. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of Scripture at the Time of Jesus.” Pages 67–79 in The Bible At Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Fishbane, Michael B. “From Scribalism to Rabbinism.” Pages 64–78 in The Garments of Torah. Edited by idem. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1989. Fishbane, Michael B. Hafrot: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Bible Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publ. Society, 2010. Fox, Michael D. “Ideas of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9.” JBL 116 (1997): 613–633. Freedman, David N. Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2010. Gottlieb, Isaac B. “Rabbinic Reception of the Prophets.” Pages 388–406 in The Oxford Handbook of The Prophets. Edited by Carolyn J. Sharp. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University, 2016. Grey, Matthew. “Jewish Priests and the Social History of Post-70 Palestine.” PhD. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, 2011. Jassen, Alex. “The Presentation of the Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers at Qumran.” JBL 127 (2008): 307–337. Kelle, Brad E. “The Phenomenon of Israelite Prophecy in Contemporary Scholarship.” CurBR 12 (2014): 321–352. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University, 2006.

Rabbinic Tradition

463

Kuenen, Abraham. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft. Freiburg: Mohr, 1894. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJSR 30 (2006): 347–392. Lenzi, Alan. “Mesopotamian Scholarship: Kassite to Late Babylonian Periods.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2 (2015): 145–201. Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. New York, NY and Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008. Leuchter, Mark. “The Book of the Twelve and the Great Assembly in History and Tradition.” Pages 337–354 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Leuchter, Mark. “Another Look at the Hosea/Malachi Framework in The Twelve.” VT 64 (2014): 249–265. Leuchter, Mark. The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University, 2017. Leuchter, Mark. “Unlocking the Book of Zechariah.” Hebrew Studies 59 (2018): 405–409. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1987. Levin, Christoph. The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2005. Lightstone, Jack N. “Form and Meaning in Halakic Midrash: A Programmatic Statement.” Semeia 27 (1983): 23–36. Lightstone, Jack N. The Rhetoric of the Babylonian Talmud: Its Social Meaning and Context. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University, 1994. Lightstone, Jack N. “The Rhetoric of the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud: From Rabbinic Priestly Scribes to Scholastic Rabbis.” Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historique 21 (1995): 77–112. McDonald, Lee M. The Formation of the Biblical Canon. London and New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2017. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University, 2016. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbis and the Prophets. Lanhan, MD: University Press of America, 2011. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. O’Brien, Mark A. Restoring the Right Relationship: The Bible on Divine Righteousness. Hindmarsh, SA: ATF, 2014.

464

Leuchter

Petersen, David L. Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in the Deuteroprophetic Literature and Chronicles. SBLMS 23. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. The Mishnah Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash. JSJSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Schechter, Solomon. “The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature.” JQR 3 (1891): 682–706. Schmid, Konrad. “The Canon and the Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult.” JBL 131 (2012): 291–307. Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition. JSOTSup 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton: Princeton University, 2000. Seitz, Christopher R. Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Sivertsev, Alexei M. Households, Sects, and the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism. JSJSup 102 Leiden: Brill, 2005. Steiner, Richard C. “The mbqr at Qumran, the episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of lbqr’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project.” JBL 120 (2001): 623–646. Steinsaltz, Adin. Tractate Bava Metzia. Vol. 4 of The Talmud. New York, NY: Random House, 1991. Steyn, Gert J. “Observations on the Text Form of the Minor Prophets Quotations in Romans 9–11.” JSNT 38,1 (2015): 49–67. Strack, Hermann L. and Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. and Nogalski James D. eds. Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2007. Tropper, Amnon. Wisdom, Politics, Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Greco-Roman Near East. Oxford: Oxford University, 2004. Troxel, Ronald L. Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2012. Vayntrub, Jacqueline. “The Book of Proverbs and the Idea of Israelite Education.” ZAW 128 (2016): 96–114. Watts, James D. “Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties.” JHebS 13 (2013). Wright, Benjamin G. III. “B. Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira.” Pages 41–50 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Núria Caluduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. ETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 1999.

Rabbinic Tradition

465

Wright, J. Edward. Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2003. Yadin, Azzan. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 2004.

Part 4 The Theology of the Book of the Twelve

∵

Chapter 25

Judgment and Grace in the Book of the Twelve Ruth Scoralick Research in biblical prophecy in recent times has turned from the search for the historical prophets and their words to an interest in prophetic books and their characteristics.1 Judgment and grace are commonly considered essential theological concepts discernible in all prophetic books of the Bible in their canonical shape. In his influential article on “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon,” Ronald E. Clements concludes that “the place where both aspects [i.e. the hope of salvation and the warning of judgment, RS] are brought together is in the structure of the canonical collection of prophecy. The threat of doom is followed by the word of salvation, which does not evade the judgment but looks beyond it.”2 At the same time, the shape that the elements of judgment and grace take and the way they are combined can vary to a large extent. In part, even their definition depends on the perspective taken: Judgment for the nations (or certain nations) can mean salvation for Israel/Judah (cf. Obadiah, Nahum and Habakkuk), doom for oppressors can mean hope and change for the oppressed (cf. Mic 2). The way to salvation may lead through the recognition and acceptance of judgment. In that way, judgment and salvation cannot be conceived simply as opposites; they enter into multifaceted and dialectical relationships. That is the way these concepts are presented in the prophetic books as they stand. Analysis of the shape and form that judgment and grace take in the books and the way that they interact comprises a major prospect of present research on prophetic books. A different line of questioning concerns the state of prophetic utterances or theology prior to the assembly of the whole book, be it the message of a historical prophet or of a redactional layer or even of a gloss, each of which have to be discerned by reconstructing the stages of the formation of the book. Currently, the rather broad consensus that pre-exilic historical prophetic messages contained mainly announcements of doom is under question in a very basic manner, putting research on the prophets in a state of flux.3 The question 1  Cf., e.g., Schmid, “Hintere Propheten,” 307–312. 2  See Clements, “Patterns,” 55. 3  Cf. Jeremias, “Rätsel”; Kratz, “Rätsel”; Macchi, Recueils.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_027

470

Scoralick

whether the root messages of several prophetic books announced judgment or salvation is being reopened, together with the re-painting of the overall picture of the prophets. These developments will have to be taken into consideration in analyzing the formation history of the Book of the Twelve by examining the redactional stages. The elements of judgment and grace come under scrutiny in new ways by investigating the building blocks of the final shape of the book(s). Whether such building blocks exist or whether they can be discerned by modern methods of research, or how much is discernible and by which criteria, are questions under discussion at the very moment. The changes in research on prophetic books in recent decades with their move from historical prophets to prophetic books and the new ideas concerning the activities and messages of prophets in Israel have been outlined in various publications and need not be resumed here at length. With regard to the Book of the Twelve, research interest has concentrated to a large extent on redaction critical analysis. Christopher Seitz aptly speaks of a “Book of the Twelve Gold Rush”4 in this regard. Names like Aaron Schart, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle spring to mind immediately. Monographs choosing different approaches, be it a form of close reading or any variation of canonical approach—like Seitz’s own interpretation of the book of Joel—are rather scarce in comparison. Considering that my own effort some years ago lay in the field of canonical reading,5 and that there is much still to be done in this regard, the emphasis of this article will remain in this area. 1

Contours of a Canonical Reading

1.1 Intertextual Relationships of Prophetical Books The following remarks concentrate on the Book of the Twelve in the arrangement of the Masoretic Text (MT). As is well known, the sequence of books in the main manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) differs from the MT, at least in the first six books (Hos–Amos–Mic–Joel–Obad–Jonah), resulting in its own distinct literary character and—presumably—theological intent.6 Furthermore, the manuscripts from the Judean desert have given rise to discussion in this 4  Seitz, Joel, 1. 5  Scoralick, Gottes Güte. 6  Marvin Sweeney proposes an interpretation of this arrangement as specifically Christian (cf. Sweeney, “Sequence”; idem, “Concerns”). Seitz, Joel, 22–23, argues against that, seeing the Septuagint order as a rather mechanical rearrangement without major influence on Jewish or early Christian commentaries.

Judgment and Grace

471

respect too.7 It may be noted that the book arrangements of both Septuagint and MT leave the Hosea–Malachi frame intact. It is for practical—not methodological or theological—reasons that only one of the book arrangements will be the object of this article. Otto Kaiser characterized the Book of the Twelve with remarkable sensitivity for a reader-oriented perception as “like a compendium of Israelite-Jewish prophecy, which interprets Israel’s path for the reader by the prophetic word beginning with the announcement of the destruction of the realms of the North and the South continuing across the centuries of hegemony of the Near Eastern powers unto the beginning of the Hellenistic age, calling for a return to God in the face of the coming Day of Yhwh.”8 The goal of the presentation in the Book of the Twelve first and foremost is not historical knowledge and information; it is the confrontation with the word of God in history as a present (and pressing) call to a change of heart and mind. Looking back on the catastrophic events of history and their aftermath, the twelve books right from the start develop a theology of the prophetic word.9 They grapple with an understanding of Israel’s behaviour as well as the identity of its God by reaching back to the Torah, looking for explanations of the catastrophe as well as for grounds for hope. Small wonder the narratives of major catastrophes, the flood (Gen 6–9) and the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32–34) oftentimes serve as foils for the prophetic texts.10 We will take a closer look at some of these features. Special attention will be paid to intertextual references linking the Book of the Twelve to the Torah/the Pentateuch. There is no denying that there are close and significant connections to other parts of scripture. The parallel texts of Isa 2 and Mic 4 being among the most obvious, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (cf. e.g. Isa 13 and Joel 2:1–11; Jer 49:14 and Obad 1). At the same time, references to the texts of Genesis to Deuteronomy are given priority here not only because of their precedence in any canonical reading order but also because textual markers indicate the pre-eminent and basic significance of Torah 7  For a short survey of the data concerning the texts from the Judaean wilderness and the interpretation of 4QXIIa with the thesis of Russel E. Fuller (sequence of Malachi–Jonah) increasingly challenged, see Nihan, “Remarques.” 8  My translation of Kaiser, Werke, 103: “gleichsam ein Kompendium der israelitischjüdischen Prophetie, welches dem Leser den Weg Israels von der Ankündigung der Zerstörung des Nord- und Südreiches über die Jahrhunderte der Vorherrschaft der vorderasiatischen Großmächte bis zum Beginn des hellenistischen Zeitalters durch das prophetische Wort deutet und damit zur Umkehr angesichts des nahen Tages Jahwes aufruft.” 9  Sometimes recognized in the interpretation of the narrative part of Amos 7 (cf. Steins, Gericht, 77–103). With regard to Hos, Joel and Amos, see Zenger, “Löwe.” 10  Allusions to the flood (Gen 6–9) are rather frequent (cf. Hos 4:3 and Zeph 1:2–3; Amos 5:8; 9:6 etc.). This article will nevertheless concentrate on the references to Exod 32–34.

472

Scoralick

texts for a canonical reading, as has been seen and analyzed already multiple times, the end of the book of Malachi (Mal 3:22) serving as a case in point.11 Prophetic books reflect on the current relevance of the word of God in referring back to the books of the Torah. One prominent way of doing so is by establishing a close connection between Moses, the paradigmatic prophet (cf. Deut 34:10) and the figure of the prophet in the prophetic books. In that manner, the openings of the three Major Prophets famously present their prophetic figures with features that relate them to Moses the prophet, affirming something like a successio mosaica (cf. Deut 18:18). Isaiah opens his first speech just like Moses’s last one, by calling heaven and earth to attention. The chiasm of terms in Isa 1:2 and Deut 32:1 only serves to underline the parallel. Jer 1 famously harkens back to Moses’s call in Exod 3 and uses the phrase “I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9) like Deut 18:18. Ezekiel enacts that same phrase by eating the scroll handed down to him from heaven (Ezek 2:9–3:3). The Book of the Twelve does not begin in the same vein. This is all the more remarkable as there would have been a rather easy way to achieve such a goal. Amos is portrayed with features of Moses, especially in the intercession scenes in Amos 7:1–6 (with Amos saying “O Lord GOD, forgive/cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” and Yhwh “relenting” [‫]נחם‬, cf. Exod 33–34). To open the Book of the Twelve with Amos would on the one hand have accorded better with the overall chronological arrangement indicated by the dating in the openings of some of the books (Amos probably being the historically earlier prophet) and it could, on the other hand, have continued the focus on prophets as figures in the footsteps of Moses. Instead, Hosea takes the first position. This prophet is asked by Yhwh to embody and enact God’s unhappy relationship with Israel/the land (Hos 1:2) as a marriage, the prophet representing God. The problematic aspects of this gendered message need not be elaborated here. The three children of that marriage are given names by Yhwh that evoke Exod 34:6–7 and its narrative context, revoking the positive aspects of Exod 34:6–7. The last and fundamental change is the revocation of the name Yhwh (Hos 1:9), signalling the end of the relationship. This book opening focuses its reference back to the Torah on Exod 32–34 with 34:6–7 as a culminating point, centring the message on a name theology that grapples with Yhwh’s engagement with Israel in judgment and mercy.

11  Cf. Lohfink, “Moses Tod”; Zenger, “Systematik.”

Judgment and Grace

473

References to Exod 34:6–7 as Key Characteristics of the Book of the Twelve The intertextual reference to Exod 34:6–7 at the beginning of the Book of the Twelve is no isolated instance. There is a web of references and allusions to Exod 34:6–7 and its narrative context Exod 32–34 that stretches across the first seven books (Hosea to Nahum). These references are closely interwoven with the motif of the Day of Yhwh, involve a theology of the name of Yhwh and contextualize the prophetic call to return to Yhwh, as will be demonstrated further on. In that manner, references to Exod 34:6–7 extend throughout the Book of the Twelve. Together these features constitute central elements of the characteristic theology of the Book of the Twelve. The full text of Exod 34:6–7 itself bears witness to the complex and dynamic relationship of grace and judgment or forgiveness and retribution. 1.2

6 The LORD passed before him [Moses, RS], and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” Exod 34:6–7, New Revised Standard Version [= NRS]12

How does the combination of “forgiving iniquity” (‫ )נׂשא עון‬and “visiting the iniquity” (‫ )פקד עון‬in one syntactic structure work? Interpretations vary.13 It has become rather common to speak of God’s “ambivalent” or “bipolar” character with regard to Exod 34:6–7.14 Exod 34:6–7 is connected (via Exod 33:19) to the explication of the name Yhwh in Exod 3:14, elaborating on it further.15 In this way, Exod 34:6–7 contains a biblical theology of the name of God. 12  For detailed discussions of the intricate questions of syntax and semantics in these verses as well as the web of related biblical (and Ancient Near Eastern) texts, see Scoralick, Gottes Güte, and Franz, Gott (both with further literature). 13  For a list of proposed solutions, see Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 68–72. 14  Cf. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 32, 37; Bosman, “Presence.” 15  It has become common usage to call Exod 34:6–7 “Gnadenformel” (mercy formula) after Herman-Josef Spieckermann, even though he originally did not include v. 7 in that designation. That Exod 34:6–7 is an elaboration on the name of Yhwh is underlined by the introduction 34:5b (‫ )ויקרא בׁשם יהוה‬and the repetition of Yhwh, which Christoph Dohmen takes as a nominal sentence (Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 321). Perhaps “name formula” would be a slightly better term for Exod 34:6–7.

474

Scoralick

It is worth recalling that the narrative in which this speech is embedded tells of Yhwh’s mercy in renewing the relationship at the time of ultimate crisis in Israel’s story. Exod 32–34 may be called Israel’s paradigmatic story of near (self) destruction and deliverance by the grace of God and the intercession of Moses. It is a foundational story that can inspire hope in times of crisis. Exod 34:6–7 is cited in part or alluded to in a number of texts in the Book of the Twelve.16 It is alluded to at the inception in Hos 1:2–2:3; it is partially quoted in Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2. The book of Jonah on the whole, the only narrative prophetic book in the Twelve, has been called a “midrash” on Exod 34:6–7.17 The name formula has been worked into two thematically contrasting hymns in Mic 7:18–20 and Nah 1:2–3. And there are arguably some other references, like (‫ נׁשא )עון‬in Hos 1:6 and 14:3, ‫ נקה‬in Joel 4:21 and perhaps Zech 5:3.18 At the same time, a number of texts mention the “name” of the God of Israel explicitly and prominently. Among these are the hymnic texts in Amos (4:13; 5:8, 27; 9:6). The phrase in Mic 4:5 “we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever” characteristically differs from the parallel Isa 2:5 (‫ונלכה‬ ‫)באור יהוה‬. To call (on) the name Yhwh (‫ )קרא בׁשם יהוה‬has saving powers (Joel 3:5; Zech 13:9, cf. Exod 33:19; 34:5). 1.3 “Theodicy” by Exod 34:6–7: Raymond Van Leeuwen The relevance of intertextual references to Exod 34:6–7 has not gone unnoticed in biblical research.19 One of the most influential articles on the subject is Raymond Van Leeuwen’s “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve” of 1993.20 To his mind, references to Exod 34:6–7 are part of a scribal and wisdom redaction of the books Hosea to Micah in their final form, interacting with the Day of Yhwh motif. The main goal of the redaction is a theodicy, a vindication of Yhwh’s acts in 722 bce and 586—that is, the end of Israel/ the Northern kingdom, and the exile of Judah. Besides the reference of Hos 1 to 16  Cf. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom”; Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 142–144; Kessler, “The Twelve,” 214–216. 17  Sonnet, “God’s Repentance,” 470 n. 4. 18  Petterson, “Scroll.” 19  Already Delitzsch, “Obadja,” 92, remarked on the significant function of Exod 34:6–7 in the context of the Book of the Twelve: “Jona, Micha und Nahum möchten dann weiter zusammengeordnet sein, weil sie sich in den berühmten Ausspruch der Thora über Gottes Eigenschaften Ex. 34,6f. theilen: Jona 4,2; Micha 7,18; Nahum 1,2ff (vergl. jedoch auch Jo. 2,13).” Cf. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom”; Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 142–207; Bosman, “Presence”; Petterson, “Scroll”; Kessler, “Twelve.” 20  Recently, Seitz, Joel, and Bosman, “Presence,” have discussed this article positively. Even so, Bosman’s metaphorical language of Exod 34:6–7 as being the “cement” (237) that creates the unity of the Twelve and Van Leeuwen’s picture of the stitching together of— presumably—a quilt cannot easily be reconciled.

Judgment and Grace

475

Exod 34:6–7, the wisdom admonition that concludes Hosea (Hos 14:10) gains crucial importance (“Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.”). The “ways” of Yhwh mentioned there are the bipolar attributes of Exod 34:6–7 (cf. Exod 33:13) which to Van Leeuwen, following Robert Dentan,21 point to a wisdom context. The book of Joel with its explicit citation of Exod 34:6, its literary theology of the Day of Yhwh and its focus on Judah is placed in between two prophetic books concerned with the Northern kingdom. According to Van Leeuwen, the impending Day of Yhwh in Joel 2 is averted by the people’s repentance.22 The end of the book of Joel, Joel 4:21, with its allusion to Exod 34:7 (“he will by no means clear the guilty”), is a preview of what will happen to the Northern kingdom: The refusal of repentance leads to destruction without recovery. The book of Amos elaborates on this theme. Jonah is a midrashic homily on Exod 34:6–7 and—via the reference to Jonah ben Amittai in 2 Kgs 14:25—another prophet connected with the Northern kingdom. The repentance of Nineveh stands in stark contrast to the non-repentant Northern kingdom in Amos. The end of the book of Micah (Mic 7:18–20) picks up Exod 34:6 in a “doxological response of the ‘wise’ to the admonition of Hos 14:10.”23 Van Leeuwen assumes a redactional unit of Hosea–Micah, ending on that positive note. The beginning of Nahum uses Exod 34:6–7 as well “to stitch together the two major composite clusters in the Twelve (Hosea–Micah and Nahum–Malachi),”24 stressing the wrath of God against the Assyrian capital. By using the full, bipolar contrast of mercy and justice from Exod 34:6–7, the redactor affirms, on the one hand, that Yhwh is free to exercise his forgiveness and mercy toward any who repent and, on the other, that he will not be held forever hostage to the evil of the wicked.25 Raymond Van Leeuwen’s analysis contains many valuable observations and suggestions, too many to be presented in full detail here. The overall thesis, though never stated explicitly, seems to be that the redaction/the final form of 21  Dentan, “Affinities.” 22  Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 40–41: “Thus the first half of Joel (1:1–2:22) portrays an imminent Day of the Lord that is averted by repentance and fasting and through an appeal to Yhwh’s merciful attributes […] This is in marked contrast to the failure of repentance in response to the preexilic preaching of Amos.” 23  Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 46. 24  Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 47. 25  Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 49.

476

Scoralick

Hosea to Micah explains the end of the Northern kingdom by their unwillingness to return to Yhwh, the book of Jonah comparing them unfavourably even to the Ninevites. Judah and Jerusalem repented, as the book of Joel suggests, consequently experiencing God’s mercy by the restoration after exile, while the North disappears from history, like Assyria and Babylon.26 Van Leeuwen’s analysis affirms the high significance of Hosea and Joel as programmatic opening books in the reading order of the Twelve (MT). They open up the horizon in which the following books are to be understood. Van Leeuwen points out the close connection of the references to Exod 34:6–7 to the motif of the Day of Yhwh. Repentance turns out to be a key concept of his analysis. While he concentrates on the human aspect of this, the book of Hosea speaks of a change of heart in God himself (Hos 11). This will have to be considered in an analysis of the use of Exod 34:6–7 in the Twelve. Van Leeuwen considers the book of Joel “primarily a literary theology of the Day of the Lord,” following Ferdinand Deist in that regard.27 How does that fit in with the idea that Joel affirms the repentance of the Southern kingdom, Judah, over against the non-repentance of the North? The book of Joel, according to my analysis, presents the central text-pragmatic challenge to the implicit readers of the Book of the Twelve: Turn to Yhwh with all your heart—now! (cf. Joel 2:12). The Book of the Twelve focuses more on this call to an actual change of heart in its readers than on any form of theological knowledge about the ways of God. It is the typically biblical focus on the transformational powers of the text over against any theoretical knowledge that Van Leeuwen might have missed to some extent in his article. At the same time, despite the changing focus of the books on the Northern or Southern kingdom in Hosea to Micah, the readers addressed are right from the start not put in a position to distance themselves from the inhabitants of the Northern kingdom. Hosea addresses Northern as well as Judaean audiences (cf. Hos 1:7; 12). He speaks of hope for both of them (Hos 2:2 “The people of Judah and the people of Israel shall be gathered together,” NRS), and calls to readers to anticipate a positive day of “Jezreel” for Judah and Israel in addressing each other as brothers and sisters with renewed, now positive names (Hos 2:3 “Say to your brother, Ammi, and to your sister, Ruhamah.” NRS).

26  Cf. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 42. 27  Cf. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 39.

Judgment and Grace

2

477

Hosea and Joel as Interrelated and Programmatic Opening Texts

2.1 Hosea 2.1.1 The Children’s Names Hosea and Joel both elaborate—in different ways—on the turning point from judgment to grace, as can be demonstrated by analyzing Hos 11 (with God’s change of heart) and Joel 2:1–14 (with the urgent call to turn to Yhwh). They open up the theological horizon of the Twelve. According to a wide consensus Hosea is composed of an introduction in Hos 1–3 and two parts, Hos 4–11 and 12–14.28 In a synchronic reading of Hosea Norbert Lohfink has compared the literary dynamic of Hos 4–11 and 12–14 to the movement of waves:29 There is a rising tide of anger and announcements of doom, that only at the end (in Hos 11 and 14), as at the breaking point of a wave, turns to mercy and love. This is already the basic pattern of Hos 1–3, only there it is repeated three times in a row (in Hos 1:2–2:3; 2:4–23; and 3:1–5). The opening section of Hos 1:2–2:3 begins after the order to Hosea to marry Gomer with announcements of doom of increasing scope and severity. The climax of these messages in Hos 1:9 is suddenly and abruptly followed by announcements of future salvation, referring back to the negative messages and turning them upside down. No reason is given for that change of message. So, in a nutshell, Hos 1:2–2:3 poses the problem of the combination of announcements of doom and messages of hope as it is found in varying patterns in the canonical prophetic books. Where does the sudden message of salvation come from? How should readers bridge such a gap? Readers are left wondering. We will return to that question in looking at Hosea 11. The opening section of Hosea (Hos 1:2–9) implicitly refers to Exod 34:6–7.30 The children’s names and their explanations recall Exod 34:6–7 and its narrative context. The ‘formula’ is referred to backwards, beginning with Exod 34:7b (“visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation”) for the first child. The concept of “visiting” (‫ )פקד על‬the sins (identified as ‫“ דמי יזרעאל‬bloodshed/murder of/ at Jezreel”) on the “house of Jehu” in Hos 1:4 fits well. Jeroboam II, mentioned in Hos 1:1, is probably the great-grandson of Jehu. The thought is combined with the phrase ‫ֹ והיה ביום ההוא‬in Hos 1:5, perhaps alluding to the ‫ יום פקדי‬of Exod 32:34. The reversal of this child’s name involves no change in wording, Jezreel being ambivalent from the start. Hos 2:2 ‫“ כי גדול יום יזרעאל‬for great 28  Cf. Zenger, “Hosea.” 29  Lohfink, “Zornesglut,” 188. 30  For some details, see Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 150–155, and Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom,” 34–36.

478

Scoralick

shall be/is the day of Jezreel” combines the reference to Exod 34:7b with the idea of a Day, when Yhwh visits—now in a positive sense. These are the first instances of the multifaceted motif of the Day of Yhwh that is so characteristic of the Book of the Twelve. The references to Exod 34:6–7 in the second child’s name (‫ )לא רחמה‬and its elaboration (Hos 1:6–7 ‫ארחם‬, ‫ )נׂשא אׂשא‬are more obvious. The text speaks of the end of mercy and forgiveness, reversing Exod 34:6–7a. The syntactic analysis and the interpretation of Hos 1:7b is debated, but need not be discussed here.31 The third child’s name ‫ לא עמי‬and its elaboration refers back to the theology of Exodus with Israel being Yhwh’s ‫ עם‬and reaches back to the interpretation of God’s name in Exod 3 (cf. ‫ואנכי לא־אהיה לכם‬, Hos 1:9 and Exod 3:14). With respect to Exod 34:6–7 this recalls the very beginning: Yhwh (is) YHWH, thus arriving at the very heart of the ‘name formula.’ Hos 1:9 envisages the end of the bond between God and Israel. The name Yhwh as an expression of this relationship is taken back. The positive equivalent in Hos 2:1b exchanges ‫ לא עמי‬for ‫“( בני אל־חי‬children of the living God,” cf. Jos 3:10; Ps 84:3). “Living God” might well be understood as shorthand for the ‘bipolar’ ‘name formula’ of Exod 34:6–7. The opening of the book of Hosea focuses on God’s relationship to Israel, with the prophet embodying it in a marriage and the children’s names reversing Exod 34:6–7. This begins with verse 7b in a reference to history calling for God’s visit (‫ )פקד‬and working backward to the undoing of the bond that is created by knowing God’s name. This account is abruptly followed by Hos 2:1–3, turning the children’s names into messages of hope. “With the conclusion of the account of the prophet’s children the central message of the book has been delivered, and a sketch of the entire literary enterprise presented” as Andersen and Freedman write in their commentary.32 Moreover, the horizon of the Book of the Twelve, read in context of the Torah, has been opened up as well.33 God’s wrath threatens to bring about the end of the relationship with Israel and Judah—and it inexplicably changes to love, promising a new start. 31  I follow Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 142–143 (“[…] never again shall I show pity for the state of Israel, or forgive them at all; 7 nor for the state of Judah will I show pity, or save them. I will not save them from bow and sword and weapons of war, from horses and horsemen.”) Other interpretations find positive messages (for Judah) already in Hos 1:6–7. 32  Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 116. 33  Cf. studies on the framing of the Book of the Twelve, like Leuchter, “Look” (cf. lit.). See also Zech 13:9 on Israel after its testing (referring back to Hos 1:9 and 2:25): ‫הוא יקרא בׁשמי‬ ‫ואני אענה אתו אמרתי עמי הוא והוא יאמר יהוה אלהי‬, “He will call on my name, and I will answer him. I will say, ‘He is my people’; and he will say, ‘Yhwh is my God’” (transl. RS, as most translations use “they” for clarity’s sake; cf. Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 119).

Judgment and Grace

479

Hos 2:4–3:5 elaborate the pattern further, taking up motives from Hos 1:2– 2:3. But only Hos 11 and 14 will take readers any further in understanding the pattern and seeing what bridges the gap from doom to hope. 2.1.2 “How Can I Give You Up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:1–11) Hos 11:1–11 stands at the very end of the long section Hos 4–11, where once again judgment gives way to hope. Hos 11:1–11 is spoken by God (except v. 10–11a). Israel’s relationship history with Yhwh is recounted from the times of the Exodus onward. It is a story of caring attention on God’s part and constant turning away on the part of Israel. Whether the metaphor remains that of parents and children throughout the text or whether it changes at some point to an agricultural horizon need not be discussed here.34 Despite the difficult text, replete with problems of semantics and syntax, the mounting wrath of God is discernible. With Israel ‘calling’ to something/someone else (‫)ואל־על יקראהו‬, the final breaking point seems to be reached (Hos 11:7). Neither loving care nor punishment could work a change. The only recourse, it seems, is to end it. With Hos 11:8, the next verse, the communicative situation of the speech changes. Instead of speaking about Israel in the third person now Ephraim/ Israel is addressed directly. “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” God opens up his innermost heart, describing a catastrophic event inside himself (‫)הפך‬: burning ‫ נחומים‬confronting the burning wrath. At the same time this is explicitly related to God being God, not a human (Hos 11:9). Traditional interpretation speaks of a once and for all decision in God. Jörg Jeremias writes: “Der Kampf ist grundsätzlicher Art, der Sieg des Rettungswillens ist ein für allemal gewiß.”35 God sides—has sided—once and for all on the side of love. This might look like weakness, but it is in fact a manifestation of God’s holiness. Some recent research has focused on the question of God’s repentance and God’s changeability or ability to learn in biblical texts.36 Such elements are central to a number of key biblical texts (like the story of the flood Gen 6–9 or Exod 32–34) and should not be discounted too hastily as mere anthropomorphic speech. The basis ‫ נחם‬recurs in quite a number of these texts. In the context of such analyses, Jan-Dirk Döhling proposes a different interpretation for Hos 11:8–9. To his mind the text is ‘theo-poetic.’ Its tensions are not meant to be dissolved. The performative dynamic of the verses is of central importance. It is not simply knowledge about God that should be gained from the text. Rather, readers are drawn into the presence of the crisis in God 34  For these questions, see Wacker, “Gott.” 35  Jeremias, Hosea, 146. 36  Jeremias, Reue; Döhling, Gott; Sonnet, “God’s Repentance.”

480

Scoralick

by the direct address of the question in verse 8. In every new reading of the text, the crisis and the struggle resumes and the question of verse 8a is posed anew. Readers have to position themselves within their own world regarding God’s judgment and grace. With Hos 11:8–9 there is no calm certainty about coming salvation. “Viel eher wird man an Lesende denken, denen der Zorn gegenwärtig, das Heil aber immer neu fraglich ist, und die diese Fraglichkeit und das Übergewicht des Zorns auch in den Gottesworten der Hoseaschrift erleben, erleiden und auf den letztlichen Sieg der Liebe hoffen.”37 Readers are invited to relate to a God who struggles with his wrath and can overturn it. This turn in God justifies the call to (re)turn to this God (cf. Hos 14 and Joel 2:1–14). The resulting hope is expressed in Hos 11:10–11. The voice of God is described now as the roaring of a lion. This metaphor for the word of God as mediated by his prophets connects the books of Hosea, Joel (cf. Joel 2:11; 4:16) and Amos (Amos 1:2).38 These books issue the roaring of the lion God who roars in order to restore Israel and his creation. This roar demands human turning to this God. As Jan-Dirk Döhling puts it with regard to Hosea: “Im Gefälle der Hoseaschrift kommt die Reue [sc. Gottes, RS] ohne Israels Umkehr zustande, sie kommt aber nicht ohne sie zu Ende.”39 The reason for the turn from judgment to salvation is the struggle in God that is intimately related to his being God and being holy. It is in a way a vision of Exod 34:6–7 seen as perpetual drama. As Exod 34:6–7 cannot be resolved into a “formula” or principle for God’s behaviour, so Hos 11 does not give a simple key to reality. It demands the engagement of the reader’s very own hopes and fears.40 The appropriate reaction to this is the return to Yhwh (‫)ׁשוב‬, the reaction that God waited for in Hos 11:1–7. Hos 14, the book’s ending, takes up this idea by employing the Leitwort ‫ׁשוב‬. Israel is invited to turn to Yhwh its God (‫ׁשובה‬ ‫יׂשראל‬, Hos 14:2) and also provided with a hypothetical prayer for that occasion. The following speech of God (Hos 14:5–9) is not presented as a consequence of the return of Israel (the prayer being hypothetical). Rather, ֹGod states the preconditions of Israel’s return: His own healing of Israel’s turning away and his own turning from anger. The renewed relationship is then painted in paradisiacal colours.

37  Döhling, Gott, 319. 38  Cf. Zenger, “Löwe.” 39  Döhling, Gott, 360. 40  Regarding the question of a Christian reading position of these texts (as ‘Zweitadressat’) Dohmen and Stemberger, Hermeneutik, is still a reference book.

Judgment and Grace

481

The book of Hosea is of central importance for the theological perspective of the Book of the Twelve, especially concerning the interaction of judgment and grace. The book opening Hos 1:2–2:3 presents the fundamental problem of messages of hope following upon announcements of utter doom without any apparent reason for the change in message. The same can be found in most of the other books, the positive ending of Amos (Amos 9:11–15) presenting a famous case of “roses and lavender” after “blood and iron,” as Wellhausen called it. How and why does God’s wrath turn to love and new beginning? Hos 11 and 14 provide some answers. There is a red hot struggle in God himself involving his just anger and the power of ‘repentance’ (for lack of a better word). This leaves and makes room for hope and is an invitation to turn to this ‘living God.’41 In this way, the overall aim of the Book of the Twelve—to call its readers to turn to God—has its theological basis in Hos 11. The call itself is expressed in full force in the book of Joel. 2.2 Joel 2.2.1 “The Day of the LORD is Great; It is Dreadful. Who can endure it?” (Joel 2:11) The book of Joel centres on the Day of Yhwh, picking up the theme to some extent from Hosea 2:2 (‫)כי גדול יום יזרעאל‬. Joel has been called a ‘scribal’ prophet, as the book refers to quite a number of biblical texts. It seems to me more appropriate to call the book of Joel literary prophecy. Or, as Christopher Seitz puts it: “It is his book that prophesies.”42 The book of Joel’s relation to almost every one of the Books of the Twelve has been demonstrated many times and has led to multiple theories of redactional layers connected with Joel. For a close reading of the Book of the Twelve the hermeneutical significance of Joel is most important. Joel creates a literary world of catastrophes that gains hermeneutical significance for the following books. Natural disasters like draught and locusts are superimposed with military catastrophes like fire or an invading army and vice versa. In that manner, catastrophes can be ‘translated’ from one plane to another, creating a reading strategy for the prophetic books that opens up new ways to relevance. At the same time, Joel itself picks up other biblical texts (like Exod 10 and Isa 13), Exod 32–34 and Exod 34:6–7 among them. The disastrous events described in the first part of the book (Joel 1:1–2:27) all centre on one theological message: the coming of the Day of Yhwh and the necessity of an adequate response to 41  The hope founded on Hos 11 is not taken back or cut back by Hos 12–14. Cf. Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 146–149, for a discussion of the arguments. 42  Seitz, Joel, 51.

482

Scoralick

it: turning to Yhwh by way of sincere cultic and ritual acts (Joel 1:13–15; 2:12–13, 15–17). Joel 3–4 develops the theme of the Day of Yhwh in a universal frame. Joel elaborates on the ambivalent character of the day of Yhwh (as judgment or grace) and, relying on the theology of Hos 11 and 14, presents the prophetic call to return to Yhwh as God’s own word to the implicit readers of the book directly. In a fascinating poetical text the book of Joel manages to present the Day of Yhwh (Joel 2:1–14) to the reader as something that is immediately and pressingly approaching himself.43 By a sophisticated, shifting point of view technique, the events come closer to the reading subject and at the same time gain in relevance on a cosmic plane. The text describes a threatening phenomenon that is nearing rapidly, yet by the literary technique of comparison instead of simple identification the approaching objects remain indistinct and in that way even more threatening. Whether an army is closing in or a swarm of locusts or a combination of both remains uncertain. The book of Joel manages to create a literary and metaphorical multidimensional world of catastrophic events. In Joel 2:1–14 this serves to impress a sense of urgency on the reader. Just when the danger is closest (and yet not fully known in its form) it becomes clear that this is the army of Yhwh (Joel 2:11) doing his bidding. And God raises his voice (whether like a lion, cf. Hos 11, or as thunder remains undecided) with the call to return to him: “Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with all your heart” (Joel 2:11 NRS). The world of the text and the world of the reading subject converge at this point. The call becomes immediately relevant to the implicit readers as well: Turn to Yhwh now! The prophetic voice continues with a reference to Exod 34:6 and 32:12: “Return to the LORD, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.” (‫ונחם‬ ‫ על־הרעה‬cf. Exod 32:12, 14) (Joel 2:13). The quotation from Exod 34:6–7 is complemented with a reference to the successful intercession of Moses directly after the incident with the Golden Calf. The power of God’s ‫נחמים‬, as affirmed in Hos 11, has already been shown in Israel’s founding history. The way forward for the ‘inhabitants of the land’ (cf. Joel 2:1) and the implicit readers is to be moved to a fundamental change of heart (“rend your hearts” Joel 2:13) and a return to Yhwh. The possibility of this move is founded in God’s own possible (“who knows” Joel 2:14) ‘turning’ from his wrath.

43  For a detailed analysis cf. Scoralick, “Eigenart.” Seitz, Joel, 148, reads Joel 2:2 “Like blackness spread on the mountains” and interprets it as an “un-creation-Day.”

Judgment and Grace

483

2.3 Summary Exod 34:6–7 plays an important role in the books of Hosea and Joel, even though it is only alluded to in Hosea. The beginning of the book of Hosea in a way spells the ‘name formula’ backwards, converting its elements into messages of mounting doom, at the end signalling the break of any relationship of Israel and God. This beginning also takes up the idea of a ‘visit’ (‫ )פקד‬by God (Hos 1:4–5; 2:2) that in itself has an ambivalent character, and combines it with the idea of a “day”—with repercussions throughout the Book of the Twelve. The abrupt change from announcements of judgment to messages of hope that is visible in Hos 1:2–2:3 is bridged in Hos 11 by a look into God’s own heart and the force of his/her ‘repentance’ at work (‫)נחומי‬, working a ‘turn’ in God (cf. the narrative of Exod 32–34). To put this dramatic vision into a theological formula and see it as an illustration of essential attributes of God risks missing the point. Hos 11 in its ‘theo-poesie’ reaches out to the implicit readers and calls for them to relate to this drama. The consequence of Hos 11:8–9 is the roaring lion God: the voice of God in the books of the prophets (cf. Hosea; Joel and Amos with the lion’s voice), calling Israel (and the readers) to turn to him. The book of Joel develops a theology of the day of Yhwh and a complex literary technique that brings that call close to the implicit readers of the book (cf. Joel 2:1–14). At the same time, this becomes the hermeneutical horizon for the other books of the Twelve. Raymond Van Leeuwen then is right in regarding repentance as a pivotal point in the combination of the first books of the Twelve. But it is God’s repentance that is at the centre of it all. The narrative of Exod 32–34 works as a background theology to this prophetic presentation. It is God’s turning from wrath that enables any turning to him. The fatal act of the Northern kingdom is presented in the book of Amos not primarily as a denial of repentance, but as the silencing and banning of the prophetic word by the institutions of the state, carried out by Amaziah the priest (Amos 7:10–17). Rainer Kessler sums up the use of Exod 34:6–7 in the Book of the Twelve by writing: “The book as a whole can be read as a commentary to the formula: there will be punishment, but in the end God’s mercy and steadfast love shall prevail.”44 Hosea and Joel seem to deploy every literary means available to them to prevent readers from taking this as a theological statement that

44  Kessler, “The Twelve,” 216.

484

Scoralick

lets readers lean back and feel safe and comfortable.45 The call is to turn to God now. 3

Judgment and Grace and the Formation of the Twelve

The changes in debate about biblical prophecy in recent decades have only slowly begun to have some impact on discussions about the formation of the Book of the Twelve. Concerning the efforts at redaction critical analysis, Rainer Kessler recently summed up the state of affairs, writing: “[…] it is widely accepted that the Twelve were not put together as twelve individual books in one redactional act, but that there must have been smaller collections of two, four, or more books, which successively were combined to eventually form ‘the Twelve.’ However, there is no consensus of what these smaller collections looked like and how they were brought together.”46 Different models of book formation exist side by side. This, of course, is a normal state of affairs in exegetical matters. At the same time, the turn to the proprium of Israelite prophecy, the prophetic book with its literary quality, begins to change the debate to some extent. This has been labelled as a move towards a “new form criticism” of prophetic books.47 At the end of a collection of rather diverse essays on the Book of the Twelve and the ‘New Form Criticism,’ Robert R. Wilson sums up the endeavours by saying that the new form critics tend to “focus on individual texts that for the most part do not contain much in the way of patterns. It is at this point that observers might wonder how the new form criticism differs from a purely literary approach, like the sensitive readings of Robert Alter, the holistic approach of Moshe Greenberg and others, or even the various canonical approaches inspired by the work of Brevard Childs.”48 Surprisingly, Wilson does not go on to explain the difference to the ‘wondering observers.’ But according to him the ‘new form critics’ “locate the formation of Israelite prophetic literature in the exilic and early post exilic periods and attribute prophetic compositions from those periods to the work of anonymous scribal elites.”49 This fits in well with an often used quote by Otto Kaiser: “Das Einzigartige der alttestamentlichen Prophetie besteht nicht 45  The figure of Jonah embodies such a position of reading and understanding to some extent. 46  Kessler, “The Twelve,” 220. 47  Cf. the collection of essays in Boda, Book. 48  Wilson, “New Form Criticism,” 316. 49  Wilson, “New Form Criticism,” 316.

Judgment and Grace

485

darin, daß in Israel Propheten aufgetreten sind, sondern darin, daß ihre literarische Hinterlassenschaft nach dem Untergang des Nord- und des Südreiches den Anstoß zur Komposition von Prophetenbüchern gegeben hat.”50 It is not surprising that Raymond Van Leeuwen’s hypothesis of a scribal redaction of the Book of the Twelve, using Exod 34:6–7 as a pattern to create a theodicy, has found increased notice in recent times. At the same time it is becoming much harder to see how redaction critical hypotheses can stop at the boundaries of the Book of the Twelve. Georg Steins in recent publications has analyzed the book of Amos,51 showing theological ‘deep structure’ analogies with texts of the Torah like Gen 6–9; Exod 20; 32–34; and Lev 26. While denying the possibility to reach words or actions of a historical prophet by an analysis of the texts, Steins yet practices a cautious redaction criticism, especially in view of Amos 7–9. “Das jetzige Amosbuch ist von der Mosegeschichte des Exodusbuches her und auf diese hin gestaltet worden. ‘Tora’ und ‘Propheten’ bilden kein lockeres, späteres Arrangement von Kanonteilen, sondern sind auch über die Tiefenstruktur der Bücher fest miteinander verklammert.”52 Future redaction critical or new form critical work will have to take such observations into account to a larger extent than at present. Bibliography Andersen, Francis I. and Freedman, David N. Hosea. AB 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. Boda, Mark J. et al. eds. The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. ANEM 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015. Bosman, Jan P. “The Paradoxical Presence of Exodus 34:6–7 in the Book of the Twelve.” Scriptura (Stellenbosch) 87 (2004): 233–243. Clements, Ronald E. “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon.” Pages 42–55 in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology. Edited by Georg W. Coats and Burke O. Long. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977. Delitzsch, Franz. “Wann weissagte Obadja?” Zeitschrift für die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 12 (1851): 91–102. Dentan, Robert C. “The Literary Affinities of Exodus XXXIV 6f.” VT 13 (1963): 34–51.

50  Kaiser, Werke, 231. 51  Steins, Gericht; idem, “Amos 7–9.” 52  Steins, Gericht, 129.

486

Scoralick

Döhling, Jan-Dirk. Der bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel. HBS 61. Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 19–40. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Dohmen, Christoph and Stemberger, Günter. Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,2, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. Franz, Matthias. Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34,6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. BWANT 160. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Hosea. ATD 24,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung. BiblischTheologische Studien 65. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997. Jeremias, Jörg. “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie.” ZAW 125 (2013): 93–117. Kaiser, Otto. Die erzählenden Werke. Vol. 1 of Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuteronkanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1992. Kessler, Rainer. “The Twelve: Structure, Themes, and Contested Issues.” Pages 207–223 in The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets Edited by Carolyn J. Sharp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie: Eine Replik.” ZAW 125 (2013): 635–639. Leuchter, Mark. “Another Look at the Hosea/Maleachi framework of The Twelve.” VT 64 (2014): 249–265. Lohfink, Norbert. “‘Ich komme nicht in Zornesglut’ (Hos 11,9): Skizze einer synchronen Leseanweisung für das Hoseabuch.” Pages 163–190 in Ce Dieu qui vient: Festschrift für Bernard Renaud. Edited by R. Kuntzmann. LD 159. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Lohfink, Norbert. “Moses Tod, die Tora und die alttestamentliche Sonntagslesung.” TP 71 (1996): 481–494. Macchi, Jean-Daniel. ed. Les recueils prophetiques de la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte proche-oriental. MdB. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2012. Nihan, Christophe. “Remarques sur la question de l’‘unité’ des XII.” Pages 145–165 in The Book of the Twelve: One Book or Many. Edited by Elena Di Pede and Donatella Scaiola. FAT II,91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Petterson, Anthony R. “The Flying Scroll That Will Not Acquit the Guilty: Exodus 34.7 in Zechariah 5.3.” JSOT 38 (2014): 347–361. Redditt, Paul L. Zechariah 9–14. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012. Schmid, Konrad. “Hintere Propheten.” Pages 303–314 in Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments. Edited by Jan C. Gertz. UTB 2745. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Judgment and Grace

487

Scoralick, Ruth. “‘Auch jetzt noch’ (Joel 2,12a). Zur Eigenart der Joelschrift und ihrer Funktion im Kontext des Zwölfprophetenbuches.” Pages 47–70 in ‘Wort JHWHs, das geschah …’ (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Scoralick, Ruth. Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HBS 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Seitz, Christopher R. Joel. The International Theological Commentary. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. “God’s Repentance and ‘false starts’ in biblical history (Genesis 6–9; Exodus 32–34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7).” Pages 469–494 in Congress Volume, IOSOT Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Steins, Georg. Gericht und Vergebung: Re-Visionen zum Amosbuch. SBS 221. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010. Steins, Georg. “Amos 7–9 und die aktuelle Diskussion über die Gerichtsprophetie.” Pages 17–42 in Visionen im Dialog: Der Schluss des Amosbuches (Amos 7–9). Edited by Michaela Geiger et al. SBS 236. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 49–64 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Pages 21–33 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 31–49 in In Search of Wisdom: Festschrift für John G. Gammie. Edited by Leo G. Perdue et al. Westminster: John Knox, 1993. Wacker, Marie-Theres. “Gott Vater, Gott Mutter—und weiter? Exegese und Gender­ forschung im Disput über biblische Gottes-Bilder am Beispiel von Hosea 11.” Pages 136–157 in Geschlechter bilden: Perspektiven für einen genderbewussten Religionsunterricht. Edited by Andrea Qualbrink. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2011. Wilson, Robert R. “New Form Criticism and the Prophetic Literature: The Unfinished Agenda.” Pages 311–322 in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by M.J. Boda. ANEM 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015. Zenger, Erich. “‘Wie ein Löwe brüllt er …’ (Hos 11,10). Zur Funktion poetischer Metaphorik im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 33–46 in ‘Wort JHWHs, das geschah …’ (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Erich Zenger. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002.

488

Scoralick

Zenger, Erich. “Das Buch Hosea.” Pages 627–634 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by idem and Christian Frevel. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. 8th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012. Zenger, Erich. “Die hermeneutische Systematik des Tanach.” Pages 25–28 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by idem and Christian Frevel. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. 8th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012.

Chapter 26

Kingship in the Book of the Twelve Marvin A. Sweeney 1 Consideration of the role of kingship in the Book of the Twelve Prophets must begin with recognition that the Book of the Twelve appears in multiple forms.1 The two major forms of the book appear in the Masoretic Hebrew form of the text (MT), which reads the Twelve in order as Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and the Septuagint Greek form of the text (LXX), which reads them as Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Some scholars deny any significance to the final forms and orders of the book, due in part to the fact that the Septuagint Greek tradition and some other versions display a variety of orders for the Twelve Prophets.2 Nevertheless, the LXX order is based on the order presented in the fourth century CE. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are taken by many scholars as authoritative, and it is corroborated by the Babylonian Talmud, b. Bava Batra 14b–15a, which views the historical sequence of Hosea, Amos, and Micah as an option to the proto-MT order. The MT order is set in Judaism, whereas Christianity reads it as a collection comprising twelve discrete components. My earlier research points to the interpretative significance of the distinctive orders of the LXX and MT forms of the book.3 The LXX form begins with three eighth century prophets, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, whose books point to problems in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Insofar as each of these books also takes up issues related to Jerusalem and Judah, their placement at the head of the sequence indicates an interest in viewing the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel as a model for what might happen to Jerusalem and Judah as well. Such concern is highlighted in the latter nine books of the 1  For current research on the Book of the Twelve Prophets, see esp. Redditt and Schart, Thematic Threads; Albertz et al., Perspectives. 2  E.g., Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books.” 3  Sweeney, “Sequence”; idem, Twelve Prophets, xv–xlii. For an alternative view, see Nogalski, Book of the Twelve.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_028

490

Sweeney

LXX sequence. The MT order, however, makes sure that books concerned with Jerusalem, such as Joel and Obadiah, are placed early in the sequence of the Twelve, and thereby ensures that MT Twelve is concerned especially with Jerusalem and Judah throughout. Current diachronic scholarship maintains that the Book of the Twelve originated as a collection based on Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah that was later supplemented by collections in Nahum and Habakkuk; Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and finally by Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah.4 Such a model suggests that the earliest form of the book of the Twelve originated during the reign of King Josiah of Judah, who was concerned with reuniting Judah and the former Northern Kingdom of Israel under Davidic rule.5 The evolving Book of the Twelve then would have expanded with the addition of Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah in the early Persian period following the construction of the Second Temple, and Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Malachi when Nehemiah and Ezra restored Jerusalem to its status as the holy centre of Judaism. The MT sequence of the Book of the Twelve presupposes the interests of Nehemiah and Ezra in Jerusalem and the Temple. Although kingship does not appear in all of the constitutive books of the Book of the Twelve, it appears to be a key consideration especially in the formulation of the LXX form of the book, and it remains influential in the MT form. This essay proceeds by examining the role of kingship in the constitutive books of the Book of the Twelve, and it draws conclusions concerning the role of this concern in both the diachronic and synchronic forms of the book. 2 Some interpreters maintain that Hosea opposes kingship in principal, but a closer reading of the book of Hosea indicates that the prophet is specifically concerned with the alliance formed between the Jehu dynasty of northern Israel and the Assyrian Empire during the late-ninth and eighth centuries bce.6 Recognition of this concern entails some redating of Hosea.7 Hosea does not presuppose the Syro-Ephraimitic War in 735–732 bce when the proAramean King Pekah ben Remaliah ruled the nation.8 Instead, the bulk of the book dates to the reigns of the fourth and fifth monarchs of the House of Jehu, 4  See esp. Schart, Entstehung; Nogalski, Literary Precursors; idem, Redactional Processes; Wöhrle, Sammlungen; idem, Abschluss. 5  Sweeney, King Josiah. 6  E.g., Gelston, “Kingship.” 7  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1–144. 8  Alt, “Hosea 5,5–8,6.”

Kingship

491

King Jeroboam ben Joash, who presided over a period of peace in 786–746 BCE, and his son, King Zechariah ben Jeroboam, who was assassinated by the proAramean Shallum ben Jabesh six months after he became king. Indeed, the bloody struggle for the throne of Israel by pro-Assyrian and pro-Aramean forces continued until Pekah ben Remaliah seized the throne in 738 BCE to instigate the Syro-Ephraimitic War in which he and Rezin of Aram assembled an alliance of nations to resist Assyria. When Kings Jotham and Ahaz of Judah refused to join the alliance, Israel and Aram attacked Judah to replace Ahaz and force Judah to join the alliance. Facing such prospects, Ahaz appealed to Assyria. Assyria attacked, deposed Rezin, destroyed Damascus, deposed Pekah, and replaced him with Hoshea ben Elah. When Hoshea was unable to stop a revolt incited by anti-Assyrian forces in Israel, Assyria attacked again, deposed Hoshea, destroyed Samaria, and exiled major elements of Israel’s population to other parts of the Assyrian Empire. The prophet Hosea clearly sides with the pro-Aramean forces that were opposed to the Jehu dynasty’s alliance with the Assyrian Empire. Evidence for this view appears in Hosea 1, which recounts how YHWH instructed Hosea to marry a woman of harlotry and have children with her. The first child, a son, is to be named Jezreel. This name is significant in that it recalls the rise of the House of Jehu to power. 2 Kings 8–10 relates the revolt against the House of Omri led by Jehu ben Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi, who served as an officer in the Israelite army during its failing campaign to defend the nation against Aramean attack at Ramoth-Gilead in the Trans-Jordan. According to 1 Kings 22, King Ahab ben Omri was killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead, and his son and successor, King Joram ben Ahab, was wounded in battle against the Arameans at Ramoth Gilead as well. King Joram retired to his father’s estate in the Jezreel Valley, where he was joined by his mother, Jezebel, and his ally, King Ahaziah ben Joram of Judah, to recover. After he was anointed by a servant of the prophet Elisha as the next king of Israel, Jehu drove his chariot to Jezreel where he assassinated King Joram of Israel, King Ahaziah of Judah, Queen Mother Jezebel, and a multitude of Omride supporters. After he became king of Israel, Jehu still found himself hard pressed by the Arameans, and he ultimately submitted to King Shalmaneser III of Assyria to protect himself against Aram. Jehu’s submission to Shalmaneser is depicted in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III in which Jehu is portrayed as bowing at the feet of the Assyrian monarch.9 Although Assyrian support did not free Jehu from Aramean pressure during his reign, his grandson, King Jehoash ben Jehohaz of Israel, was finally able to relieve Israel, thereby paving the way 9  Pritchard, ANEP, 351–355; idem, ANET, 281.

492

Sweeney

for the forty-year reign of peace by his son, Jeroboam ben Jehoash. Jehoash is listed as one of the tributaries of the Assyrian King Adad Nirari III in the Tel Rimah inscription.10 Hosea’s opposition to the Jehu dynasty alliance with Assyria is clear in a number of instances. First are the names of his other two children by Gomer bat Diblaim, the mother of Jezreel. The second child, a daughter named Lo Ruhamah, No Mercy, signifies YHWH’s lack of mercy for Israel because of the Jehu dynasty’s policy. The third, a son named Lo Ammi, Not My People, signifies YHWH’s break with Israel over this matter. A second indicator appears in the statements in Hos 12:1–2 concerning Ephraim’s deceit and its covenant with Assyria that prompts it to carry oil to Egypt. A third is the statement in Hos 11:5 about how Israel returns to Egypt, from which YHWH had redeemed them in the Exodus, and how Assyria is their king. Similar references to Israel’s relationship with the Assyrian king and its consequent relationship with Egypt appear in Hos 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 9:3; and 10:5–8. References to Gibeah, where Saul’s monarchy began, in Hos 9:9 and 10:9 simply refer to an earlier monarchic failure to which the House of Jehu is compared. A fourth is the statement in Hos 14:4 that Assyria will not save us in the context of the prophet’s concluding appeal to return to YHWH. Fifth is the collection of statements in Hosea 12 concerning Israel’s past history. Although some scholars dismiss these statements as later to correlate the prophet’s message with the Pentateuch, they are consistent with Hosea’s message. In Hos 12:4–7, he cites the Jacob narratives, particularly Genesis 32 and 35, in which Jacob wrestled with an angel as part of his struggle with G-d when YHWH renamed him his as Israel and made a covenant with him at Beth El. In Hos 12:8–10, he reminds Israel of its lasting relationship with YHWH from the time of the Exodus despite Israel’s deceitfulness. In Hos 12:11–15, he reminds Israel that the nation was born from Jacob’s Aramean wives and that Jacob settled his borders with his father-in-law, Laban, who was from Aram. He also reminds Israel that YHWH brought Israel up from Egypt by means of a prophet. In all cases, he informs Israel that YHWH is its G-d, that Aram is where Israel is from, and that Egypt is its enemy. All of these points speak to Hosea’s opposition to the Jehu alliance with Assyria that prompts the nation to trade with its enemy, Egypt, and Hosea’s sympathies for an alliance with Aram, from which Israel’s ancestors come. Hosea is not opposed to kingship in principal; he is opposed to the House of Jehu because of its alliance with Assyria, which forces Israel to oppose Aram, its ancestral homeland. 10  Page, “Stela.”

Kingship

493

Finally, the statement in Hos 3:5 that Israel will return to YHWH its G-d and David its king is widely recognized as a later redactional statement added to the book of Hosea. A likely setting for such redactional work is the reign of King Josiah of Judah, whose policy of religious reform and national restoration envisioned the restoration of Davidic rule over the north. Such a view is consistent with the recognition, signalled by the inclusion of a succession of Davidic monarchs in the superscription of the book in Hos 1:1, that Hosea must have fled northern Israel following the Assyrian destruction of the state to escape retribution by the empire that he had so clearly opposed in his book. Hosea would have been a proponent for breaking Israel’s relationship with Assyria and restoring its relationship with Aram. 3 The book of Joel is fundamentally concerned with the protection of Jerusalem, and it has little to do with the issue of kingship in the Book of the Twelve. Most interpreters date Joel to the fourth century BCE, and it appears to be one of the books that was added at a relatively late time to complete the Book of the Twelve.11 The book of Amos, however, is fundamentally concerned with the issue of kingship, insofar as it condemns the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and calls for the restoration of Davidic rule over all of Israel and Judah.12 The key for understanding Amos’s view of kingship lies in his own Judean identity, Judah’s status as a vassal of the Northern kingdom of Israel, and Amos’s role as a representative of Judah who brings part of Judah’s tribute to the royal sanctuary at Beth El. The superscription for the book in Amos 1:1 identifies Amos as a resident of the Judean town of Tekoa, located twelve miles south of Jerusalem at the edge of the Judean wilderness overlooking the Dead Sea. He is described one of the nōqdîm, “sheep breeders,” from the town. Although nōqdîm are frequently considered as “shepherds,” such a translation does not convey the full meaning of the term. The term, nōqēd, does not denote a common shepherd. 2 Kings 3:4 describes King Mesha of Moab as a nōqēd, “sheep breeder,” who pays annual tribute as a vassal to northern Israel in sheep. Such a role indicates Amos’s status as a representative of Judah who conveys at least a part of Judah’s annual tribute to Israel at Beth El in the form of agricultural produce.

11  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 145–187. 12  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 189–226.

494

Sweeney

The superscription indicates that Amos’s historical setting lies in the reigns of King Jeroboam of Israel (786–746 BCE) and King Uzziah of Judah (783–742 BCE), a time of relative peace in Israel brought about by Israel’s own alliance with the Assyrian Empire which kept the Arameans from attacking. Amos does not critique Assyria or Israel’s alliance with Assyria. His perspective is Judean as indicated in the motto in Amos 1:2 which portrays YHWH as a lion, the symbol of the tribe of Judah, roaring from Zion. The following oracles concerning the nations Amos 1:3–2:16, including Damascus/Aram (1:3–6), Gaza/Philistia (1:7–8), Tyre (1:9–10), Edom (1:11–12), Ammon (1:13–15), Moab (2:1–3), Judah (2:4–5), and finally his main target, Israel (2:6–16). Israel is condemned for crimes of social justice, drawn especially from the laws of the so-called Covenant Code in Exodus 20/21–23, which served as the basic law code of northern Israelite justice from the late-ninth century on. Although the sequence of nations mentioned suggests the Assyrian invasion route against Judah employed by the Assyrian monarch, Sennacherib, at the time of Hezekiah’s revolt in 701 BCE, the Aramean monarch, Hazael, employed a similar route to attack Judah during the reign of King Jehoash ben Ahaziah of Judah (837–800 BCE) after he had already subjugated Israel during the reigns of King Jehu ben Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi of Israel (842–815 BCE) and Jehoash ben Jehu (815–801 BCE). The fact that Hazael could carry out such an invasion pointed to the apparent failure of northern Israel’s alliance with Assyria and thus the failure of northern Israel to ensure Judah’s protection. In Amos’s view, this would call for the condemnation of the ruling dynasty of northern Israel. Amos is concerned primarily with the plight of the Judean farmers and shepherds who bear the bulk of the burden to pay Judah’s annual tribute to Israel even in times when natural disaster, such as locusts or late-summer fires, consume vast quantities of the Judean harvest even after the time of the King’s mowing, i.e., the portion of the crop due to the King to pay Judah’s tribute to Israel. His position is evident in the first two visions of his vision reports in Amos 7–9. In Amos 7:1–3, Amos appeals to YHWH not to destroy Jacob/Israel after a locust plague devoured Judah’s remaining crops following the King’s mowings. Such a disaster would have left Judean farmers destitute. Although many interpreters point to Israel’s greed as the source of the problem, Israel’s status as a vassal to the Assyrian Empire required payment of its own annual tribute to Assyria or facing the consequences of an Assyrian invasion. A similar concern arises in the second vision in Amos 7:4–6 when a fire consumed water and fields in Judah. Such fires are common in the dry late summer prior to the fall rains. Southern California, for example, which has a climate similar to Israel’s, suffers such fires annually at the end of the summer prior to the fall rainy season. Again, Judean farmers are left destitute. Amos sees this situation

Kingship

495

as a reason to condemn the northern Israelite monarchy. His third vision in Amos 7:7–9 employs the metaphor of a plumb line, a weighted line used to ensure the straight construction of a wall as a metaphor for claiming that Israel is not morally straight. In the following narrative in Amos 7:10–17, Amaziah, the High Priest at Beth El, demands that Amos leave the sanctuary due to his condemnation of King Jeroboam ben Joash of Israel. Amos insists that he is not a professional prophet as Amaziah contends, but tends fig trees, and follows this statement with a condemnation of Amaziah together with King Jeroboam for Israel’s treatment of Judah. Amos’s fourth vision in Amos 8:1–14 employs a pun in which the summer fruit that he offers at the Beth El altar, qāyiṣ in Hebrew, signifies the end, qēṣ in Hebrew, for Israel. His last vision in Amos 9:1–15 depicts YHWH’s call for the destruction of the Beth El altar. Such an image would be based on the imagery of fire, smoke, and the slaughtered corpses of sacrificial animals at the altar. In this case, it leads to Amos’s call for the restoration of the fallen booth of David in Amos 9:11. Although many scholars view this as a late addition to the text, it fits well with Amos’s Judean identity and his view of Israelite abuse of justice against Judah. From a Judean perspective, the means to address this problem would be to restore the rule of the house of David, which would ensure better treatment of the people of Judah. 4 The book of Obadiah is fundamentally concerned with condemning Edom for its role in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587–586 BCE and the prospects for Edom’s punishment once Jerusalem is restored.13 The book displays no interest in kingship. Such a scenario suggests a date in the late-sixth century BCE following the time when the Jerusalem Temple was rebuilt and Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the Grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah, had disappeared from the scene. Insofar as Edom had ceased to exist by the fourth– third centuries BCE, this would further suggest that Obadiah was added to the Book of the Twelve from the late-sixth through the fifth centuries BCE when Nehemiah and Ezra re-established Jerusalem as the holy centre of Jewish life. The book of Jonah likewise does not take up the issue of kingship, but focuses on the question of YHWH’s justice in accepting the repentance of the city of Nineveh which would go on to destroy Samaria and northern Israel in 722–721 BCE.14 Insofar as Jonah dates to the fifth century BCE, it appears to 13  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 277–300. 14  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 301–334.

496

Sweeney

serve as a means to ask why YHWH did not destroy Babylon as foreseen in the Prophets, e.g., Isaiah 13–14, and thereby subjected Jerusalem to destruction. Such a concern would inform the efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra to restore Jerusalem’s role in Jewish life following its own period of repentance. The book of Micah, however, is keenly interested in the issue of kingship.15 The superscription for the book in Mic 1:1 describes Micah as a Morashtite who spoke concerning Samaria and Jerusalem during the reigns of the Judean monarchs, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Mic 1:14 indicates that Micah’s home town is Moreshet Gath, identified with Tel Judeidah and located some nine miles east of Gath and twenty-one miles southwest of Jerusalem in the vicinity of Mareshah and Lachish. Moresheth Gath is therefore situated in the area of Gath where King Hazael of Aram pressed his attack against Judah during the reign of King Jehoash ben Ahaziah of Judah (837–800 BCE) in his effort to subjugate both Israel and Judah (2 Kgs 12:18–19). It is also located close to Lachish, where King Sennacherib of Assyria launched his attack against Judah in 701 BCE in his effort to put down the revolt against Assyria instigated by King Hezekiah of Judah. Most scholars recognize that Micah was forced to flee his home town of Moresheth Gath for the questionable safety of Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s invasion. Given the experience of his ancestors during Hazael’s invasion in the late-ninth century BCE and his own experience as a refugee during Sennacherib’s invasion in the late-eighth century BCE, Micah had ample reason to condemn the monarchs of both Israel and Judah. Most interpreters agree that Micah’s oracles in Micah 1–3, in which he condemns the kings in both Samaria and Jerusalem, are authentic Mican oracles. His depictions of cruelty in which people are stripped bare of their clothing and other possessions apparently presuppose his experience as a refugee fleeing from Moresheth Gath up through the Shephelah toward Jerusalem in a bid to gain the only possible safety open to him at the time. He is clear in his condemnations of both monarchies. In Mic 1:5 he asks “what is the transgression of Jacob?” and answers, “Is it not Samaria?” And again he asks, “And who are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jerusalem?” Such rhetorical questions place the blame squarely on Samaria as the capital city of Israel for Hazael’s lateninth century invasion of Judah and on Jerusalem as the capital city of Judah for Sennacherib’s late-eighth century invasion. Just as his ancestors suffered for the decisions made by the Jehu monarchs in Samaria, so Micah and his family paid the price for decisions made by Hezekiah in Jerusalem. Although some scholars see Micah as a pale pro-Davidic and Zion prophet like Isaiah,16 Micah is from the countryside, far from Jerusalem, and has little confidence 15  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 337–416. 16  E.g., von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:147–175.

Kingship

497

in its justice or its decisions. In the end, he announces in Mic 3:12 that Zion shall be ploughed as a field, Jerusalem shall become a heap of stones, and the Temple Mount shall become a high place of the woods. Isaiah would never have made such a declaration, but Micah’s words were cited when Jeremiah was put on trial for his Temple Sermon in Jeremiah 26 when he suggested that the Temple would not ensure the safety of Jerusalem. Micah thereby was credited with prompting King Hezekiah to repent before YHWH and to save the city from destruction. Although Micah condemns the monarchs of both Samaria and Jerusalem, he is capable of envisioning an ideal Davidic monarch who would deliver the nation from Babylonian oppression in Micah 4–5. His vision in Mic 4:1–5 of the nations streaming to Jerusalem to learn Torah from YHWH replicates the same vision in Isa 2:2–4. In fact, both texts date to the sixth century BCE, although no one has made a convincing case for the priority of either text. Whereas Isaiah envisions divine judgment against the nations of the world and Jerusalem prior to restoration in Isaiah 2–4, Micah envisions an ideal Davidic monarch in Micah 4–5 who will destroy the oppressors after the people have reached Babylon (Mic 4:10). Indeed, Micah’s portrayal of the Davidic monarch’s destruction of the oppressor’s horses, chariots, soothsayers, idols, etc., appears to draw on the language of Isa 2:5–8, where similar equipment and idolatrous images appear. Micah’s intertextual relationship with Isaiah 2 and his very different vision of punishment, first of Israel/Judah and then of the nations by an ideal Davidic monarch feeds the hypothesis that both Micah and the Book of the Twelve as a whole are designed as a response to the book of Isaiah. The final form of the book of Isaiah dispenses with the notion of an ideal Davidic monarch in the end. Whereas First Isaiah looks forward to an ideal Davidic monarch in Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–17; and 32:1–8, the second part of the book declares that King Cyrus of Persia is Yhwh’s Messiah and Temple builder in Isa 44:28; 45:1; that the people of Israel are the true heirs of the Davidic covenant in Isaiah 55; and that YHWH is the true King of Israel in Isa 66:1.17 The book of Micah, however, never gives up on the ideal of Davidic kingship even as it levels criticisms against both the Jehu and the Davidic monarchs. 5 The book of Nahum has no direct concern with the issue of Israelite or Judean kingship.18 It celebrates the downfall of the city of Nineveh, the political 17  Sweeney, “Settings”; idem, Isaiah 1–39; idem, Isaiah 40–66. 18  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 417–449.

498

Sweeney

capital of the Assyrian Empire, to Babylonian and Medean forces in 612 BCE, and it attempts to uphold YHWH’s justice and commitment to covenant by portraying YHWH as the agent behind the city’s destruction. Although some decry its alleged brutality in depicting the destruction of Nineveh, interpreters must recognize that the downfall of an oppressor is cause for celebration by those who are oppressed. It is addressed to the King of Assyria in Nah 3:18–19, and concludes with the rhetorical question, “For upon whom has your continuous evil not passed?” as part of its effort to demonstrate that YHWH does indeed bring about justice in the world. Because the book celebrates the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE, it may have been incorporated into the initial Book of the Four, i.e., Hosea; Amos; Micah; and Zephaniah, during the last years of the reign of King Josiah of Judah who was killed at Megiddo by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt in 609 BCE. Otherwise, it might function as an indicator of YHWH’s commitment to bringing down other oppressors, such as Babylon or the Persian Empire, in subsequent editions of the Book. The book of Habakkuk is marginally concerned with Judean kingship as indicated by its reference to YHWH’s commitment to deliver the people and their anointed king in Hab 3:13 as part of the Psalm of Lament in Habakkuk 3 which petitions YHWH to deliver the nation from its oppressor.19 Otherwise, Habakkuk is concerned with the question of YHWH’s justice and commitment to covenant in the aftermath of Babylon’s subjugation of Judah following its victory of Egypt in 605 BCE Judah and Babylon had been allies during the reign of King Josiah of Judah—indeed, Josiah died in 609 BCE in an attempt to stop the Egyptian army from coming to the aid of the Assyrians in their final battle against the combined forces of the Babylonians and Medes at Haran. Overall, the book reaffirms YHWH’s commitment to bring down the oppressor of Judah, both in the oracles concerning Babylon in Hab 2:6–20 and in the psalm of lament in Habakkuk 3. Because the book post-dates Josiah’s reign, it may have been incorporated into the emerging Book of the Twelve, including Hosea; Amos; Micah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; Haggai; and Zechariah in the late-sixth century BCE where it would have functioned as a witness to YHWH’s commitment to bring down the Babylonian Empire and possibly the Persian Empire as well. The book of Zephaniah is fundamentally concerned with Judean kingship, however, insofar as it is written to support King Josiah’s programme of national and religious restoration.20 The superscription of the book in Zeph 1:1 places the book expressly in the reign of Josiah, and it is formulated as Zephaniah’s 19  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 451–490. 20  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 491–526; idem, Zephaniah.

Kingship

499

exhortation to the people of Judah to turn to YHWH and thereby to support King Josiah’s reform. As described in 2 Kings 22–23, Josiah ruled during the latter part of the seventh century BCE (640–609 BCE), following the assassination of his father, Amon ben Manasseh (642–640 BCE) by members of the royal court who were anxious to revolt from Judah’s suzerain, the Assyrian Empire. Josiah was only eight years old when he came to the throne, and so some sort of regency would have ruled the nation until he came of age. But as Josiah came of age, it was becoming increasingly obvious that Assyria was on the decline and that the Neo-Babylonian Empire and its Medean supporters were in a position to bring it down. 2 Chr 34:34 states that Josiah turned to YHWH in his eighth year and began to purge foreign shrines in his twelfth year, which would have been when he was twenty, and 2 Kgs 22:3/2 Chr 34:8 states that he began to purify the Jerusalem Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign when he would have been twenty-six.21 Coincidentally, Josiah’s twelfth year, 628 BCE, coincides with the beginning of Babylonia’s revolt against Assyria with the support of its Medean allies. Just as Josiah’s great-grandfather, Hezekiah, had allied with Babylon to oppose Assyria, so Josiah allied with Babylon to oppose Assyria and its Egyptian allies. During Josiah’s Temple renovation, a Torah scroll was found in the Temple— believed by many to be an early form of Deuteronomy—which served as the basis for Josiah’s religious reforms. Jerusalem was cleared of its idolatrous religious installations, and Josiah even moved against Beth El, the former royal sanctuary of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, in a bid to unite both Israel and Judah in the worship of YHWH at Jerusalem. Scholars have determined that an early Josianic edition of the Deuteronomistic History was written to point to Josiah as the righteous Davidic monarch who would bring about the restoration of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah in the aftermath of Assyria’s collapse.22 Zephaniah is organized to appeal to the people of Judah to support Josiah’s reforms. The prophet’s exhortation in Zeph 1:2–3:20 appears in two major segments. The first is Zeph 1:2–18, in which the prophet announces the coming day of YHWH as a day of judgment against all those who do not adhere to YHWH. Many interpreters under the influence of Christianity’s understanding of final eschatological judgment view the Day of YHWH motif as a late addition to the individual books that facilitates the final redaction of the Book of the Twelve.23 But the Day of YHWH is nothing more than a motif that announces YHWH’s 21  For treatment of 2 Kings 22–23, see Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 434–452. 22  Sweeney, King Josiah. 23  For discussion, see Cathcart, “Day of Yhwh,” 84–85.

500

Sweeney

impending actions against enemies, whether they are among the nations or even among Israel or Judah, as Isaiah’s use of the motif in Isa 10:24–26 in reference to Gideon’s defeat of Midian at the Rock of Oreb (Judges 7) and YHWH’s defeat of Pharaoh at the Red Sea (Exodus 14–15) indicate. Zephaniah 2–3 then presents the prophet’s exhortation to the people to seek Yhwh before the Day of Judgment comes, explicitly stated in Zeph 2:1–3. The basic exhortation is backed up by oracles against the nations that Josiah intended to defeat, including the Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Cush (Ethiopia/Egypt), and Assyria, that had encroached upon Judean territory. Once these nations are defeated, Jerusalem would be restored as YHWH would return to Zion to reclaim her as the divine bride. Because Zephaniah was written to motivate support for Josiah’s reform, it constituted the culmination of the Josian Book of the Four. Following Josiah’s death, Zephaniah would have been read as a warning of the impending Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the late-sixth and late-fourth/earlyfifth century editions of the Book of the Twelve. 6 The book of Haggai is expressly written with Davidic kingship in mind.24 Together with Zechariah bar Iddo, Haggai is mentioned in Ezra 5:1; 6:14 as one of the two prophets who supported efforts to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple during the early years of the reign of the Achaemenid Persian monarch, Darius the Great (522–486 BCE). Darius was the son-in-law of Cyrus the Great (550–530 BCE) and the brother-in-law of Cyrus’s son and successor, Cambyses (530–522 BCE). When Cambyses died unexpectedly following his successful campaign against Egypt, Darius, a general in the army, spent some five years putting down the revolts that broke out throughout the Persian Empire. As part of his efforts to win allies for the Achaemenid dynasty, he provided support to Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the newly appointed governor of Judah and Joshua ben Jehozadak, the priest, to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple during the years 520–515 BCE. The superscription for the book of Haggai in Hag 1:1 indicates that the prophet began to speak in the second year of Darius, 520 BCE, in support of building the Second Temple. His oracles are formulated as a series of four dated disputation speeches that are designed to refute arguments against building the Temple and therefore to motivate the people to commence work. The first 24  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 527–557.

Kingship

501

oracle in Hag 1:1–15 argues that the reason that people have experienced difficult economic conditions is because they have not yet begun to build the Temple. Hag 2:1–9 argues that YHWH is about to shake the heavens and the earth, an apparent reference to revolts throughout the Persian Empire against Achaemenid rule, so that the nations of the world will recognize YHWH at Jerusalem. Hag 2:10–19 maintains that the Temple must be built to ensure the purity of the people’s offerings to YHWH. And finally, Hag 2:20–23 provides the culminating argument, namely that the building of the Temple will inaugurate Yhwh’s actions to overthrow the Persian Empire, much as YHWH defeated Egypt at the Exodus, so that Zerubbabel might be recognized as YHWH’s signet, or monarch. Insofar as Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel was the grandson of King Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim of Judah who had been exiled to Babylon in 597 bce, Haggai argues that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple will instigate the restoration of the House of David as the ruling monarchy over Judah. Such a view directly challenges Isaiah 40–55 and the book of Isaiah as whole that maintained that Cyrus was YHWH’s Messiah and Temple Builder (Isa 44:28; 45:1) and that the eternal Davidic covenant had been transferred from the House of David to the people of Israel at large. Similar concerns for the restoration of the House of David inform the composition of the book of Zechariah.25 Scholars typically divide Zechariah into the account of Zechariah’s visions in Zechariah 1–8 and an allegedly later proto-apocalyptic account of YHWH’s final battle against the nations of the world in Zechariah 9–14.26 This division is justified to a certain extent, but it must be reconsidered in relation to the configuration of the book as a response to the book of Isaiah, a reconsideration of the formal structure of the book, and the role played by the house of David in both parts of the book. Most scholars note the differentiation in the identification of Zechariah as Zechariah bar Iddo in Ezra 5:1; 6:14 and as Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo in Zech 1:1 by positing that Ezra 5:1; 6:14 simply refer to his grandfather.27 Zechariah’s true name is indeed Zechariah bar/ben Iddo, but the name Zechariah ben Berechiah ben Iddo is a deliberate intertextual reference to Isa 8:1–4. When Isaiah’s son Mahar-shalal-hash-baz, “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens,” was born, the prophet commissioned two witnesses to the birth, Uriah the Priest and Zechariah ben Jeberechiah. Their role would be to confirm the boy’s name and its significance for positing a coming period of judgment. Basic Hebrew grammar points to the interrelationship between the two 25  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 559–709. 26  E.g., Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 110–125. 27  E.g., Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 128–129.

502

Sweeney

names. Jeberechiah is a theophoric name based on the imperfect, future form of the verb to bless, i.e., YHWH will bless (after the judgment has been completed), whereas Berechiah is a theophoric name based on the perfect, past form of the verb to bless, i.e., YHWH has blessed (now that the judgment has been completed). Zechariah’s name as presented in Zech 1:1 already indicates that the book of Zechariah is understood in relation to Isaiah. Second, Zechariah’s oracles relate the significance of the construction of the Jerusalem Temple, including the four horsemen who signal the commencement of construction in Zech 1:7–17; the construction of the four horns of the Temple altar in Zech 2:1–4; the measurement of the city of Jerusalem without walls, superior to the wall-less holy Persian city of Persagadae in Zech 2:5–17; the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak as high priest of the Temple in Zech 3:1–10; the portrayal of the anointed figures of Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel as the future Davidic King and Joshua ben Jehozadak as the High Priest in Zech 4:1–14; the flying scroll read from the Temple porch, which curses those who do wrong in Zech 5:1–4; the expulsion of wickedness from Jerusalem to Shinar (Babylon) in Zech 5:5–11; and the coronation of a figure who is enthroned with a priest at his side in Zech 6:1–15. The problem with this last vision is that Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the descendant of the house of David, is the figure expected to be crowned, but instead the text identifies the figure as the high priest Joshua ben Jehozadak. No one knows what happened to Zerubbabel, but he is missing in the account of the consecration of the new Temple in Ezra 6 and some scholars speculate that he was removed somehow by the Persians who viewed him as vying to restore the Davidic monarchy as indicated by Haggai.28 Nevertheless, it appears that Zerubbabel was the figure originally intended for the coronation in Zechariah 6. Finally, the formal structure of the book of Zechariah must be reconsidered.29 Although scholars typically divide Zechariah into two parts as described above, a reconsideration of its introductory chronological formulas in Zech 1:1; 1:7; and 7:1 point to a very different structural arrangement for the book. Zech 1:1, which dates the following material to the eighth month of the second year of Darius introduces Zech 1:1–6, which calls for the people to return to YHWH. Zech 1:7, which dates the following material to the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month of the second year of Darius, introduces the vision reports concerning the significance of the building of the Second Temple in Zech 1:7–6:15. And finally, Zech 7:1, which dates the following material to the fourth day of the ninth month of the fourth year of Darius 518 BCE, introduces the following material 28  For discussion, see Beyer, “Zerubbabel,” 1084–1086. 29  See also Sweeney, “Zechariah’s Debate.”

Kingship

503

in Zechariah 7–14, which presents YHWH’s pronouncements concerning the future of Jerusalem in which the nations will ultimately recognize YHWH at the newly restored Temple. Although scholars typically view Zechariah 9–14 as a later composition dating to the Hellenistic age, the portrayal of hostility against the Greeks portrayed in Zech 9:13 cannot be ascribed to the Hellenistic period as Alexander the Great had good relations with Jerusalem and Judah. Instead, such hostility must be read in relation to Darius’s campaign against the Greeks in 517 BCE in which Jews would have been expected to participate as loyal vassals of the Persian Empire. Instead, the two pronouncements in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 explain how the nations would come to recognize YHWH at Jerusalem as signalled by the quotation of Isaiah’s swords into ploughshares passage in Zech 8:20–23 and by the apocalyptic scenarios in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 in which YHWH would wage war, led by YHWH’s own Davidic monarch, against the nations who had oppressed Israel and Judah until they ultimately recognized YHWH as the true G-d of the universe at the newly rebuilt Jerusalem Temple. Zechariah is designed as a response to the book of Isaiah, which called for submission to Persian rule.30 In its earliest form, Zechariah is designed to point to the coronation of Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the grandson of King Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim of Judah, as YHWH’s new Davidic monarch once the Temple is completed. With Zerubbabel’s disappearance, the priest Joshua ben Jehozadak replaced Zerubbabel as the crowned figure in Zechariah 6, and the proto-apocalyptic material in Zechariah 9–14 was added in the Persian period to demonstrates YHWH’s intentions to use a Davidic monarch as part of the divine plan to wage war against the nations that oppressed Judah and to prompt them to recognize YHWH at Jerusalem. Together with Habakkuk and Haggai, Zechariah would have been added to the earlier books to form the basis for a late-sixth century sequence including Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah to point to the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple as the culmination of the process by which the Temple and the House of David would be restored and YHWH would be recognized as the true G-d of the world. Malachi, which does not take up the issue of Kingship, is concerned with the observance of divine Torah in the Jerusalem Temple.31 Together with Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, it forms the basis for the final redaction of the Book of the Twelve, first in the proto-LXX form of the book and later as the proto-MT

30  Cf. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen. 31  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 711–752.

504

Sweeney

form of the book in the late-fifth and early-fourth centuries during the time of Nehemiah and Ezra. 7 Kingship in Israel and Judah is a key concern in the formation of the books of the Twelve, both in the diachronic process of their composition and in their synchronic formulation in both the LXX and the MT forms of the book. Kingship informs the earliest form of the book from the late-seventh century reign of King Josiah of Judah in which Hosea, Amos, Micah, perhaps Nahum, and Zephaniah would have pointed to problems with kingship in the Northern Kingdom of Israel as a basis to call for the restoration of a reunited Israel and Judah based on the rule of the House of David and adherence to YHWH in the Jerusalem Temple. A late-sixth century edition, including Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah would have pointed to the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple as the time when YHWH would also restore the House of David to overthrow Persian rule. Two late-fifth and earlyfourth century editions would point to the centrality of Jerusalem in YHWH’s plans for Judaism and the world. The proto-LXX form, including Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, would have viewed the experience of the Northern Kingdom of Israel as an example of what would happen to Judah as YHWH purged Jerusalem and Judah to restore Jerusalem as the holy centre of creation. The later-proto-MT form of the book, including Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi ensured that concern with Jerusalem permeated the book as part of an effort to demonstrate how YHWH had purged the city in preparation for its role as the holy centre of creation. In the proto-MT form of the book, Davidic kingship would play a role in the future punishment of the nations that had oppressed Judah as YHWH would be recognized as the true G-d of creation. Bibliography Albertz, Rainer et al. eds. Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Alt, Albrecht. “Hosea 5,5–8,6: Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung.” Pages 163–187 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel 2. Edited by idem. 3rd ed. München: Beck, 1964.

Kingship

505

Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or the Twelve? Some Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Beyer, Bryan E. “Zerubbabel.” ABD 6: 1084–1086. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch. OBO 154. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Cathcart, Kevin J. “Day of Yhwh.” ABD 2: 84–85. Gelston, Anthony. “Kingship in the Book of Hosea.” OTS 19 (1974): 71–85. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve. 2 vols. SHBC 18a–b. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2011. Page, Stephanie. “A Stela of Adad Nirari III and Nergal Ereš from Tell al Rimah.” Iraq 30 (1968): 139–153. Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1984. Pritchard, James A. Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pritchard, James A. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Redditt, Paul L. and Aaron Schart. eds. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1998. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sweeney, Marvin A. Zephaniah. Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Sweeney, Marvin A. “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 28–35 in Form and Intertextuality in the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by idem. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 175–188 in Form and Intertextuality in the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by idem. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

506

Sweeney

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Zechariah’s Debate with Isaiah.” Pages 222–235 in Form and Intertextuality in the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Edited by idem. FAT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. 1 and 2 Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 40–66. FOTL. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1965–1967. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreiffende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008.

Chapter 27

Geography in the Book of the Twelve Mark J. Boda 1

Vocabulary and Conceptions of Land

The Hebrew term ‫ ארץ‬has various connotations within the texts of the Hebrew Bible. This common word can refer to a land or territory possessed by a people group or nation (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:13), the earth or world as a whole (e.g., Gen 1:1), or the ground or soil (e.g., Amos 3:5).1 A similar semantic range can also be identified for the Hebrew word ‫אדמה‬, with glosses ranging from land, ground (especially as clay, soil, e.g., Gen 9:2), to land or territory associated with a people or nation (e.g., Isa 19:17), to the earth or world as a whole (e.g., Gen 12:3).2 More limited in scope is the Hebrew word ‫ׂשדה‬, which refers to land outside urban areas whether cultivated or not (e.g., Gen 25:27; Exod 22:5) or to the territory of a people group (e.g., Gen 14:7).3 Sensitivity to the semantic range of these three dominant words related to the concept of “land” provides initial guidance for tracing this theme throughout the Twelve. The semantic range identifies at least three different ways of conceptualizing land. The first way is what could be identified as the geo-political landscape, that is, land understood as physical regions controlled by people groups. The second way is what could be called the geo-ecological landscape, that is, land understood as physical formations and their attendant ecological systems. The third way is what could be classified as the geo-cosmic landscape, that is, land understood according to universal/mythic categorization. Such analyses are not confined to these three Hebrew words for land. These words only provide insights into the variety of ways that land may have been understood (emic) or could be classified (etic). Furthermore, it must be admitted that the lines between these categories are difficult to maintain at times, even if they may begin as a useful starting point. It is not revolutionary to note that this theme of “land” has captured the imagination of many within the Hebrew Bible guild who have directed their 1  Clines, Dictionary, 1:384–396. 2  Clines, Dictionary, 1:130–132. The order of glosses reflects the dominance of usage within the Hebrew Bible, which reveals a distinction between these words. 3  Clines, Dictionary, 8:112–115. The dictionary entry multiplies glosses needlessly, but does remind the reader that such fields can be close by urban areas or further afield.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_029

508

Boda

scholarly energy towards the Twelve over the past two decades. Certainly not all works can be included in a review like this, and so it will focus on some key works which are exemplary and have proved helpful. These works each provide coverage of this theme beyond single books within the Twelve4 and are largely focused on the first two of the categories identified above, that is, the geo-ecological and geo-political, even though the geo-cosmic can be discerned at times. 2

Past Research on Land in the Twelve

2.1 Geo-Ecological Landscape Analysis Research on the geo-ecological landscape of the Twelve has been undertaken by many scholars on particular books, but three in particular have provided helpful insights into its impact on understanding the overall shape of the Twelve. Laurie Braaten highlighted the motif of land throughout the Twelve, noting especially its function as a bracketing device by appearing in the opening and closing pericopae and books of the collection (Hos 1:2/Mal 3:24; Hosea–Joel/Malachi). The “agricultural bounty of the land is a gift of God […] Likewise, the people, who are the offspring of their father Yhwh and the land, had been sown on the land, and are expected to take root there and bear fruit for God.”5 Braaten noted two types of divine sowing: On the one hand, God will sow judgement on a people who violate their neighbour and God’s land through bloodshed and whoredom. On the other hand, God promises to act for the sake of the created order and reverse this judgement and sow salvation for God’s people, land, and even the animals. In the days of the post-exilic hearers of the Twelve, the intergenerational people of God have experienced, to some extent, both types of God’s sowing. The hearers of the Twelve themselves, however, stand once again between these two poles of God’s sowing; they have experienced God’s judgement and await anew the promises of salvation.6

4  I prefer to use the term “the Twelve” rather than “the Book of the Twelve” to signal my understanding that there are distinct literary units within what became a collection. 5  Braaten, “God,” 109. Braaten also notes an inner frame of Hos 3 and Hag 1–Zech 8 that contains intertextual links and focuses on the healing of the land. 6  Braaten, “God,” 111.

Geography

509

The second key scholar was James Nogalski who includes “Fertility of the Land” among the recurring themes that he traces through the Twelve. This topic he finds developed in Hosea, Joel, Amos, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Fertility is a gift from God yet, according to Hosea, has been “squandered on the worship of other deities (Hos 2).”7 The infertility of the land, caused either by “natural calamity” (Joel 1:2–2:17; Amos 4:6–12; Hag 1:6, 10–11; 2:15–19) or “the aftermath of war” (Joel 1:6–7; 2:1–11; Amos 9:14; Hab 3:16–17) is a form of divine punishment for Israel’s infidelity.8 Renewed fertility is “a sign that the relationship with Yhwh has been restored” (e.g., Hos 2; 14; Joel 2:12–27; 4:19; Amos 9:13–14; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi).9 The third key scholar is Mary Mills whose study of Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy draws on the field of psycho-geography to analyze “the construction of the city within the collective consciousness of its population.”10 While Mills does deal with other prophetic books beyond the Twelve (Ezekiel, Isaiah 40–66), she attends to the Twelve in the majority of her analyses. In her introductory section she traces the symbolic role of temple and city in Joel before analyzing the presentation of urban space within Jonah, Zech 1–8, and various books among the Twelve presenting the motif of “city as deathscape” (Joel, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum). Mills highlights the way these prophetic texts identify the temple as the key connection between urban and cosmic space, identify the city as a location of violence and destruction, and use fertility (associated with rural space) to criticize urban culture. 2.2 Geo-Political Landscape Analysis David Morgan has written a helpful essay that combines insights from both the geo-ecological and geo-political landscapes. In his comparison of Ezekiel and the Twelve, he identifies the destruction and restoration of Land, People, and Nations in preparation for temple building as key markers of inner coherence within and interconnection between these two literary corpora. Speaking of the Twelve, he summarizes: “the Twelve incorporate all these elements to provide a coherent program for the removal and the restoration of the land and people in relation to and dependent on a restored Jerusalem temple as the centre for the worship of the nations.”11 Morgan highlights the key role played by Hosea–Joel at the outset of the collection, as well as the bracketing role of 7  Nogalski, “Recurring Themes,” 128. 8  Nogalski, “Recurring Themes,” 128–129. 9  Nogalski, “Recurring Themes,” 129. 10  Mills, Imagination, ix; cf. idem, “Narrative”; and see further work on psycho-geography on the Twelve by Prinsloo, “Watchtower.” 11  Morgan, “Ezekiel,” 385.

510

Boda

Hosea and Malachi (Hos 1:2/Mal 3:12). He also highlights the focus of Amos– Zephaniah (tagged as “the So-Called OAN of the Twelve”) on the nations intertwined with the motifs of land and people/ruler, and then Haggai–Malachi which focuses on land, people/ruler, and nations as they relate to the temple. For Morgan both “Ezekiel and the Twelve share similar concerns with the role and restoration of the pervasive themes of land, people/ruler, and nations.”12 Burkard Zapff considers geo-political elements by treating the theme of the nations in the Twelve, tracing the perspective on the nations in Jonah, Joel, and Nahum and comparing it to the perspective found in Micah.13 With diachronic interests Zapff begins by noting connections between Jonah and Joel, adopting Schart’s view that Jonah criticizes Joel satirically in its position on a nationalistic-particularistic isolation. Then he notes connections between Jonah and Nahum in their shared attention on Nineveh and closing question, but also their disconnection in terms of the nation’s repenting rather than experiencing total judgement. Read sequentially Nahum is a correction of Jonah (with Schart), but also the use of Exod 34:6–7 in Nah 1:2 overturns the universal, undiscriminating judgement of Joel 4, restricting it to the enemies of Yhwh. Nahum 1:2–3 explains that the judgement came over Nineveh because of the revelation of Yhwh in Exod 34:6–7. Zapff then brings this presentation of the nations in Joel, Jonah, and Nahum into conversation with developments in the book of Micah where the nations attack and defeat Zion because of the sin of Israel, but then Yhwh rises against the nations to destroy the nations (like Joel), leading to the restoration of the exiles and pilgrimage of the nations to Mount Zion where some nations acknowledge Yhwh (like Jonah). Those who do not are destroyed (like Nahum). Similarities between these elements in Micah and Zech 14, suggest these features were incorporated at a later point in the development of the Twelve. Martin Roth’s diachronic analysis of the Twelve uses the theme of nations within Joel, Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. He contrasts the variety of approaches to the nations ranging from judgement through destruction and expulsion (Joel 2; 4), to hope through conversion (Jonah), to hope for the one who submits (Mic 7:7–20*), to universal judgement that applies to the enemies of Yhwh whether in Israel or among the nations (Joel 3; Nah 1:2–8*).14 David Petersen examines discourse concerning the future of the foreign nations in the second half of the Twelve (Nahum–Malachi).15 In his opening 12  Morgan, “Ezekiel,” 394–395. 13  Zapff, “Perspective,” 292–312. 14  Roth, Israel. 15  Petersen, “Israel.”

Geography

511

comments he highlights the fact that more generic language related to the nations in the first half of the Twelve (Hosea–Micah) can nearly all be traced to later editors, concluding that “the earlier books in the Twelve tend to speak of particular cities and nations. Later editors tended to refer to ‘the nations,’ and not to particular states.”16 This dichotomy between the universal and particular is then used to analyze the second half of the Twelve, and he concludes that the particular recedes in the second half, although evident in Zeph 2:5–15 and Zech 9–14 (esp. 9:1–8), and the universal becomes prominent. Peterson links this shift to a larger set of expectations which are of two sorts: “Yahweh fighting against the nations and the nations (subsequently) venerating Yahweh.”17 Reflecting on this shift he concludes that the “oracles against the nations during the monarchic era appear to be rooted in the theo-political world of Jerusalem” with its connection to the rule of Yhwh and the Davidic line.18 The later prophetic material from the Persian period arose in a world within the provincial structure of the Persian empire, when individual nations were no longer important, even as Jewish communities remained dispersed among the nations in a more general sense. The theme of the nations plays a significant role in Jakob Wöhrle’s analysis of the redaction of the Twelve.19 According to Wöhrle, in the early phases of the development of the collection the nations act as divine disciplinary agents against Yhwh’s people, but the additions associated with his Fremdvölker-Korpus I layer around the turn of the fifth to fourth centuries bce (when Nahum/Deutero-Zechariah was added to the Joel Corpus and Haggai– Zechariah Corpus) depicted a judgement of the nations in universal terms, treating the nations as a group as the target of judgement. The additions associated with his Fremdvölker-Korpus II layer around the turn of the fourth to third centuries bce (when Obadiah and Malachi, as well as Habakkuk were added) depicted a judgement of the nations in particular terms, focusing on specific national entities. However, the additions associated with his Heil-für-die-Völker-Korpus in the first half of the third century bce (with the addition of Joel 3–4; Obad 17; Mic 4; 5; 7; Zeph 3; Zech 2; 8; 14) shifted the emphasis by announcing salvation to the nations who are drawn to Zion. The incorporation of additions based on Exod 34:6 (Gnaden-Korpus) in the middle to second half of the third century bce (in Joel 2; Mic 7; Nah 1; Mal 1; and Jonah) also had implications (especially in Jonah) for the message of judgement and 16  Petersen, “Israel,” 158. 17  Petersen, “Israel,” 159. 18  Petersen, “Israel,” 161. 19  Wöhrle, Abschluss; for the foundation for this work see his earlier idem, Sammlungen.

512

Boda

salvation of the nations. Wöhrle’s work helpfully highlighted the key role of the theme of the nations within the Twelve as well as the diversity of approaches that can be discerned, identifying negative and positive stances towards the nations as well as particular and universal depictions of the nations. James Nogalski has also contributed to the analysis of the geo-political landscape of the Twelve by focusing attention on the cities of Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.20 Nogalski observes that the fates of these cities shift as one moves through the Twelve. Samaria and Bethel symbolize the “religious and political problems of the Northern Kingdom in Hosea and Amos, and these problems threaten Jerusalem itself in Micah. By contrast the two later references to Samaria (Obad 19) and to Bethel (Zech 7:2) open the door for political reincorporation and religious reconciliation in a reconstituted Davidic Kingdom.”21 Nogalski’s analysis turns next to the more ubiquitous city of Jerusalem in the Twelve, beginning with its role in the two corpora of the Twelve which he argues existed prior to the Twelve, the Book of the Four Prophets (Hosea–Amos–Micah–Zephaniah), and Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, before moving to the remainder of the Twelve (Nahum, Habakkuk, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, Zech 9–14).22 Jerusalem’s fate in the Book of the Four is destruction “because it failed to heed the warning sent by God first to Samaria and Israel and then to Judah and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, a remnant for Jerusalem will remain and will experience restoration.”23 Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 places Jerusalem’s destruction in the past and treats the present as a significant turning point for its fortunes. The remainder of the Twelve “broaden the implications for Jerusalem’s encounter with the days of Yhwh,”24 beginning with a focus on the painful judgement of Judah in 587, but ultimately expanding to encompass all nations, including Assyria and Babylon. Employing a synchronic methodology, Daniel Timmer also examines the theme of the nations in the books among the Twelve and one can discern trends similar to what Wöhrle had highlighted with his vastly different approach.25 Timmer’s observations take into account temporal distinctions in presentation, 20  Nogalski, “Jerusalem.” 21  Nogalski, “Jerusalem,” 260. 22  Nogalski, “Jerusalem,” 264. 23  Nogalski, “Jerusalem,” 209. 24  Nogalski, “Jerusalem,” 268. 25  For another synchronic approach, see Escobedo, “Nations,” who focuses on nations related to the Day of Yahweh motif and concludes that “only nations that launched attacks against Israel or Judah that were neither sanctioned nor prompted by Yahweh will be recipients of Yahweh’s hostile intervention on the day of Yahweh. Nations Yahweh raised to inflict punishment on Israel and Judah will not be recipients of Yahweh’s hostile intervention on the day of Yahweh” (abstract).

Geography

513

that is, the nations in the past, present, and future, and notes the significant variety in the development of this theme among the books. Noting that in the books of the Twelve “the initial relationship of the nations to Israel/Judah is always unfavorable, at least in part,”26 he subdivides the twelve books into two groups: “those that leave this initial negative characterization of the nations unchanged, and those that describe some of the nations as eventually leaving this initial status and coming into a beneficial relationship with Israel/Judah and with Yahweh.”27 The first of these groups, comprising Obadiah, Habakkuk, Hosea, and Nahum, he further divides into four groups based on “the presence or absence of features which attenuate this negative outlook.”28 The second of these groups includes Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. These distinctions are carefully articulated without losing what he considers the coherence of the nations theme across the Twelve. Timmer allows for authors “to articulate more than one perspective on the nations (in the absence of outright contradiction) rather than attributing those aspects of thematic complexity to multiple authors.”29 He also challenges “the hermetic separation of general oracles against the nations from oracles against specific states as the presupposition of chronological order that sees general oracles appearing earlier and specific oracles only later or vice-versa.”30 These examples of recent research on the land, whether focusing on the geo-ecological dimension or geo-political dimension (and at times the geocosmic dimension for both), highlight the key role played by land within this prophetic collection. 3 A Geo-Political Reading of the Land The purpose of what follows is to provide a reading of the geo-political dimensions of the motif of land within the Twelve. I am adopting a somewhat synchronic approach by reading the Twelve as a collection of distinct literary units with an overall cohesive design. But there are diachronic sensibilities as well in this study. First, this study takes into account that these distinct literary units show concern for the historical, either identifying periods in which to read the literary units or leaving such identification ambiguous. Second, this 26  Timmer, Nations, 225. 27  Timmer, Nations, 226. 28  Timmer, Nations, 226. 29  Timmer, Nations, 229. 30  Timmer, Nations, 230.

514

Boda

study reflects not only on the present design of the collection, but also on the way in which those responsible justified the placement of the various literary units in the form found today in the Masoretic tradition. Analysis of the geo-political dimension is based in a rudimentary way on the field of critical space theory and human geography studies.31 Particularly helpful has been Yi-Fu Tuan’s approach to space and place within humanistic geography, in which he laid out the fundamental aim: “Given human nature and the direct experience of space and place in the ordinary world, how can [humanity] have conceived different worlds, more or less abstract, among which being the maps of utopia and the geographer’s own concepts of location?”32 This sensitivity to the distinctions within space theory is reflected in Lefebvre’s distinction between physical, mental, and social space,33 as well as Soja’s tripartite division of Firstspace (physical space), Secondspace (imagined space), and Thirdspace (experienced space).34 But this present work will focus particularly on Yi-Fu Tuan, who began his career at the University of Toronto, before moving to the University of Minnesota and finally the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Tuan defined the humanistic study of space in the following way: “the study of a people’s spatial feelings and ideas in the stream of experience. Experience is the totality of means by which we come to know the world: we know the world through sensation (feeling), perception, and conception.”35 He stresses that space “varies with the individual and cultural group. Mental maps differ from person to person, and from culture to culture,” and the space “we perceive and construct […] provides cues for our behavior.”36 He questions the distinction in geography studies between “geometrical space” and “personal and cultural spaces,” the former being identified as “objective reality” and the latter as “distortions.”37 Yi-Fu Tuan thus emphasized the perspectival nature of human geography. 31  A key sponsor for applying this approach to the study of the Hebrew Bible in general within which there was some coverage of the prophetic books was the five-year (2000– 2005) project of the joint seminar of Constructions of Space at the AAR/SBL. Cf. Berquist and Camp, Constructions I; Berquist and Camp, Constructions II; George, Constructions II; Økland, Constructions III; Prinsloo and Maier, Constructions; note the articles by Prinsloo on Jonah and Habakkuk, as well as Mills on Joel, Jonah, Zech 1–8. Further studies can be found in Gunn and McNutt, eds., Imagining; Mills, Imagination. 32  Tuan, “Space,” 422. 33  Lefebvre, Production. 34  Soja, Thirdspace. 35  Tuan, “Space,” 388. 36  Tuan, “Space,” 389. 37  Tuan, “Space,” 389.

Geography

515

Texts within the Hebrew Bible provide literary artefacts that arose from within the cultural experience of those identified as Israelites and Judeans. These texts contain a variety of mental maps, reflecting different time periods and social groups, but all have been drawn together into a literary collection and its various sub-literary corpora. The present study seeks to trace the mental maps found within the various literary units which constitute the Twelve Prophets in the MT tradition. It will begin by investigating the construction of space within the prophetic books of the Twelve associated with the eighth century bce: Hosea, Amos, and Micah. It then turns to those prophets associated with the sixth century bce: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, before returning to other prophets within the collection.38 3.1 Construction of Space in the Eighth Century Prophets of the Twelve The three books of the Twelve associated with the eighth century prophets are dominated by similar constructions of space. 3.1.1 Hosea Hosea is filled with references to Israel (1:1, 4, 5, 6; 2:1, 2; 3:1, 4, 5; 4:1, 15, 16; 5:1, 3, 5, 9; 6:10; 7:1, 10; 8:2, 3, 8, 14; 9:1, 10; 10:1, 6, 9; 11:1, 8; 12:1, 13, 14; 13:1, 9; 14:2) as well as Ephraim (4:17; 5:3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14; 6:4, 10; 7:1, 8, 11; 8:9, 11; 9:8, 11, 13, 16; 10:6, 11; 11:3, 8, 9; 12:1, 2, 9, 15; 13:1, 12; 14:9). Particular urban centres within the Northern Kingdom are mentioned, including the capital Samaria (6×; 7:1; 8:5, 6; 10:5, 7; 14:1), as well as Gilgal (3×; 4:15; 9:15; 12:12), Beth-aven (3×; 4:15; 5:8; 10:8), Mizpah (1×; 5:1), Gibeah (3×; 5:8; 9:9; 10:9), Ramah (1×; 5:8), Benjamin (1×; 5:8), Gilead (2×; 6:8; 12:12), Shechem (1×; 6:9), Bethel (2×; 10:15; 12:5); Tabor (1×; 5:1), and Jezreel/valley of Jezreel (3×; 1:4, 5; 2:2).39 Judah is featured at times (15×; 1:1, 7; 2:2; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 14; 6:4, 11; 8:14; 10:11; 12:1, 3), with only a general reference to its urban centres (1×; 8:14). There are a few references to “the house of Yhwh/God” (4×; 8:1; 9:4, 8, 15), but there is significant debate over whether these references refer to the land as a whole (e.g., Wolff) or to a shrine (e.g., Garrett), and if the latter, whether this refers to Jerusalem.40 References to the 38  While I am aware of first, second, and third space dimensions, in my work so far I am exploring the second space as I build towards third space reflections in future work. 39  The location of Beth-arbel (10:14) is uncertain, possibly to be placed in the Transjordan midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The valley of Achor (2:15) marks the northern border of Judah and thus the southern boundary of Benjamin. The reference to the transjordanian Baal-Peor is to past tradition (9:10). 40  Wolff, Hosea, 155; Garrett, Hosea, 181; although Garrett does see in 9:15 an allusion to the metaphor of husband-wife and the house as the family.

516

Boda

Levant are limited to Tyre (1×; 9:13) and Aram (1×; 12:12). Admah and Zeboiim are mentioned in 11:8, possibly to be placed in the Dead Sea region, although these references are clearly reflecting ancient tradition and not present reality. Mesopotamia is mentioned in the references to Assyria throughout the book (9×; 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 9:3; 10:6; 11:5, 11; 12:2; 14:4). Egypt is featured as both a present reality (8×; 5:13; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5, 11; 12:2) and past tradition (5×; 2:17; 11:1; 12:10, 14; 13:4). Both Assyria and Egypt are locations associated with exile. Generic global references are limited, including “nations” (‫( )גוים‬3×; 8:8, 10; 9:17) and “peoples” (‫( )עמים‬1×; 9:1). Cosmic language occurs at times, with references to Sheol (13:14), field/sky/ground (2:20), heaven/earth (2:23), land/field/ heaven/sea (4:3), heaven (7:12). 3.1.2 Amos Amos is dominated by ubiquitous general references to Israel (1:1; 2:6, 11; 3:1, 12, 14; 4:5, 12; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 25; 6:1, 14; 7:8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17; 8:2; 9:7, 9, 14) and its capital Samaria (3:9, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 8:14) as well as specific geographical entities in this region including: Bethel (5×; 3:14; 4:4; 5:5, 6; 7:13), Bashan (1×; 4:1), Harmon (1×; 4:3; possibly Hermon), Gilgal (2×; 4:4; 5:5), Carmel (1×; 9:3), and Dan (1×; 8:14). Judah is mentioned at times (3×; 2:4, 5; 7:12), as well as entities within this region, including Jerusalem/Zion (3×; 2:5; 6:1; cf. 9:11) and Beersheba (2×; 5:5; 8:14). Reference is made to the traditional extent of the land of Israel/Judah in 6:14 (from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of the Arabah) and possibly in 8:14 (Dan, Beersheba; cf. Judg 20:1). A more generic form of the extent of the land can be discerned in 8:12 which speaks of “from sea to sea” and “from the north even to the east.” Unlike Hosea there is considerable coverage of the surrounding regions of the Levant, including: Aramean region to the north:41 Damascus (1:3, 5; 5:27) Syria/Aram (1:6) Beth-eden (1:5) Calneh (6:2) Hamath (6:2, 14)

41  See also the reference to Arameans in 1:5 and 9:7 in connection with “Kir.” Whether this refers to the homeland of the Arameans or to the location of their exile, and possibly even an Assyrian capital, see Thompson, “Kir,” 84.

Geography

517

Philistine regions to the southwest:42 Gaza (1:6, 7) Ashdod (1:8; 3:9) Ashkelon (1:8) Ekron (1:8) Philistines (1:8; 6:2; 9:7) Gath (6:2) Transjordanian regions to the east: Edom (1:6, 9, 11; 2:1; 9:12) Teman (1:12; in Edom) Bozrah (1:12; in Edom) Ammon (1:13) Rabbah (1:14; in Ammon) Moab (2:1, 2) Kerioth (2:2; in Moab) Amorites (2:9, 10) Phoenician region to the northwest: Tyre (1:9, 10) While Amos is dominated by the local context of Israel and the Levant, there are a few references to the world beyond, especially Egypt, which is mentioned in connection with both past tradition (2:10; 3:1; 4:10; 9:7), and present/future reality (3:9; 8:8; 9:5). Amos 9:7 refers to Ethiopia, as well as Caphtor and Kir, the former probably being Crete (or Cyprus), and the latter not clearly identified. At times more general terminology is used for the world beyond Israel/Judah: including “the families of the earth” in 3:2 and “nations” in 6:1; 9:9, 12. Cosmic language can be discerned at times with references for example to Sheol (9:2), the sea (9:3), heaven (9:2), upper chambers of the heavens (9:6), dome over the earth (9:6), waters of the sea (5:8; 9:6), and surface of the earth (5:8; 9:6, 8). 3.1.3 Micah While Hosea and Amos are dominated by references to the Northern Kingdom with some exposure to the Southern Kingdom, Micah reverses these trends. Micah contains many references to Jerusalem/Zion (1:1, 5, 9, 12, 13; 3:10, 12; 4:2, 42  Also Caphtor (9:7; Philistines), possibly the homeland of the Philistines, and possibly Crete/Cyprus in the Mediterranean; see Hess, “Caphtor.”

518

Boda

8, 10, 11, 13) and to the temple (1:2, 3; 3:12; 4:1, 2). But the book looks beyond this centre to Judah as a whole (1:1, 9; 5:1), and entities throughout this region, especially in the Shephelah: Moresheth-gath (1:1, 14), Beth-le-aphrah (1:10), Shaphir (1:11), Zaanan (1:11), Beth-ezel (1:11), Maroth (1:12), Lachish (1:13), Achzib (1:14), Mareshah (1:15), Adullam (1:15), but also in the hill country: Bethlehem Ephrathah (5:1). While the Southern Kingdom receives the greatest exposure, at times the Northern Kingdom is mentioned, with references to Samaria (3×; 1:1, 5, 6). References to Israel throughout the book at times designate the Northern Kingdom, but at others refer more generally to the people associated with Yhwh (1:5, 13, 14, 15; 2:12; 3:1, 8; 4:14–5:2). Unlike Amos and similar to Hosea Micah makes few references to entities in the Levant, providing only passing references to Moab and Shittim in 6:5. As with Hosea and Amos Micah refers only a few times to the world beyond the Levant, with allusions to Babylon (4:10), Assyria (5:4–5; 7:12), the Euphrates (7:12), and Egypt (7:12, 15). One of the references to Egypt concerns past tradition (7:15). There is more general terminology for the world beyond Israel/Judah, for which terms like “nations” (4:2, 3, 10; 5:7, 14; 7:16) and “peoples” (4:3, 5; 5:7), and “the earth” (1:2, earth and all it contains; 4:13, all the earth; 5:3, ends of the earth) are employed. Micah 7:12 uses both specific language for the extent of the earth (Assyria to the cities of Egypt; Egypt even to the Euphrates), but also more general language (from sea to sea and mountain to mountain). Cosmic language is incorporated in only a few instances with contrasts like mountains/valleys (1:4) and mountains/hills/ foundations of the earth (6:1–2). 3.1.4 Summary of the Eighth Century Prophets of the Twelve What we find then in the eighth century prophets are constructions of space dominated by the limited world of the Israelite Kingdoms. Amos provides significant coverage of the Levant and thus contrasts Hosea and Micah. The world beyond the Levant, i.e., Mesopotamia and Africa, is mentioned at times, reflecting the emerging geo-politics of Mesopotamian intrusion into western Asia. On this broader level Amos is dominated by references to Africa (Egypt), while Hosea and Micah mention both Mesopotamia (esp. Assyria) and Africa (esp. Egypt) equally. More generic global and cosmic language is employed at times. The differences between Hosea/Amos and Micah on the local level are related to the distinct contexts for prophetic activity as noted in their opening verses where Hosea and Amos are depicted as prophesying within the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, while Micah is depicted as prophesying within the Southern Kingdom alone. The differences between Amos and Hosea/Micah beyond the local level (Levant, Mesopotamia/Africa) most likely reveal the

Geography

519

impact of imperial forces on Israel and Judah. Amos is depicted as prophesying during a period of Assyrian weakness, while Hosea and Micah are depicted in the slightly later period of Assyrian resurgence in the Levant. Imperial control over the geo-political entities within the Levant is reflected in the shifting mental maps of the prophets with their greater emphasis on a more constrained local context and an emerging fixation with geo-political entities further afield in Mesopotamia and Africa. 3.2 Constructions of Space in the Sixth Century Prophets of the Twelve With this orientation to the construction of space within the books among the Twelve associated with eighth century prophets, our attention now shifts to those books associated with the sixth century prophets.43 3.2.1 Haggai A deep contrast is evident from the outset of the Haggai–Malachi collection,44 as the initial speeches of Haggai are dominated by a restricted spatial perspective. Haggai 1:2 begins by citing the words of the people which focus on the temple. The prophet’s confrontation may refer to housing (“panelled houses”) in the immediately surrounding urban area, but even this is not certain since it could refer to rural homes since agricultural activity is connected with the audience (1:6; 1:10–11; possibly 1:9). In either case, the restricted context of the family home is in view (1:6, 9). Reference to “mountain” in 1:8 has been linked by most to Lebanon, but this may refer to the temple mount where the temple would be rebuilt,45 and even if it is Lebanon the reference is generic. The second speech at the outset of chapter 2 begins again with a focus on the temple (2:3), but does refer more generally to “the people of the land,” which at least takes into account the broader territory that surrounds the temple mount. The third speech that begins in 2:11 with an address to the priests provides little emphasis on space, although the use of “there” in 2:14 links the conversation to the temple and its sacrificial altar. It is the temple mount which is highlighted at the outset of the next phase of this third speech in 2:15 and which is referred to again in 2:18. However, as in chapter 1, agricultural references in 2:16–17, 19 expand the spatial perspective to the surrounding rural context. Drawing in the narrative backbone of Haggai in 1:1, 3, 12–15; 2:1, 10, 20, provides a political designation for the territory in view, that is Judah (1:1, 14; 2:2; cf. 2:21). Darius 43  As with the eighth century prophets I am approaching these prophets in light of the era in which they are depicted (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1). 44  For my view on this collection see Boda, Exploring I. 45  With thanks to David Deuel, “‘Ascend the Mount’ (Haggai 1:8),” unpublished paper.

520

Boda

is mentioned but without spatial reference. The narrative backbone also provides a reference to the temple (1:14). Beyond this more constricted space of the temple and the surrounding rural territory identified as Judah, there is one reference to a specific foreign geopolitical entity, that is, Egypt in 2:5, but this spatial reference is to a tradition from the distant past, rather than a present reality. Space outside the temple and the Judean rural territory which surrounds it is described with generic global language. Haggai 2:6–9 speaks of “the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land” (2:6), “all the nations” (2×; 2:7), but ties these global creational and political entities to the temple: “this house” (2×; 2:7, 9). The final speech in 2:21–23 again employs generic global language: “the heavens and the earth” (2:21), “kingdoms” (2:22), “the kingdoms of nations” (2:22), with one reference at the outset to “Judah” (2:21). Haggai’s world thus juxtaposes a very constricted geographical context dominated by the temple mount and the surrounding rural region of Judah with a generic global geography. The juxtaposition is strongly contrastive: either restricted to a small rural community gathered around the temple ruins or expanded to the entire globe taking in the nations and kingdoms. 3.2.2 Zechariah The first pericope of Zech 1–8, 1:1–6, begins without reference to space. The narrative introduction echoes those found near the end of Haggai (2:10, 20), suggesting a continuation of the spatial context found in Haggai. The vision report-oracle section in 1:7–6:15 begins with a generic spatial context: “among the myrtle trees” (1:8, 10, 11). Use of the term ‫מצלה‬, however, suggests a spiritual if not cosmic dimension to this space,46 as will be borne out in later visions in Zech 3, 4 and 6:1–8 with their common allusions to divine council traditions,47 as well as the description of heavenly beings operating “between earth and heaven” in chapter 5. Throughout Zech 1:7–6:15 there are references to the temple and its courts (1:16; 3:7; 4:9; 6:12–15), but the emphasis is on Jerusalem (1:12, 14, 17; 2:2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16; 3:2),48 and Judah (1:12; 2:2, 4, 16). There is one mention of Israel (as opposed to Judah), although this may be a reference to the people of Israel and Judah (2:2). More general terminology does appear at times in connection with the local context, whether the “holy land” in 2:16, the iniquitous land in 3:9, or the vine/fig tree in 3:10. Spatial 46  On the debate over the meaning of this word see Boda, Book, 124–125. See also God’s “holy habitation” in 2:17, which is probably related to the divine council imagery and location seen in 6:1–5. 47  Boda, Book, 104. 48  Josiah’s house in 6:10 is either related to the temple or is in or near Jerusalem.

Geography

521

references beyond this local context are most often more generic, whether “the land of the north” in 2:10; 6:6, or 8, “the land of the south” in 6:6, or “the land of Shinar” in 5:11.49 Specific reference is made to Babylon in 2:11 and 6:10, both pericopae which stand outside the night vision reports proper and function as rhetorical responses to the night vision sequences that precede them. There are regular references to “all the earth/land” (1:11; 4:14; 5:3, 6; 6:5, 7[2×]) which most likely has a generic global nuance.50 In Zech 1:7–6:15, thus, we see a similar trend to what was observed in Haggai: a spatial focus on the Jerusalem environs and Judah juxtaposed with generic global references. Spatial reference to the temple is found at two points in Zech 7–8 (7:3; 8:9), and there are many references to Jerusalem both in the past (7:7) and the present/future (8:2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, 22). Jerusalem of the present is mentioned alongside Bethel (7:2), while Jerusalem of the past is described as embedded within its specific Judean context: with the towns around Jerusalem, the Negev, and the Shephelah in 7:7. The past also triggers reflection on the more generic land, identified as the pleasant land which became the desolated land (7:14).51 As the passage progresses, however, there is an increasing generic global development in the language, interestingly at the precise point in the passage where the community experiences exile in 7:14 (“all the nations”) and looks in hope for a return: “the land of east/west” (8:7), “many cities” (8:20), “many peoples and mighty nations” (8:22), and “ten people from all the nations” (8:23). Beginning with Zech 9, however, the spatial perspective shifts considerably. The two major units of Zech 9–14, 9:1–11:3 and 12:1–14:21, are distinct from one another. Both sections make passing references to the temple (9:8; 14:21), but include multiple references to Jerusalem (9:9, 10, 13; 12:2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21), as well as to Judah (9:7, 13; 10:3, 6; 12:2, 4, 5, 7; 14:14, 21). Locations in the Northern Kingdom of Israel appear in both sections: Gilead in 10:10, Bashan and Jordan in 11:2–3, and the plain of Megiddo in 12:11, although this reference to Megiddo is a past event used for comparison.52 One difference is the dominance of more generic global language in 12:1–14:21,53 as well as cosmic language, with the reference to heaven/ 49  “The four winds of heaven” (2:10) are also indicative of this generic global sense. 50  See Boda, Book, 131–130. 51  References to house of Judah (8:13, 15, 19) and house of Israel (8:13) also suggest the more defined portions of land beyond Jerusalem. 52  There is reference to Ephraim in Zech 9:10 and 10:7; the house of Joseph in 10:6. Mention of Israel in 12:1 is uncertain. 53  All the nations of the earth in Zech 12:3; the peoples in 12:4; all the surrounding peoples/ all the nations in 12:6; all the nations 14:2; those nations in 14:3; all the surrounding nations in 14:14; all the nations in 14:16, 19; the families of the earth in 14:17; and the nations in 14:18.

522

Boda

earth in 12:1 and the transformation of the heavenly lights and quaking of the earth in 14:5–7. At times the land of Judah is in view, certainly in 14:10 and possibly in 14:9. Reference to the eastern/western seas in 14:8 may suggest the land of Judah. Judah and Jerusalem are subdivided in 14:10 with references to Geba and Rimmon in 14:10a and specific areas within Jerusalem in 14:10b (Benjamin’s Gate, First Gate, Corner Gate, Tower of Hananel, king’s wine presses). While 12:1–14:21 is dominated by generic global language, 9:1–11:3 only uses such language in passing (9:10; 10:9, 11), and instead provides exposure to the regions immediately surrounding the traditional lands of Judah/Israel in the Levant: ranging from the Arameans (land of Hadrach, Damascus, Hamath) in 9:1–2; the Phoenicians (Tyre and Sidon) in 9:2–3; the Philistines (Ashkelon/ Gaza/Ekron/Ashdod) in 9:5–7; and Lebanon in 10:10; 11:1. Assyria is also mentioned alongside Egypt in 10:10, 11 and Greece in 9:13. Among these only Egypt is featured in 12:1–14:21, singled out in 14:18–19 for punishment among all the nations. Thus, in terms of space the two sections of Zech 9–14 share the same geographical centre of temple, Jerusalem, and Judah, but contrast one another in terms of that which is emphasized beyond this centre. Zechariah 9:1–11:3 provides exposure to the northern territory (or people) of Israel, as well as those specific surrounding lands in the Levant and then Mesopotamia, Africa, and Europe, while Zech 12:1–14:21 is more generically global. What lies between these two sections is 11:4–17 which features the breaking of the bond between Israel and Judah based on the frustration of the royal shepherd figure with other local leaders and imperial influences. It also refers to the temple (11:13) and may use generic global language (11:6, 16: land/earth; 11:10: all the peoples). 3.2.3 Malachi Although the majority of Malachi is constrained geographically to issues related to the temple, Jerusalem, and Judah, there are indications at the beginning and end of the book that a broader context is in view. The confrontation of Edom/Esau is used to remind the reader from the beginning of the undefined global dimensions of the rule of Yhwh (1:5, Yhwh will be magnified beyond the border of Israel). These global dimensions are referred to in the next pericope: in 1:11 (“from the rising of the sun even to its setting … among the nations … among the nations”) and 1:14 (“among the nations”). These two references, however, are carefully juxtaposed with the dishonouring activity of the priests/laity at the temple, and this more constrained context dominates the remainder of the book. Near the end, though, in 3:12 the perspective shifts for a moment to “all the nations” and a generic reference to Judah as “a delightful land,” as the nations call blessed those who will repent in relation to

Geography

523

supporting the temple. Horeb is mentioned in 3:22, but only in terms of the traditional past, much as Egypt in Hag 2:5. 3.2.4 Summary of the Sixth Century Prophets of the Twelve The Haggai–Malachi corpus displays two general trends: the land of the Jewish community is reduced to the temple and Jerusalem with more generic references to Judah. The outside world is pictured in very general global terms. One key exception, however, is Zech 9:1–11:3, a passage which pictures the immediately surrounding regions of the Levant. Reflection on Contrasts between the Eighth and Sixth Century Prophets of the Twelve How then do we understand the contrast and connection between dominant constructions of space that are found within the Twelve, the one observed among the prophetic sections associated with the eighth century and the other among those sections associated with the sixth century? Past traditio-historical, inner biblical allusion, and intertextual studies have shown that at least the Zecharian core which anchors the Haggai–Malachi corpus highlights points of continuity and possibly also discontinuity with the “earlier prophets.”54 This is seen first through explicit references to and employment of the “earlier prophets” in Zech 1–8, then in the identification of Haggai and Zechariah as “earlier prophets” whose words had enduring relevance in Zech 8, and finally through employment of the words of the “earlier prophets” throughout Zechariah, reaching a climax in Zech 9–14. Thus, it is possible to treat Haggai–Malachi as a literary artefact reflecting interaction not only with the phrases, tropes, and themes of the “earlier prophets” among which are the eighth century prophets among the Twelve, but also with the mental mapping of these prophetic forbearers. The shift towards a more localized/global contrast and more generic language is evident in a trajectory which can be discerned in the eighth century prophets. While the local/global contrast and generic character of the mapping in Haggai–Malachi dominates, there is an exception in Zech 9–11 which evidences a return to the mental map of the eighth century prophets only to shift back to the local/global contrast and generic language in Zech 12–14 and Malachi. How do we account for this shift back to the eighth century mental map in Zech 9–11? My suggestion is that it is related to the fact that this section begins 3.3

54  Boda, Exploring II.

524

Boda

by depicting the renewal of the Davidic throne at Jerusalem (Zech 9:9–10) and ends by depicting the demise of the Davidic shepherd (Zech 11:4–16).55 Of course, one might contest that the Davidic hope is raised in Hag 2:20–23 (with Zerubbabel as signet ring and divine choice), in Zech 3 and 6 (with the reference to the coming Sprout), and in Zech 4 (with the oracles addressed to and about Zerubbabel). However, all of these references to the Davidic tradition are limited to the restoration of the temple and renewal of the cult, and do not speak specifically of political renewal at Jerusalem. It is at Zech 9:1–10, with its depiction of the march of the Divine King and the installation of the Davidic King, that we see the return to the eighth century mental map, a map from an earlier royal age, a map that soon dissipates with the demise of the Davidic hope in Zech 11. The Twelve thus provides us with evidence of a community creating and revising their identity over centuries. Key to this identity formation is their communal mental map, their conception of their world. 3.4 Beyond the Eighth and Sixth Century Prophets of the Twelve Having traced these trends within the two key groups of prophetic texts within the Twelve, we now turn to the other six literary units within the Twelve to compare their mental maps with those already described. 3.4.1 Joel The book of Joel bears striking similarity to what we have observed in the book of Zechariah. Chapter 1 is dominated by the limited perspective we have observed at times in Haggai and Zechariah, as it constricts space to the house of the Lord/God (1:9, 13, 14) and speaks generically of the land and fields surrounding this sacred shrine (1:2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20). Chapters 2–3 continue referencing this limited space, referring to the temple (2:17) and speaking generically of the land and fields (2:1, 3, 17, 18, 21, 22), but also expanding the perspective to include the city of Jerusalem/Zion which surrounds the temple (2:1, 9, 15, 23; 3:5). Here we encounter more cosmic language as earth, heavens, sun, moon, stars are affected (2:10) and the eastern/western seas are referenced (2:20) in chapter 2 while the heavens, earth, sun and moon are affected in chapter 3 (3:3, 4). The temple is featured once in chapter 4 (4:18) which continues the emphasis on the city of Jerusalem/Zion (4:1, 6, 16, 20, 21), as well as Judah (4:1, 6, 8, 19–20) and possibly Israel (4:16; cf. 4:2). Chapter 4 continues the cosmic perspective with sun, moon, stars, heavens, and earth affected (4:15, 55  Boda, “Figuring.”

Geography

525

16). But in chapter 4 there is also generic global language used for the nations (4:9, 11, 12), alongside specific references to political entities in the Levant (4:4, 19; Tyre, Sidon, Philistia, Edom) as well as in Africa (4:19; Egypt), Europe (4:6; Greeks) and Arabia (4:8; Sabeans). These are features already encountered in the spatial perspective of Haggai–Malachi. Interestingly, the specific political entities found in Joel 4 (Tyre, Sidon, Philistia, Egypt, Greece) are all mentioned in Zech 9:1–11:3 (which adds Hadrach, Damascus, Hamath, specific Philistine entities, Greece, Lebanon, Assyria). References to “the sons of Judah and Jerusalem” alongside “Greeks” in 4:6 echoes Zech 9:13.56 There are resonances between the cosmic perspective of Joel 4 and that of Zech 14. 3.4.2 Obadiah There is a balance between the various levels in the construction of space within Obadiah. Since this book announces judgement on Edom for its betrayal of Israel, not surprisingly the two main spaces are Edom (1, 8) with its associated locations of mountain of Esau (8, 9, 19, 21) and Teman (9), and Jerusalem (11, 20) along with Mount Zion (16, 17, 21). There are references to other regions within Judah, including the Negev (19, 20) and the Shephelah (20). The Northern Kingdom is brought into view at times with references to Ephraim (19), Samaria (19), Gilead (19), and Benjamin (19). In terms of the Levant, reference is also made to Philistia (19) and Zarephath (20).57 The only possible mention of a location further afield is to Sepharad (20), most likely Lydia of Sardis in Asia Minor.58 At times Obadiah employs generic global language in its use of “nations” (1, 2, 15, 16), and some cosmic language in its passing reference to “stars” in verse 4. 3.4.3 Jonah The book of Jonah has the simplest geographical references among the books of the Twelve. Three specific locations are named: Joppa (1:3), Nineveh (1:2; 56  Not surprisingly, the verses in which these specific references are found in Joel 4 have been identified as later additions to Joel. Wolff, Joel, 74–75, notes that Joel 4:4–8, 18–21 are later additions. He especially notes ‫ וגם‬in 4:4 and the phrase “on that day it will come to pass” which is used “particularly in Zech 12–14 (chapters that are related to 4:18–21 in content) but also in Is 24, 27 and Ezek 38–39.” Also the reference to Egypt and Edom sets apart the passage from main content of chapter. Wolff admits that use of “sons of Judah” is like 4:8 (cf. 4:6) but cannot attribute the hand of 4:18–21 to that of 4:4–8 since foreign nations are different ones, differing themes and language are used, and language and meter is similar to the rest of Joel in 4:18–21. 57  Zarephath lay between Tyre and Sidon. 58  See Wineland, “Sepharad.”

526

Boda

3:2–7; 4:11; cf. 4:5) and Tarshish (1:3; 4:2). In the two speeches of the prophet to Yhwh reference is made to “your holy temple” (2:6, 8) and “my land” (4:2). The more generic term “the sea” is used throughout the narrative of chapter 1 (1:9, 11, 12, 13, 15) and more cosmic language in the prayer of chapter 2 (depths of Sheol; deep/seas/currents/breakers/billows; great deep; roots of mountains/ the earth/the pit; dry land; 2:3, 4, 6, 7, 11). 3.4.4 Nahum The book of Nahum emphasizes a spatial context far beyond the traditional borders of Israel. While there are passing references to Judah (2:1), Bashan and Carmel (1:4), and Lebanon (1:4), the focus is either on Mesopotamia with references to Assyria (3:18) and Nineveh (1:1; 2:9; 3:7), or on Africa with references to Egypt (3:9) and its urban centre Thebes (No-Amon; 3:8) or river Nile (3:8), as well as Cush (Ethiopia), Put, and Libya (3:9). The more generic “nations” are featured in Nahum (3:4, 5), as well as “kingdoms” (3:5). The cosmic language of seas, rivers, mountains, hills, earth, and world appears in 1:4. 3.4.5 Habakkuk Habakkuk displays very little concern with the local context with only one reference to Yhwh in his holy temple (2:20).59 There is some focus on the broader Levant, with references to Lebanon (2:17), the Edomite entity of Teman, locations further south of Mount Paran (3:3), and Midian (3:7). Mesopotamia is in view in the reference to Chaldeans in 1:6. The identity of Cushan in 3:7 is highly debated.60 Habakkuk is dominated by global and cosmic language with references to “nations” (1:5, 17; 2:5, 8; 3:12), “peoples” (2:5, 8), “kings/rulers” (1:10), as well as to Sheol (2:5), “all the earth” (2:20), heavens/earth (3:3), mountains/ hills (3:6), rivers/sea (3:8), mountains/deep (3:10), sun/moon (3:11), sea/many waters (3:15). 3.4.6 Zephaniah Zephaniah61 focuses attention on the local context of Jerusalem/Zion (1:4, 12; 3:11, 16, 18) and its constituent parts including the Fish Gate, Mishneh, and Machtesh (1:10–11). Judah is mentioned in 1:1, 4 and the more general term 59  This is clearly a redactional piece; see Boda, Exploring I, 211–217. 60  See Baker, “Cushan.” 61  The book modulates between the global/cosmic and the local, especially in the first chapter. Roberts, Nahum, 169, notes the initial interest in universal judgement then moving to judgement on the people of Israel, but sees this as common in prophets, so not a necessary indication of redactional levels.

Geography

527

“Israel” in 3:13, 14, 15. There are several references to the surrounding Levant region with the mention of the Philistine entities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Ekron (2:4, 7),62 as well as the Transjordanian entities of Moab and Ammon (2:8, 9). Mesopotamia is mentioned in the passing reference to Assyria and Nineveh in 2:13 and Africa (Cush) is referenced in 2:12. Global language appears at times, with references to “the humble of the earth” (1:3), “coastlands of the nations” (2:11), “nations” (3:6, 8), “cities” (3:6), and “kingdoms” (3:8). Cosmic language is employed throughout chapter 1 in the references to “face of the earth/sky/sea” in 1:2–3, “the host of heaven” in 1:5, and “all the earth/all the inhabitants of the earth” in 1:18; 3:8. 3.4.7 Summary Discerning the significance of this data is challenging. The only book in this group of the Twelve that contains a precise historical reference point is Zephaniah (1:1), a feature that is the basis for its inclusion in what is considered the foundational pre-collection of the Twelve, the Book of the Four (Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah). Not surprisingly Zephaniah bears some similarities to the geo-political features of the eighth century prophetic books especially Hosea, with its local emphasis, multiple references to the Levant without some mention of the Mesopotamian/African horizon. Similar to Hosea, Zephaniah is linked to a period when Assyrian power is waning. However, Zephaniah employs considerable cosmic language, a trend that prepares the way for its domination in the final section of the Twelve (Haggai–Malachi). Habakkuk is not linked to a specific era but reflects with Zephaniah the confliction of the shift between Assyrian and Babylonian eras within the Judean community, a period that saw Judah surrounded by the geo-political triangle of the struggle between Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon. Like Zephaniah, Habakkuk employs considerable cosmic language, but unlike it, displays little geo-political rootedness, whether in the local, Levant or Mesopotamia/Africa contexts. Together with Zephaniah Habakkuk increases the cosmic perspective, possibly reflecting the careful expression of prophecy in eras of imperial uncertainty, a trend that will continue into the centuries to follow except for the momentary shift linked to the short-lived re-emergence of Davidic hope reflected in Zech 9–11. Jonah and Nahum provide a geo-political perspective on the highest level, emphasizing locations outside the Levant. While both take us to the streets of 62  Reference to the Cherethites points to the geographical and ethnical origins of the Philistines, see Ehrlich, “Cherethites.”

528

Boda

Nineveh, Jonah focuses also on the more generic context of the Mediterranean Sea, while Nahum provides considerable exposure for Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya). As brackets around the final eighth century prophet (Micah) they serve as important reminders of Yhwh’s intentions for Assyria as both disciplinary agent for Yhwh and target of judgement. The latter feature of Nahum sets the scene for Habakkuk, not surprising in light of their common identification as ‫( משא‬Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1). While Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk suggest, and Zephaniah clearly provides a particular historical context, Joel and Obadiah have even less connection to history. What they do share in common is an interest in Edom (Joel 4:19; Obadiah passim) and it is probably not accidental that they now surround the one prophet from the eighth century who focused attention on the judgement of Edom (Amos 1:11; 9:12). Obadiah’s interest in Edom reflects an emphasis at the outset of Malachi within the Haggai–Malachi closing collection of the Twelve. But Obadiah’s geo-political perspective also includes Israel/Judah and the Levant, much like Zech 9–11. While Joel has a passing reference to Edom at its end (4:19) to form an Edomite bracket with Obadiah, it also has features that are strikingly similar to what has been observed within Haggai–Malachi. In Joel we find the generic local context typical of Haggai, Zech 1–8, and Malachi, the specific context of the Levant and beyond (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Europe) discovered in Zech 9–11, and the cosmic language throughout Haggai–Malachi. Thus, Joel appears to insert a geo-political perspective into the 8th century section from the later period, foreshadowing the perspective which will dominate the concluding books of the collection as a whole. 4 Conclusion The present work has highlighted the importance of the theme of “land” to the message and messages of the Twelve. It is only one (geo-political) of many perspectives on land within the Twelve and utilizes only one of many possible hermeneutical frameworks for analyzing this perspective. This present methodology could be used to pursue further the geo-ecological and geo-cosmic streams. In addition all three of these streams could be analyzed using other methodologies. But it is clear that the Twelve represents a collection of writings embedded within communities which underwent significant changes in perspective on the land due to the shifting geo-political realities experienced due to imperial forces.

Geography

529

Bibliography Baker, David W. “Cushan.” ABD 1: 1220–1221. Berquist, Jon L. and Claudia V. Camp. Constructions of Space I: Theory, Geography, and Narrative. LHBOTS 481. New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2007. Berquist, Jon L. and Claudia V. Camp Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. LHBOTS 490. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2008. Boda, Mark J. “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and the Messiah.” Pages 35–74 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Boda, Mark J. Exploring Zechariah. 2 vols. ANEM 16. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2017. Braaten, Laurie J. “God Sows the Land: Hosea’s Place in the Book of the Twelve.” SBLSP 39 (2000): 218–242. Clines, David J.A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2016. Deuel, David. “‘Ascend the Mount’ (Haggai 1:8).” unpublished paper. Ehrlich, Carl S. “Cherethites.” ABD 1: 898–899. Escobedo, Mario. “‘I Will Gather the Nations’: The Fate of the Nations on the Day of Yahweh in the Book of the Twelve.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2011. Garrett, Duane A. Hosea, Joel. NAC 19A. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1997. George, Mark K. Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space. LHBOTS 569. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Gunn, David M. and Paula M. McNutt. eds. Imagining Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social, and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan. JSOTSup 359. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Hess, Richard S. “Caphtor.” ABD 1: 869–870. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991. Mills, Mary E. Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy. LHBOTS 560. New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012. Mills, Mary E. “Narrative Space and the Construction of Meaning in the Book of Joel.” Pages 198–213 in Constructions of Space V: Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by Gert T.M. Prinsloo and Christl M. Maier. LHBOTS 576. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2013. Morgan, David M. “Ezekiel and the Twelve: Similar Concerns as an Indication of a Shared Tradition?” BBR 20,3 (2010): 377–396. Nogalski, James D. “Recurring Themes in the Book of the Twelve: Creating Points of Contact for a Theological Reading.” Int 61,2 (2007): 125–136.

530

Boda

Nogalski, James D. “Jerusalem, Samaria, and Bethel in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 251–269 in Die Stadt im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Edited by Aaron Schart and Jutta Krispenz. BZAW 428. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Økland, Jorunn, Cornelis de Vos, and Karen Wenell. eds. Constructions of Space III: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred. LHBOTS 540. New York, NY: Bloomsbury and T&T Clark, 2016. Petersen, David L. “Israel and the Nations in the Later Latter Prophets.” Pages 157–164 in Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and Other Texts. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Martti Nissinen. ANEM 4. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2011. Prinsloo, Gert T.M. “From Watchtower to Holy Temple: Reading the Book of Habakkuk as a Spatial Journey.” Pages 132–154 in Constructions of Space IV: Further Developments in Examining Ancient Israel’s Social Space. Edited by Mark K. George. LHBOTS 569. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Prinsloo, Gert T.M. and Christl M. Maier. eds. Constructions of Space V: Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World. LHBOTS 576. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2013. Roberts, J.J.M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996. Thompson, Henry O. “Kir, 2.” ABD 4: 83–84. Timmer, Daniel C. The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets. BibInt 135. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tuan, Yi-Fu. “Space and Place: Humanistic Perspective.” Pages 387–427 in Philosophy in Geography. Edited by Stephen Gale and Gunnar Olsson. Theory and Decision Library 20. Dordrecht and Boston, MA: Reidel, 1979. Wineland, John D. “Sepharad.” ABD 5: 1089–1090. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wolff, Hans W. Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Translated by Gary Stansell. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974. Wolff, Hans W. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Translated by Samuel Dean McBride. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977.

Geography

531

Zapff, Burkard M. “The Perspective on the Nations in the Book of Micah as a ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah and Nahum? Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 292–312 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Aaron Schart and Paul Redditt. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003.

Chapter 28

First Fruits Rites in the Book of the Twelve Roy E. Garton In the 2016 edited volume Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, contributors explore depictions of cult and its personnel in the Minor Prophets. Despite the array of methods used and emphases perused, a common task that is doubtlessly faced throughout is the necessity of delimiting what is explicitly “cultic.”1 After all, how can one circumscribe what is and is not cultic in a text that is itself a production of the cult? Here, Krispenz’s remark that “the ‘cult’ topic is not easily extracted from the texts [of Hosea], since it is interwoven with many other issues and themes,” is relevant for the entire Book of the Twelve (hereafter the “Twelve”) and indeed whatever constitutes sacred writ.2 At every juncture, the cultic appears entangled with national and international politics, with economic and social justice issues, and with agriculture and the fertility of the land. In short, instead of a “cultic” sphere that is distinct and isolatable from other “secular” spheres, we have a cultic continuum that is infusive and inextricable. This truism about the ancient world affords a significant caution: our categories may be no more than heuristics that, while at times necessary for investigation, can impede discovery. The overlap of the cultic continuum with the theme of the fertility of the land in the Twelve may be such a case. Granted, while the effect of cultic (in)fidelity on the land’s fertility in the Twelve is widely recognized, the potential for certain motifs operative within the fertility of the land theme to evoke cultic rites warrants greater attention. Especially striking is the fact that the produce (motif) indicative of the fertility of the land (theme) is the same produce prescribed for first fruit offerings.3 Given this overlap, a few crucial 1  Krispenz, “Idolatry,” 1–14, who begins her study by cataloguing the cultic vocabulary in Hosea, is the clearest example. 2  Krispenz goes on to suggest that the difficulty lies in “our perception,” which sees “clear separation between politics and religion, between cult and the personal conduct of life.” Citing Hos 5:1 as an example—which rapidly changes addressee from “priests,” to the “house of Israel,” to the “house of the kings”—Krispenz, “Idolatry,” 10, asks rhetorically “Is this section about cultic issues or is it rather embracing the field of politics? Or does the distinction between these two fields miss the reality of ancient Israel?” I concur with the latter: it is our modern, especially Western sensibilities that insist on isolating the sacred from the secular. 3  Meyers, “Feast Days,” 236, makes this connection as well: “Whether in community shrines or ordinary domiciles, the components of sacrificial feasts—meat plus elements of the

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_030

First Fruits Rites

533

questions then arise: Is this overlap coincidence? Or, could such rites at times stand in the background of texts in the Twelve that evince this overlap, despite the absence of the usual technical terms?4 And if so, what interpretative insights would the allusion to these cultic rites have for these specific texts? In this article, I offer a foray into the possible allusions of first fruits rites within the Twelve. I begin by surveying—in broad, relative chronological strokes—key texts that prescribe or describe these rites, with the purpose of identifying tradition-historical components indicative of these rites as they developed through time (1.). Once identified, I will examine select texts within Twelve that exhibit constellations of these components (2.). Finally, I will draw some brief conclusions regarding these allusions to first fruits rites within the Twelve (3.). 1

Tradition-Historical Components of First Fruits Rites

The ritual of offering first fruits is itself not easily extracted from other rites, as the texts legislating it do so variously: 1) as a ritual component of the first two pilgrimage feasts and of tithes; 2) as a specific day associated with the Feast of Weeks; or 3) as simply a type of grain offering (‫ )מנחה‬not specific to any ritual at all. Add to this complexity the differences of calendar—as well as the conceptions of the place where the rite is to be observed, the produce to be offered, the partakers allowed to eat of the offering and its leftovers, and the theological purposes of these rites—and the extant polyvalence renders any detailed tradition-historical reconstruction beyond what is feasible here. Nevertheless, in order to recognize these components, so that when appearing in constellations they may evoke first fruits rites in the Twelve, it is necessary to survey key texts reflecting first fruits prescriptions and/or descriptions. Since the calendric Mediterranean triad [i.e., “grain, grapes/wine, olives/oil” (ibid., 232)], considered a divine gift to Israel in the Bible (e.g., Hos 2:10)—were virtually the same as a household’s daily fare— except, of course for the greater quantities, the addition of less-common items, and the presences (or larger amount) of meat at festivals.” Meyers bridges the gap between fertility and festal meals as well (cf. ibid., 242), but it is not her purpose to focus her attention on the Twelve. Rooke, “Priests,” 81–99, approaches this overlap, but does so broadly in terms of the priests’ role in ensuring the food supply for the nation, the temple, and the deity, especially as seen in Joel 1–2 and Mal 1–2. 4  Although prescriptions often appear in context of specified festivals (e.g., Exod 23:16; Num 28:26) or types of offerings (e.g., Lev 2:12; 23:17, 20; Deut 26:1–4), the typical technical terms indicative of first fruits are ‫( בכורים‬e.g., Exod 23:16; Lev 23:10–14; 11Q19 XI, XVIII– XIX), ‫( ראׁשית‬Deut 18:4–8; 2 Chr 31:5), or the combinations of two terms (Exod 23:19; 34:26; Ezek 44:30). See Rigsby “First Fruits,” 796–797.

534

Garton

first fruits festival (Harvest/Weeks) does not appear in the Twelve, it is the diachronic development of these conceptual components—i.e., place, produce, partakers, and purpose—that will be crucial for our investigation. Our attending to first fruits texts according to their widely agreed upon relative chronology will facilitate that diachrony. The investigation will therefore proceed as follows: from the Covenant Code in Exod 23:16–19 (1.1); to the Deuteronomic Code in Deut 16:9–12; 18:4–9; and 26:2–15 (1.2); to the varied priestly materials in Lev 2:11–16*; 23:9–14; Num 18:8–32; and 28:16–31 (1.3); to the covenant renewal in Exod 34:11–26 (1.4), and finally to later materials which are coterminous to our earliest evidence for the combined corpus of the Twelve (i.e., Tob 1:6–8; the Temple Scroll [11QTa / 11Q19]) (1.5).5 A succinct summary of the findings from this major section will then follow (1.6). 1.1 First Fruits Rites in the Covenant Code (CC) Despite evidence of its incremental literary growth, the CC in Exod 20:22–23:33 remains for most critical scholars the earliest legal code in the Pentateuch.6 In the closing legal frame (23:13–19), reference to the “first fruits of your labour” (‫ )בכורי מעׂשיך‬is set in apposition to the second pilgrimage festival, the “Feast of Harvest” (‫( )חג הקציר‬v. 16). As for place, the instruction to bring the offering to ‫ בית יהוה אלהיך‬in v. 19a is clearly redactional, as the outset of the CC allows for local open-air shrines made of earthen or unhewn stone (Exod 20:24–25).7 The produce of the offering itself is left unspecified; although the act of sowing (‫ )זרע‬and gathering (‫ )אסף‬in v. 16 connects back to v. 10–11 where constellation of grain, wine, and oil is implicit in sowing the land, vineyard, and olive grove. That none of the “fat” (‫)חלב‬, whether literal or figurative, is to be left until morning (v. 18b; cf. Exod 12:10; 34:25) suggests that all the males appearing before the Lord (v. 17) were partakers in this feast. Finally, as for purpose, it is striking that these festivals are framed by prohibitions against idolatry (v. 13, 24, 32–33). In short, offering first fruits was not merely a sign of gratitude for 5  This approach draws on MacDonald, “Innovation,” 55–77, who traces the ritual innovation of the feast of Shavuʿot (Weeks) across much of these materials. 6  For example, see MacDonald, “Innovation,” 57; Dozeman, Exodus, 496–500; Crüsemann, Torah, 109–200. For a recent discussion on the CC’s literary history and antiquity in light of its dependency on the Laws of Hammurabi, see Wright, “Origin,” 220–244; for discussion on the literary history of the CC’s broader literary context of Exod 19–24, see Oswald, “Lawgiving,” 167–192. 7  MacDonald, “Innovation,” 58, reasons that since these are “pilgrimage festivals (‫)חג‬,” regional cultic centres are more likely in view than local high places. Meyers, “Household,” 124, sees the pilgrimage as to a local communal shrine, “convenient to any and every household.” See also Davies, “Urban,” 112.

First Fruits Rites

535

divine provision, nor was it just a ritual to secure bounty; rather, it was an expression of cultic fidelity to Yhwh over and above other gods. 1.2 First Fruits Rites in the Deuteronomic (Dt) Code First fruits rites appear in at least three major texts across the Dt Code: implicitly in Deut 16:9–12, and explicitly in 18:4–8 and 26:1–15.8 To begin, the rite of first fruits appears only implicitly in Deut 16:9–12, as none of the technical terms discussed above are present (cf. n. 4). Yet Deut 16:9–12 is part of the Dt festival calendar, which Levinson has convincingly demonstrated is an innovative revision of the CC calendar in Exod 23:14–19.9 As such, despite the absence of ‫( ראׁשית‬or even ‫)בכור‬, the Feast of Weeks (‫)חג ׁשבעות‬, the second Dt pilgrimage festival, is but a revision of the CC’s Feast of Harvest, which is a first fruits pilgrimage festival. The place of the feast, once observed at local shrines, now requires a journey to the central sanctuary (‫במקום אׁשר יבחר יהוה אלהיך לׁשכן‬ 8  By “Deuteronomic Code” (Dt Code), I refer to the parameter of Deuteronomy’s legal core—i.e., chs. 12–26—not to a specific redactional stratum, as though the textual materials therein were homogenous. For my views on Deuteronomy’s macro-redactional growth, see Garton, Mirages, 37–41. Note also I have excluded the Deuteronomic tithe prescriptions as key texts both for sake of brevity and consensus, though the study does engage these prescriptions as needed. Some scholars, while noting the relationship, understand tithes as having a distinctly different nature than first fruits: tithes are only calculable after the harvest and are so given; and they amount to significantly more than the contents of a basket (cf. Deut 26:2; so Nelson, Deuteronomy, 185; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 483). Nevertheless, several components associated with first fruits also appear in conjunction with prescriptions for tithe: e.g., location (cf. Deut 12:4–7, 17; 14:22–27; 16:10–11; 18:6–8; 26:2); grain, wine, and oil as produce (Deut 12:17; 14:23; 18:4); the offerant’s household, resident aliens, and Levites as partakers in eating (Deut 12:17–19; 14:23, 27; 16:11; 26:10b–11; cf. 18:1–8; contra Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 483), and oddly perhaps the proscription against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (cf. Deut 14:21; Exod 23:19; 34:26). Moreover, Deut 26:1–15 and Tob 1:6–7 conflate the observance of first fruits rites and tithe offerings. With these associations in mind, it is better to understand tithes as a type of climax in the first fruits offerings (cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 244–245). 9  Levinson, Deuteronomy, 53–97. MacDonald’s rebuttal that Deut 16:9–12 does not reflect a first fruits festival is not convincing (“Innovation,” 60–61). To begin, he builds on Gesundheit, Three Times, 152, who distinguishes ‫ חג הקציר‬and ‫ חג ׁשבעות‬as inaugural and end-of-harvest festivals respectively. Yet it is not clear that the phrase ‫ בכורי מעׂשיך אׁשר תזרע בׂשדה‬indicates any particular stage of the harvest, for ‫ בכור‬refers to the portion reserved for the festival, not when the festival is held. Further, MacDonald’s appeal to the absence of “verbal overlaps” only applies to Deut 16:9–12 when compared to Exod 23:16. Deut 16:16—which summarizes the Deuteronomic pilgrim festivals—quotes most of Exod 23:17 (‫ׁשלׁש פעמים בׁשנה‬ ‫ )יראה כל זכורך‬and paraphrases the rest (cf. ‫ את פני יהוה אלהיך‬// ‫ )אל פני האדן יהוה‬and as well as a portion of Exod 23:15 (cf. ‫ ולא יראה את פני יהוה ריקם‬// ‫)ולא יראו פני ריקם‬. In short, while Deut 16:9–12 displays remarkable innovation, as does the whole Dt festival calendar in Deut 16:1–17, the Feast of Weeks is clearly set forth as the Dt version of the CC’s first fruits festival, the Feast of Harvest. See also the discussion in Altmann, Festive Meals, 196–198.

536

Garton

‫ ;ׁשמו ׁשם‬v. 11). While the types of offered produce remain unspecified, the quantity is to be in proportion to the divine blessing (‫ ;כאׁשר יברכך יהוה אלהיך‬v. 10), and the partakers are specified: the varied members of the household, local Levites, resident strangers, orphans, and widows (v. 11). The purpose of the second pilgrimage festival, once agricultural and polemically anti-idolic in nature, is now tied to the national history of deliverance from Egyptian slavery (v. 12). Explicit references to first fruits rites in the Dt Code appear in Deut 18:4; 26:2, 10 via the term ‫ראׁשית‬. In context of Deut 18:1–8, the rights to the first fruits is in view, rather than the first fruits rites as a pilgrimage festival (‫)חג‬. As such, the place is not specified. Nevertheless, v. 6–9 may preserve the reminiscence of the rights of Levitical priests (‫ לכהנים הלוים‬in v. 1; ‫ הלוי‬in v. 6) to receive their portion of first fruits at local shrines as well as the central sanctuary. The produce specified—i.e., the first of grain (‫)דגן‬, new wine (‫)תירוׁש‬, and fresh oil (‫)יצהר‬, as well as wool (‫—)גז צאן‬belongs to the Levite (v. 4–8); no other partaker is mentioned. On the surface, the purpose is to feed and clothe the Levites (v. 8), but Dagan, Tirash, and possibly Yiṣhar are also the names of rival fertility deities. While not operative in Deut 18:4, this triad may educe an anti-idol polemic where either the divine provenance of these produce is in question (e.g., Hos 2:10–11, 24) or proscription against idolatry is otherwise clearly present (e.g., Deut 7:1–13).10 The final expression of first fruits rites in the Dt Code is in Deut 26:1–15, specifically v. 1–11. This text is clearly composite (cf. v. 4, 9b) and combines and expands the prescriptions for the annual and tri-annual tithes (Deut 14:22–29; cf. n. 8) with components from both the Feast of Weeks (Deut 16:9–12) and the Levites’ rights to the first fruits (Deut 18:4–8).11 The place where the rites are to be held is at the central sanctuary (26:2; cf. 14:23; 16:11; 18:6) and yet involves a celebration with local Levites and aliens (26:11; cf. 14:23, 26–29; 16:11), for which a “basket” full of produce is hardly sufficient (26:2, 4, 9). A local celebration, as envisioned for the tri-annual tithe (26:12; cf. 14:28–29), may be here imagined (cf. 18:6).12 The produce, while not listed (cf. 14:23; 18:4), is portrayed 10  See Nelson, Deuteronomy, 102–103; Healy, “Dagon,” 218–219; idem, “Tirash,” 872; Wyatt, “Oil,” 640. 11  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 307 suggests that the impasse of the conflicting cultic rites prescribed in Deut 14:22–29; 16:9–12; 18:1–8; and 26:1–15 is a result of Deuteronomy’s writers being “more interested in promoting theology than in establishing a coherent liturgical system. Because theology took precedence, a certain amount of liturgical imprecision was acceptable.” While not denying Deuteronomy’s theological focus, I suggest that these tensions are a result of the macro- and micro-redactional literary processes of Deuteronomy’s literary development. 12  Although if the first fruits rites in Deut 26:1–11 are associated with the annual tithe (cf. Deut 14:22–27), as the segue to the tri-annual tithe in 26:12–15 (cf. 14:28–29) suggests, then

First Fruits Rites

537

as a sampling “of all” the produce (26:2; cf. 14:22), and the measure of a basket perhaps clarifies the ambiguous “measure of the freewill offering of your hand” (‫ )מסת נדבת ידך‬in Deut 16:10. Likewise, the partakers in Deut 26:11 echo those in Deut 14:26–29 and 16:11, while delivering the basket to the priest for Yhwh (Deut 26:4) parallels the Levites’ exclusive rights to the Lord’s portion (Deut 18:1). Finally, Deut 26:1–15 combines the purposes for first fruits offerings across the Dt Code: provision for the (Levitical) priests (26:4; cf. 18:1–8); remembrance of the Exodus (cf. 26:5–9; 16:12); securing divine blessing (26:15; cf. 14:29); and reverencing Yhwh over other deities, ancestral or otherwise (26:10, 14; cf. 14:23).13 First Fruits Rites in the Holiness Code (H) and Other Priestly Materials (P) Within the Holiness Code (H) and other Priestly materials (P), prescriptions for first fruits offerings appear in Lev 2:11–16* (P); 23:10–22 (H); Num 18:11–32 (P); and 28:26–31 (P). Two prescriptions for first fruits rites appear in Lev 2:11– 16* (P), which may be treated in conjunction with Lev 23:10–22 (H): the offering of first fruits (‫ )קרבן ראׁשית‬in 2:11–12, and the new grain offering of first fruits (‫ )מנחה בכורים‬in 2:14–16. While neither prescription in Lev 2:11–16* is bound to a specific festival, the festival calendar in Lev 23 (H) appropriates and adapts both of them in its prescriptions for Passover (23:10–14) and the offerings (not ‫ )!חג‬seven weeks later (23:15–22).14 As for comparable components, the place is 1.3

see Deut 12:17–19 which forbids consuming the (annual) tithe, votive offerings, and freewill offerings (cf. 16:10) locally. Though an argument from silence, such a proscription presumes an early practice of bringing such offerings to local shrines. 13  The potential for ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫ יצהר‬to evoke rival fertility deities should be considered here as well. 14  The prescriptions for the ‫ מנחה בכורים‬in Lev 2:14–16 appear to inform the waving of barley ears (cf. ‫[ אביב‬2:14]; ‫[ עמר‬23:10]) during Passover (23:10–14), but H frames its instructions with the terms ‫( ראׁשית קציר‬23:10) and ‫( קרבן‬23:14), which are instead reminiscent of ‫ קרבן ראׁשית‬in Lev 2:11–12. Yet the description of the fresh ears (‫ )אביב‬as parched (‫)קלוי‬ with fire and grits of new growth (‫ )גרׂש כרמל‬overlaps with what Lev 23:14 forbids be eaten (i.e., ‫לחם‬, ‫קלי‬, and ‫ )כרמל‬until the ‫ קרבן‬of “that day,” referring to the offering in v. 10–11, not the offering to be made seven weeks later in v. 15–16, as signified by the setuma following v. 14. Conversely, the prescriptions for the ‫( קרבן ראׁשית‬2:11–12) appear to inform H’s unnamed parallel to the Festival of Weeks (23:15–22). Yet H uses ‫ בכורים‬to refer to the leavened loaves (‫ )לחם … חמץ תאפינה‬waved before Yhwh (23:17), which echoes the concern that nothing with leaven (‫ חמץ‬and ‫ )ׂשאר‬be burned before Yhwh (2:11–12). Similarly, Knohl argues that Num 28:26’s offering “on the day of first fruits” (‫ ;ביום הבכורים‬again not ‫—)חג‬when the “new grain offering to the Lord” (‫ ;מנחה חדׁשה ליהוה‬elsewhere only in Lev 23:16) is offered “upon your weeks” (‫—)בׁשבעתיכם‬draws on the prescription for the ‫ קרבן ראׁשית‬in Lev 2:11–12 (“Priestly Torah,” 82–83). For an alternative view, see Levine,

538

Garton

the altar at the tent of meeting (e.g. 2:2, 8, 16), proleptic of the central sanctuary, but only the Passover/Unleavened Bread require pilgrimage (23:6, 10; cf. Num 28:26). The produce offered is fresh ears of barley (‫ ;אביב‬v. 14) during Passover and leavened wheat loaves (2:11–12; cf. ‫ סלת תהיינה חמץ תאפינה‬in 23:17) during Pentecost. As a ‫מנחה ליהוה‬, however, only the Aaronides are to partake of what remains of the first fruit offerings (Lev 2:3, 10). Lastly, while the purpose is no doubt to affect divine blessing (waving the sheaf at Passover) and thanksgiving (waiving the loaves seven weeks later; cf. Lev 7:13; 23:19), the emphasis in H falls on securing the holy portion belonging to Yhwh for the Aaronides (cf. Lev 23:10, 14, 20).15 A close parallel to Lev 23:10–21 is the priestly ritual calendar in Num 28–29. Long thought to be later than Lev 23 (H), this festival calendar is more stylized and expansionistic.16 Nevertheless, some unexplained differences persist. Unlike Lev 23:10, the festival of Unleavened Bread in Num 28:17–25 is not framed as a first fruits rite: no technical terms indicative of first fruits are present (cf. n. 4), and the rite bears no connection to harvest or even the fertility of the land. The second calendar entry (Num 28:26–31) is the Day of First Fruits (‫—)יום בכורים‬thus corresponding to ‫( חג האסף‬Exod 23:16), the ‫חג ׁשבעות‬ (Deut 16:10), and the offering seven weeks after Passover (Lev 23:15)—a clear first fruits rite. Yet like Lev 23:15–21, the Day of First Fruits in Num 28 is not a ‫חג‬, despite it being a “holy convocation” (‫ ;)מקרא קדׁש‬by contrast, Passover and Booths are both festivals and holy convocations (cf. Lev 23:4–9, 33–36; Num 28:16–19; 29:12–38). Curiously, the place is nowhere specified in Num 28– 29, as ‫ בקדׁש‬in 28:7 is hardly specific. The produce is to be a “new grain offering” (‫ )מנחה חדׁשה‬of “wheat flour mixed with oil” (‫ )סלת בלולה בׁשמן‬and offered along with burnt offerings and libations (Num 28:26–31; cf. Lev 23:16–18). The partakers are also not specified, but the presence of 2m.pl. verbs throughout and the events of the day designated as a “holy convocation” (yet not a ‫)חג‬ suggest communal involvement, with the priests (also not mentioned!) as the who disregards the setuma in 23:14 and nuances the common equation of the first fruits in Lev 2:14–16 and 23:14–17 only in terms of “timing” and “disposition”: “Our text [2:14–16] indicates a voluntary, unscheduled sacrifice to be burned on the altar and hence to be prepared with unleavened dough. The offering ordained in 23:14–17 is an obligatory offering, to be baked on Shavuot from the new grain crop, or leavened dough” (Leviticus, 12–14; cf. 157–160). 15  See Knohl, “Priestly Torah,” 82–84, for a reconstruction of the first fruits rites in the priestly materials. 16  See the survey in Budd, Numbers, 312–314, and more recently Achenbach, Vollendung, 16–17, who argues against Knohl’s thesis that Lev 23 is later than Num 28–29 (“Priestly Torah,” esp. 81–85).

First Fruits Rites

539

likely beneficiaries (cf. Lev 23:15–21). Lastly, the purpose is unclear, as the rationale in Num 28:30 explains only the ram offering (cf. Num 28:20; 29:5). Finally, while Lev 23 and Num 28–29 relay festival calendars like Exod 23 and Deut 16 (as does Exod 34, see below), Num 18 relays the priestly rights to tithes (18:21–32) and first fruits (18:8–21) as does Deut 14 and Deut 18 respectively.17 To begin, Num 18:12–13 redirects the first fruits (‫ )בכור‬of all produce—the best (‫ )חלב‬of the oil (‫)יצהר‬, wine (‫)תירוׁש‬, and grain (‫)דגן‬, in reverse order—to the Aaronides alone (partakers), instead of the Levites (contra Deut 18:4).18 The first born (‫ )בכור‬of whatever opens the womb (‫)כל פטר רחם‬, whether livestock or Israel, are also allotted to the Aaronides, the latter to be redeemed by money (Num 18:14–18).19 To the Levites then goes the tithe (Num 18:21–32), the contents of which span freshly threshed grain (‫ )דגן‬to wine from the vat (‫( )יקב‬v. 27, 30).20 From the tithes, the Levites were then to tithe the best portion (‫)חלב‬, perhaps as their first fruits, to Yhwh for the Aaronides (v. 26–30). As for purpose, the first fruits were part of the Aaronides’ wages for their service before the altar and behind the curtain (18:7–11); likewise, the tithes were the Levites’ wages for their service in the tent of meeting (18:21).21 In other words, the place 17  On other grounds, I have argued elsewhere that the legislation in Num 18–19 is attributable to the Pentateuchal redactor (Garton, Mirages, 220). Num 18’s concern for 1) the welfare of both Aaronides and Levites, and 2) for establishing Aaronide ascendency by indenturing the Levites (v. 2–6, 25–32; cf. Num 3:5–12), by appropriating first fruits for the Aaronides (v. 12–18; contra Deut 18), and by allocating the tithes to the Levites (v. 21–24; contra Deut 14) further substantiates this text as post-priestly. 18  Of its twenty occurrences, Num 18:12 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible evincing a different order than grain, wine, and oil (cf. Num 18:12; Deut 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; 2 Kgs 18:32; Jer 31:12; Hos 2:10, 24; Joel 1:10; 2:19; Hag 1:11; Neh 5:11; 10:40; 13:5, 12; 2 Chr 31:5). This inversion, also noticed by Seebass, Numeri, 231, may be an instance of inverted citation, sometimes dubbed the “law of Seidel.” Seidel, “Parallels,” 150, noted that allusions to earlier textual material often transpire through inversion. If so, given 1) the reallocation of these first fruits from the Levites to the Aaronides and 2) the otherwise consistent order of this triad, Num 18:12–13 may have Deut 18:4 in view. 19  Note that the Dt Code designates the ‫ בכור‬of livestock as a part of the tithe (cf. Deut 12:17– 19; 14:23–27). Num 18 designates it strictly as a first fruits offering in order to appropriate this benefit for the Aaronides. 20  Altmann, Festive Meals, 213–214, notes the absence of oil and meat, “either conceived as the first firstlings like Deut 14:23 or the tenth animal passing under the keeper’s staff in Lev 27:32.” I rather read—like Seebass, Numeri, 236—the phrases ‫כדגן מן־הגרן וכמלאה‬ ‫ מן־היקב‬in Num 18:27 as examples, but more specifically as a range spanning unprocessed to fully processed produce. 21  Altmann, Festive Meals, 213, notes some additional differences between the tithe prescriptions in Deut 14 and Num 18 as they apply to the Levites: 1) Deut 14:27 earmarks a portion of the tithe as care for residential Levites, but Num 18:21 designates the whole tithe to the Levites as payment for their service at the sanctuary; and 2) Deut 14:27 asserts the

540

Garton

for offering first fruits and tithes was just outside the central sanctuary (v. 22), although the Levites could eat their portion at home (‫ ;בכל־מקום אתם‬v. 31). 1.4 First Fruits Rites in the Covenant Renewal (CR) of Exod 34 Classically dubbed the Yahwistic “Ritual Decalogue,” an emerging consensus has come to view Exod 34 as a strange conflation of earlier traditions and textual materials and thus particularly late, perhaps “one of the latest legal texts in the Pentateuch.”22 For our purposes, the tripartite festival calendar in Exod 34:18–26 prescribes first fruits produce for both the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Weeks (‫[ חג ׁשבעות‬v. 22; cf. Num 28:26; Deut 16:10, 16]). For the former, whatever first opens the womb (‫)פתר‬, whether livestock or human, must be redeemed (v. 19–20; cf. Num 18:15, 17–18); the latter, first fruits of the wheat harvest (‫[ בכורי קציר חטים‬v. 22; cf. Exod 23:16; Lev 23:10]) must be offered. While the partakers include all males (v. 23; cf. Exod 23:17; Deut 16:16), the place to observe the rite is the temple (‫[ בית יהוה אלהיך‬v. 26; cf. Exod 23:19]), which further signals the lateness of this text. Finally, as for purpose, it is again striking that the prescriptions are framed by anti-idolic polemic (v. 11–17, 24; cf. Exod 23:14; Deut 7). 1.5 First Fruits Rites in Later Texts Several more texts within the Hebrew Bible reflect first fruits offerings.23 Nevertheless, a sampling of texts beyond the Hebrew Bible may be helpful for establishing the trajectory of early interpreters who sought to systematize first fruits prescriptions. Here, the first fruits rites reflected in two texts—namely Tobit 1:6–8 and the Temple Scroll (i.e., 4QTempleb [4Q524] and the later Levites have no inheritance with Israel (‫)נחלה עמך‬, which Num 18:23 also recalls, but Num 18:24–25 goes on to earmark the tithe as their inheritance (‫)נחלה‬. 22  MacDonald, “Innovation,” 66. Childs notes that this shift of perspective on Exod 34— from an early to an exceptionally late text—dates back at least to Alt’s influential 1934 essay “‘Origins of Israelite Law,’ which denied that Ex. 34 was a ritual Decalogue, and rather characterized it as a secondary, conflated form which had been derived from common Israelite traditions” (Book, 606). More recently, MacDonald, “Innovation,” 66, has detected a surge of support among scholars for the late dating of Exod 34 (see esp. 66 n. 39).  While the final form of Exod 34 may be late, the absence of any concern for the Aaronides and/or Levites, the continued mandate to redeem the first born of Israel (contra Num 3:12), and the lack of details for first fruit offerings cumulatively suggest that this text is a crude editing of much earlier materials, not a late composition per se. Procedurally, while necessary to survey, it seems best to omit Exod 34 from 1.6. below on account of its dubious literary history and unusual combination of tradition components. 23  For examples beyond the Pentateuch, see 2 Kgs 4:42–44; Ezek 44:30; and Neh 10:36–40; 12:44; 13:31.

First Fruits Rites

541

11QTa [11Q19])—offer a particular vantage our purposes, as both share with the Twelve an approximate terminus ad quem of the late third century to early second century bce.24 Beginning with Tobit, the principal character introduces himself as more righteous than his Naphtali kin, who bring their offerings (ἐθυσίαζον [S]) to the bull cult sites Jeroboam I had erected as alternative Yhwh sanctuaries (Tob 1:5; cf. LXX Hos 4:13). The significance for the current investigation is that the offerings Tobit juxtaposes with those of his kin’s are the first fruits offerings and tithes; the rites, produce, and purpose of Tobit’s and his kin’s cultic activity may therefore be of the same nature, while the place and partakers (human and divine) clearly are not. Instead, Tobit attends the prescribed festivals at Jerusalem (place): he brings the first fruits (ἀπαρχὰς [S]) of his crops and livestock, a tenth of his cattle, and the first shearings (produce) to the Aaronides (partakers) (v. 6–7a); but he tithes his grain, wine, oil, pomegranates, figs, and “rest of the fruits” to the Levites (partakers) (v. 7b). Tobit then saves additional tenths to share with the Jerusalem community and less fortunate (partakers) (v. 7b–8). Set in contrast to the rites observed by his kin, the purpose of Tobit’s pilgrimage and first fruits offerings was not only obedience to eternal decrees (1:6), but also an anti-idolic polemic. Together, Tob 1:6–8 displays a synthesis of Pentateuchal texts on first fruits rites and perhaps also the growing recognition of Deut 8:8 as a detailed list of first fruits produce (cf. Bik. 1:3, 10).25 Roughly contemporaneous with Tobit and its synthesis of first fruits prescriptions is the so-called Temple Scroll, which represents a thorough rewriting of legal materials from Exod 34–Deut 23.26 Extant in four copies, the 24  Tobit and the Vorlage of one copy of the Temple Scroll (i.e. 4QRouleau du Temple [4Q524]) likely date to the late third century to the early second century bce (DeSilva, Apocrypha, 69; Ulrich, Scrolls, 7; Crawford, Scripture, 85). While the Twelve may have achieved stability prior to this date, it is in Sirach that we find the earliest awareness of the Twelve as a collection (Sir 49:10), and Sirach dates more narrowly to the early second century (Ulrich, Scrolls, 292, dates it ca. 180 bce; deSilva, Apocrypha, 158, dates it to 196–175 bce). 25  The following associations in Tob 1:6–8 appear likely: the Aaronide right to the first fruits and the Levitical right to the tithes (Num 18); shearings as a first fruit (Deut 18:4); firstlings of the flock and tithe of cattle belonging to the (Aaronide) priests (Deut 14:22; Num 18:15, 17–18). 26  Crawford, Scripture, 102, describes the Temple Scroll as extensively reworking its “base text through various exegetical techniques, including conflation, harmonization, and clarification. It omits blocks of material from the received text, but adds new blocks of material from other, unknown sources. The result is a new Book of the Law, meant to stand beside the received Torah as an equally authoritative representation of God’s revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. The author/redactor’s claim to authority is unmistakable; however, there is no solid evidence that the Temple Scroll ever gained communal acceptance by any group or at any time as a work of Scripture.”

542

Garton

Temple Scroll’s textual history, breadth of contents, calendric differences, and relation to other sources of rewritten scriptures (e.g. 4QReworked Pentateuch, Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon) cannot be attended here.27 Well-known is the fact the Temple Scroll spreads first fruits rites across 150 days, counted off from 50 days after the priests wave the barley sheaf (‫ )עמר‬during Feast of Unleavened Bread.28 The Feast of Weeks [month 3, day 15] redeemed the grain (‫חטים‬, ‫מנחה חדשה‬, ‫לחם הבכורים‬, ‫דגן החטים‬, or just ‫ ;)דגן‬then fifty days later, the Feast of the Wine [month 5, day 3] redeemed the wine (‫יין חדש‬, ‫ ;)תירוש‬and finally after another fifty days, the Feast of the Oil [month 7, day 22] redeemed the oil (‫יצהר‬, ‫)שמן חדש‬.29 Clearly, the importance of the triadic synecdoche of grain (‫)דגן‬, wine (‫)תירוש‬, and oil (‫ )יצהר‬had increasingly come to signify the first fruits produce and to shape the rite itself.30 The place of the offerings is the Temple (cols. III–XIII; XIX.6; XXI.10; XXII.13). Yet once the Aaronides and then the Levites have eaten their portions, the people also partake in the festivities (XIX.5–7; XXI.4–8; XXII.10–16). Finally, as for purpose, provision of the Aaronides and Levites is clearly in view. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the scroll opens with anti-idolatry polemic (col. II) and later concludes a final summary of first fruits and tithes (LX.1–15) with such a polemic (LX.16–20). 1.6 Summary of First Fruits Tradition-Historical Components Any distillation of the components indicative of first fruits rites, in light of this diversity alone, carries with it the risk of oversimplification. Nevertheless, for the sake of recognizing potential echoes of these rites in the Twelve, I hazard upon the above survey to propose three major, sequential profiles of first fruit components in the history of the development of these rites through time:

27  The Temple Scroll is extant, in whole or in part, in 4QTembleb/4Q524 (150–125 bce, but contains corrections), 11QTa/11Q19 (25 bce–25 ce), 11QTb/11Q20 (20–50 ce), and possibly 11QTc/11Q21 (50 ce). See Crawford, Scripture, 84–85, for a survey of their contents and conditions. 28  The Temple Scroll XXIII–XXV also adds a festival of wood (‫)חג העצים‬. For a brief treatment, see Beckwith, “Scroll,” 16–17, and most recently Nihan “Leviticus,” 183–204. 29  For the calendar calculations, see Reeves, “Feast,” 350–351. For the various terms used for the “grain” offering on the Feast of Weeks, see 11QTa XI.11, XIX.11–12 [= 11QTb IV.1], XLIII.6, and presumably LX.6 [cf. 4QTempleb Frag. 6]. For the various terms used for the “wine” offering on the Feast (‫ )מועד‬of Wine, see XIX.14 [= 11QTb IV.3 lacuna], XXI.8 [= 11QTb V.11], XLIII.7–8, and presumably LX.6 [cf. 4QTempleb Frag. 6]. Finally, for the various terms used for “oil” offering on the Feast (‫ )מועד‬of Oil, see XI.12, XXI.14 [= 11QTb V.16 lacuna], and presumably LX.6 [cf. 4QTempleb Frag. 6 lacuna]. 30  See also 4QHalakaha5, which also exhibits these three “categories” of ‫( בכורים‬Baumgarten, “Laws,” 201).

First Fruits Rites

543

1. The Non-Priestly texts (CC and Dt Code) preserve the memory of first fruits being offered at local shines, with households, local Levites, and the disadvantaged being the primary beneficiaries.31 The mandate to bring first fruits offerings—both tithe and pre-harvest offerings—to the central sanctuary, however, has jeopardized the livelihood of local Levites.32 Grain (‫)דגן‬, wine (‫)תירוׁש‬, and oil (‫ )יצהר‬typify these offerings both explicitly and implicitly.33 These offerings, no doubt originally intended to secure the divine bless on crops, heightened fidelity to Yhwh (via memory and anti-idolic polemic) and provisioned local Levites. The new mandate, however, favoured priests serving at the central sanctuary (Aaronides?).34 2. Early priestly texts (H and otherwise) tacitly assume first fruits are to be offered only at the Tent of Meeting/central sanctuary, with the Aaronides the sole beneficiaries of these offerings.35 With the exception of Num 18 (see profile 3 below), these texts do not acknowledge the plight this mandate caused the Levites. Grain, wine, and oil again typify first fruits offerings, though through a variety of terms rather than just ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫יצהר‬.36 When indicated, the purpose is to secure the Lord’s portion for provisioning the Aaronides.37 3. Later texts, including Num 18 (cf. n. 17), show a synthesis of the two prior stages: first fruits belong to the Aaronides; the tithes go to the Levites, 31  Cf. Exod 20:24–26; Deut 18:1–5. 32  For the mandate, see Exod 23:19; Deut 12:2–18; 14:23; 16:11; 26:2. For the plight this caused local Levites, see Deut 12:12, 18–19; 14:27–29; 16:11; 18:6–8; 26:11–13. 33  Cf. Deut 12:17; 14:23; 18:4, but also implicitly in Exod 23:10–11. 34  Both anti-idolatry polemic and remembrance of the exodus heighten fidelity to Yhwh (cf. Exod 23:13–19; Deut 14:23; 16:12, 16). It is instructive to recall that Deuteronomy nowhere endorses the sons of Aaron; in fact, the name Aaron only occurs in reference to his death (Deut 10:6; 32:50). 35  The mandate is implicit in Lev 2:12, 16; 23:10, 13, 17, 20; Num 28:26–31 via the priest’s location at the altar. Explicit mandate appears only in Num 18 (see profile 3). 36  Only Num 18:12 has ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫יצהר‬. Lev 2:14–16 has ‫ אביב‬with ‫( ׁשמן‬oil) and frankincense on it, but no libation is mentioned because Lev 2’s focus on instruction for the grain offering (‫)מנחה‬. Lev 23:10–14 joins waving the barley sheaf (‫ )עמר‬with animal sacrifice, a ‫ מנחה‬of ‫סלת בלולה בׁשמן‬, and a libation (‫)נסכה יין‬. Similarly, Lev 23:17–18 requires a ‫מנחה חדׁשה‬, which joins waving two loaves with animal sacrifice, a grain offering (‫)מנחה‬, and a libation (‫)נסך‬. Minus waving two loaves, Num 28:26–31 is similar to Lev 23:17–18 in that it prescribes a ‫ מנחה חדׁשה‬made of ‫סלת בלולה בׁשמן‬, along with animal sacrifice and a libation. 37  Cf. Lev 2:2, 10; 23:14, 20. Surprisingly, Num 28–29 shows no concern for the welfare of priests; their role is presumed, but no priests—Aaronide, Levite, or otherwise—are mentioned.

544

Garton

but only for their indentured service at the central sanctuary; and the community’s role in the providing and partaking of these rites is again emphasized.38 The central sanctuary is now explicitly mandated as the only place first fruits rites may be observed.39 While various terms are still used, grain (‫)דגן‬, wine (‫)תירוׁש‬, and oil (‫ )יצהר‬have stabilized as a synecdoche of first fruits rites in general, whether “first fruits” proper or tithes.40 Finally, while compliance to Torah for provisioning the Aaronides and Levites is the primary purpose, the resurgence of the anti-idolic polemic should not be discounted.41 2

First Fruits Rites in the Book of the Twelve

With the components of first fruits rites now in hand, the task of delimiting which texts in the Twelve may evince such rites comes to the fore. Here, the prevalence of the triad grain, wine, and oil—specifically, via the lemma ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫—יצהר‬is commanding, and three sets of texts bearing this specific constellation emerge: Hos 2:10, 24 (2.1.), Hag 1:11 (2.2.), and treated lastly for its uncertain provenance Joel 1:10 and 2:19 (2.3.).42 Most scholars interpret these texts only through the theme of the fertility of the land; as such, these texts will serve as test cases of the viability and import of detecting the evocations of first fruits rites within the Twelve. 38  For the first fruits as the Aaronides perpetual due (‫)חק־עולם‬, see Num 18:8–19, especially v. 8, 11, 19. No priestly oriented text allots first fruits to the Levites; their inheritance is the “tithes” (Num 18:21–32; cf. Lev 25:32–34), which in priestly texts is never described in terms of (‫ בכור)ים‬or ‫( ראׁשית‬cf. Lev 27:30–30). The Levites in turn must submit a tithe, as a kind of first fruits, to the Aaronides (Num 18:25–30; cf. ‫ חלב‬in v. 12, 29–30). For the Levites’ indenture to the Aaronides, see Num 3:5–12 and 18:2–6. Note, however, Num 3:12 understands the Levites’ indenture to be the redemption of Israel’s firstborn (‫כל־בכור‬ ‫ )פטר רחם מבני יׂשראל‬contra the payment prescribed in Num 18:15–16. 39  Num 18:2, 7, 16, 21–23 mandates this explicitly; cf. Tob 1:67; 11QTa cols. III–XIII; XIX.6; XXI.10; XXII.13. 40  Cf. Num 18:12; 11QTa XLIII.3–4, LX.6; but genitive of σίτος, οἴνος, and ἐλαίος in Tob 1:7. 41  Cf. Tob 1:5–8; 1QTemplea col. II, LV.16–20. 42  Nogalski explores this same constellation as a facet of Joel’s role of “unifying major literary threads in the Twelve” (“Joel,” 92): the dangling “this” in Joel 1:2 calls into question the promised restoration of Hos 14:5–9; the fertility language in Joel 1–2 (especially 1:10; 2:19, 24) “extends and reinterprets” Hosea’s fertility imagery; and Hag 1:11 and 2:19 appropriates these images from Joel (“Joel,” 101–102). It should be noted, however, that while Nogalski rightly understands these “fertility idioms” as derivative of the “fertility traditions of the Promised Land (as e.g., in Deut 8:8),” he does not make the connection with first fruits rites (“Joel,” 103).

First Fruits Rites

545

2.1 First Fruits Rites in Hosea 2 The produce ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫ יצהר‬in Hos 2:10, 24, as emblems of the Northern Israel’s agriculture fertility, are crucial for reading the anti-idolatry polemic in Hosea (cf. Hos 7:13–14; 14:7–9). Yet the common assertion that this polemic, in conjunction with the feminine metaphors of harlotry, targets the Northern Kingdom’s practice of sacred prostitution in its worship of Baal has rightly come under increasing scrutiny.43 While the intricacies of this conversation is beyond our scope, the possibility that Hos 2 may have first fruits rites in view instead of fertility rites via cultic prostitution is tantalizing. The viability for reading Hos 2 in this way becomes clearer when one recognizes that the constellation of first fruits components extends well-beyond the lemmas ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫ יצהר‬in 2:10, 24. To begin, other produce elsewhere traditionally associated with first fruits rites also conceptually appear: namely, “wool” (‫[ צמר‬Hos 2:7, 11]; cf. ‫[ גז צאנך‬Deut 18:4]) and “figs” (‫[ תאנה‬Hos 2:14; Deut 8:8; cf. Hos 9:10]). Further indication that this produce is for cultic activity, and not just emblematic of the land’s fertility, is that their removal precedes 1) the cessation of pilgrimage feasts and other offerings in v. 13 (‫ ;חג‬cf. Exod 23:16; Deut 16:10), and 2) the mention of offerings sent up in smoke (‫;קטיר‬ cf. Lev 2:16) to the Baalim in v. 15. Thus, while not mentioned, priestly functionaries partake in the people’s cultic meals (v. 13), but these would be the corrupt or idolatrous priests, not the priests faithful to Yhwh—Levites, Aaronides, or otherwise.44 Further, while Hos 2 does not specify the place where these rites are being observed, Hos 2:8’s portrayal of Israel chasing her paramours via “her byways” (‫ ;נתיבותיה‬cf. Jer 18:5) suggests local or regional open-air shrines maybe in view (cf. Hos 4:13; 10:1–2).45 Finally, the purpose of first fruits rites has at every point been betrayed in Hos 2: Israel is bringing her first fruits to the baalim;

43  For the lack of evidence, both textual and artefactual, for the hieros gamos in Canaanite religions, see Keefe, Woman’s, 50–53; Kelle, Hosea, 122–130; and the brief survey in Krispenz, “Idolatry,” 14 n. 18. 44  For a brief discuss of the corrupt priests (‫ )כהנים‬in Hos 4:7–8 and idolatrous priests (‫ )כמרים‬in Hos 10:5, see Krispenz, “Idolatry,” 12–17. Krispenz also makes the significant observation that overt “cultic actions” in Hosea are almost always attributed to the people (“Idolatry,” 16). 45  An additional allusion to open-air shrines may be detected in the compound image of Yhwh stripping Israel of items that cover “her nakedness” (‫ )ערותה‬in v. 11 and of “uncovering” (‫ )גלה‬her shame in v. 12. Although the violent image of “uncovering nakedness” (‫ גלה‬+ ‫ )ערוה‬elsewhere appears in judgments for idolatry (e.g. Ezek 16:36–37; 23:10, 18, 29) and in proscriptions against sexual misconduct (Lev 18:6–19; 20:11–21; Ezek 22:10), it also appears in the Covenant Code’s proscription against Israel exposing herself on any of Yhwh’s open-air shrines (Exod 20:26).

546

Garton

Yhwh and his delivering Israel from Egypt have been forgotten (v. 15, 17); and it is not priests loyal to Yhwh who are being provisioned. In short, Hos 2 displays a constellation of components that resembles the earliest profile of the cultic rite of first fruits (i.e., CC and Dt Code).46 What obscures this rite is the Northern Kingdom’s inappropriate observation of it: rather than bringing their first fruits to Jerusalem, worshippers under Jeroboam II (Hos 1:1) were delivering them to local/regional shrines and provisioning cultic personnel who no longer had Yahwistic approval (cf. Hos 8:5–6, 11–13).47 To break the cycle, Yhwh determines to block her paths (2:8); to remove the land’s fertility (2:10–11, 14) thereby disrupting her festivals wherein first fruits may be given (2:13, 15); and ultimately to woo her again into a restored covenantal relationship with renewed agricultural benefits (2:16–25). 2.2 First Fruits Rites in Haggai The very name of the prophet Haggai (‫חגי‬, perhaps “my festivals”), for whom there is no biographical background, is clearly derivative of the nominative ‫חג‬. Yet unlike the prophet Malachi, who also lacks such data, little attention has been directed to reading Haggai in light of the meaning of the prophet’s name; i.e., in terms of restoring the pilgrimage festivals the Torah requires.48 Instead, scholars have (rightly) focused on the Haggai’s core and secondary messages: i.e., build the temple (Hag 1:4, 8; 2:3, 9a), and the current agricultural 46  Contra Krispenz, whose lexical approach to delimiting cultic language in Hosea eliminates Hos 1–3 from consideration. Her assertion that “only four verses mention cultic terms in the three opening chapters (2:9, 15; 3:4, 5)” requires reconsideration (Krispenz, “Idolatry,” 13). 47  This reading finds a parallel in the early exegesis of Tob 1:5–8, which similarly interprets ancient Israel’s failures during this period. 48  Some scholars speculate that perhaps Haggai was born on a festival day (e.g., Redditt, Introduction, 319; Tuell, Nahum, 139), but this suggestion in no way relates the name to the material. The failure to read Haggai in light of his name likely stems from the conclusion that Haggai was a historical figure rather than a pseudonym like “Malachi” (cf. ‫מלאכי‬ in Mal 1:1; 3:1). Yet like Obadiah and Malachi, Haggai bears neither patronymic nor geographical provenance from which he heralds. The only data anchoring Haggai in history are the chronological formulas, which according to Hallaschka most scholars understand as secondary to the oracles (“Cores,” 177). Further, the Aramaic references to the prophet Haggai in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 are most likely even later, as Ezra 1–6 was most likely composed after the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs (cf. Yoo, Ezra, 7–9). (For a brief overview of the differences in Haggai’s and Ezra’s account, see Nogalski, Book, 761–762.) In short, while the incipits framing this anthology of oracles in Haggai attest to a strong tradition tying them to a prophet named Haggai, since the meaning of the name “Haggai” informs the oracles (see below), I would add “Haggai” beside Obadiah and Malachi as a name “given […] to associate the otherwise anonymous material” (Nogalski, “Prophets,” 171).

First Fruits Rites

547

and economic problems will cease (Hag 1:5–7; 2:15–19).49 Yet this “cause-andeffect theology,” as Nogalski coins its, suffers a significant disjuncture: while temple ideology in the ancient Near East connects temple construction with agricultural fertility, prior to Haggai no injunction in the Hebrew Bible mandates constructing a temple or predicates the land’s fertility on doing so.50 The recognition of first fruits rites being operative in background of Haggai, however, would offer a way forward on both fronts—i.e., the meaning of the prophet’s name for his message and the filling of this gap in the prophet’s temple ideology. The issue of first fruits rites in Haggai emerges forcefully when one recognizes that Hag 1:11 lists the same first fruits produce and in same sequence as those ascribed to the Aaronide priests in Num 18:12–15; likewise, the list in Hag 2:19 echoes the list in Deut 8:8.51 Even the list in Hag 2:12 potentially evokes first fruits rites: ‫ קדׁש‬commonly denotes first fruits as the sacred portion due the priests, especially the Aaronides; and meat (‫)בׂשר‬, bread (‫)לחם‬, wine (‫)יין‬, and oil (‫ )ׁשמן‬are all first fruits produce; only pottage (‫ )נזיד‬bears no connection to first fruits offerings.52 As for partakers, the futility curses in Hag 1:5–7 and 2:15–19 suggest that it is not the people, but the Aaronide priests for whom the 49  Hallaschka identifies these two foci as the first two stages of Haggai’s literary growth: 1) core oracles about the temple (Hag 1:4, 8; 2:3, 9a) framed by 1:1* + 1:15b–2:1; to this was added 2) the theme of “blessing and curse” (Hag 1:5–7 + 2:15–19*) reframed in light of Haggai’s addresses (Hag 1:1–3, 12a, 14–15a; 1:15b–2:2). Hallaschka assigns the remainder of Haggai to later stages: the impurity of the people in Hag 2:10–14, and finally the oracle for Zerubbabel in Hag 2:20–23 (“Cores,” 177–182; cf. Hallaschka, Haggai, 321). 50  Nogalski, Book, 767. Tuell, Nahum, 150, observes the connection with temple ideology in the ancient Near East, but Assis correctly notes the absence of any mandate to build a temple outside of Haggai in the Hebrew Bible (“Temple,” 4–7). 51  Beyond ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫יצהר‬, which appears in both Hag 1:11 and Num 18:12, the phrase ‫ועל‬ ‫ אׁשר תוציא האדמה‬in Hag 1:11 conceptually parallels ‫ בכורי כל־אׁשר בארצם‬in Num 18:13, and the phrases ‫ ועל־האדם ועל־הבהמה‬in Hag 1:11 corresponds to ‫ באדם ובבהמה‬in Num 18:15. This observation, however, does not necessitate Hag 1:11’s direct literary dependence on Num 18:12–15, which is quite late in the formation of the Pentateuch. Rather, a priestly tradition of first fruits produce and rights (not rites) likely stands behind this correspondence. As for Hag 2:19, ‫ זרע‬encapsulates ‫ חטה וׂשערה‬in Deut 8:8; the remaining produce of Hag 2:19 (i.e., ‫גפן‬, ‫תאנה‬, ‫רמון‬, and ‫ )זית‬appears in the same sequence in Deut 8:8; only ‫דבׁש‬, the last entry in Deut 8:8, is missing from Hag 2:19. Thus, Hag 2:19 follows Deut 8:8 more closely than what Joel 1:11–12 does, which while echoing ‫חטה‬ and ‫ ׂשערה‬of Deut 8:8 also adds palm (‫ )תמר‬and apple (‫ )תפוח‬trees. Contra Nogalski, Precursors, 228–229, I am inclined to see Hag 2:19 as drawing on Deut 8:8, and Joel 1:11–12, and 2:22 as drawing on Deut 8:8 and Hag 2:19 (note the reversal of Hag 2:19’s ‫ גפן‬and ‫)תאנה‬ respectively. 52  For ‫ קדׁש‬denoting sacred portions for the priests, see Lev 2:3, 10; 23:20; Num 18:8–19; Deut 12:26; 26:15. For ‫בׂשר‬, see Num 18:15, 18; for ‫לחם‬, see Lev 23:18; for ‫יין‬, see Lev 23:13;

548

Garton

consecrated (‫ )קדׁש‬first fruits are intended (cf. Num 18:12–15, 29, 32). The place, obviously, is to be the completed reconstructed Temple for which Haggai so ardently contends. Finally, the purpose for the renewal of first fruits offerings, while on the surface portrayed as being for the agricultural and economic benefit of the people, would most certainly be for provisioning the Aaronides (cf. Neh 10:35–40). This post-exilic constellation of first fruits components aligns well with the second profile outlined above. 2.3 First Fruits Rites in Joel 1–2 Aside from Zech 9–14, no other writing in the Twelve has more “crossreferences” to other writings in the Twelve than Joel.53 This connectivity, along with Joel’s position in the Twelve (both in the MT and LXX), has rightly led scholars to conclude that Joel has a unique role in unifying the Twelve.54 Moreover, as pertaining to our initial criterion—i.e., the ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫יצהר‬ triad—Nogalski has already demonstrated how these lemmas, as part of the Twelve’s “fertility motif,” reach back to Hos 2 and forward to Haggai.55 So far, this study has shown how this fertility language, when part of a constellation of other traditional components, more narrowly evokes the cultic rites of first fruits in Hos 2 and Haggai. But does the same hold true in Joel? As in Hos 2 and Haggai, the key to recognizing first fruits rites in the background of Joel lies in the presence of additional components indicative of first fruits rites. Beyond ‫דגן‬, ‫תירוׁש‬, and ‫ יצהר‬in Joel 1:10 and 2:19, the sequence of ‫חטה‬, ‫ׂשערה‬, ‫גפן‬, ‫תאנה‬, and ‫ רמון‬in Joel 1:11–12 follows the same sequence of produce in Deut 8:8—a text which Bik. 1:3, 10 reads as a more detailed list of first fruits produce than the above grain, wine, and oil triad. Granted, Joel 1:11–12 replaces the last two entries of Deut 8:8 (i.e. ‫ זית‬and ‫ )דבׂש‬with ‫ תמר‬and ‫תפוח‬, but all the produce in Joel 1:10–12 are framed by depictions of cultic functionaries unable

Deut 14:26; and for ‫ׁשמן‬, see Lev 2:16; 23:13; Num 28:28; Deut 8:8. Could the Judahites be trying to pass off leftovers as first fruits based on the presence of ‫?בׂשר־קדׁש‬ 53  Jeremias, “Function,” 77. This observation, while useful for comparing writings within the Twelve, understates Joel’s awareness and use of biblical texts beyond the Twelve; for a recent study, see Strazicich, Joel’s Use, 59–252. 54  Cf. Nogalski’s description of Joel as the Twelve’s “literary anchor” (“Joel,” 91–109) or his “Joel-Related Layer” (Processes, 275–278); and Jeremias, “Function,” 77, who describes Joel serving “a kind of hermeneutical key to the Twelve.” Sweeney’s study leads him to conclude “that the book of Joel does indeed play a key role in the Book of the Twelve […] its typological character, its place, and its function both the MT and the LXX versions of the book apparently defines the overall outlook of each” (“Place,” 154). 55  Nogalski, “Joel,” 100–103.

First Fruits Rites

549

to offer “grain and drink offerings” (‫ )מנחה ונסך‬in the temple (Joel 1:9, 13).56 Thus, the end products frame the first fruit produce from which they ultimately come. As for possible participants, the scope of the imagery in Joel 1–2 is all encompassing: from producers as embodied by farmers and vinedressers (1:11) to consumers such as drunkards, wine-drinkers (1:5), priests/ministers (1:9, 13; 2:17), animals (1:18–19; 2:22), and even the ground itself (2:21).57 At first glance, this breadth strains a first fruits reading of Joel 1–2, but as Sweeney observes such is the import of a functioning cult: “Insofar as the Temple and its service symbolize the stability of creation, all creation has come to a halt.”58 As such, the place then can be none other than the Temple. Finally, as for purpose, the provisioning of the priests is central; yet as Rooke aptly puts, “maintaining the cult is a matter of life and death” for the entire community.59 As well, Joel 1:8’s allusion to Baalism—i.e., via the command to lament like a virgin “regarding the Baal of her youth” (‫—)על־בעל נעוריה‬once again evokes the anti-idolic polemic of old. 56  While grain and drink offerings were part of the so-called ‫תמיד‬-offerings, occurring twice daily (cf. Exod 29:38–42; Num 28:1–8), they are also prescribed in the observance of first fruits rites (e.g., Lev 23:13, 18; Num 28:28–31). The cessation of these offerings would adversely affect the Aaronide priests, who lived “on their share of the daily sacrifice (Lev 2:3, 10)” (Wolff, Joel, 31; cf. Crenshaw, Joel, 99; Rooke, “Priests,” 86–87). Wolff’s assertion that this word-pair occurs “only in later post-exilic texts” ( Joel, 31), however, is overstated: it typically occurs in late texts, but its presence in 1 Kgs 16:15 suggests the tradition to be earlier (cf. Ahlström, Joel, 14–17). 57  A note about priests in Joel is warranted. While Joel 1:9 and 2:17 have ‫ הכהנים‬in apposition to ‫“( מׁשרתי יהוה‬the priests, the ministers of Yhwh”), Joel 1:13 separates ‫הכהנים‬ (“priests”) and ‫“( מׁשרתי מזבח‬ministers of [the] altar”) into parallel cola. The significance for this observation, if any, hinges to a degree on the dating of Joel 1–2. While priestly and postexilic texts often portray Aaronide priest “ministering” (‫ ;ׁשרת‬e.g., Exod 28:35, 43; 29:30; 1 Chr 23:13), the participle (‫ מׁשרת)ים‬when applied to priests almost always denotes Levites, not Aaronides (e.g. Jer 33:21–22; Ezek 44:10–11; 45:5 [cf. 45:4]; 46:21 [via ‫מׁשרתי‬ ‫ ;הבית‬cf. Ezek 45:5]; Ezra 8:17–18; 1 Chr 16:4, 37; 2 Chr 8:14; 23:6; 29:4, 11). There are only four exceptions to this usage: Isa 61:6 (no lineage specified); Ezek 45:4 (Aaronides are ‫ ;מׁשרתי המקדׁש‬cf. Ezek 45:5); Neh 10:37–40 (priests, with Levites treated separately); and 2 Chr 13:10 (Aaronides are ‫מׁשרתים ליהוה‬, not the Levites). This frequency within what are predominantly late texts may be coincidental, but if Joel is a late postexilic text as many believe, then the use of the participle form in Joel 1:9, 13 and 2:17 may signify concern for the Levites. If the separate cola in Joel 1:13 are indicative of separate classes of priests rather than synonymous parallelism, then both Aaronide and Levites may be in view. In short, the evidence is inconclusive, but the later Joel is, the more likely (‫ מׁשרת)ים‬would evoke the Levites (cf., Ahlström, Joel, 17–18, who also sees [‫ מׁשרת]ים‬as both late and indicative of Levitical lineage). 58  Sweeney, Prophets, 160. 59  Rooke, “Priest,” 84.

550

Garton

Together, the above constellation of components could be taken to reflect our third and final profile, and as such it is tempting to proffer this as corroborating Joel as a late postexilic composition. A crucial difference, however, is that Joel does not clearly distinguish priestly classes by lineage (cf. n. 57). Nevertheless, two sets of evidences strongly advocate for aligning Joel with the third rather the first profile: 1) Joel’s use of the typically late word-pair ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫ נסך‬and lexeme (‫ מׁשרת)ים‬for priests to frame the crisis of his day (Joel 1:9, 13; 2:14; cf. n. 56–57); and 2) Joel’s undeniable awareness of other scriptural materials. Further, at the very least, recognition of first fruits rites as a backdrop to Joel clarifies but one aspect of the crisis facing the cult and community, even if this recognition fails to afford additional insight into the rationale behind it. If Joel’s audience repents, fasts, assembles, and sanctifies themselves (2:12–14), then Yhwh will repent, relent, and leave a ‫ מנחה‬and ‫ נסך‬behind him so such offerings—including first firsts—may resume (2:14; contra Jer 14:12). 3 Conclusion The key texts preserving prescriptions for and descriptions of first fruits offerings show the observance of these rituals to have been a dynamic, polyvalent tradition. This is especially the case for the produce, places, partakers, and purposes of first fruits rites. Yet not only do Hos 2, Haggai, and Joel 1–2 contain constellations of these components, but the relative chronology of the texts in the formation of the Twelve also mirror the broad strokes of the development of these rites through time. As such, allusions to these elusive first fruits rites do indeed appear to be operative in the Twelve. Moreover, the recognition of these rites in Hos 2, Haggai, and Joel 1–2 not only clarifies the crises reflected in them, but also affords a way forward toward resolving some of their salient interpretative issues. While the task of mining other texts in the Twelve for such allusions remains (e.g. Amos 4:4–9; Mal 3:3–12), I suspect the recognition of first fruits rites and the interpretative insights they bear would likewise prove to be a fruitful endeavour. Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Edited by Eckart Otto. BZABR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.

First Fruits Rites

551

Ahlström, Gosta W. Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. VTSup 21. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Altmann, Peter. Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Deuteronomy’s Identity Politics in their Ancient Near Eastern Context. BZAW 424. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2011. Assis, Elie. “The Temple in the Book of Haggai.” JHebS 8 (2008): 1–10. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Laws of ‘Orlah and First Fruits in Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan.” JJS 38 (1987): 195–202. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Temple Scroll and its Calendar: Their Character and Purpose.” RevQ 18 (1997): 3–19. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Childs, Brevard. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1974. Crawford, Sidney W. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24C. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995. Crüsemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social History of the Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. Davies, Philip. “Urban Religion and Rural Religion.” Pages 105–117 in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah. Edited by Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton. London: Bloomsbury, 2010. DeSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Garton, Roy E. Mirages in the Desert: The Tradition-historical Developments of the Story of Massah–Meribah. BZAW 492. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2017. Gesundheit, Shimon. Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Penta­ teuch. FAT 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. Hallaschka, Martin. “From Cores to Corpus: Considering the Formation of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8.” Pages 171–189 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Healy, John F. “Dagon ‫דגון‬.” DDD 216–219. Healy, John F. “Tirash ‫תירשׁ תירושׁ‬.” DDD 871–872. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Function of the Book of Joel for Reading the Twelve.” Pages 77–87 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological

552

Garton

Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Keefe, Alice A. Woman’s Body and Social Body in Hosea. JSOTSup 338. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Kelle, Brad E. Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective. AcBib 20. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2005. Knohl, Israel. “The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals.” HUCA 58 (1987): 65–117. Krispenz, Jutta. “Idolatry, Apostasy, Prostitution: Hosea’s Struggle against the Cult.” Pages 9–29 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus ‫ויקרא‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Trans­ lation Commentary. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University, 1997. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. MacDonald, Nathan. “Ritual Innovation and Shavu‘ot.” Pages 55–77 in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism. Edited by idem. BZAW 468. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2016. Mayes, Andrew D.H. Deuteronomy. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. Meyers, Carol. “Household Religion.” Pages 118–134 in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah. Edited by Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton. London: Bloomsbury, 2010. Meyers, Carol. “Feast Days and Food Ways: Religious Dimensions of Household Life.” Pages 225–250 in Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Nihan, Christophe. “Supplementing Leviticus in the Second Temple Period: The Case of the Wood Offering in 4Q365 Fragment 23.” Pages 183–204 in Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Saul M. Olyan and Jacob L. Wright. BJS 361. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018. Nogalski, James D. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by idem and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000.

First Fruits Rites

553

Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Micah–Malachi. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Nogalski, James D. “Where Are the Prophets in the Book of the Twelve?” Pages 163–192 in The Book of the Twelve & the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda et al. ANEM 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015. Oswald, Wolfgang. “Lawgiving at the Mountain of God (Exodus 19–24).” Pages 169– 192 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman et al. VTSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Redditt, Paul L. Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Reeves, John C. “The Feast of the First Fruits of Wine and the Ancient Canaanite Calendar.” VT 42 (1992): 350–361. Rigsby, Richard O. “First Fruits.” ABD 2: 796–797. Rooke, Deborah. “Priests and Profits: Joel and Malachi.” Pages 81–99 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Seebass, Horst. Numeri 10,11–22,1. BKAT IV/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Seidel, Moshe. “Parallels between the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms” (Hebrew). Sinai 38 (1955–56): 149–172, 229–240, 272–280, 335–355. Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and Ellen van Wolde. BibInt 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Sweeney, Marvin. The Twelve Prophets: Volume One: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Edited by David W. Cotter. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin. “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 133–154 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Tuell, Steven. Reading Nahum–Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the Old Testament. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Wolff, Hans W. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Translated by Waldemar Janzen et al. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977. Wright, David P. “The Origin, Development, and Context of the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:23–23:19).” Pages 220–244 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman et al. VTSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Wyatt, Nicholas. “Oil ‫יצהר‬.” DDD 640. Yoo, Philip Y. Ezra and the Second Wilderness. Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University, 2017.

Chapter 29

The Nations in the Book of the Twelve Anselm C. Hagedorn 1 Introduction1 Biblical Israel is distinctly aware of its relationship to the neighbouring people in the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider Near East. This awareness shapes the theological discourse as well as the formation of individual prophetic books and larger literary entities. The prophet Ezekiel, for example, describes Jerusalem as being surrounded by foreign nations (Ezek 5:5): This is Jerusalem, I have set her in the midst of nations and countries round about her. In the light of Ezek 38:12 this verse is often understood as a reference to Jerusalem as the navel of the earth (‫)טהור הארץ‬,2 but it is more likely that Ezekiel refers to the harmful influences of the foreign nations, a view elsewhere attested in biblical literature.3 In the prophetic books, words against foreign nations appear to be an integral part of the literary genre and “it seems to have come to be normal, even obligatory, for prophetic books to include oracles against a variety of foreign nations.”4 It seems that ancient Israel defines itself against the background of its neighbours. As such, prophecy and divination also serve as a primarily political matter, i.e. a source for human guidance.5 Normally, such oracles consist of an announcement of future doom on a specific ruler, city or nation and the prophetic proclamation that Yhwh will enact judgement upon the nations.6

1  Matthias Köckert zum 8. April 2019. 2  Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 174–175. 3  Seeligmann, “Jerusalem,” 394, followed by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 110–111. 4  Barton, Oracles, 203. 5  See Bremmer, “Prophets,” 150–183; Blenkinsopp, Sage, 115–165, and the careful remarks in Reimer, “Political Prophets,” 126–142. For an earlier anthropological perspective, see Bourdillon, “Oracles,” 124–140. 6  See Raabe, “Oracles,” 236–257. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_031

The Nations

555

The audience for such an oracle is almost exclusively Israel and the original place of origin of such oracles might have been war.7 In such cases the punishment announced for the foreign nation might be described not so much in terms of its disastrous consequences for them as conversely in terms of beneficial consequences for the audience […] The announcement of punishment concerning the enemy nation thus might include elements of an announcement of salvation for the people of Yahweh, to be overheard (as it were) by them, so that the prophecy of punishment against a foreign nation functioned for Israel or Judah virtually as a prophecy of salvation.8 As several of the oracles against foreign nations originate on the basis of actual historical knowledge and will later be transformed these passages from the prophetic books offer a “literary anchor” for the reconstruction of the biblical book as well as for the shape of Judean identity. The oracles can be seen as part of a discourse employing stereotypes that shed light on the question how the “other” is constructed in the Hebrew Bible. These oracles are only possible because the hearers and readers already possess certain knowledge of the actions and characteristics of the foreigners. Whether such knowledge is historically accurate or based on concrete encounters is not always important, because the imagined community—to use a term coined by Benedict Anderson—utilizes the imagined adversary to proclaim salvation for one’s own group.9 As result, the words “serve as a key device in communicating power and conquest of the divine imperium.”10 The audience for such an oracle is almost exclusively Israel and the original place of origin of such oracles might have been war. It is however, virtually impossible to pin individual oracles to concrete battles or military campaigns as the result, i.e. the destruction or defeat of the adversaries seems to be the prevalent point.11 7  Thus Christensen, Transformation, whose argument, however, that any word against a foreign nation originated in a concrete oracle of a priest or a prophet immediately before the battle is difficult to maintain. Cf. Hagedorn, “Foreigner,” 438. The arguments against such a political use of words against foreign people put forward in Geyer, “Look,” 80–87, are hardly convincing. 8  Floyd, Minor Prophets, 636; for a different view see Albertz, Israel, 183: “[…] the widespread scholarly opinion that the foreign nation oracles represent an indirect proclamation of salvation for Israel (this frequently denying their authorship by the classical prophets of judgement) is incorrect as a general rule.” 9  Anderson, Communities, 5–7. 10  Davidson, “Postcolonial Readings,” 516. 11  On the topic of (holy) war in the prophetic books, see Berges, “Heiligung,” 43–57.

556

Hagedorn

Interest into overarching processes at work in the literary development of the Book of the Twelve beyond simple catchword phenomena and direct literary quotations have sparked new interest into the role of the nations.12 After the ground-breaking studies by Odil Hannes Steck,13 Burkard M. Zapff has used the perspective of the nations in the book of Micah as a possible clue to the systematization of the nations’ role in Joel, Jonah, Nahum and Jakob Wöhrle has detected two corpora relating to the foreign nations in the Book of the Twelve as well as an expanded corpus addressing the issue of salvation.14 Indeed, the ubiquity of the theme of the nations may suggest that we have a unifying theme here that binds the collections of twelve individual books together. If this were the case, the nations would stand next to more obvious features such as the day of Yhwh and the grace formula.15 As a result it would then, indeed, “be possible to develop a theology of the relation of Israel to the nations from the book of the Twelve.”16 The prevalence of the oracles against foreign nations in the Book of the Twelve often blinds one in regard to the peculiarities of such collections. Almost all prophetic books within the corpus of a Book of the Twelve contain oracles against foreign nations and some books like Obadiah and Nahum seem to be solely shaped by them. The only exception is the book of Hosea. The complicated integration of Hosea does not need to concern us and it will suffice to say that—maybe—the book has to be seen as a whole as a word against the Northern Kingdom.17 Furthermore we have to state that not all nations known are ever listed. The cycle at the beginning of Amos is a case in point. Only via the addition in Amos 1:9–12 are all the neighbours mentioned but a clear structure is still missing.18 It seems that any attempt “to run through as many as possible of Israel’s enemies in the sequence if the points of the compass almost always turns out to be inconsistent.”19 Despite such inconsistencies the discourse evoking the foreign “other” is remarkably stable over 12  See the overview of recent scholarship in Schart, “Zwölfprophetenbuch,” 227–246. 13  Steck, Abschluß. 14  Zapff, “Perspective,” 292–312; Wöhrle, Sammlungen, and idem, Abschluss. 15  See Wöhrle, “Cross-References,” 9–17, and Kessler, “The Twelve,” 212–216. 16  Kessler, “The Twelve,” 214. 17  For a proposal of how to integrate Hosea into a larger literary context within the Book of the Twelve, see Wöhrle, Abschluss, 429–437. Timmer has argued that in Hosea “the nations never change, they are never shown to be doomed to judgment […], and they should be summarily dismissed by repentant Israel as attractive but unfaithful partners” (Timmer, Non-Israelite Nations, 28). 18  See the attempt in Niemann, “Theologie,” 177–196, to solve the order via geography and Steinman, “Order,” 683–689, who states that (in the final form) a neighbour of Israel alternates with a neighbour of Judah. 19  Albertz, Israel, 182.

The Nations

557

time with long gone nations beginning to serve a cipher for political powers that are perceived as threatening—a process that continues in the pesharim of Qumran. The pesharim present Gentiles as the paradigmatic Other, and they view foreign nations as both agents and objects of divine retribution. In some cases, they apply biblical prophecies against foreign enemies to contemporary Jewish antagonists.20 As a result the foreign other becomes an essential aspect of the groups own formation of identity without collapsing identity into identification as the differences remain and are a crucial part of the discourse.21 From a post-colonial perspective it can be noted that while no single collection of oracles entirely maps all known territory, the cumulative impact of the collections in the prophets underscores the global scope of the divine imperium requiring the rupture of planeterity that Spivak advocates that forestalls the ideas of control that globalization evokes.22 These modern interpretations mirror the ancient understanding that ancient empires used war and destruction as an instrument of foreign policy. By adapting this discourse about empire and power, ancient Israel participates in such discourse and shapes it according to its literary and theological needs. 2

The Surrounding Nations—and Edom as Special Case

The point of departure for Israel’s (literary) engagement with the foreign nations is clearly rooted in a concrete encounter with the historical powers in the Eastern Levant. Both as vassal of larger empires such as Assyria and Babylon and as neighbour to various smaller kingdoms (such as Moab, Ammon, Philistia, Aram-Damascus, Edom), Israel’s existence is intrinsically linked to other political powers within a defined geographical area. “This came about simply because the political turmoil caused by the westward invasions of the 20  See Hagedorn and Tzoref, “Attitudes,” 472–509, and Kratz, “Pescher Nahum,” 99–145. 21  See LaCapra, History, 37, who states: “Nor should it [i.e. identity (A.H.)] be conflated with identification in the sense of total fusion with others wherein difference is obliterated and criticism is tantamount to betrayal. But identity does involve modes of being with others that range from the actual to the imagined, virtual, sought-after, normatively affirmed, or utopian. Moreover, it is important to explore the relations and articulations among various qualifiers of identity, especially group identity, which may be ascribed by others, taken up or confronted by the self or by members of the group, deconstructed, refunctioned, affirmed, or acknowledged in more or less revised fashion, earned though collective activity, and recognized, validated, or invalidated by others.” 22  Davidson, “Postcolonial Readings,” 516, citing Spivak, Death, 72.

558

Hagedorn

Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians brought Israel and Judah into much closer contact with the other nations and powers of the Ancient Near East than ever before. After the collapse of the state their weal and woe was totally dependent on large-scale international politics.”23 The encounter with Assyria as the first truly imperial power that appears in Palestine provides the basis for Israel’s engagement with foreign nations or people. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the last three pre-exilic prophets (Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah) are shaped by the debate about how to engage with the Assyrian empire.24 Though Habakkuk may be an exception here, the literary origin of Nahum and Zephaniah has to be seen in the words against the Assyrians. Previously to the Assyrian encounter, both Israel and Judah experienced cultural and imperial contacts with Egypt.25 As will be explained in detail below, these contacts, however, never led to specific words against Egypt as, for example, has been the case in the book of Isaiah or Jeremiah. This interconnection with international politics, however, does not automatically imply that every word against a foreign nation can be linked decidedly to a historical event in Israel’s past. Amos 1:3–2:5, for example, represents a highly structured and artistic composition containing various rhetorical devices that make it difficult to trace any words back to the original historical setting. Here we do very well to remember a statement by John Barton who urged his readers to remember that “[t]here is no hope of dating the events Amos refers to with anything approaching certainty.”26 The same has to be said about the question whether Amos 1:3– 2:5 can be attributed to the prophet himself. Furthermore, the cycle against the foreign nations seems to correspond to the visions reported in Amos 7–9 and it appears that Amos 1:3–2:16 presupposes the visions in the latter part of the book.27 This becomes especially clear when we compare the five ‘original’ words against foreign nations with the five visions. If we understand the words against the foreign nations and the visions as deliberate expansions of the literary core of the book of Amos in Amos 3–6 it is unlikely that Amos 1:2–2:16 contains any words that can be traced back to the prophet Amos himself.28 Rather, Amos 1:3–2:16 groups together all those nations that appear elsewhere in the Book of the Twelve but never as part of a five or seven-fold cycle.29 23  Albertz, Israel, 180. 24  See Coggins, “Minor Prophets,” 64, and Dietrich, “Three Minor Prophets,” 147–156. 25  On this, see Schipper, “Egypt,” 200–226, and idem, “Egyptian Imperialism,” 268–290. In general, see Kessler, Ägyptenbilder. 26  Barton, Amos’s Oracles, 35. 27  See Gese, “Komposition,” 74–95, and Jeremias, “Völkersprüche,” 157–171. 28  See Becker, “Prophet,” 141–165, and Kratz, “Worte,” 54–89. 29  Timmer, Non-Israelite Nations, 63–64, has noted that “some of the nations come to enjoy a radically new, positive status” in Amos, opening the “possibility that some Non-Israelite

The Nations

559

Despite the obvious difficulties to link words against foreign nations to exact events, these oracles cannot simply be classified as vaticina ex eventu as text like Nah 2:2,4–11; 3:1–3, 7aβ, 8–15, Zeph 2:4–6, 8–9a, and Zech 9:1–8 seem to react to political events in a timely manner. Here, events like the sack of Thebes and the prosperity of the neighbouring states in light of Assyrian expansion are dealt with and integrated into a discourse about the “other.” As such, words against foreign nations are part of the inner-biblical discourse about ethnicity. Zephaniah, for example, appears to be speaking against those nations with whom Israel does not have kinship relations (Moab, Ammon, Philistia).30 This means that right from the beginning the book draws a sharp distinction between Israel and her “foreign” neighbours. This view is maintained even in the later additions; in those passages where borders become fluid (Zeph 3:9–10) such fluidity is immediately corrected (Zeph 3:10bα). Furthermore, the oracle against Judah’s immediate neighbours is later expanded by a word against Jerusalem in Zeph 3:1–5. This expansion is remarkable because the city is treated here in the same manner as the foreign nations in a way similar to Amos 2. This implies that the editor of Zephaniah’s prophecy regards Jerusalem as a foreign entity that can be treated as such. We encounter here a phenomenon only attested in the Nahum–Habakkuk–Zephaniah Corpus. Whereas ‫“ הוי‬woe” is used in Amos and Micah against groups in Israel (Amos 5:18–20; 6:1; Mic 2:1) in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah it is explicitly used against the nations (Nah 3:1; Hab 2:5–19; Zeph 2:5; 3:1). In the final form of the text of Zephaniah a certain ambiguity is maintained since it is not entirely clear who is addressed here, since Zeph 3:1 could also refer to Nineveh, mentioned in Zeph 2:13. This difficulty must have been felt very early on, since the text is supplemented by two statements (Zeph 3:2, 5) that make it clear that we are talking about Jerusalem here. The fairly general statements against officials, judges, prophets and priests are augmented by those passages from Zeph 1 where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are accused of misconduct and are called to judgement during the day of Yhwh (Zeph 1:8–16). We see that the discourse against foreign nations is firmly embedded into prophetic critique of internal affairs and even later expanded to distinguish between various groups within Judaism. General terminology denoting foreigners in the Minor Prophets is fairly rare: The term ‫“ גר‬foreigner” is only used twice in Zech 7:10 and Mal 3:5. Both nations would abandon their habitual aggression against Israel/Judah, and especially their autonomy in the face of Yhwh’s universal sovereignty, in favor of a radically new posture towards both.” 30  We see here that the incestuous origin of the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:30–38) as children of Lot, the nephew of Abraham is not seen as a kinship relation in Zephaniah; rather, the book appears to follow Deut 23:4–6 (comp. Ezra 9:1–2, 10–12; 10:2–3; Neh 13:23– 27) and uses the view propagated there as the reason for a sharp distinction.

560

Hagedorn

times it is part of a rephrasing of social laws known from the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy warning Israel to oppress the personae miserae and to stress that Yhwh will ensure their rights.31 The adjective ‫ נכרי‬occurs in Obad 11 to describe the Babylonians who are not mentioned by name despite the setting of the Babylonian conquest and in Zeph 1:8 to label clothing (‫)מלבוׁש נכרי‬. The term ‫ נכר‬is used once in Mal 2:11 as part of the phrase ‫ נכר בת אל‬who Judah marries.32 The term ‫ זר‬is used in Hos 5:7; 7:9; 8:7, 12; Joel 4:17; and Obad 11 as a general description of foreigners. The most frequent term to label gentiles is, of course, ‫ גוי‬occurring 79 times. In contrast to those passages that seem to refer, in some form or other, to a concrete historical place or event relating to the nations the more general terms are often used to describe the otherness of Israel in regard to foreigners. Especially in Hosea the prospect of mixing with or relying on foreign powers is seen as evil and a sign of forsaking Yhwh as e.g. Hos 8:7–9 indicates. A further aspect that will later be developed is the apparent idolatry of the nations. It seems to be the standard biblical view that the gods of the gentiles are a threat to Israel. As a result, the worship of idols is associated with foreign practice. Biblical reworking of older material is later continued in the pesharim from Qumran when Hab 2:18–19 is now directed against ‫ פסלי הגוים‬thus continuing a trend in the literary development of Hab 2:6–19 to rephrase the woes against Israel as also being directed against nations.33 Within the Book of the Twelve, Edom appears to be a special case.34 “The choice of Edom is dictated by the paradigmatic status of Edom as neighbour, related by kinship, yet unremittingly hostile, and also by the fact that traditionally, in heroic poetry, Edom is where Yhwh first came from.”35 The stark polemics against a people who are seen as brothers (Obad 6, 10–12) only make sense after the fall of Jerusalem.36 Like Moab and Ammon, Edom paid tribute to the Assyrian and Babylonian rulers and as a result prospered economically and enjoyed a certain degree of political independence. The factors leading to Edomite statehood were the stability of Assyrian control and improved economic opportunities, for it should be remembered that the Assyrian system of vassaldom also prevented fighting 31  On Mal 3:5, see Kessler, Maleachi, 241–244. 32  The expression ‫ ביום נכרו‬in Obad 11 has to be translated as “day of distress.” Cf. Job 31:3. 33  See Wöhrle, Abschluss, 308–309. 34  See the overview in Dicou, Edom; Assis, “Why Edom,” 1–20; Scoralick, “Case,” 35–52, and Krause, “Tradition,” 475–486. 35  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 249; and the correction of the traditional view of Yhwh’s origin in Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen, 82–86, 258–268. 36  See Hagedorn, Die Anderen, 215–218.

The Nations

561

between and among the vassal states […] The Assyrian domination no doubt much improved the status of Edom in its traditional land, in which we are able to detect large-scale building activity, the renewal of copper production, and Assyrian support for the Edomites and the Arabian traders in the area between the desert and the Mediterranean coast.37 In a way, Edom is similar to Moab and Ammon that equally profit from Assyrian (and Babylonian) domination. The polemics against the Edomites in Obadiah can be seen as a literary continuation (Fortschreibung) of the Edom oracle in Jer 49:7–22, which is seen as an authoritative text.38 The prophetic book wants to provide an answer or better a reason for the demise of Edom as well as to interpret the word against the background of the brotherly conflict. It appears that the role of Edom is of such importance that an individual prophetic book needs to be devoted to it. As in Isaiah (Isa 34; 63) Edom becomes the power that hinders salvation and thus needs to be crushed. As such Obadiah’s prophecy is the beginning of later developments, when Edom is transformed into a cipher of the foreign nation par excellence. Later tradition will develop this aspect ascribing a more and more active role to Edom (1 Enoch 89:66; 1 Esdras 4:45). Obad 15a, 16–18 expands the judgement of Edom to a more universal one, which is now understood as the approaching Day of Yhwh. The verses employ language known from other prophetic books (e.g. Zeph 1:7, 14 and Joel 1:15, 3:5). Here the judgement against Edom serves as an example for the fate of all the nations.39 All grievances against the nations were subsumed under the major grievance of territorial usurpation by Edom, and upon its shoulder were heaped all the nations’ sins that Yahweh, the cosmic warrior, must surely avenge. Indeed, Edom’s transformation is complete when it is depicted as the eschatological foe whose bloody destruction is the precondition for cosmic restoration and for Israel’s triumphant return to Zion.40 Whether any actual conflicts between Israel and Edom are reflected in Obadiah is difficult to assess but texts like Arad 40 and Arad 24 (rev.) mention Edomite raids on Judean territory. This and the Edomite loyalty towards Babylon may have been the origin of the negative image of Edom. In contrast to Assyria,

37  Stern, Archaeology, 293–294. 38  Köckert, “Obadiah,” 256. 39  Jeremias, Propheten, 60. 40   Glazier-McDonald, “Edom,” 32.

562

Hagedorn

which—in the Book of the Twelve—is given the possibility to repent (Jonah), Edom is excluded from such repentance. “There is no possibility of repentance, their destruction is not partial or limited, and they disappear from the scene when the book sketches the eschatological consummation.”41 Looking at Edom from Amos 9 and the books of Obadiah and Joel one realizes that the “anti-Edom oracles were meant to instil into the hearts of the people that, despite the destruction, Israel is still the chosen people and the sins of Edom against Judah will not remain unpunished.”42 3

The Absence of Egypt and Babylon

Babylon and the Babylonian Empire are only mentioned three times in the Book of the Twelve (Mic 4:10; Zech 2:11; 6:10) and is never addressed directly. As Babylon and the Babylonians are generally seen as the archetypical enemy in biblical literature, such a sparsity of occurrences of Babylon must surprise.43 Especially in the book of Obadiah the absence of Babylon is remarkable as the literary and possibly also the historical setting of the booklet points to the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. An event that left traces in almost all biblical books is carefully pushed into the background here and simply serves as the point of departure for an evaluation of Israel’s relationship to Edom. In this process the role of Babylon remains completely unaddressed. This goes so far that Babylon is not even mentioned and simply described as foreign (‫ זר‬and ‫ נכר‬in Obad 11). We can see that the perspective of this particular nation differs remarkable from the view put forward in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. In those writings—to use an expression coined by Rainer Albertz—vengeance on Babylon becomes the cantus firmus of the oracles against the foreign nations.44 Such a theology of retribution is alien to the Book of the Twelve but several passages introduced by ‫ הנני אליך‬in the book of Nahum, however, may point into such a direction. Babylon is simply the land of the exile and only the impact of conquest and destruction upon Judah is important. In Mic 4:10, for example, Babylon is simply a geographical region that designates the future dwelling place of 41  Timmer, Non-Israelite Nations, 75. 42  Assis, “Why Edom,” 19. On the relationship between Amos 9 and Obadiah, see Nogalski, “Nation,” 89–107. 43  Boda, Development, 137, has proposed that “Babylon is cast more positively in the Book of the Twelve, as a place of preservation key to the re-emergence of Jerusalem as royal seat of King Yahweh.” 44  Albertz, Israel, 194.

The Nations

563

Daughter Zion—a place from which Yhwh will redeem (‫ )גאל‬his people. This view is echoed in the two other occurrences of Babylon in the Book of the Twelve. The language of Zech 2:11 imitates classic prophetic speech and is reminiscent of the book of Jeremiah and other Babel text in the Hebrew Bible but an important change has happened:45 While texts like Jer 50:42; 51:33 as well as Isa 47:1 and Ps 137:8 address the daughter of Babylon directly, this is not the case in Zech 2:11. Here, Babylon is again simply used to designate the dwelling place of the exiled population of Judah. Though Zech 2:12–13 supplements the summons to flee to Zion by an announcement of Yhwh’s visitation of the nations—Babel is no longer the sole focus here (as is the case in Isaiah and Jeremiah) but it is anonymously subsumed under the general term ‘nations.’ Similarly, in Zech 6:10 Babylon has completely faded into the background and it is only the place from where the Golah returned and the mentioning of the Golah refers back to Zech 6:8,46 where it is explicitly stated that those who went to the North have placed Yhwh’s spirit there—a necessary requirement for the reorganisation of the community.47 Here, in an addition to the original nightly visions, a peaceful co-existence (Zech 6:9–13) of worldly and spiritual leadership is envisaged as the new order of the post-exilic community and this order is erected and guaranteed by members of the return-group as is the case in Ezra and Nehemiah.48 Despite this reluctance to speak against Babylon as the place of the Golah, we can trace several literary strata that seem to reflect anonymously the period of Babylonian rule in several books within the Dodekapropheton.49 Here— amongst others—Habakkuk and Nahum come to mind. As far as the book of Habakkuk is concerned, Jakob Wöhrle has shown that a Babylonian layer was introduced into the book that transforms its original intention into an oracle against an enemy from the outside.50 Intriguing as this proposal may be, he has then to concede that the Babylonians—only mentioned in Hab 1,6aα—are used in exemplary fashion for any foreign nation that threatens Israel and that 45  The expression ‫ מארץ צפון‬only in Jer 3:18; 6:22; 10:22; 16:15; 23:8; 31:8; 50:9; Zech 2:10 and without ‫ מן‬Jer 46:10; Zech 6:6, 8. The expression ‫ בת בבל‬only in Isa 47:1; Jer 50:42; 51:33; Ps 137:8. 46  Thus also Hallaschka, Haggai, 260. 47  See Lux, “Jhwhs ‘Herrlichkeit,’” 220–221, and Uehlinger, “Policy,” 347. 48  On the influence of the return group on the construction of the post-exilic community, see Williamson, Studies, 25–45; Rothenbusch, “Auseinandersetzung,” 112–126. 49  See also the literary implications in regard to the redaction history of the Book of the Twelve in Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 277–359, who detects an “Assur/Babel-Redaktion” that aligns the Dodekapropheton with the order First Isaiah–Jeremiah. 50  See Wöhrle, Abschluss, 319–322.

564

Hagedorn

they do not represent the historical Babylonians as such.51 Maybe it is more likely to follow Henrik Pfeiffer and regard ‫ את הכׂשדים‬as a gloss to the following ‫ הגוי‬here;52 this probably explains the apparent lack of the Babylonians in the rest of the book a bit better. Also in the context of (Hos) Nah–Zeph, i.e. the Assyrian period, any reference to the Babylonians would be strangely out of place. The book of Nahum is a different matter.53 Here after the fall of Assyria, the fate of Nineveh is transferred to Babylon,54 which is now seen as the aggressor that threatens Israel and no longer as the welcome destroyer of the Assyrian tyrant. Prerequisite for this addition has been the fact that Nineveh indeed fell in 612 bce, thus providing proof for the authenticity of the prophecy. This (second) layer from the time of the exile makes it abundantly clear that Yhwh will be responsible for the destruction of Nineveh—in accord with exilic theology and thinking, a concrete political entity of the oldest stratum (Babylon) is replaced by the divinity who now acts on behalf of his subjects. At the same time, Babylon is not mentioned even though the threat of the Babylonians or a reflection about the Babylonian period prompted this addition to the book of Nahum. Whether it is indeed possible to argue that Babylon plays a key role in the Book of the Twelve remains questionable but we see that—in contrast to the major prophets—the prominence of the demise of Babylon provides the background for the literary reshaping of the prophetic tradition.55 Within the Minor Prophets we can observe a similar reluctance when looking at the (literary) role of Egypt. Out of the 29 occurrences of Egypt (‫)מצרים‬ in Hosea—Malachi the majority of the passages refer to Egypt simply as a geographical location, i.e. the place from where either Yhwh brought Israel up or a place where Israel turns to in time of (political) need.56 The name Egypt—it 51  “Die Babylonier dürften daher wohl beispielhaft für eine dem Volk feindlich gesinnte Großmacht zu verstehen sein.” Wöhrle, Abschluss, 321. 52  Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen, 138–139. 53  For a detailed literary analysis, see Hagedorn, Die Anderen, 25–90, and Kratz, “Pescher Nahum,” 123–141. 54  See Dietrich, “Three Minor Prophets,” 152: “With Nah it is obvious that wherever ‘Nineveh’ is mentioned, ‘Babylon’ was heard” and idem, Nahum, 32, following Hagedorn, Die Anderen, 41–81. 55  Boda, Development, 137–160, has argued that Babylon’s “demise is played down and its identity fused with that of the Assyrians, which preceded it” (ibid., 160)—he, nevertheless, maintains that Babylon is an important literary trope for the literary structure of the Book of the Twelve. 56  The term ‫ מצרים‬in Hos 2:17; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:1, 5, 11; 12:2, 14; 13:4; Joel 4:19; Amos 2:10; 3:1, 9; 4:10; 8:8; 9:5, 7; Mic 6:4; 7:15; Nah 3:9; Hag 2:5; Zech 10:10, 11; 14:18, 19 and the term ‫ מצור‬in Mic 7:12.

The Nations

565

appears—is linked to the Exodus and to go to Egypt for political help is— especially in the book of Hosea—condemned. Outside such references only Joel 4:19; Amos 3:9; Nah 3:9; Zech 10:11; and Zech 14:18–19 speak of Egypt. In texts like Amos 3:9 Egypt serves as a (stereotypical) representative of a major foreign power that should witness the social injustices in Samaria.57 Within the last original oracle against Assyria in Nah 3:9 Egypt is set in parallel to Cush (i.e. Ethiopia) and possibly designates the realm of power of Thebes, which is mentioned in the preceding verses that introduces the last oracle against Nineveh. The context is then the destruction of a major centre of power (Thebes) despite her apparent invincibility. A theological evaluation of such destruction is not given as the events of the Theban destruction at the hands of the Assyrians in the year 664/663 bce are simply reported and used as a foil for the hubris of Nineveh. In other words: The prestige of the conquest of Thebes becomes a paradigm for the doom of Assyria.58 The doom for Egypt that was simply reported as historical fact in Nah 3:9 and utilized in a word against Assyria is paired with the desolation of Edom in Joel 4:9 and moved outside the realm of historical reality. The desolation of Joel 4:19 stands in stark contrast to the Arcadian vision of the preceding verse (Joel 4:18) where the fruitfulness of a renewed Judah with its miraculous water supply is described.59 As such the desolation of the traditional fertile Egypt places a last emphasis on the wondrous deeds of v. 18. Also, the verse introduces concrete nations and thus narrows the focus of the otherwise universal outlook of the prophecy of Joel; in all other instances references to non-Israelite entities are simply made to “people” (‫)גוים‬ the exception to the rule being the late addition in Joel 4:4–8. Both, Joel 4:19 as well as Joel 4:4–8 can be seen as passages that aim at a concretization of the judgment against the people announced in the book of Joel.60 That Edom appears in such texts is hardly surprising, if one considers the career of the Edomites in the Book of the Twelve. The mentioning of Egypt, however, is—at least in the context of the Book of the Twelve—surprising. As the verse seems to presuppose an invasion of Judean territory by Edom and Egypt a concrete historical date is difficult to determine.61 Also the language of the verse seems to fit much better with simply Edom as with Edom and Egypt together. If one 57  Sweeney, Hosea, 222, comments: “It seems likely that Amos’ call to Ashdod and Egypt envisions the ultimate collapse of friendly trade relations between Israel and Egypt as a consequence of Israel’s ‘sin.’” 58  Berlejung, “Erinnerungen,” 340. 59  Barton, Joel, 110. 60  See Wöhrle, Abschluss, 433–434, and Hagedorn, Die Anderen, 274–276. 61  Roth, Israel, 108, takes up an earlier proposal by Treves, “Date,” 149–156, and places the events alluded to in Joel 4:19 during the Ptolemaic period. Similarly, Barton, Joel, 110.

566

Hagedorn

takes the following book of Amos into consideration this uneasiness persists, as Egypt is strangely absent from the cycle in Amos 1:3–2:16. In the Book of Zechariah, Egypt is paired with Assyria as places where dispersed Judeans are living, stating that from both ends of the known earth the people will return (Zech 10:10–12). Especially Zech 10:10 offers a concretization to the ‘remote places’ mentioned in v. 9,62 where Yhwh has sowed his people and where they live and give birth to sons. Egypt and Assyria in verse 10 are then the places for the Eastern and Western diaspora whose members are so numerous that they will even populate Lebanon and Gilead. The passing away of the sceptre of Egypt—possibly a reference to the conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt by the Seleucids—is paired with the decline of the splendour of Assyria.63 This indicates that both are not seen as concrete nations but again as ciphers for both ends of the world.64 If that is the case Zech 10 does not envisage the destruction of Egypt but simply uses it as pars pro toto for a universal judgement. Also, we need to note that the splendour (‫ )גאון‬of Assur and sceptre (‫ )ׁשבט‬of Egypt are mentioned—this seems to point to a destruction of the ruling classes rather than to an annihilation of every inhabitant (also one has to note that the destruction of Egypt and Assyria is connected with mythological language echoing the Exodus in Zech 10:11a). In Zech 14 Egypt is mentioned as part of the description of a general pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem in 14:16–19; in the current context of the chapter, this pilgrimage follows the judgment on the people carried out in 14:12–15. The verse mentioning Egypt is fraught with problems of text-critical and literary historical nature. It remains unclear whether Egypt will suffer a special punishment or whether it is made explicit that Egypt will not escape Yhwh’s judgment. On a purely agricultural level, withholding the rain from Egypt would not make sense as “Egypt’s traditional fecundity […] was a gift of the Nile, not of abundant rainfall. Lack of rainfall would not affect the economy of Egypt the way it would all other areas of the Near East.”65 A second reason for a special treatment of Egypt may be deduced from Zech 10:10—if Egypt is the home of the diaspora it is hardly surprising that it is singled out. Furthermore it is clear that Zech 14:16–18 envisages an unpolitical world,66 i.e. a world where nations are only seen as families, families that can celebrate together with other families the Festival of Booths in Jerusalem. 62  For ‫ מרחק‬as a designation for faraway places, see Isa 13:5; 46:11; Jer 4:16; 6:20; 31:10. 63  Assyria can also be used for Syria as Ezra 6:22 indicates; see also Herodotus, Hist. 7.63: οὗτοι δὲ ὑπὸ μὲν Ἑλλήνων καλέονται Σύριοι, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν βαρβάρων Ἀσσύριοι ἐκλήθησαν. 64   Willi-Plein, Haggai, 175; Steck, Abschluß, 78–79, proposes that Assur in Zech 10:11 includes Babylon. 65  Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 474. 66  Steck, Abschluß, 58.

The Nations

567

This seems to fulfil the announcement of Zech 2:15 and revises the separation between Judahites and foreigners in worship put forth by Zech 8:20–23.67 In the Book of the Twelve one encounters a certain reluctance to address both geographical regions in the same manner as other nations are addressed in Joel–Malachi. As part of this reluctance, the view in the Twelve differs from Isaiah, Jeremiah (and to a certain respect also Ezekiel). Though Israel, in the book of Hosea is accused of going down to Egypt for help, this does not lead to the development of full-fledged oracles against Egypt in the Book of the Twelve. As far as the other text are concerned, with the exception of Nah 3:9 and Amos 3:9 all occurrences of either Babylon or Egypt are of late literary origin. Especially in regard to Babylon this reluctance is surprising—at least if one does not want to postulate that Babylon is no longer of interest to the authors or to assume that readers picked up their copy of Jeremiah of Isaiah, when wanting to read about Babylon. Also, we have to note that Assur continues to be mentioned and used despite the fact that this Empire has long vanished from the scene. Here, Odil Hannes Steck has argued convincingly that Assur was transformed into a cipher for the Seleucid Empire in the late stages of the formation of the prophetic canon. Naturally one wonders why such a transformation has not happened for Babylon, even though echoes of the Babylonian period can be traced throughout the Book of the Twelve, though within the internal chronology of the prophetic corpus, the Babylonian period is gapped and the books seem to jump from the end of the Assyrian period (Zephaniah) directly to Persian times (Haggai). It is likely, that the authors of the books of the Twelve refrained from addressing Babylon and Egypt directly since both geographical locations were known as places of the diaspora. If one were to pursue this idea further it might be possible to argue that the biblical authors were aware that it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between indigenous and diaspora population. A fact that now finds support in the new documents from the Al-Yahudu archive as well as in the numerous papyri from Elephantine.68 Erich S. Gruen 67  On the relationship between Zech 2:15 and Zech 8:20–23, see Lux, “Wir wollen,” 259–263. 68  See here the evidence amassed in Pearce, “New Evidence,” 399–411; idem, “Continuity,” 163–184; idem, “Looking,” 43–62; Abraham, “Brides,” 198–219, and Magdalene and Wunsch, “Slavery,” 113–134, that shows how much the Judean exiles were integrated into Babylonian/ Persian society. Compare also 2 Macc 8:19–20 where a Jewish military contingent helps to defend Babylon against the Galatians; Josephus, Ant. 11.338 reports as part of his fictitious Alexander legend that Alexander the Great confirmed the earlier privileges granted to the Jews in Babylon and Media. He continues to narrate that Alexander opened his army to the Jews and that many seized the opportunity and joined the military service; finally,

568

Hagedorn

has argued that “diaspora lies deeply rooted in Jewish consciousness” and that “it existed in one form or the other almost from the start. As a result it persists as an integral part of the Jew’s experience of history. The status of absence from the centre demanded time and again that Jewish communities and Jewish writings confront and, in some fashion, come to terms with a seemingly inescapable concomitant of their being.”69 If that is the case it is hardly surprising that such diaspora discourses are already found in the biblical texts themselves—even though we have to admit that the discourse happening in the Book of the Twelve borders on the non-existence.70 However, in literary surroundings where ancient Israel defines itself in relationship to and distinction from other ethnic nations this might not at all be surprising. 4

Persia as a Special Case

Though scholarship assumes that much of the Hebrew Bible took shape during the Persian Period, actual Persian influence is sparse. In the fictitious worldview of the Hebrew Bible this is explained by the fact that the Persians communicated with their subjects in their own language, when Esther 1:22 states: Dispatches were sent to all provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language, that every man should wield authority in his home and speak the language of his own people. Though the Achaemenid court of Susa occasionally sent out decrees in languages other than Aramaic, the “power language” of the empire,71 other languages mostly occur on monuments.72 Esth 1:22 (see 3:12; 8:9) already seems to use language to define in-group and out-groups. In the Book of the Twelve only the headings in Haggai (1:1, 15; 2:1) and Zechariah (1:1, 7; 7:1) mention the name Darius but references to Persian cities

according to the Letter of Aristeas (§ 25) the Jewish diaspora in Egypt began during the time of Jeremiah. 69  Gruen, Diaspora, 232. 70  On diaspora discourses, see Hagedorn, “Absent Presence,” 39–66. 71  Term taken from Duisenberre, Empire, 253. 72  See the overview in Ego, Ester, 149–151. The often-mentioned letter of Darius I. to Gadatas (Greek text in ML No. 12; English translation in Briant, Cyrus, 491) is only preserved on a stele from the second century ce.

The Nations

569

and titles are missing entirely as are Persian loanwords.73 The same has to be said for the presence of the Persians in oracles against the nations. We simply do not find words against the Achaemenid Empire. It seems that the authors of the Book of the Twelve felt a certain uneasiness to grapple with an empire that does not seem to pose a threat to one’s own existence. Instead—as the headings of the books of Haggai and Zechariah attest—the Persian king replaces the kings of Israel and Judah in other prophetic books. “Dating the oracles according to the reign of the Persian king suggests that the contemporary political circumstances are in line with the will of Yhwh.”74 The biblical authors acknowledge the absence of a national ruler and in doing so emphasize the universal significance of the events that are recorded.75 Texts like Hab 1:5–10 and Zech 1:7–17 that seem to allude to the Persian background adapt Persian concepts rather uncritically.76 The Achaemenid Empire is seen as a necessary force of order that allows a restructuring of Judah. The visions in Zech 1:8–11 and 6:1–8, then, place the rebuilding within the framework of a pacified world—“a heavenly likeness of the Persian Empire with Jerusalem as its center.”77 It is not surprising that Yhwh will be painted as the Great King in terminology known from Persian royal inscriptions (Mal 1:14).78 5

The Development of a Theological Tradition

As far as the foreign nations are concerned the beginning of the literary development is marked by the individual judgement against a concrete people, which threatens the existence of Israel. Thus, for example, the base layer of books such as Nahum, Obadiah, and Zephaniah reflects upon the relationship between Israel and its neighbours and enemies. Here it is only logical that the oldest parts of the oracles against foreign nations are determined by the deliverance of the people of God from the hostile nations.79 This removal of the 73  The expression ‫ אׁשר בספרד‬in Obad 20 is sometimes seen as a reference to the Persian City of Sardis (Ges18, 901; DCH IV, 193) and the hapax lesgomenon ‫ פלדות‬in Nah 2:4 is occasionally explained with reference to the Persian term for steel (pûlād) but this is uncertain; see Wilson-Wright, “Persepolis,” 152–167. 74  Kratz, Prophets, 67. 75  See Leuenberger, Haggai, 109. For a detailed redaction critical analysis of the superscriptions in Haggai and Zechariah, see Wöhrle, Sammlungen, 367–374. 76  See the detailed treatment in Hagedorn, “Perser,” 587–606. 77  Kratz, Prophets, 67. 78  Kessler, Maleachi, 145. 79  See Steck, Abschluß, 124.

570

Hagedorn

hostile nations is the prerequisite for Israel’s weal.80 Such a view corresponds to the attitude towards the nations in the oldest passages of Isaiah (Isa 17:1b, 3; 18:1–2; 20:3–4; 28:1, 3; 28:7b–10) and Jeremiah (Jer 46:3–12; 46:14–24; 47:2–6; 49:28–33).81 Additionally such a view can also be found in Deutero-Isaiah, where—at the earliest stages of the book—the nations are not differentiated and simply serve as enemies of Israel and its God.82 Such concrete judgment is transformed during the Persian Period to a universal judgment.83 This universal judgment can be understood as the sum of the individual acts against the foreign nations. The people of God remain a unity but Israel is now set in opposition to the world of the nations in general, which will be destroyed by Yhwh (Joel 4; Zeph 1:2–3, 17–18; 3:8). In a second stage of the literary development such a judgement is structured in a way that only the righteous in Judah will survive. It seems that the strict ethnic structure is abandoned in favour of a religious identity. This transformation is rooted in the experience of marginality within the Persian Empire, which triggers visions of nationalistic hope.84 As a result the universal perspective of salvation is narrowed to individual groups within Israel. Here the last addition to the book of Nahum (Nah 1:1b–10) is instructive. Though not offering a perspective of a universal judgment, probably because of the mentioning of Nineveh in the heading, the introductory Psalm as the latest literary addition differentiates between the righteous and the wicked. It is striking that the negative image of the Other is now even more contrasted with the positive view of the God of Israel and his followers (Nah 1:2–3): 2 A jealous and avenging God is Yhwh, Yhwh is avenging and wrathful; Yhwh takes vengeance on his adversaries and rages against his enemies. 3 Yhwh is slow to anger but great in power, and Yhwh will by no means clear the guilty.

80  See Steck and Schmid, “Restoration,” 50 (emphasis in the original): “In this sense, the power of the nations that was useful for Yhwh’s judgment and that still surrounds the people of God and Jerusalem must be broken by Yhwh, corresponding to the respective deliverance from Egypt […] or from Assyria […], if salvation is to return for Israel.” 81  See Becker, Jesaja, 271–280. 82  See Köckert, “Erwählung,” 285, with reference to Isa 42:13 and 51:22–23. 83  See Steck, Prophetenbücher, 52–54, 62–63, 70–73, 98. 84  See Köckert, “Erwählung,” 288.

The Nations

571

The terminology, however, suggests that we have moved beyond political/ historical and earthly boundaries. The superiority of Yhwh is acknowledged by giving him a certain cosmic dimension, which had been missing before. Also, the boundaries seem to become more fluid. The rather general terminology in regard to the characterization of the enemy seems to point to a certain notion of ethnicity that now divides the previously homogenous ethnic group. Ethnicity is now used to solve inner-group conflicts. At this last stage the book of Nahum can be read as an example of what will happen to members outside the ethnic group if they dare to seek the conflict with the “righteous ones”—at this last stage ethnicity is no longer attached to any concrete political entities but rather used as a universal discursive weapon to defend oneself from any outside threats. A similar observation can be made in the book of Hosea where Hos 14:10 as one of the latest texts in the book explicitly divides the community into wicked and righteous persons:85 Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of Yhwh are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them. As such the book of Hosea becomes an instruction for the individual to recognize God, in politics, cult and the history of Israel, which are all interpreted as divine will.86 All texts addressing foreign nations or people are part of a literary discourse that describes Israel’s opponents, which are seen as foreign and threatening. Theologically, this description is employed for an internal perspective as such discourse on alterity becomes part of identity formation that is very much determined by the antagonism of Israel and nations.87 This discourse naturally operates with stereotypes but does not seem to use physical features. The exception here are the Cushites who are known as being dark-skinned but this is not a point of departure for racial arguments. “In the two instances where Cushite coloration is implied, there is no ideological value given to the color of 85  See Vielhauer, Werden, 201–203. 86  Thus Kratz, “Erkenntnis,” 17–18. 87  Roth, Israel, 291, regards this phenomenon as a societal discourse. As we only know this discourse from the prophetic books it remains difficult, however, to determine what the extent of such a discourse may have been.

572

Hagedorn

Cushite skin.”88 This finds support in the Minor Prophets where Cush is either a geographical location (Nah 3:9) or used as a cipher to denote one end of the known world (Zeph 3:10). In addition to the hostile attitudes towards the foreign nations and gentiles we find a handful of passages in the Minor Prophets where the nations are explicitly included in the salvation (Zeph 3:9–10*; Joel 3:1–5; Mic 4:1–4; 5:6–7; Zech 2:15–16; 8:20–23; 14:16–19) as they now also worship Yhwh (cf. Isa 66:22– 24). These texts have to be seen in connection with the topic of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion.89 Ethnic boundaries are not dissolved here as the nations are not transformed into Israel but simply into worshippers of Yhwh. Equally rare are passages that envision a restitution of the Davidic monarchy (Amos 9:11, 12b; Mic 4:8; 5:1, 3–4a; Zech 9:9–10).90 They are missing in Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah, and Joel. In these prophetic books the surrounding nations are not destroyed only to rekindle the Davidic monarchy. In these books the restitution concerns the people as a whole (Nah 2:1, 3). It seems that Israel’s existence within the Persian Empire where the Persian king has given all nations their rightful place does not allow for such a concrete political vision. Therefore, it is likely that these statements were only added after the decline of Persian rule.91 As a result the perspective remains on Zion as the dwelling place of Yhwh. The temple is the religious centre but does not hold any political power. The manifold attitudes towards foreigners in almost all the Minor Prophets as well as the recurring themes in several books such as the Day of Yhwh of course prompt the question whether the twelve prophets developed independent from each other or whether some parts of Hosea–Malachi were shaped consciously in light of a larger entity such as a scroll of the Twelve Prophets. Obviously, one cannot deny that we find indications of a literary activity that moves beyond individual books such as the connection of Joel and Amos in Joel 4:16 and Amos 1:2 and the similar superscriptions of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah.92 Additionally it seems that the superscriptions of all 88  Sadler, “Representing,” 133. 89  On the problem, see Gärtner, “Jerusalem,” 269–284. 90  On the passages, see Wöhrle, Abschluss, 174–189. 91  “So handelt es sich bei den Davidsverheißungen […] um das Produkt einer buchübergreifenden Redaktion, durch die in den Büchern des werdenden Zwölfprophetenbuches, in denen sich Gerichtsworte gegen das Königtum oder gegen einen politischen Führer des Volkes finden, über dieses Gericht hinausblickend die Erwartung eines neuen Herrschers eingetragen wurde.” Wöhrle, Abschluss, 182. 92  See the methodological considerations in Wöhrle, “Cross-References,” 3–20, and the attempt to read the Minor Prophets as a unity in Rendtorff, “How to Read,” 75–87.

The Nations

573

twelve books—including Malachi, which appears to be a simple literary continuation (Fortschreibung) of Zechariah93—indicate that each book wants to and indeed can be understood as a single entity. The pesharim from Qumran seem to support such an interpretation. Furthermore those passages that link individual books are generally of late literary origin and often restricted to the margins of the work.94 If this observation is correct redactional work may be related to the collection and the production of order of the twelve individual books and not so much a conscientious process that wants to introduce an overarching view of history of theology. Such a process, then, might be closer to the shaping of an anthology such as Anthologia Palatina, where individual poems are grouped together because of similar topics.95 If that is the case one is able to trace the literary development of individual books and then link the different stages or the overall theological thrust to neighbouring books in the Twelve or beyond. Bibliography Abraham, Kathleen. “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE.” AfO 51 (2005/2006): 198–219. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2003. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London: Verso, 1999. Assis, Ellie. “Why Edom? On The Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources.” VT 56 (2006): 1–20. Barton, John. Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: A Study of Amos 1.3–2.5. SOTSMS 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986. 93  See Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 27–46. 94  See also the remarks in Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 131: “Even if, for the sake of the argument, one were to grant that the twelve prophetic books or their precursors were produced in the form of a single scroll since the Achaemenid period or even earlier, from the writing of books in one scroll, it does not follow that they had to be (re)read as a unified literary unit, in other words, as a work in which several prophetic books are integrated for beyond what may be expected from a collection or anthology of separate, independent works that share only a certain type of discourse among themselves and that belong to a common repertoire.” See also Ben Zvi, “Remembering,” 6–37. 95  See Beck, “Dodekapropheton,” 558–581, and the earlier proposal by Barton, “What is a Book?” 1–14, who argues that “books” were meant to be read in excerpts in ancient Israel.

574

Hagedorn

Barton, John. “What is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel.” Pages 1–14 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OTS 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Barton, John. Joel and Obadiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001. Beck, Martin. “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie.” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–581. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja. Von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Becker, Uwe. “Der Prophet als Fürbitter: Zum literarhistorischen Ort der Amosvisionen.” VT 51 (2001): 141–165. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’? A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Remembering Twelve Prophetic Characters from the Past.” Pages 6–36 in The Book of the Twelve—One Book or Many? Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015. Edited by Elena Di Pede and Donatella Scaiola. FAT II,91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Berges, Ulrich. “Heiligung des Krieges und Heiligung der Krieger: Zur Sakralisierung des Krieges in der Prophetie Israels.” Pages 43–57 in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft—Widerstand—Identitität: Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry. Edited by Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks. BBB 159. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2010. Berlejung, Angelika. “Erinnerungen an Assyrien in Nahum 2,4–3,19.” Pages 323–356 in Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Edited by Rüdiger Lux and Ernst-Joachim Waschke. Festschrift für Arndt Meinhold. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 23. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet. Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. LAI. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56–66. AB 19B. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2003. Boda, Mark. The Development of Zechariah and Its Role within the Twelve. Vol. 1 of Exploring Zechariah. ANEM 16. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017. Bosshard, Erich and Reinhard G. Kratz. “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” BN 52 (1990): 27–46. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Unter­ suchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1997. Bourdillon, Michael F.C. “Oracles and Politics in Ancient Israel.” Man n.s. 12 (1977): 124–140. Bremmer, Jan N. “Prophets, Seers, and Politics in Greece, Israel, and Early Modern Europe.” Numen 40 (1993): 150–183.

The Nations

575

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Christensen, Duane L. Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy. HDR 3. Missoula, MT: SBL Press, 1975. Coggins, Richard J. “The Minor Prophets—One Book or Twelve?” Pages 57–68 in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder. Edited by Stanley E. Porter et al. BibInt 8. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Davidson, Steed V. “Postcolonial Readings of the Prophets.” Pages 507–526 in The Oxford Handbook of The Prophets. Edited by Carolyn J. Sharp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. JSOTSup 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Dietrich, Walter. “Three Minor Prophets and the Major Empires: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” Pages 147–156 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations— Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Dietrich, Walter. Nahum—Habakkuk—Zephaniah. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Dusinberre, Elspeth R.M. Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Ego, Beate. Ester. BKAT XXI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Floyd, Michael H. Minor Prophets: Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Gärtner, Judith. “Jerusalem—City of God for Israel and the Nations in Zeph 3:8, 9–10, 11–13.” Pages 269–284 in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve. Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Gese, Hartmut. “Komposition bei Amos.” Pages 74–95 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Edited by J.A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Geyer, John B. “Another Look at the Oracles about the Nations in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to A.C. Hagedorn.” VT 59 (2009): 80–87. Glazier-McDonald, Beth. “Edom in the Prophetic Corpus.” Pages 23–32 in You Shall Not Abhor An Edomite For He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition. Edited by Diana V. Edelmann. ABS 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy.” VT 57 (2007): 432–448.

576

Hagedorn

Hagedorn, Anselm C. “The Absent Presence: Cultural Responses to Persian Presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Pages 39–66 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Hagedorn, Anselm C. Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel. BZAW 414. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2011. Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Diaspora or no Diaspora? Some Remarks on the Role of Egypt and Babylon in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 319–336 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Die Perser im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” ZAW 127 (2015): 587–606. Hagedorn, Anselm C. and Shani Tzoref. “Attitudes to Gentiles in the Minor Prophets and in Corresponding Pesharim.” DSD 20 (2013): 472–509. Hallaschka, Martin. Haggai und Sacharja 1–8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BZAW 411. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2011. Jeremias, Jörg. “Völkersprüche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch.” Pages 157–171 in Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton. Edited by idem. FAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kessler, Rainer. Die Ägyptenbilder der Hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur neueren Monotheismusdebatte. SBS 197. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. Kessler, Rainer. Maleachi. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Kessler, Rainer. “The Twelve: Structure, Themes, and Contested Issues.” Pages 207–223 in The Oxford Handbook of The Prophets. Edited by Carolyn J. Sharp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Köckert, Matthias. “Die Erwählung Israels und das Ziel der Wege Gottes im Jesajabuch.” Pages 279–300 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Köckert, Matthias. “Obadiah/Book of Obadiah.” RPP 9: 255–257. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Erkenntnis Gottes im Hoseabuch.” ZTK 94 (1997): 1–24. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Die Worte des Amos von Tekoa.” Pages 54–89 in Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel. Edited by Matthias Köckert und Martti Nissinen. FRLANT 203. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Der Pescher Nahum und seine biblische Vorlage.” Pages 99–145 in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II. Edited by idem. FAT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

The Nations

577

Kratz, Reinhard G. The Prophets of Israel. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Krause, Joachim. “Tradition, History, and Our Story: Some Observations on Jacob and Esau in the Books of Obadiah and Malachi.” JSOT 32 (2008): 475–486. LaCapra, Dominik. History in Transit: Experience, Identity, Critical Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2004. Leuenberger, Martin. Haggai. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Lux, Rüdiger. “JHWHs ‘Herrlichkeit’ und ‘Geist’: Die ‘Rückkehr’ JHWHs in den Nachtgesichten des Sacharja.” Pages 193–222 in Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel: Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja. Edited by idem. FAT 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lux, Rüdiger. “‘Wir wollen mit euch gehen …’ Überlegungen zur Völkertheologie Haggais und Sacharjas.” Pages 241–265 in Prophetie und Zweiter Tempel: Studien zu Haggai und Sacharja. Edited by idem. FAT 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Magdalene, Rachel F. and Cornelia Wunsch. “Slavery between Judah and Babylon: The Exilic Experience.” Pages 113–134 in Slaves and Households in the Near East. Edited by Laura Culbertson. OIS 7. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute, 2011. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25,C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993. Niemann, Hermann M. “Theologie in geographischem Gewand: Zum Wachstumsprozeß der Völkerspruchsammlung Amos 1–2*.” Pages 177–196 in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by idem et al. BEAT 37. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994. Nogalski, James D. “Not Just another Nation: Obadiah’s Placement in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 89–107 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Pearce, Laurie E. “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia.” Pages 399–411 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Pearce, Laurie E. “Continuity and Normality in Sources Relating to the Judean Exile.” HBAI 3 (2014): 163–184. Pearce, Laurie E. “Looking for Judeans in Babylonia’s Core and Periphery.” Pages 43–62 in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. FAT 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Pfeiffer, Henrik. Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. FRLANT 211. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Raabe, Paul R. “Why Prophetic Oracles against the Nations?” Pages 236–257 in Fortunate the Eyes That See. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of

578

Hagedorn

His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Reimer, David J. “Political Prophets? Political Exegesis and Prophetic Theology.” Pages 126–142 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by in Johannes C. de Moor. OTS 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rendtorff, Rolf. “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” Pages 75–87 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Roth, Martin. Israel und die Völker im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Eine Untersuchung zu den Büchern Joel, Jona, Micha und Nahum. FRLANT 210. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Rothenbusch, Ralf. “Die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels in der exilischen Epoche.” Pages 111–144 in Die Identität Israels: Entwicklungen und Kontroversen in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Edited by Hubert Irsigler. HBS 56. Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Sadler, Rodney S. “Representing the Cushite Other: The Use of Cushite Phenotypes in Numbers 12 and Jeremiah 13:23.” Pages 127–137 in The Archaeology of Difference— Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007. Schart, Aaron. “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch als redaktionelle Großeinheit.” TLZ 133 (2008): 227–246. Schipper, Bernd U. “Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah and Jehoiakim.” TA 37 (2010): 200–226. Schipper, Bernd U. “Egyptian Imperialism after the New Kingdom: The 26th Dynasty and the Southern Levant.” Pages 268–290 in Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Edited by Shay Bar et al. CHANE 52. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Scoralick, Ruth. “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” Pages 35–52 in Perspectives in the Formation of the Book of Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Seeligmann, Isaac L. “Jerusalem im Denken des hellenistischen Judentums.” Pages 381–399 in Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel mit einem Beitrag von Rudolf Smend. Edited by Erhard Blum. FAT 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Spivak, Gayatri C. Death of a Discipline. Wellek Library Lectures. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003. Steck, Odil Hannes. Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991.

The Nations

579

Steck, Odil Hannes. Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten der Antwort. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Steck, Odil H. and Konrad Schmid. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament.” Pages 41–81 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2001. Steinman, Andrew E. “The Order of Amos’s Oracles against the Nations: 1:3–2:16.” JBL 111 (1992): 683–689. Stern, Ephraim. The Assyrian Babylonian, and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. Vol. 2 of Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. ABRL. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001. Sweeney, Marvin A. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 1 of The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Timmer, Daniel C. The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets. BibInt 135. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2015. Treves, Marco. “The Date of Joel.” VT 7 (1957): 149–156. Uehlinger, Christoph. “Figurative Policy, Propaganda und Prophecy.” Pages 297–349 in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden and New York, NY: Brill, 1995. Vielhauer, Roman. Das Werden des Buches Hosea: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­ suchung. BZAW 349. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Williamson, Hugh G.M. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. FAT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Willi-Plein, Ina. Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ZBK 24,4. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Wilson-Wright, Aren. “From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old-PersianHebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period.” VT 65 (2015): 152–167. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2006. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redak­ tionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2008. Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis.” Pages 3–20 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Zapff, Burkard M. “The Perspective on the Nations in the Book of Micah as a ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah, and Nahum? Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 292–312 in Thematic

580

Hagedorn

Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Chapter 30

Exile in the Book of the Twelve John Kessler 1 Introduction Over the past 20 years much study has been devoted to both the theme of exile in the HB,1 and to the Book of the Twelve.2 Yet, surprisingly little has been done on the intersection of these two areas. A book-length treatment of exile in the Twelve would be a formidable assignment in itself. Attempting to deal with such a multi-faceted topic in a single article would therefore appear doomed to superficiality. Nonetheless, following upon the brief summaries of exile in the prophets by Robert Carroll and David Petersen, and my own study of the various images and ideologies of exile in the prophetic books (and elsewhere in the HB),3 I will undertake a fresh examination of this important topic. My analysis will proceed through four sections. The first will set forth several preliminary observations regarding exile in the Twelve. In the second, I will outline my methodological underpinnings. Section three will present an exegetical analysis of the major passages within the Twelve concerning exile. Then in the final section, I will set out several general conclusions emerging from my discussion. 2

Preliminary Observations on Exile in the Twelve

2.1 Exile in the Twelve: Part of a Wider Ideological/Theological Complex Exile in the Twelve generally forms a part of a wider ideological/theological complex.4 Any examination of exile in the Twelve requires analysis from various perspectives: historical, socio-economic, political and geo-political,

1  See Ahn, “Exile,” 196–204; Kelle, “Approach,” 5–38. 2  See the ever increasing bibliography in https://www.zotero.org/groups/twelveprophets/ items/itemPage/9/order/creator/sort/asc. For a more general survey see Schart, “Twelve,” 806–817. 3  Carroll, “Deportation,” 63–85; Petersen, “Rhetoric,” 9–18; Kessler, “Images,” 309–351. 4  Paul Ricoeur employs the term “array of inter-significations,” cited in Halvorson-Taylor, “Redaction,” 122.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004424326_032

582

Kessler

ideological and theological.5 Recent study has provided great insight into such matters.6 While the importance of these approaches cannot be gainsaid, the present study will focus on the ideological and theological use of the motif of exile, especially its association with ongoing communal existence outside the land, and ultimate return to it. So closely are these matters inter-connected in the Twelve, that I will refer to them as the Exile-Diaspora-Return Motif (EDRM).7 This motif, moreover, was configured in numerous ways, both within the Twelve and elsewhere in the HB, and involved a number of variables. An awareness of these potential variations is an essential point of departure for the understanding of the EDRM in a given text. A full listing of these variations is not possible here, however some of the most relevant options for the present study include the following: what are the reasons for exile? Does exile constitute a punishment for disobedience, or is Israel a victim of the aggression of the nations? Who are the agents of exile? Are they named or unnamed? To which locations will the exiles be removed? Are these named or unnamed? Is exile presented as widespread, reaching to distant lands, or localized? Is the totality of the population removed, or only a portion of it? Is there any sense of divine 5  Space precludes a full lexicographical analysis here. The concept of “exile” is frequently identified with the Hebrew roots ‫ גלה‬and ‫ׁשבה‬. For a brief summary, see the excellent discussion in Middlemas, “Future,” 66–68. The term “exile” is sometimes employed with a remarkable lack of clarity or consistency, see the illustrations given in Lust, “Exile,” 99–122. At times the term is employed to designate the effects of the Babylonian assaults upon Jerusalem in 597 and 587, or the ensuing period culminating in the Edict of Cyrus in 539. However in reality, its scope is much broader. Even the idea of a sixth century “exilic period” which may be delimited chronologically is in dispute. Furthermore, exile extends beyond geographical dislocation, and encompasses a state of displacement, which, in the event of conquest and foreign rule, may also be experienced who have been left in their homeland, bereft of family, social and political institutions, and traditional culture. See now Leuchter, “Resident Alien,” 316–333. See also on the terminology relating to exile, Strine, “Exile,” 289–315. 6  See, for example, Ahn, Exile; idem, “Migrations,” 173–189. 7  See the important analysis in Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 41–81. Schmid and Steck construct a comprehensive diachronic typology of the principal texts in the prophets dealing with restoration, dated according to their own reconstruction of the redactional layers of the various books. While one might call into question certain of their diachronic judgments, they present an impressive compendium of the restoration motif in the prophets. Most importantly for our purposes, they demonstrate that the HB inexorably moves beyond destruction to restoration, especially in the prophets. Certainly, there may have been a point in some Deuteronomistic and prophetic traditions when destruction was seen as final, as noted in the excellent discussion in Rom-Shiloni, “Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile,” 101–123. However, as Schmid and Steck point out (esp. ibid., 44), in the Twelve such a perspective was never allowed to stand as final, despite certain seemingly unconditional and final statements of judgment that remained unqualified in the text.

Exile

583

election or rejection connected to those who are exiled or remain? Does exile function in any theological sense with reference to the guilt of the people? Are any descriptions of the land given? Is it portrayed as empty, or still populated? How has the sin of the nation affected it? If restoration is mentioned, who may participate in it, and upon what basis? As our exegesis proceeds, we will note the various choices made in a given prophetic oracle, and seek to understand the relevance of these choices with reference to the ideological focus of the text or book under study. Ideological/Theological Rather Than Historical/Descriptive Emphasis In the Twelve, the emphasis of the EDRM is ideological/theological rather than historical/descriptive. In contrast to the detailed narrations and descriptions of conquest and forced migrations in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah and certain Psalms, in the Twelve one encounters an astounding silence regarding these matters—especially as it relates to Babylon. Anselm Hagedorn and Mark Boda have observed this phenomenon, and offered their own explanations for it.8 Space does not permit a discussion of their proposals here. For my part, I suggest that the reason for this “grand silence” (to use Hagedorn’s words) must be understood in light of the broader lack of detail and specificity surrounding references to exile in the Twelve. Scholars have widely recognized the great difficulty involved in connecting prophetic oracles within the Twelve relating to destruction and exile to specific historical contexts. Moreover, at times the reader is invited to move abruptly between destruction and restoration without any clear reason for doing so. It would seem that this fluidity and lack of specificity is an intentional strategy on the part of the framers of the Twelve, and serves to invite the reader to adopt a certain hermeneutical stance: interest is to be focused primarily on the theological and ideological dimensions of the text, rather than on any precise set of historical circumstances. As our exegesis below will demonstrate, the EDRM speaks primarily to matters of national identity and relational dynamics: what does it mean for Israel to exist as Yhwh’s people at any given moment, in any given environment?9 2.2

8  Hagedorn, “Diaspora,” 319–336; Boda, “Babylon,” 225–248. 9  Ben Zvi insightfully comments (regarding Mic 4:6–8), “As in all the other readings in this unit […] the setting of the speaker’s words is left as open as possible […] even the implied past of the speaker […] is not […] tied to any particular historical event. […] Indeed, the text suggests that the readers are to contextualize rather than historicize when they approach the text.” Ben Zvi, Micah, 110–111.

584

Kessler

The Appearance of EDRM in Some, but Not All, of the Books of the Twelve The EDRM appears in some, but not all, of the Books of the Twelve.10 The EDRM involves three distinct movements: destruction and displacement; ongoing existence after judgment; return and restoration. Jonah, Nahum, and Malachi do not mention Israel’s destruction, exile, or restoration. Habakkuk and Haggai allude to destruction without mention of exile, diaspora, or return.11 Thus, these books will not be treated here. By contrast, the EDRM plays a significant role in the “Book of the Four” (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah) and Zech 1–8; 9–10; 14 and a lesser role in Obadiah and Joel.12 2.3

3

Working Assumptions, Methodology, and Limitations

For the purposes of this study, I make four working assumptions. First, I take as my point of departure the present agencement13 of the Twelve as individual “books” or “writings” approached both diachronically and synchronically.14 Thus, whatever the inter-relationships that might exist between these books, or whatever their individual literary history, the framers of the Twelve chose to present them as discrete units, and to invite the reader to enter each of them as a distinct world, related to yet separate from the other books in the collection,15 notwithstanding some degree of inter-connectedness between them, forged during their individual composition and through redactional process of the Twelve as a whole. Moreover, the overall arrangement of these books gives clear evidence of intentionality.16 Finally, focusing attention on the individual books assists in bringing to light the oft-overlooked phenomenon of diversity 10  On the use of the term ‘book,’ see infra. 11  Although Habakkuk and Haggai imply destruction of key national sites, neither speak explicitly of displacement or return. While Haggai’s words were likely inclusive of any of his hearers who had returned from exile, they are not specifically designated as such, nor is there any direct reference to their return, pace Rom-Shiloni, Inclusivity. See Kessler, Haggai, 168–169, and more recently “Haggai.” 12  On the “Book of the Four” more generally, see Nogalski, Precursors; idem, “Joel,” 91–109; Wöhrle, “Joel,” 127–137; Albertz, Israel, 204–237. 13  This French term captures the idea of a deliberate choice to present a work in a specific manner. It is frequently translated as “configuration” but this does not do full justice to its nuances and implications. 14  Schart insists on the use of the terms “book” for the Twelve as a whole, and “writing” for its constituent sections, Schart, “Twelve,” 806. For simplicity and clarity sake, I will use the more conventional term “book” for these individual units. 15  Thus, Ben Zvi, “Twelve,” 125–156. On the Twelve as an anthology, see Beck, “Dodeka­ propheton,” 558–581. 16  See the discussion in Beck, “Dodekapropheton,” 558–581.

585

Exile

within the Twelve.17 The present study will give special attention to differences of perspective regarding the EDRM both within sections of the same book, or between the books within the Twelve. Second, I will discuss the EDRM in the Twelve according to the MT order of presentation.18 As we shall see, the EDRM is unevenly distributed in this order. A very different picture emerges when one examines the EDRM from the perspective of frequency of occurrence: the Book of the Four (with the exception of Zephaniah) and Zech 1–8 contain the greatest concentration of this theme, followed by Zephaniah, Zech 9–10, then Obadiah and Joel. I will briefly comment on the implications of this distribution in my conclusions. Third, the issue of return and restoration in the Twelve inevitably involves complex discussions of compositional history and dating. Moreover, linkages between such promises across the various books are frequently proposed. Given the limits of the present study, I am not able to enter into such discussions in detail. However it is my assumption that these restoration promises need not have emerged at a very late date, and such hopes may have arisen within various prophetic circles at various points from the mid-sixth century onwards. Moreover, precise dating is not of great consequence to our conclusions. Similarly, given the intended focus of this piece, I cannot evaluate the relevance of my findings for the numerous proposals regarding the formation of the Twelve. Such questions are treated extensively elsewhere in this volume. 4

Exegetical Analysis

In this section I will employ a threefold structure: first, forced migration and loss of land, second, life in exile/diaspora, and third, return and restoration. With the exception of those instances where the EDRM occupies only a few verses of a book, I will discuss each of these structural elements separately within the various books. 4.1 Hosea 4.1.1 Forced Migration and Loss of Land Despite polyvalence or ambiguity in a number of texts frequently cited with reference to the EDRM in Hosea,19 unequivocal references to some form 17  See Wöhrle’s important comments regarding some of the significant areas of dissonance in the Book of the Four, Wöhrle, “Future,” 608–627. 18  The MT rather than the LXX likely represents the earliest structuration of the Twelve, see Schart, “Twelve,” 806–817. 19  These include Hos 2:2; 3:5; 8:8, 10 and 9:6.

586

Kessler

of departure from the land appear frequently in the book. The most prevalent expression of exile is the book’s refrain of a return (‫ )ׁשוב‬to Egypt and/ or Assyria (8:13; 9:3–4, 6; 11:5). However, the sense of these passages is unclear. Does returning to Egypt refer to exile/forced migration to Assyria, a return to a pro-Egyptian foreign policy, or a flight to Egypt for safety?20 Should 11:5 be read as stating that Israel will not return to Egypt but rather be enslaved and deported by Assyria, or that Israel will surely return?21 Do these texts give evidence of a growing community of Israelites who found refuge in Egypt22 or are these geographical references only vague memories of the past, created at a much later time?23 However these exegetical questions are resolved, it is the imagery attached to this Egypt/Assyria pattern which is most revealing of the book’s ideological intent. This intent emerges through four diverse and at times incongruous images: 1. Israel will return to a pre-deliverance state, and to renewed slavery (esp. 11:5); 2. Israel will experience alienation and departure from “Yhwh’s land,” implying both eviction and loss (9:3); 3. Israel will be unable to engage in appropriate worship and cultic activities due to the uncleanness of the foreign land and its produce (9:3–4, cf. also 3:4); 4. Hos 9:6 mixes two images: Israel will be overtaken in Egypt by death, the ultimate reaper; nettles like rust will destroy the people’s riches. 4.1.2 Life in Exile/Diaspora24 Hos 11:5, 10 reveal that the nation’s existence does not cease despite Yhwh’s earlier threats and extensive judgment. Life goes on in Egypt, Assyria, and the West.25 A second image, standing in tension with exile to these specific 20  Space precludes a full discussion of these issues. See the survey in Wolff, Hosea, 145. Essentially there are three options regarding the “return to Egypt” in Hosea: 1. Assyria is the “new” Egypt, and the Israelites will be forcefully taken there; 2. Egypt refers to the pro-Egyptian policy, adopted by Hoshea ben Elah; 3. Egypt is a place of refuge to which numerous citizens of the NK fled in the mid-to late-eighth century. 21  Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 583–584. 22  Wolff, Hosea, 155, suggests, “some will have to immigrate to Egypt, while others will be removed to Assyria.” As Nogalski, Book of the Twelve, 131, states, “Hos 9:4 is interpreted in light of 9:3, with the assumption that the people will be in exile, meaning that no food can be properly prepared as a sacrifice by those living in a foreign land. […] Hos 9:6 returns to the theme of exile, but this time the place of exile is presumed to be Egypt, not Assyria as in 9:3. The mention of Egypt […] implies that these verses address a group that has avoided exile to Assyria and escaped to Egypt.” 23  Ben Zvi, Hosea, 9–11. 24  Recent discussions of exile and diaspora distinguish first-generation exiles from those who subsequently settle in their new context, see Ahn, “Exile,” 196–204. 25  Wolff, Hosea, 203, calls attention to Amos 1:3, 9 and Hos 8:12. Alternatively, but less likely, it has been suggested that ‫ ים‬designates the netherworld.

Exile

587

locales, appears in 9:17. There Israel in exile is depicted as a marginal figure, wandering among the nations. Exile is not portrayed as a flight to safety in Egypt, a deportation to Assyria, or even a scattering among the nations, but as a condemnation to a rootless and marginalized existence disconnected from any one locale. The term “wanderers” (‫ )נדדים‬evokes the expulsion of Cain in Gen 4, and the rejection of Saul in 1 Sam 15,26 and is reminiscent of the maledictions in Deut 28:65. While ‫ נדד‬can at times denote flight in battle or scattering (Isa 22:3), only here in the HB does it depict Israel’s existence in exile.27 Thus, as opposed to the more common metaphor of exile as slavery, here it is depicted as homelessness (cf. the return home spoken of in 11:11), vulnerability, and victimization.28 A further image of exile appears in 10:6 with reference to the Bethel calf which will be carried away.29 The text establishes a parallelism between the fate of the calf and that of the nation. Prefiguring both the forced migration of the citizens of the Northern Kingdom and the fate of the Jerusalem Temple vessels, the Northern Kingdom’s symbol of national identity is taken captive (cf. the same motif in Jer 48:7), put at the disposition of the Assyrian king, and languishes in exile. The shame and mourning left behind after the calf’s departure foreshadow the experience of the land after the loss of its inhabitants (cf. Jer 31:15; Mic 1:16). 26  Wolff, Hosea, 168; Jacob, “Osée,” 72. 27  Macintosh insightfully comments, “Yhwh’s rejection of his people spells the end of the nation […] the result is that the erstwhile members will inevitably become rootless fugitives cast forth from the land, […] for whom, in the words of Deut 28:65, ‘there will be no repose and no rest for the sole of their feet.’” Macintosh, Hosea, 381. 28  See Macintosh’s discussion of the horrendous victimization of Jews in Christendom over many centuries, rooted in the stereotype of the “eternal Jew” associated with this text. Hosea’s words here were associated with the Jewish rejection of Christ and the destruction of the Second Temple, and seen as a justification for the marginalization of Jews at every level of society. Macintosh notes that Jerome deemed Jewish exegesis and theological reflection to be worthless. Sadly this perception has sometimes persisted into the modern period. Wolff’s comment is highly untoward. He states, “At the end of the passage, the picture of Israel restlessly wandering among the nations is reminiscent of the typical actuality of these words, especially for Israel. Hosea’s message of judgment, as subsequent history shows, proved to be only the beginning of that judgment the ‘daughter of Jerusalem’ brought upon herself in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.” Wolff, Hosea, 169. Despite the fact that Wolff seeks to attenuate his comments by suggesting that the same fate could befall the church (ibid., 169), they are nonetheless profoundly distressing. Jacob, “Osée,” 72 n. 1, makes a far more insightful and theologically astute observation, stating, “[T]hroughout their wandering existence the Israelites will be under the control of Yhwh who, in never ceasing to call out to them, opens unto them a doorway of return, […] cf. 2:16 […]” (translation mine). 29  See further Wright, “Deportation,” 105–134.

588

Kessler

4.1.3 Re-gathering and Restoration Whereas the restoration of Israel to the land is adumbrated in 2:25, only in Hos 11:10–11 does it find full expression. The descendants of those who departed the Northern Kingdom will return. Many scholars see some diachronic progression in these verses,30 while others see them as entirely the work of a post-monarchic author.31 For my part, I concur with the view that v. 11 is an authentic Hoseanic expression of the manifestation of Yhwh’s mercy, declared in 11:8–9, which has been subsequently expanded in v. 10, and goes on to form the basis of a pan-Israelite re-unification, a motif common in later prophetic texts.32 A number of comments are in order regarding Hos 11:10–11. First, in contrast to the bulk of the EDRM texts in the Twelve which concern the descendants of the Southern Kingdom, or assimilate the exile of the Northern Kingdom to that of the Southern Kingdom, here we see a specific future return delineated for the Northern Kingdom exiles.33 Second, it may be that we have here an early example of the development of the EDRM. As noted supra, v. 11 may represent an earlier, Hoseanic expression of a hope for return, while v. 10 constitutes an expansion stemming from the hand of a traditionist, who sought to recontextualize Hosea’s message for the realities of a later date. Third, in Hosea restoration and return are expressed solely through the verb ‫ׁשוב‬, in contrast to the multiplicity of terms used in Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, and Zechariah (see infra). Fourth, this passage contains three key metaphors: 1. Yhwh as a roaring lion; 2. Israel as a trembling bird following the lion; 3. Israel’s return to Yhwh as a homecoming. Göran Eidevall notes that the lion and bird pairing occur elsewhere in biblical literature, but are utilized here in a unique way. The lion assumes the role of the shepherd, roaring to lead his children home.34 As such, the lion’s roar (11:10) should not be read as an eschatological intervention against the nations.35 The relationship of the homecoming in v. 11b to the bird 30  Thus Harper, Amos, 371–372. 31  See the summary of scholarly positions in Ben Zvi, Hosea, 232, and Macintosh, Hosea, 467–471. 32  Macintosh, Hosea, 466–471; Mays, Hosea, 158–158; Davies, Hosea, 264–265. On the “scattering and re-gathering motif more generally,” see Kessler, “Images,” 309–351. 33  See Greenwood, “Hope,” 376–385. 34  Eidevall, Grapes, 96. Eidevall similarly notes that the lion metaphor here reverses the rapaciousness of the lion in 5:14 and 13:7–8 and the bird simile reverses that of 7:11. 35  Pace Davies, Hosea, 265, who identifies the image here with that of Jer 25:30 and Joel 3:16. Sweeney, in an insightful discussion of the complex imagery here, suggests that v. 10–11 blend various motifs: a lion calling its young who follow it; trembling as piety (cf. Isa 66:2; Ezra 9:4; 10:3), and Yhwh’s roar reaching to the extremities of the land, Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:116–117.

Exile

589

and lion imagery is disputed,36 however its sense is clear. All the dispersed will return. Finally, throughout Hosea a physical return to the land stands in parallel to a returning of the heart (2:9; 3:5; 5:4; 7:10; 11:5; 12:7; 14:2–3). In Hosea, (as in Amos, and Micah) the closing oracles of the book reprise the book’s primary metaphors and configuration of the EDRM. In line with the Hoseanic penchant for relational imagery (husband-wife in chapters 1–3 and parent-child and homecoming bird images in ch. 11), the book’s summative statement in 14:2–8 uses similar imagery to describe Israel’s return to Yhwh. Israel must plead for cleansing (14:3), eschew its misplaced trust and idolatry (14:4) and, supremely, assume the role of an orphan (14:4c) not a son (cf. 11:1). Yhwh, in turn, promises the nation his full and free love, and the removal of his anger (14:5c). The theme of an appointed time of estrangement permitting the abatement of the divine alienation, introduced in 3:3–5 and 5:15, reappears here. As we shall see, this motif will recur at several critical moments in the Twelve. Thus, in Hosea, we have the full arc of EDRM. In exile Israel returns to a state of uncleanness and slavery (8:13; 9:3–4; 11:5). All of the population is exiled. However, the book culminates in the complete return of the restored and re-unified nation to its land (3:5; 11:10–11), sketched through a great diversity of largely relational images. Exile is isolation and alienation, and restoration its reverse. 4.2 Joel In Joel, the EDRM in Joel is centred in 4:1–8,37 a passage frequently viewed as a concluding addendum to the book.38 Joel 3:5 is seen by some as implying exile and restoration,39 however this seems unlikely. The text’s focus is on Jerusalem as a place of escape (‫ )פליטה‬in the coming cataclysm, and those who are delivered as survivors (‫ׂשרידים‬, cf. Isa 1:9; Jer 44:14; Obad 14).40 Joel 3:5 is similar in outlook to Obad 17 and Zech 14:1–5, and does not concern return from exile. 36  Sweeney sees it as the return of a migratory bird, Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:116–117, cf. also Prov 27:8. Wolff, Hosea, 202, denies that the bird motif continues here, and sees it as describing a return to one’s native residence. 37  Earlier discussion of the structure of the book focused on the relationship between Joel 1–2 and 3–4. See, for example, Hiebert, “Joel,” 873. For a more recent proposal, see Assis, Joel, 39–54. Alternatively, Joel may be seen as the fruit of a series of redactional layers, thus Wöhrle, “Joel,” 127–137. On either approach, the EDRM supplements the book’s earlier content. 38  See also Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” 332. Jerusalem’s destruction may be implied in 4:17, 19 but without any specific mention of exile. 39  Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 261. 40  Thus Keller, “Joël,” 143.

590

Kessler

Secure evidence for the dating of 4:1–8 is so limited that it is imprudent to identify it with any specific historical context. This section contains two related oracles: 4:1–3, 4–8, moving from the general to the specific. Yhwh gathers and enters into judgment with the nations (v. 1–2a). The heart of the nations’ offense is their treatment of Israel.41 They have scattered Israel among the nations and parceled out the land (2b). Several points deserve notice here. First the motif of Israel “among the nations” (‫)בגוים‬, already encountered in Hos 8:8; 9:17 and Joel 2:17, 19 appears once again. It will be taken up in various contexts later in the Twelve (esp. Amos 9:9, Mic 5:8, and Zech 8:23). Moreover, as in Amos 7:17, the land is parceled out and overrun by foreigners. Thus, Joel 4:2 serves a linking and transitional function between Hosea and Amos, and beyond. Second, the verb in v. 3 used to denote scattering is rather unusual (‫פזר‬, as compared to the more common terms ‫פוץ‬, ‫נדח‬, or ‫)זרה‬. Elsewhere ‫ פזר‬designates scattering to various unnamed locations (Jer 50:17; Esth 3:8). Similarly, the concept of Israel as “scattered among the nations” is frequently evocative of the widespread dispersions, especially in the Deuteronomic and Priestly traditions (Lev 26:33; Deut 4:27; Jer 9:15; Ezek 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 29:12; 30:23, 26). Thus at first glance, it would seem that Joel 4:2 refers to a similar widespread dispersion. However rather unexpectedly, the subsequent verses (Joel 4:4–8), frequently regarded as an expansion on vv. 1–3, identify the Phoenicians, Philistines and Greeks as the agents of Israel’s dispersion, implying a far more localized setting, and standing in some tension with 4:1–3. Third, in Joel the return migration of the dispersed will soon transpire as a result of Yhwh’s stirring up of his people (‫עור‬, cf. Hag 1:12–14, cf. however Zech 9:11–12 where no divine stirring up is mentioned) to respond to his purposes. No spectacular divine assistance is presupposed regarding the return journey (cf. Isa 40–55). We thus have here an interesting intermingling of certain variations of the EDRM. V. 3a speaks of forcible, generalized removal to a series of undefined locations, via the casting of lots.42 V. 4–8, by contrast, describe localized raids and pillaging, and likely refer to the coastal regions of the Levant.43 It is within the context of this more localized description that Yhwh stirs up his people to return. Fourth, in Joel (as in Obadiah) greater emphasis is placed on the culpability of the nations, especially with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem and the 41  Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:177, among others, views the term Israel here as designating the descendants of both the NK and SK. 42  It is difficult to determine the precise context in which lots were cast for the Israelite children (v. 3b). Many see this as an allusion to the sale of slaves which may have accompanied the fall of Jerusalem. 43  See the discussion in Assis, Joel, 216.

Exile

591

dispersion of the nation than upon the guilt of Yhwh’s people.44 This stands in striking contrast to the configuration of this theme in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, and Zechariah.45 In sum, Joel 4:1–8 contains a highly muted representation of the EDRM. Israel is scattered among the nations (4:2), yet forced migration and return appears to be from more proximate regions (4:4–8). No explicit mention is made of the removal of the totality of the population. No description of life in exile is given. Return is presented as occurring not primarily via divine re-gathering but through voluntary return in response to Yhwh’s stirring (4:7). 4.3 Amos The EDRM appears in three primary sections of Amos: first, in the oracles against the nations (OAN) in 1:3–2:16; second, in sections of the oracles in 3:1–6:14 and 8:4–9:15; third, in the narrative concerning Amos’s encounter with Amaziah in 7:10–17. In the OAN, exile is a divine judgment, enacted by human agents, consisting of the forced migration of a specific population (or portions thereof) for specific crimes—a kind of lex talionis (Amos 1:5, 6, 9). Quite distinctively, Amos 1:15 speaks of an exile limited to the Ammonite king and nobility. The motif of a limited exile will become relevant for the exegesis of 9:9–10. Significantly, no mention of exile is made in the oracles against Judah or Israel in 2:4–16. 4.3.1 Forced Migration and Loss of Land Expulsion from the land stands at the core of Amos’s words. In 7:10–17 Amaziah denounces Amos for proclaiming that “Israel will surely go into exile” (v. 11).46 Far from refuting this claim, in v. 17 Amos repeats it verbatim, adding a 44  To be sure, as the penitential gathering and liturgy in Joel 1:13–14; 2:12–16 makes clear, sin is to be implied as the reason for the locust plague and drought, but this is a different matter. 45  Frequently, the absence of any statement in Joel regarding Israel’s guilt is accounted for by assuming that readers would imply the sins mentioned in Hosea to the events in Joel. This however rests upon the assumption of a high degree of inter-dependence within the books of the Twelve. If, by contrast, the Twelve are read with a greater degree of independence, Hosea and Joel could be understood as representing two diverse perspectives, one more specific, the other more general. It is nevertheless noteworthy that when the theme of gathering (‫ קבץ‬// ‫ )אסף‬is traced from Hosea to Micah and Zephaniah via Joel, the largely negative gatherings in Hosea (4:3; 8:10; 9:6; 10:10—Hos 2:2 is an exception) are transformed into gatherings for blessing in Micah and Zephaniah (Mic 2:12; 4:6; Zeph 3:19–20). The gatherings for repentance in Joel (Joel 1:13–14; 2:16) thus stand at the centre of this transformation. 46  Hebrew: ‫ויׂשראל גלה יגלה מעל אדמתו‬. Note the emphatic inf. abs construction here.

592

Kessler

description of the fate of Amaziah’s family, and of Amaziah’s exile to “an unclean land”—an especially undesirable lot for a priest. The unclean land motif here echoes the imagery of Hos 9:3. Amos 7 mentions no ongoing national life in exile. Rather, for Amaziah exile will be a place of death (7:17, paralleled in 9:4). Other references to forced migration target only certain sectors of the population. Amos 4:1–3 describes the casting out (‫ ׁשלך‬cf. Ezek 16:5) of the opulent noble women of Samaria.47 The text may be depicting exile in war (as in Jer 22:28),48 the dumping of corpses as refuse, or both.49 In 5:5 Amos warns of the coming “exile” (‫ )גלה‬of Gilgal, especially its cult personnel. Doubtlessly the root ‫ גלה‬is chosen due to its similarity to the name Gilgal.50 A further reference to selective exile appears in 6:4–6, once again with reference to the luxuriant lifestyle of the leisured class. Amos declares that these individuals will be “the first to go into exile.” Total exile appears in the sweeping condemnation of the nation in 9:1–4. Yhwh declares that destruction will be inescapable. Descent to Sheol or to the depths of the sea, ascent to the heights, or “going into captivity in front of their enemies” (‫ואם־ילכו בׁשבי לפני איביהם‬, Amos 9:4a) will be to no avail. Here, for the first time in Amos, terminology not derived from the root ‫ גלה‬is employed, and exile is defined as “going into captivity” (‫)ׁשבי‬.51 However, even captivity will not provide shelter from Yhwh’s wrath. 4.3.2 Life in Exile/Diaspora Unlike Hosea, Amos contains no descriptions of life in exile. In fact, apart from Amos 9:8b–15, there are no unequivocal references to Israel’s existence beyond 722.52 Amos 9:8b–10 is central to the book’s understanding of the future. It not only affirms that Israel will survive Yhwh’s coming judgment, but also, through a unique metaphor, describes the basis upon which Israel may enter into a post-judgment experience. Amos’s announcement of destruction in 9:8a is immediately qualified in 8b by the phrase “except that I will not utterly 47  Thus Amsler and the majority of interpreters, Amsler, “Amos,” 194. Amsler describes them as “les femmes insatiables.” Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 417, view them as lordly, noble women. 48  Suggested by Paul, Amos, 207. 49  Amsler, “Amos,” 157–247; Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 332–333. 50  Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 346–347. 51  Wolff, Joel, 341. Surprisingly, Paul, Amos, 279, understands this as referring to flight to a foreign land. However, all the verses he cites containing the expression “to go into captivity” refer to forced migration. 52  The elusive reference Yhwh’s potential mercy to the “remnant of Joseph” in 5:15 involves numerous complexities that cannot be discussed here.

Exile

593

destroy the House of Jacob” (‫)אפס כי לא הׁשמיד אׁשמיד את בית יעקב‬. V. 9–10 then go on to give the means through which a remnant will be preserved. The nation will be shaken like grain in a sieve, separating the righteous from the evildoers. Many scholars view the qualification of Amos’s words in v. 8b–15 as the work of a later redactor in light of the survival of remnants of the Israelite population after 722/21.53 Shalom Paul, and Anderson and Freedman, however, demur. Paul sees the references to destruction as referring the nation as a political entity, but not to the populace as a whole.54 Andersen and Freedman view the destruction as extending only to the wealthy perpetrators of injustice.55 For these scholars total destruction was never in view. In any case, it is clear that the metaphor of the sieve describes some means of imposing a selective judgment, whereby only the “sinners of my people” perish. The metaphor moves forward in two steps. First the house of Israel will be shaken among the nations (‫בכל הגוים‬, v. 9). Opinion is divided regarding the meaning of this phrase. Wolff views the reference to the nations here as a gloss and eliminates it entirely, viewing the shaking here as the “internal sifting of Israel.”56 This, however, is unwarranted, given the strong textual support for the phrase. Stuart views the shaking in the sieve as part of a general conflagration among the nations into which Israel is caught up, rendering the idea of exile faint, if not absent.57 Yet why should more general upheavals of the nations (cf. Hag 2:6–9, 20–22) appear in the context of Yhwh’s judgment on the Northern Kingdom? It is therefore more probable that the phrase (be it original to Amos, or a redactional development) refers to Israel’s widespread dispersion among the nations.58 As we have seen, forced migration appears elsewhere in Amos (4:1–3; 5:5; 6:4–7; 7:17; 9:1–4) and is a stock component among the traditional ANE maledictions for covenant violation, a pattern used in several passages elsewhere in the book (esp. 4:6–11; 5:11; 7:17). Moreover, the phrase ‫ בכל הגוים‬in the Twelve frequently designates either the physical presence of someone or something in the nations outside Israel, or the nations’ evaluation of someone or something (Hos 9:17; Joel 4:2; Obad 1; Mic 5:7; Zech 8:13; Mal 1:11, 14). But how exactly does the metaphor of shaking the sieve function here? Shalom Paul, following Kaufmann, sees the righteous as the finer particles that slip through the sieve, and then are dispersed into exile, as opposed to the pebbles, which are retained in it, and then cut off. Thus, the judgment of the wicked occurs prior 53  Thus Harper, Amos, 195–200; Wolff, Joel, 346. 54  Paul, Amos, 285. 55  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 882. 56  Wolff, Joel, 344, 349. He entirely omits the EDRM from his treatment of the passage. 57  Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 394. 58  Paul, Amos, 286; Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 870.

594

Kessler

to dispersion into exile. On this understanding, exile becomes a beneficial arrangement for the righteous, from which the wicked are excluded.59 Andersen and Freedman take the opposite position, viewing the shaking as the dispersion of all Israel into exile, where individuals will subsequently be judged. They state, “[T]here was a conquest, there were survivors and many of them went into exile. Among the latter there were those marked for destruction […] But there would be others marked for preservation and survival, and ultimately for return and renewal of the kingdom. What is new and distinctive in Amos here is the proposal that the exilic group will be divided by some procedure, with the wicked leaders meeting death […] while others will constitute the nucleus of a new community […] The purpose [of exile] is not to punish but to separate the two groups.”60 Anderson and Freedman’s exegesis is closer to the text. The passage does not state that the pebbles in the sieve do not depart into exile, while the lighter matter is dispersed. Rather the sieve speaks of the totality of the population, exiled and shaken among the nations. In exile the fates of the two are determined: the wicked perish, and the righteous are preserved. The many vagaries of the passage preclude dogmatism, but it would seem that here exile becomes a place of sifting, reward, and punishment. Thus, the image is unique. In Jer 24 and Ezek 11:11–21 and 33:23–29, where those with whom Yhwh’s presence rests, and who will return to the land are separated and chosen on the basis of the date of their departure from the land and the place of exile, not their ethical qualities, as witnessed by their need of heart renewal (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26–28). In Amos however, exile is a place where earlier deeds will be recompensed, and those who are worthy will be permitted to return to the land, and participate in Yhwh’s future purposes.61

59  Paul, Amos, 286. Paul’s position rests, in good measure on the kind of sieve implied here, and its function. In striking contrast to Kaufman and Paul, Amsler (like Wolff) sees the phrase “among all nations” as a secondary addition, designed to introduce the idea of exile. However, in contrast to Paul, he views exile as the destiny of the unjust. He states, “[L]ater tradition transformed the image. The word ‫ כברה‬now designates the fine mesh which holds the good grain […] but allows the refuse to fall on every side. The accent is thus placed on the promise that no just individual will be forced to undergo deportation.” See Amsler, “Amos,” 244, translation mine. 60  Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 879, emphasis mine. 61  See Jeremias who observes “Verses 9f make it clear that this ‘house of Jacob,’ however, is not simply identical with those who were rescued from the state catastrophe, but rather emerges from an evaluation process which God’s order sets into motion (and which later redactors identified with the exile through the addendum ‘among all the nations’ which disrupts the poetic structure).” Jeremias, Amos, 166.

Exile

595

4.3.3 Restoration and Return Restoration appears in the last two verses of Amos, in the second of its concluding oracles of salvation (Amos 9:13–15). Verse 13 speaks of a miraculous fecundity in nature. Verses 14–15 describe the reversal of fortunes that the nation will experience.62 This description overturns several maledictions pronounced earlier in the book. The earlier destructions are replaced by the rebuilding of ruined cities (v. 14aβ). The enjoyment of the fruit of the vineyard in v. 14bα is a clear reversal of 5:11. Privation and want are replaced by satiety in v. 14bβ.63 The plucking up of exile (4:2–3; 5:5, 27; 7:11, 17) is replaced by a secure and immovable replanting on the land that I have given them (9:15). Significantly, apart from the reference to the restoring the fortunes in v. 14, these Amosian promises employ none of the verbs used elsewhere in the Book of the Four (or in Obadiah or Joel for that matter) to designate restoration (‫ ׁשוב‬extensively in Hosea, ‫ אסף‬// ‫ קבץ‬in Micah, ‫ יׁשע‬// ‫ קבץ‬as in Zephaniah). In sum, in Amos, (outside the OAN), the EDRM is concerned almost exclusively with exile and dispersion as the Northern Kingdom’s much deserved punishment. Yet judgment is ultimately qualified, and a remnant preserved. The diaspora will be a place where each Israelite will be judged. This stands in contrast to Hosea which knows only the collective aspects of the EDRM. There is no depiction of life in exile, nor any sense of how Israel will be restored to the land. Moreover, no specific places of exile or diaspora are named (in contrast to Hosea). Finally, in Amos, as in Hosea, the EDRM has its full arc—exile, diaspora, and return. Hos 3:5 and Amos 9:11 likely foresee a national reunification under Davidic rule. The land’s fecundity mirrors Yhwh’s activity of restoration and renewal (9:13–15). Thus diaspora is a provisional measure, pending reunion and return. Yet, as we have seen, in Amos the return is seen as a selective one. The latter point constitutes a highly distinctive contribution of the book. 4.4 Obadiah Obadiah contains only fleeting glimpses of the EDRM. As in Joel 3:5, Zeph 1:1– 3:17, and Zech 14:1–5, the book’s primary emphasis is the preservation of a remnant in the land (17–20).64 Obadiah foresees the renewed possession of Israel’s traditional territory by the inhabitants of Zion (v. 17), the Shephelah, and Benjamin (v. 19). Traces of the EDRM appear in the reference to Yhwh’s 62  The phrase ‫ ושׁבתי את־שׁבות‬is a frequently used phrase designating a reversal of misfortunes and the return to a pre-judgment state, or better. This motif is given full expression in Joel 2:18–27. See further Bracke, “šûb šebût,” 233–244. 63  Wolff, Joel, 354. 64  On the numerous textual difficulties here, see Ben Zvi, Study, 211–213.

596

Kessler

wrath on Jerusalem in v. 16,65 and the reference to the “exile of Israel” living in various regions,66 who will return and take possession of Phoenicia and the Negev (v. 20).67 The configuration of the EDRM in Obadiah is distinctive in three regards. First, there is no explicit mention of dispersion due to sin, only an allusion to Jerusalem’s drinking the cup of Yhwh’s wrath (v. 16).68 Second, the locations in which the exiles are found are puzzling. Babylon is absent, as is any reference to the “nations to which I have banished/scattered you” (‫נדח‬ Jer 8:3; 16:15; 23:8; Ezek 4:13; ‫ זרה‬Ezek 5:12; 20:23; Joel 4:2; Zech 2:2, 4). Third, in line with the overall tenor of the book, and similar to the pattern in Joel 4:1–8, Obadiah emphasizes the vindication of Israel and judgment of its oppressors. Furthermore, there is no mention of divine compassion in Israel’s restoration, no reference to divine re-gathering, and only the faintest glimpse of life in exile. In sum, we see only a truncated concept of exile and restoration in Obadiah, in comparison with its fuller expression elsewhere in the Twelve. 4.5 Micah The structure of the book of Micah has been the object of extensive scholarly debate, most notably due to its alternating passages of doom and salvation.69 Thus while doom is declared in 1:2–16; 2:1–5; 3:5–8, 9–12; 4:9–10; 6:9–16, salvation is promised in 2:12–13; 4:6–8; 5:2–6a. Moreover, the book’s language is highly general and elusive, and its imagery often shifts abruptly. 4.5.1 Forced Migration and Loss of Land When compared to Hosea and Amos, in Micah exile seems to be more assumed than explicitly warned of or described.70 Exile forms the culmination of the book’s opening oracle (1:2–16). Judah and Samaria are depicted as parents bereft of their children. Mic 1:16 calls for the nation to perform mourning

65  For the position that Israel’s suffering for its sin is in view here, see Wolff, Obadiah, 64–65, and Raabe, Obadiah, 203–204. For a contrasting opinion, see Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:294–295. 66   On the specific localities involved, see Raabe, Obadiah, 266–268. See also Keller, “Abdias,” 262. 67  Verses 19–21 are considered by many to be additions to the main body of the book. See LeCureux, “Obadiah,” 572–573. 68  The relationship between Joel and Obadiah is disputed. See Raabe, Obadiah, 33, for the position that Joel draws on Obadiah and a fuller discussion of the matter. 69  See, for example, Ben Zvi, Micah, with extensive bibliography. 70  Passing allusions to exile may appear in 1:14; 2:4, 10, and 6:16b. However, space precludes the analysis of these texts.

Exile

597

rites for its pampered children who “have gone from you into exile” (‫)גלו ממך‬.71 The formulation ‫ גלה‬followed by ‫ מן‬resumes a thread of references begun in Hos 10:5 and continued in Amos 7:11, 17. As noted, Hos 10:5–6 depicts the nation’s exile through the image of the removal of the calf of Samaria to Assyria, presaging the exile of the people and the loss of the glory of Bethel, which moves “away from it” (‫)גלה ממנו‬. In Amos 7:11 and 17 the prophet declares that Israel will be exiled “away from its land” (‫)גלה יגלה מעל אדמתו‬. Here in Mic 1:16, the exile is personalized as the text speaks directly to Judah, and references exile as your children going “away from you.”72 Mic 4:9–10, a highly enigmatic passage, clearly involves movement away from the land and exile to Babylon.73 While scholars disagree on the identity of the city from which Daughter Zion is to depart,74 most concur that forced migration is involved. 4.5.2 Life in Exile/Diaspora As in Hosea and Amos, in Micah Israel’s existence continues beyond the foreseen disaster. In 4:6–7 a series of metaphors of weakness and rejection describe the people’s exilic existence. They are seen as lame (‫צלע‬, cf. Zeph 3:19), banished, (‫נדח‬, cf. Deut 30:1, 4; Isa 11:12; 27:13; 56:8; Jer 8:3; 16:15; 23:8 and numerous times in Jer; Ezek 4:13; 34:4, 16; Ps 147:2; Dan 9:7; Neh 1:9), and outcasts (‫ הנהלאה‬as a Niphal of ‫)לאה‬.75 Verse 4:6b emphasizes that it is Yhwh who has brought such grief to the nation. Moreover, 4:9–10 speak of the absence of any viable leadership. The Israelites are devoid of king or counsellor,76 and require rescue from their enemies. The reference to Israel’s “fall” in 7:8 likely refers to destruction and exile. Similarly, the nation’s provisional bearing of Yhwh’s indignation until his wrath is spent (7:8–9) echoes Hos 3:3–5 (see further infra). 4.5.3 Restoration and Return In Micah, references to re-gathering and return abound. In 2:12–13, Yhwh declares that he will re-gather the survivors of Israel. The remnant (‫ )ׁשארית‬stands parallel to “Jacob,” taken by most commentators as a reference to all those who 71  Compare the similar trope in Jer 31:15–22, also dealing with exile. See the insightful analysis of the metaphorization of exile in Halvorson-Taylor, “Redaction,” 117–122. 72  Commentators disagree as to which exile is intended here. Suggestions include captivity to Aram, as in 2 Chr 28, Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 238, or Sennacherib’s campaign of 701, Hillers, Micah, 29. 73  The BHS’s proposed deletion of Babylon is without textual support. 74  Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 445–447, suggest Babylon, while Allen, Joel, 333, and others suggest Jerusalem. See also Hillers, Micah, 59. 75  See now Lo, “Motif,” 130–148. 76  With Hillers and others I understand the king as a human ruler, and the counsellor as the royal advisor, Hillers, Micah, 59.

598

Kessler

have been dispersed (cf. 1:16). Now, all will be re-gathered. The emphasis falls both on the totality77 and certainty78 of this event. This re-gathering is referenced via the roots ‫ אסף‬and ‫קבץ‬. The concept of gathering has already played a significant role in the Twelve. The word ‫ אסף‬has appeared in Hos 4:3; 10:10; Joel 1:14; 2:10, 16; 4:15; Amos 3:9, and ‫ קבץ‬in Hos 2:1; 8:10; 9:6. Mic 2:12 marks the first time they appear together. In Hosea the gathering of the people is largely an ominous affair.79 Hosea 4:3; 8:10; 9:6; 10:10 all speak of Yhwh’s judgment with reference to gathering. Here in 2:12–13 however, it is a joyous one. This theme is reprised in 4:6–7. Significantly, in 4:7 it is only subsequent to Yhwh’s intervention that the lame and distressed are made into a remnant and a mighty nation (‫)גוי עצום‬, a term usually used of Gentile nations, as in Mic 4:3; Zech 8:22, but here of Israel, possibly reminiscent of Gen 18:18 and Num 14:12). This theme is carried forward in 5:6–8. In contrast to its weakness in exile, following Yhwh’s restoration a different and contrasting set of images appears. The remnant of Israel is set among the nations (‫בגוים‬, as in Hos 9:17) and in the midst of many peoples (‫עמים‬, as in Lam 3:45).80 Two similes describe the remnant’s effect on the nations around them. The first is beneficial (the nourishment of dew and showers), while the second is destructive (the ravaging of a lion). Most striking is the intertextual transformation which occurs here: the victimized wanderers of Hos 9:17 are now beneficial and strong, and have dominion.81 One further reference to return and rebuilding appears in 7:11–12, however, the obscurities in this text preclude its discussion here. The culminating oracle in Mic 7:8–20 provides the basis for Yhwh’s restoration of the nation. As in Hosea and Amos it summarizes the message of the book, using many of its themes and metaphors, notably those involving animal husbandry (7:14, cf. 2:12; 4:6–7, 13; 5:2–3, 7–8).82 Mic 7:8–10 depicts the EDRM through the imagery of falling (destruction and forced migration), bearing Yhwh’s indignation (life in exile) and rising again (vindication and restoration). The basis of this restoration is made explicit in 7:18–20. Yhwh will restore Israel out of his abounding mercy and faithfulness to his promises to the Ancestors. Central here is the reality that, despite his provisional expressions of 77  On the text-critical issue here cf. McKane, Micah, 89–94. 78  Note the use of the inf. abs of ‫אסף‬. 79  Hos 1:11 is an exception, standing apart from other instances of gathering in Hosea in two ways: first, Israel and Judah gather themselves together, and second, it is questionable whether the reference is to a re-gathering from exile. 80  Scholars differ as to whether the reference here is to Israelites scattered among the nations, thus Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 291; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 485, or to restored Israel in the midst of the nations of the world, so Hillers, Micah, 70–71. The latter position appears more likely, given the image of strength in the simile. 81  These images also reverse Lam 3:45 where Yhwh has made the people “as rubbish.” 82  See Hillers, Micah, 89.

Exile

599

wrath, Yhwh does not “retain his anger for ever” (v. 18b). This recalls the theme of the necessity of a time of national suffering, waiting for Yhwh’s anger to subside (cf. Hos 3:1–5; 5:15; 11:10–11) and is evocative of Exod 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Isa 26:20; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Ps 86:15; 103:8–9; 145:8; Neh 9:17. 4.6 Zephaniah In Hosea and Micah, exile, diaspora, and restoration form an implied narrative sub-plot covering the length of the book.83 Zephaniah, conversely, contains no such underlying thread. Like Amos and Joel, promises of restoration appear only in the concluding oracles. There is no mention of exile, diaspora or return in 1:1–3:17. Rather, the wicked are purged away, leaving only the lowly and righteous (3:11–13, cf. the same purgation in Amos 9:8b–10, but occurring in exile). Only in 3:19–20 does the EDRM appear. In 3:19 we encounter a close verbal parallel of Mic 4:6–7. As in Micah, Zeph 3:19 describes Israel’s humiliation in exile.84 They are weak and in need of deliverance, (‫ )יׁשע‬and dispersed and in need of re-gathering (‫)קבץ‬. Yhwh will bring them (‫)בוא‬,85 make them a praise and renown, and restore their fortunes (cf. Hos 6:11b; Joel 4:1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20). Thus the EDRM does not permeate Zeph. It appears to be an addendum to the base text from which it is markedly absent.86 4.7 Zechariah Despite the fact that Zech 1–14 is presented as a single book, the EDRM is far more pervasive in 1–8 than in 9–14. Accordingly, I will deal with these two sections separately. 4.7.1 Zechariah 1–8 This section is replete with references to the EDRM. As I have dealt with this elsewhere,87 I will only briefly summarize the major points of the discussion

83  On the concept of an implied narrative continuum, see Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland,” 137–166. 84  On v. 20 as a clarification of v. 19, see Sweeney, Zephaniah, 207. V. 20 makes it clear that the reference in v. 19 is to the exiles, not the internally oppressed poor. 85   N RSV adds “home” which is likely to be implied. 86  V. 14–20 (in whole or part) are frequently seen as secondary. Hadjiev, “Zephaniah,” 325– 338, argues that 3:13–20 was added to complete the book and stands in continuity with its earlier part. He does not, however, note the dissonance created by the absence of the EDRM in the earlier part of the book, and its presence in this section. Significantly, certain approaches see Zephaniah as distinct from Hosea, Amos, and Micah, and call into question the “Book of the Four” hypothesis. 87  See especially Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland,” 137–166; idem, “Diaspora in Zechariah 1–8,” 119–145; idem, “Images,” 309–351; idem, “Prophecy,” 97–133.

600

Kessler

here.88 Zech 1–8 consists of two major sections—a visionary-oracular complex (1:7–6:15) embedded in a sermonic frame (1:1–6; 7:1–8:23). Each section deals with the three aspects of the EDRM that we have observed elsewhere in the Twelve. For the sake of simplicity I will treat these two sections of 1–8 together here, despite the fact that in each section the EDRM is presented from a distinct perspective. 4.7.1.1 Destruction and Dispersion Zech 1–8 recognizes two forms of scattering: a broader one, to various undisclosed locations 2:2, 4; 7:14, and a more localized one, to Babylon (2:10–13). Three verbs are utilized to express Israel’s dispersion: 1. ‫ זרה‬in 2:2, 4, a term frequently used for widespread scattering, (Lev 26:33; 1 Kgs 14:15; Jer 31:10; 49:32; Ezek 5:2, 10, 12; 6:8; 12:14, 15; 20:23; 22:15; 36: 19; Ps 106:27); 2. the Piel of ‫ פרׂש‬in 2:10, a verb rarely used to denote exile; and 3. ‫ סער‬in 7:14, a similarly rare use of this verb for the scattering of Israel. Both Yhwh (2:10; 7:14) and the nations more broadly 2:2, 4 are responsible for this scattering.89 This destruction and scattering is described as Yhwh’s judgment upon the nation for its sin (1:4–5, 15; 3:2–5; 7:7–14; 8:13–15). 4.7.1.2 Life in Exile/Dispersion For the first time in the Twelve, Zech 1–8 offers developed descriptions of life after the Babylonian conquest both in and outside the land. Zech 7:14 describes the state of the land following the Babylonian invasions, using three general terms. First, 7:14a describes the land as having been desolated (‫ )ׁשמם‬and laid desolate (‫)ׁשמה‬.90 Zech 7:14b adds “with no one passing through or returning” (Isa 33:8; Jer 9:11; 51:43; Ezek 14:15; 29:11; 33:28; 35:7). These terms describe a devastated land where cities are in ruins and normal socio-economic life has been shattered. Complete depopulation is implied here and in 8:1–5 (cf. Jer 44:3). Moreover, the exiles are depicted as living in a state of abject humiliation. Israel cannot lift its head, due to its disgrace (2:2, 4 [twice], cf. also the images of opprobrium before the nations in Hos 9:17; Mic 4:6–7; Zeph 3:19).91 However this dishonor has not stripped the exiles of their identity. Zech 2:11 addresses 88  Boda’s magisterial work on Zechariah has since appeared, and is indispensable for the exegesis of the relevant material, Boda, Zechariah. 89  See the discussion in Boda, Zechariah, 160; Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, 64–65. 90  See the more detailed discussion of these terms in Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland,” 160–161. 91  On the inability to lift one’s head due to shame see Job 10:15. The opposite appears in Gen 40:13. Numerous scholars underline the loss of freedom implicit in the idiom (cf. Ps 83:3; Judg 8:28).

Exile

601

the nation as “Daughter Zion, who dwells in Zion”92 and calls it to flee Babylon and return home. 4.7.1.3 Restoration and Return Zech 1–8 devotes much attention to the return to Zion, both on the part of Yhwh (1:16; 8:3)93 and the exiles (2:10–14; 6:9–10; 8:1–8, 23).94 Even Gentiles (2:15) will come and attach themselves to Yhwh and his people, and seek Yhwh in Jerusalem (8:20–23). Yhwh’s house will be rebuilt (1:16). Jerusalem will be restored and dwell in complete security (1:16). Abandoned cities will be re-populated and prosperous (1:17). Joyous play will replace sorrow and emptiness (8:2–5). The key terms used to denote restoration and return are ‫( ׁשוב‬to return), 1:16; 8:3; ‫( נוס‬to flee) 2:10, and ‫( יׁשע‬to save, deliver), 8:7, 13. Several points deserve special attention. First, the sorrows of exile only come to an end after the Temple’s ceremonial re-foundation (8:10, cf. Hag 2:15–19). The early return was characterized by much misery. Normal activities of society and commerce had not fully resumed (8:1–5). Personal safety was gone, as Yhwh had sown animosity and mistrust in the community (8:10). Only after the foundationlaying ceremony is the situation reversed. Second, the return here is broader than return from Babylon. Exiles will come from various undisclosed locations (8:7–8). Third, the return is presented as a reversal of the nation’s disgrace. Just as Israel had been a curse among the nations, it would now become a blessing among them (8:13). This reference to Israel “among the nations” is evocative of such terminology elsewhere in the Twelve. In Hos 8:8 Israel has become useless among the nations, in 9:17 wanderers among the nations, and in Joel 2:17 a reproach among the nations. Now it will be a blessing (‫)ברכה‬, a term never 92  Petitjean states, “The use of Zion to designate the deportees in Babylon serves to place the dramatic situation created by the exile in stark relief. Israel has been snatched away from its land and from the religious centre which Yhwh has assigned to his people— Jerusalem and the hill of Zion. Put another way, Zion is no more in Zion.” Petitjean, Oracles, 107 (translation mine). Ackroyd similarly comments, “It is significant that the sense of belonging to the community even while in exile is expressed so strongly that the exiles can be described as ‘Zion who dwells in Babylon.’” Ackroyd, Exile, 180. 93  On the concept of deities being “exiled” from their own temples, see the essays in Boda and Novotny, Foundations. See also the important observations in Kohn and Moore, “God,” 133–153. 94  The purpose of the return to Zion on the part of the Jewish individual mentioned in 8:23 is debated. Does this oracle foresee this person as returning permanently from the diaspora in the late sixth or early fifth century (thus Boda, Zechariah, 515, among many others)? Or does it designate the practice of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, characteristic of a much later period, thus Lipiński, “Recherches,” 25–55, esp. 42–46. The matter cannot be examined in detail here.

602

Kessler

used elsewhere in the Twelve of Israel, but evocative of texts such as Gen 12:1– 3. Fourth, there appears to be a motif of reversal or exchange of exile in the vision of 5:5–11. In contrast to the exiles who return, 5:7–10 depict the transport to Babylon of an ephah (basket) containing a woman, identified as wickedness, destined to be placed upon a pedestal.95 This text appears to reprise the motif of the transport of the calf of Samaria to Assyria (Hos 10:5–6). Fifth, in 6:9–10 an ongoing connection is established between the returnee community in Yehud, and those still in the east. The latter group has sent gold back to the homeland, which will be used for ritual purposes, thus creating an organic, inter-dependent relationship between the community in Yehud and the eastern diaspora.96 A tension thus exists between Zech 6:9–10, which apparently accepts the diaspora, and 2:10–13 which calls for immediate return. To summarize, the dominant aspect of the EDRM in Zech 1–8 is that of return. Zech 1:1–6 begins with a call to the community to return to Yhwh and a promise of Yhwh’s return to it, in response, and concludes with the image of Jew and Gentile alike coming to Jerusalem (8:20–23). Numerous other passages within 1–8 feature this motif. Moreover, Zech 1–8 is distinctive within the Twelve in that it speaks from the perspective of exile as a still-present reality. It looks backwards to its causes, and observes the hopeful signs presaging the emergence of a new day. The time of exile has been one of hardship and distress. However the re-foundation of the Temple has marked a decisive turning point. Furthermore, while Zech 1–8 anticipates the complete return of the return of the exiles, it nevertheless recognizes the importance of the ongoing, interim role of the diaspora. 4.8 Zechariah 9–14 In contrast to Zech 1–8, exile appears only in 9:11–13; 10:6–12; 14:1–5. The former two texts utilize the full EDRM arc, while the latter merely alludes to exile in passing. Zechariah 9:11–13 and 10:6–12 contain the foundational elements of the EDRM, albeit in a highly compressed form (cf. Joel 4:6–6; Obad 16, 20; Zeph 3:19–20). Zechariah 9:11–13 and 10:6–12 contain a rich vocabulary focused upon restoration, underlining the prominence of these themes: ‫ ׁשלח‬9:11; ‫ׁשוב‬ 9:12 (twice); 10:9, 10; ‫ ׁשרק‬10:8; ‫ קבצ‬10:8, 10; ‫ פדה‬10:8; ‫ בוא‬10:10. Exile, diaspora, and return are alluded to in 9:11–13 (esp. v. 12). There, through the imagery of the waterless pit, the exiles are likened to Joseph (Gen 37:24) and Jeremiah (Jer 38:6) who are thrown into waterless pits (symbolizing the removal from the 95  See Boda, Zechariah, 340–355, with extensive bibliography. 96  On this, see Bedford, “Diaspora,” 147–165; Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland,” 137–166; idem, “The Diaspora in Zechariah 1–8,” 119–145; idem, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists,” 91–122.

Exile

603

homeland, and life in exile) but ultimately rescued (symbolizing restoration).97 Most importantly, it is Yhwh who liberates the prisoners (v. 11) and calls them to return (v. 12). The dating of this oracle is significant for our discussion. Much turns on the temporal value assigned to ‫( ׁשלחתי‬v. 11). Is Yhwh’s freeing of the captives a future event,98 or a past one, presupposing (as in 2:6–7) that Yhwh’s activity has given the possibility for return (and some may have indeed already returned), yet the exiles must act upon it.99 The latter is likely the better option. Thus, like Zech 2:10–13; 9:11–12 presupposes a two-stage restoration—one that has begun but is not yet complete. Accordingly, a late sixth century setting seems highly likely.100 The theme of return continues in 10:6–12. Here, more detail is given. Yhwh has rejected (‫ ;זנח‬v. 6b; cf. Hos 8:3, 5) and scattered the nation (v. 9; here ‫[ זרע‬more usually meaning to sow], as opposed to ‫ זרה‬elsewhere in the Twelve, Zech 2:2, 4). However, he will bring back his people (‫)ׁשוב‬ and have mercy upon them (‫)רחם‬, hear their cry and answer them, v. 6. He will signal (10:8) for them (‫ ׁשרק‬only here in the prophets in a positive sense, cf. Isa 5:26; 7:18; Jer 19:8; 49:17; 50:13; Ezek 27:36) and gather them101 from Egypt and Assyria (v. 10). All of the inhabitants of the former Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom will return and be re-united. The theme of exile re-appears in Zech 14:1–5.102 Half of Jerusalem’s population will go into exile (‫ )גלה‬during the coming siege, 14:2. Neither the destination to which these persons depart nor their ultimate fate is disclosed. In contrast to the EDRM in Zech 1–8 and 9–10 these persons do not constitute the 97  On exile as imprisonment, see Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 140–141. 98  Reading ‫ ׁשלחתי‬as a perfectum confidentiae. This is the majority position. Many therefore see the liberation of the prisoners and call to return as future events, and suggest that this oracle originated a time period before the early returns. Boda, however, demurs, and sees ‫ ׁשלחתי‬as indicating a past occurrence (the emergence of Persian rule, permitting return) but the call to return as still future, as in 2:10–13. See following note. 99  Boda, Zechariah, 529, 574–585, sees this oracle as arising in the late sixth century, at a time close to that of Zech 1–6. Like Boda, Petersen sees the call to return as emerging in the later sixth century, however in his view, it is not addressed to the diaspora, but to returnees outside Jerusalem, Petersen, Zech 9–14, 61. This however seems unlikely, since it is hard to see how the population in Yehud could be described as imprisoned. Cf. Chary, Aggée-Zacharie, 171, who dates the oracle here to the Hellenistic period, and sees the prisoners in question as those taken captive by Artaxerxes III Ochus. 100  Pace Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 174–175, who situate the oracle in the mid-fifth century, at a time when return to Zion would have become prohibited by the Persians, due to broader geopolitical concerns. 101  The word ‫ קבץ‬as a locus classicus of return after exile, see Isa 11:12; 40:11; 43:5; Jer 23:3; 29:14; 31:8, 10; Ezek 11:17; Mic 2:12; 4:6; Zeph 3:19–20. 102  Virtually all structural analyses of Zech 14, see some sort of division between v. 2–3 and v. 5–6. See Boda, Zechariah, 743–760.

604

Kessler

remnant who will return.103 Rather, it is those who remain in the city and subsequently escape through the earthquake who will survive, return, and embody the nation’s future (14:5).104 This pattern of preservation has already appeared in 13:8–9, where one third of the population is preserved and refined.105 It may also be implicit in Joel 3:5. This configuration is distinctive within the Twelve: hope is not found in the reunion of the Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom (Hos 3:5), in the return of all the exiles (Zech 2:10–16; 8:1–8), or in the exiles who have been faithful to Yhwh (Amos 9:9b–10), or through the purification of those who remain in the land (Joel 3:5; Obad 17; Zeph 3:11–13). Rather, it comes by those who have been spared the fate of death or exile, and are able to flee Jerusalem before its destruction, yet somehow return. To summarize, Zech 9–14 contains fewer allusions to exile, diaspora and return than 1–8. The full EDRM appears in Zech 9–10, featuring special emphasis on the certainty of a complete return of all the exiles to Yehud. Zech 14, by contrast manifests a different perspective. Those taken into exile do not appear again (cf. Amos 9:8b–10). Those who flee Jerusalem, however, return and constitute those with whom Yhwh begins anew. 5

General Conclusions

To conclude this study, I offer the following general, over-arching observations. First, as we have seen, within the Twelve the EDRM pattern manifests significant diversity. This suggests that the tradents and framers responsible for this series of texts felt no necessity to level or harmonize the various pericopes within it. Rather, just as the distinctive voices of the individual prophets (and of Yhwh) were left intact,106 so were the divergent images surrounding exile. Second, the EDRM likely became a highly significant ideology in the late monarchic, Babylonian, and early Persian periods. Few would see the affirmations 103   Rom-Shiloni rightly points out that in certain Dtr traditions, exile means ultimate destruction, not preservation, Rom-Shiloni, “Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile,” 101–123. 104  See esp. Redditt, Haggai, 139–140. 105  Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 141; Boda, Zechariah, 758–759; pace Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 390–391, who see a possible reference to death in exile, cf. Ezek 5. 106  Ben Zvi observes that this distinctiveness of voice “served to provide each book with a sense of uniqueness […] each prophetic personage and therefore each of the prophetic books […] is characterized and individualized by means of a particular voice, which utters unique words and expressions and creates a sense of character and book differentiation and inner coherence. Significantly, the readers of these books were asked to imagine Yhwh as a deity that adopts different voices to interact with different characters.” Ben Zvi and Nogalski, Two Sides, 78–79.

Exile

605

of return and restoration in Hos, Amos, Mic and Zeph as emerging in toto much later than the early to mid-Persian period (indeed some would see them as much earlier). Similarly, Zech 1–8 displays intense interest in the EDRM, as do Zech 9:11–12 and 10:10–16, texts which likely emerge from the late sixth century.107 Thus, the EDRM seemingly became especially important as a means of envisioning the future as a re-creation of the past at this fluid and defining moment, as Israel reflected upon and re-constructed its identity. Steck and Schmid insightfully comment, “For a readership which is oriented toward finding direction for its time in the prophetic books […] the restoration statements thus form a material context without detriment to the literary context of the books […] In the perspective of the prophetic tradition, the restoration statements form nothing less than the purpose statements of a lengthy path that Yhwh travels with his people in the realm of the nations.”108 Third, the EDRM is a homeland-centred perspective. It expresses the bereavement of those who either remained in the land or soon returned to it, rather than the aspirations of those remaining in exile.109 Thus, from a Yehudite perspective, the diaspora is essentially an anomaly; ultimately, the exiles must return (cf. Zech 2; 9). I suspect that the underlying reason for this hope is the human desire, when faced with catastrophic devastation, to reconstitute that which has been destroyed. Closely connected to this hope is a vision of Israel’s transformed status among the nations; they are no longer an object of reproach (Joel 2:19; Mic 7:16–17; Zeph 3:18 reversing Joel 2:17 and Mic 6:16) or cursing (Zech 8:13, reversing Jer 24:9; 25:18; 26:6; 29:22; 42:18; 44:8, 12, 22). Their future will be glorious. Fourth, the imagery used in the formulations of the EDRM is frequently organically linked to the broader themes of the individual book in which such formulations appear. This demonstrates the integration of the EDRM texts within their broader contexts. Examples include the collocation land and exile in Amos, and relationship and exile in Hosea. Fifth, one may observe a divergence between the EDRM passages in the Book of the Four and Zechariah (where we observe a “scattering and re-gathering” pattern, wherein all are scattered in judgment but re-gathered in grace), on the one hand, and a second perspective, in evidence in Joel and Obadiah, where one observes an emphasis on lex talionis, on the other. Emphasis shifts from

107  See Boda, Zechariah, 529, 574–581. 108  Schmid and Steck, “Restoration,” 41–81. 109  See Carroll’s rather acerbic observations, in “Deportation,” 83–84. He sees the homeland community as viewing the diaspora as potential “clients.”

606

Kessler

Israel’s crimes, to the punishment of the nations. This likely suggests that the former texts chronologically precede the latter ones. Sixth, and consequently, in the Twelve there appears to be a broader progression from earlier EDRM texts, where restoration will be total and Israel’s obedience complete, and thus judgment and exile will never recur (Hos 2:16–25), to texts emphasizing the punishment of the nations (Joel 4:1–8; Obadiah), and finally to a stage where Israel’s sinfulness once again may threaten God’s purposes, and though not explicitly stated, a renewed exile is possible (Zech 7–8; 9–14; Mal, cf. Ezra 9:8–14). Seventh and finally, two significant areas of silence regarding exile appear in the Twelve. The first is the absence of the EDRM is certain books of the Twelve, especially Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Malachi, and, to a certain extent Haggai. This doubtlessly has implications for theories regarding the formation of the Twelve, however, space precludes a discussion of this here. What can be said is that the distribution of EDRM does not lend itself to viewing the final shape of the Twelve as “U-shaped” in any rigid sense.110 Rather, the ERDM constitutes a leitmotif, emerging and re-emerging over the course of the Twelve. The theme of judgment, exile, and restoration is not the one central thread upon which all of the Twelve hang, but rather one of several themes, such as Yhwh’s grace, mercy and forgiveness, the kingdom of God, justice for the poor, and the right worship of Yhwh, to name but a few. Second, in the Twelve we find an absence of texts reflecting an exclusivist view of the Babylonian golah, such as are in evidence in Jer 24; Ezek 11:11–21; 33:23–29. While the exiles are called to flee from Babylon (Zech 2:10–13), nowhere is it presumed that only the Eastern golah members are acceptable to Yhwh, to the exclusion of those who remained in the land or the Egyptian diaspora (Jer 24; 40–44; Ezek 11; 33). Rather, as Yhwh brings his purposes to completion, exiles from the east and west are seen as returning to Yehud (Hos 11:10; Zech 8:7–8; 10:6–12). This would suggest that in the Twelve, there is a desire to present all Israel as exiles. As Ben Zvi notes, “To a very large extent, ‘Israel’—within its own discourse—considered itself to be composed of ‘the exiles.’”111 The framers of the Twelve were likely fully aware that not all Israelites and Judeans had been exiled, and not all had returned to the land. Yet now all could be seen as exiles, either by actual experience or by proxy, and therefore could be beneficiaries of the renewed grace that emerged after 110  See the list of the critiques of such “U-shaped” reading in Ko, “Ordering,” 320–321. Ko evaluates these critiques, but maintains the validity of the U-shaped structure as it relates to the historiographical framework of the Twelve. 111  Ben Zvi, Micah, 69. See too his fuller treatment in “Inclusion,” 95–149.

607

Exile

the community’s suffering and the dissipation of Yhwh’s anger (Hos 3:5; 5:15; 11:10–11). In sum, the inter-related themes of exile, dispersion, and return run very deeply in the Twelve, and constitute a foundational element of this corpus. Moreover, as we have seen, the ERDM is, at its core, a perspective regarding Israel’s identity and future. From the seventh century to the present day, the broader conceptions of exile, diaspora, and return have come to define Israel’s self-understanding, both individually and collectively. Such concepts also proved to be a significant point of theological reflection and self-definition in early Christianity (1 Pet 1:1), and continue to serve as points of reference and self-understanding for various religious and ethnic communities scattered across the globe.112 Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1968. Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme.” Pages 166–181 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Edited by G.W. Anderson et al., Leiden: Brill, 1972. Ahn, John J. Exile as Forced Migrations: A Sociological, Literary, and Theological Approach on the Displacement and Resettlement of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. BZAW 417. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Ahn, John J. “Exile.” Pages 196–204 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Edited by Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville. IVP Bible Dictionary Series 4. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Ahn, John J. “Forced Migrations Guiding the Exile: Demarcating 597, 587, and 582 BCE.” Pages 173–89 in By the Irrigation Canals of Babylon: Approaches to the Study of Exile. Edited by idem and Jill Middlemas. LHBOTS 526. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2012. Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’” Pages 232–251 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2003. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century BCE. Translated by David Green. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2003.

112  I am especially grateful to Mr. Simon Pan and Ms. Mari Leesment for their assistance in the preparation of this study.

608

Kessler

Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Amsler, Samuel. “Amos.” Pages 157–247 in Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas. Edited by Edmond Jacob et al. CAT XIa. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1965. Andersen, Francis I. and David N. Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1980. Andersen, Francis I. and David N. Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24A. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1989. Andersen, Francis I. and David N. Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24E. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Assis, Elie. The Book of Joel: A Prophet between Calamity and Hope. Translated by Sue Rosenfeld. LHBOTS 581. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Beck, Martin. “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie.” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–581. Bedford, Peter R. “Diaspora: Homeland Relations in Ezra-Nehemiah.” VT 52 (2002): 147–165. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Inclusion in and Exclusion from ‘Israel’ as conveyed by the term ‘Israel’ in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts.” Pages 95–149 in The Pitcher is Broken. Edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy. JSOTSup 190. Sheffield: JSOT, 1995. Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah. BZAW 242. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. Edited by John W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Hosea. FOTL 21A1. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005. Ben Zvi, Ehud and Nogalski, James. Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Boda, Mark J. “Babylon in the Book of the Twelve.” HBAI 3 (2014): 225–248. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Boda, Mark J. and Jamie R. Novotny. From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit, 2010. Bracke, John M. “šûb šebût: a Reappraisal.” ZAW 97 (1985): 233–244. Carroll, Robert P. “Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature.” Pages 63–85 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Chary, Théophane. Aggée-Zacharie, Malachie. SB. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969. Davies, Graham I. Hosea. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992.

Exile

609

Eidevall, Göran. Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14. ConBOT 43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996. Gertz, Jan C. “Military Threat and the Concept of Exile in the Book of Amos.” Pages 11–26 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2010. Greenwood, David C. “On the Jewish Hope for a Restored Northern Kingdom.” ZAW 88 (1976): 376–385. Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis.” Pages 325–338 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. New York, NY and London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Diaspora or No Diaspora? Some Remarks on the Role of Egypt and Babylon in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 319–336 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz et al. BZAW 433. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, 2012. Halvorson-Taylor, Martien A. “‘There is no one!’ The Redaction of Exile in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation (31:15–22).” Pages 107–122 in By the Irrigation Canals of Babylon: Approaches to the Study of Exile. Edited by John J. Ahn and Jill Middlemas. LHBOTS 526. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2012. Harper, William R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905. Hiebert, Theodore. “Joel, Book of.” ABD 3: 873–881. Hillers, Delbert R. Micah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984. Jacob, Edmond. “Osée.” in Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas. Edited by Edmond Jacob et al. CAT XIa. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1992. Jeremias, Jörg. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Kelle, Brad E. “An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Exile.” Pages 5–38 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by idem et al. AIL 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2011. Keller, Carl-A. “Abdias.” Pages 249–262 in Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas. Edited by Edmond Jacob et al. CAT XIa. Genève: Labor et Fides, 31992. Keller, Carl-A. “Joël.” Pages 99–155 in Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas. Edited by Edmond Jacob et al. CAT XIa. Genève: Labor et Fides, 31992. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2002. Kessler, John. “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud.” Pages 91–122 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

610

Kessler

Kessler, John. “Diaspora and Homeland in the Early Achaemenid Period: Community, Geography and Demography in Zechariah 1–8.” Pages 137–166 in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Persian Period. Edited by Jonah L. Berquist. SBL Semeia Studies 50. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2007. Kessler, John. “The Diaspora in Zechariah 1–8 and Ezra-Nehemiah: The Role of History, Social Location, and Tradition in the Formulation of Identity.” Pages 119–145 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Kessler, John. “Images of Exile: Representations of the ‘Exile’ and ‘Empty Land’ in Sixth to Fourth Century BCE Yehudite Literature.” Pages 309–351 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 2010. Kessler, John. “Prophecy at the Turning of the Ages: Imminent Crisis and Future Hope in Hag 2:6–9, 20–23 and Zech 2:10–17 [ET 6–13].” Transeu 40 (2011): 97–133. Kessler, John. “‘Is Haggai Among the Exclusivists?’ A Response to Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–5th Centuries BCE). LHBOTS 543. New York: T&T Clark, 2013.” JHebS 18 (2018), Article 3. Knowles, Melody D. Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora in the Persian Beriod. ABS 16. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2006. Ko, Grace. “The Ordering of the Twelve as Israel’s Historiography.” Pages 315–332 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Kohn, Risa L. and Rebecca Moore. “Where is God?: Divine Presence in the Absence of the Temple.” Pages 133–153 in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego. Edited by Sara Malena and David Miano. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. LeCureux, Jason T. “Obadiah. Book of.” Pages 572–573 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Edited by Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville. IVP Bible Dictionary Series 4. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Leuchter, Mark. “A Resident Alien in Transit: Exile and Adaptation and Geomythology in the Jeremiah Narratives.” HBAI 7 (2018): 316–333. Lipiński, Edward. “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie.” VT 20 (1970): 25–55. Lo, Alison. “Remnant Motif in Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah.” Pages 130–148 in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on his 60th Birthday. Edited by Jamie A. Grant et al. New York, NY and London: T&T Clark, 2011. Lust, Johan. “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel.” Pages 99–122 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. Edited by André Wénin et al. BETL 144. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1999.

Exile

611

Macintosh, Andrew A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Mays, James L. Hosea: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. McKane, William. The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14. AB 25C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993. Middlemas, Jill. “The Future of the ‘Exile.’” Pages 63–81 in By the Irrigation Canals of Babylon: Approaches to the Study of Exile. Edited by John Ahn and Jill Middlemas. LHBOTS 526. London and New York, NY: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2012. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin and New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James. “Joel as ‘literary anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 91–109 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000. Nogalski, James. The Book of the Twelve. 2 vols. SHBC 18a–b. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991. Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9–14 & Malachi: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995. Petersen, David L. “Prophetic Rhetoric and Exile.” Pages 9–18 in The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration. Edited by Mark J. Boda et al. AIL 21. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015. Petitjean, Albert. Les oracles du proto-Zacharie: un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l’exil. EBib. Paris and Louvain: Gabalda/Editions Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1969. Raabe, Paul R. Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24D. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile Interpreted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 101–123 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism presented to Shalom M. Paul on the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Vol. 1. Edited by Chaim Cohen and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People who Remained (6th–5th centuries BCE). LHBOTS 543. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2013. Schart, Aaron. “Twelve, Book of the: History of Interpretation.” Pages 806–817 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Edited by Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville. IVP Bible Dictionary Series 4. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Schmid, Konrad and Odil H. Steck. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament.” Pages 41–81 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish,

612

Kessler

and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2001. Sellin, Ernst. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. KAT XII,2. Leipzig: Deichert, 1922. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002. Strine, Casey A. “Is ‘Exile’ Enough? Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Need for a Taxonomy of Involuntary Migration.” HBAI 3 (2018): 289–315. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Sweeney, Marvin A. Zephaniah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Wöhrle, Jakob. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 58 (2008): 608–627. Wöhrle, Jakob. “Joel and the Formation of the Book of the Twelve.” BTB 40 (2010): 127–137. Wolff, Hans W. Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Translated by Gary Stansell. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974. Wolff, Hans W. Joel and Amos. Translated by Waldemar Janzen. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977. Wolff, Hans W. Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Translated by Waldemar Janzen. CC. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1986. Wright, Jacob L. “The Deportation of Jerusalem’s Wealth.” Pages 105–134 in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle et al. AIL 10. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2011.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 222 2:18–25 260 4 587 5:22 259 5:24 259 6–9 222, 471, 479 7:11 262 8:2 262 25:23 258 31:33 260 32 492 35 492 37:24 602 38 260 Exodus 3:14 473, 478 20–23 494 20 485 20:2 290 20:22–23:33 534–535 23:16 142 23:20 261, 386 32–34 471–485 34 169, 540 34:6–7 3, 120, 165, 171, 181–182, 186, 188, 190, 192, 194–197, 204, 472–485, 510–511 Leviticus 2:11–16 537–538 18:29 260 19:12–14 261 19:8 260 19:18 391 22 259 23:10–22 537–539 26 485 Numbers 18 543 18:11–32 537–540 18:12–15 547

24:17 93 25:10–13 259 28:9–10 391 28–29 537–539 Deuteronomy 2:4 260 4:15 260 6:4–5 391 7:3–4 260 8:8 541, 547–548 9:12 24 13:15 260 14:28–29 262 16:9–12 535–537 16:13 142 17:4 260 17:17 261 18:1–8 535–537 18:18 472 23:10 260 24 260 24:17 261 26:1–15 535–537 26:12 262 27:19 261 28:1–24 262 28:15–19 259 28:65 587 30:3–4 222 30:9 222 32:1 472 33:8–11 259 34:10 363, 472 Joshua 23:11 260 24:1 418 24:26–27 417–418 1 Samuel 15 587 2 Samuel 5:1–2 401–402 7:11–14 93

614 1 Kings 8:2 142 8:65–66 142 10:1–3 390 18:36 291 22:8–28 420 2 Kings 3:4 493 4:1 422 13:21 353 14:25–27 30 14:25 67, 165 17 24–25 18 25–27 22–25 26–27 22–23 33 23:26 27 24:3 27 24:14 27, 34 25:12 27, 34 Isaiah 1–2 267 1:1 94 2 86, 471, 497 2:1 94 2:2–4 184 5:24 263 6–39 94 6:1 94 8:1–4 501 10:24–26 500 13–23 94 13–14 496 13 101–102, 126 13:1 94 14:12–15 259 14:28 94 15:1 94 28:16 406 34 561 40–66 94 40–55 264 40:1–2 450 40:3 261, 386–387, 425 40:9 386 45:21 93

Index of Ancient Sources 62:4 262 63 561 65–66 263, 267 66 81, 86 Jeremiah 1:9 472 14:12 550 22:24–26 234 23:5 247 24 594, 606 26:18–19 420 31:33 594 33:15 247 38:6 602 39:10 27 40–44 606 44:3 600 49 152–153, 159 49:7–22 561 49:14 157 52:15–16 27 Ezekiel 2:9–3:3 472 5:5 554 11:11–21 594, 606 25:12–14 145 33:23–29 594, 606 34 79–80 34:5 399 35 152, 158–159 36 79 36:26–28 594 37 79–80 38:12 554 39 79 Hosea 1–3 121, 477 1–2 409 1 101 1:1 20–22, 132, 220, 242, 295, 417, 477, 493, 546 1:1b–2:13a 345 1:2–2:3 474, 477, 479, 481, 483 1:2 272, 297, 443, 457, 472, 508, 510

615

Index of Ancient Sources 1:10 393 2 99, 545–548 2:1–3 116 2:1 392 2:2–3 476 2:2 313–314 2:9 589 2:10 102 2:14 102 2:16–25 606 2:16–22 96 2:18–25 116 2:23 392 2:24 102 2:25 87, 588 3 23 3:1 24, 31, 96, 313 3:3–5 597 3:4 24, 31 3:5 116, 493, 589, 595, 604, 607 4–11 112–118, 477 4:1–3 121 4:3 99, 188, 203 4:11 362 5:2 299 5:4 589 5:7 560 5:15 607 6 409 6:1–3 204 6:2 395–396 6:4 366 6:6 314, 389, 391 6:10–11 116 6:11 313 7:8 121, 418 7:9 560 7:10 116, 589 8:4b–6 23–24, 31 8:6 111 8:7–9 560 8:8 418, 601 8:9–10 119 8:10 313 8:12 560 8:13 586 9:3–6 586

9:7–9 120 9:7 121, 389 9:13–15 595 9:15 96 10:1 337–341 10:5–6 597, 602 10:6 587 10:8 389 10:12 313 11 476, 479–481 11:1 96, 393 11:4 96 11:5 586, 589 11:10–11 588, 607 12–14 113, 477 12 476 12:4–15 492 12:7 589 12:10 290 12:11 249 12:14 363 13:2–3 23–24, 31 13:3 366 13:4 289–290, 373 13:8 99 13:16 389 14 99, 120, 130, 480 14:2–3 589 14:3 249, 313 14:5–10 131 14:5 96, 249 14:8 294, 297 14:10 297, 475, 571 Joel 1–2 99, 101–103, 124–125, 131–133, 204, 481–483, 548–550 1 131–134, 524 1:1 132 1:2 250 1:4 203, 345 1:5 294 1:6 361 1:14 124 1:15 561 1:19 263 2–3 524

616 Joel (cont.) 2 120, 171, 475 2:1–11 133 2:3 263 2:12–14 190, 194, 249–250 2:12 476 2:13 134, 169, 171, 204, 296, 446, 474 2:14 168 2:15 124 2:17 124 2:27 124–125 3–4 124–125, 482 3 134–135, 168, 405–406 3:1–2 252 3:1 360, 405 3:4b 265 3:5 125, 127, 132, 156–157, 474, 561, 589, 595, 604 4 81–82, 86, 94, 100–101, 131–132, 134, 182–183, 510, 524–525, 570 4:1–8 589–591, 596, 606 4:3–7 156 4:4–8 565 4:4 361 4:7 361 4:9a 157 4:10 184 4:11 157 4:16 128, 131, 144, 146, 231, 572 4:17 124, 250, 560 4:18 144, 565 4:19 146, 151, 156, 297, 528, 565 4:21 195, 250, 475 Amos 1–2 94, 112, 131 1:1 20–22, 132, 139, 146, 294, 493 1:2 128, 131, 144, 187–188, 203, 494, 572 1:3–2:16 216, 494, 558, 566 1:3–2:6 297 1:3–5 290 1:6–10 251 1:9–12 556

Index of Ancient Sources 1:11–12 151–152 1:11 528 1:13 290 2:4–5 23 2:10 25 2:11–12 23–24, 31 3–6 112 3:1 25 3:2 118 3:7 24, 140, 249, 299 3:9 565 4–5 99, 111–112 4:1–3 592, 595 4:4–9 550 4:6–13 131 4:6–11 103 4:6 364–365 4:9 132 4:13 203–204, 300, 474 5 181 5:1 299 5:2 444 5:5 592, 595 5:8–9 203–204 5:8 300, 474 5:12 312 5:15 180, 183, 250 5:18–20 261, 559 5:24 379 5:25–27 406–407, 409 5:26–27 93 5:27 474, 595 6:1 559 6:4–6 592 6:5 143 6:10 218 7–9 112, 154, 485, 494–495 7:1–6 103, 472 7:10–17 23–24, 31, 120, 483, 591–593 7:11 595, 597 7:14 252, 299 7:17 595, 597 8 181 8:10 369, 374, 445 8:11–12 24, 31 9 153, 155 9:1 314–315

Index of Ancient Sources 9:5–6 203–204 9:6 300, 474 9:7–10 16, 23 9:7 25 9:8b–15 592–595 9:8b–10 599, 604 9:10 23–24, 31 9:11–15 146–147, 481 9:11–12 93, 406 9:11 142, 298, 300, 444 9:12–13 132 9:12 146, 151, 294, 300, 528 9:13–15 133, 595 9:13 128, 131, 144, 300 Obadiah 1–15 159 1–6 151 1 165, 294, 297 4–5 153 6–18 560–561 8–18 156–157 8 158 8a 153 12 97 13 155 14 97 15–21 159 15–16 153 15 97, 361 16 362, 380 17–21 152–153 17–20 595–596 17 127, 589, 604 19 155, 512 21 157 Jonah 1 282 1:1 165, 294 1:2 372 1:5–6 380 2 170 2:1 400 2:2–9 204 2:10 311 3–4 190 3:2–3 372

617 3:5–8 372 3:5 390 3:9 168, 171 3:10 204 4:1–5 277 4:2 134, 165, 169, 171, 186, 194, 204, 296, 474 4:3 423 4:4–5 344 4:11 297, 367, 372 Micah 1–5 119, 178 1–3 496 1 155, 159, 180 1:1–9 154 1:1 20–22, 67, 132, 220, 294 1:2–16 596 1:2–7 179–180 1:2 298, 420 1:3–6 187–188 1:3–4 203 1:5–7 16, 23 1:5 277 1:6–7 177 2 469 2:1 559 2:6–10 120 2:12–13 597 2:12 250 3 180, 183 3:12 154, 176–178 4–5 81–82, 86, 497 4 182–184, 375–376, 471 4:1–5 178 4:1–4 251 4:1 176 4:4 376–377 4:6–10 597 4:8 178, 251 4:10 562 4:13 178 5:1–4 401–403 5:1 409 5:6–7 250 5:6–8 598 5:9–13 19, 23–24, 26–27, 32 5:14 195

618 Micah (cont.) 6 16, 26 6:2–15 23 6:9–16 181 6:10 315–316 6:15 177 7 186–187 7:5–6 404–405 7:8–20 598–599 7:8–10 133 7:8–9 597 7:9 178 7:14–20 204 7:18–20 181, 190, 204, 474–475 7:18–19 169, 171 7:18 192, 294, 298 7:19 345 Nahum 1–3 426–427 1 186, 189–190 1:1b–10 570 1:1 239, 297, 426, 528 1:2–8 187–192, 203 1:2–3 169, 171, 182, 186, 190, 194–195, 474, 510, 570 1:2b 204 1:3b–8 203 1:5 231 1:7 97 2:2–11 559 2:4–3:19 187 2:8–3:7 172 3 186, 188–189 3:1–3 559 3:3–15 203 3:7aβ 559 3:8–15 559 3:9 565 3:15–17 203 3:18–19 498 Habakkuk 1 204, 209, 428 1:1 94, 239, 528 1:5–10 569 1:6 183 1:12 187

Index of Ancient Sources 1:15–17 187 2–3 498, 526 2:1 209 2:3–4 407–408 2:5–19 559–560 2:12 183 2:20 218 3 188, 192, 204, 209, 217, 431, 498 3:1 94 3:2–19a 203 3:2 431 3:6 316–317 3:9 431 3:16 97 Zephaniah 1–3 218–222 1 183, 217 1:1–3:17 595, 599 1:1 20–22, 132, 218, 220, 498 1:2–3:20 499 1:2–2:3 215 1:2–3 203, 570 1:4–6 19, 23–24, 32–33 1:4–5 26–27 1:7–18 33 1:7–8 560–561 1:7 218 1:14 561 1:15 97 1:17–18 570 1:17 309 1:18 379 2–3 23, 500 2 94 2:1–3 23, 500 2:2 27 2:3 317 2:4–3:8 215–216 2:4–9 23 2:4–7 251 2:4–6 559 2:5–15 511 2:5 317–318 2:8–9 559 2:11 221 2:13 559

Index of Ancient Sources 3 217 3:1–8 23 3:1–5 559 3:1–4 309 3:1–2 335–336 3:2 19 3:4 342–343 3:5 309–310 3:7 19 3:8 570 3:9–20 192, 215 3:9–10 559 3:11–13 17, 23, 33–34, 604 3:11–12 27 3:12–13 16 3:13 309 3:14–17 133, 204 3:15 309–310 3:18–20 235 3:19 183 Haggai 1–2 38–63 1 217, 226, 240, 246–247, 501 1:1–3 49 1:1 38, 40, 47–49, 226–227, 239–240, 255, 500 1:2–13 229 1:2–11 48, 519 1:2 49, 228 1:3 47–48, 240, 255 1:4–8 49 1:5–7 547 1:5 297 1:6 231 1:7 297 1:8–14 232 1:8 228, 316 1:9–11 49, 231 1:9–10 144 1:10 379 1:11 102, 547 1:12–15 49 1:12–14 46–47, 250 1:12–13a 48 1:12 228 1:13 228, 241, 432

619 1:13b 48 1:14–15 48 1:14 520 1:15b–2:9 226 1:15 38, 42, 48, 239 2 246–247, 519–520 2:1–9 501 2:1–2 46–49 2:1 38, 142, 226–227, 239–240, 255 2:2 250 2:3–9 47–48, 229 2:4–19 232–233 2:4–5 46, 48, 290 2:4 48–49, 290 2:5 48–49, 228, 231, 523 2:6–9 234–235, 593 2:6–8 226, 230, 251 2:9b 230 2:10–19 226, 501 2:10–14 46 2:10 38, 40–43, 47–49, 226–228, 239–240 2:11–14 230 2:12 547 2:15–19 47–48, 229, 245, 547 2:15 297 2:16–19 231 2:16 228 2:17 228, 231 2:18 40–41, 48, 239, 297 2:20–23 41, 43–44, 48, 226–227, 501, 524 2:20–22 593 2:20 38, 40–43, 47, 49, 226, 239 2:21–23 46, 230, 233–235, 251 2:23 238, 244, 251, 357 Zechariah 1–14 69–70, 74 1–8 38–63, 68–70, 74–77, 81, 225, 232, 239–251, 264, 501–503, 520–522, 528, 599–606 1–6 46 1:1–6 39–43, 49, 53, 228, 239–244

620 Zechariah (cont.) 1:1 38, 40–41, 61, 67, 239, 241, 501 1:2–6 61 1:3–4 121 1:3 46, 262 1:6b 46 1:7–6:15 41, 53, 242, 520–521 1:7–6:8 245 1:7–17 569 1:7 38–41, 60, 67, 239 1:8–11 60 1:12–17 62 1:12–14aα 60 1:14–15 194 1:14aβ 60 1:16 240 1:17aβ–bβ 60 2:1–4 60 2:4 60 2:5–8 60 2:9 60 2:10–16 604 2:10–14 60 2:10–13 606 2:11–13 562–563 2:14–16 82 2:15–16 61 2:17 61, 218 3 248, 434 3:1–8a 60 3:8b 60 3:9 60 3:10 60 4 434 4:1–6aα 60 4:6–10 76 4:6aβ–10a 60, 62 4:7 309 4:10b–14 60 4:12 60 5:1–3 60 5:4 60 5:5–11 60 6 434 6:1–8 569 6:1–7 60 6:8–13 563

Index of Ancient Sources 6:8 60 6:9–15 60, 248 6:10 562 6:15 49 7–14 53 7–8 54, 242 7:1–8:19 61 7:1–8 49 7:1–3 75 7:1 38–41, 67, 239, 241, 244 7:2 512 7:3 306 7:7–14 41, 46, 244 7:10 559 7:13 46 7:19 49 8 76, 78, 375 8:1–8 604 8:6 61 8:9–13 49, 61 8:20–23 61, 567 8:19–23 75 9–14 63, 65–71, 74–88, 230, 235, 239, 241, 245, 501, 503, 511–512, 522, 599, 602–606 9–13 78, 81–82 9–11 54, 75, 241, 244–245, 251–252, 255–257, 264, 267, 521–524, 527–528 9:1–11:3 78–79, 525 9 70–73 9:1–8 71–73, 559 9:1 54, 75, 239, 255 9:9 397 9:10–11 300 9:10 362 9:11–13 602 9:11–12 605 9:13 71, 81 10–13 244 10:6–12 602 10:10–16 605 10:10–12 566 10:11 565 11:3 80 11:4–17 71, 79–81 11:12–13 398

621

Index of Ancient Sources 12–14 54, 75, 244, 250–252, 255–257, 264, 267, 521–523 12–13 75 12:1–13:6 79, 81 12:9–13:9 134 12 85 12:1 54, 75, 239, 255 12:1a 84 12:8 241 12:9–13:6 79 12:10 309, 398 13:2–6 238 13:2 84, 299, 366 13:7 396, 398 13:8–9 263 13:9 474 14 81–82, 145, 510, 565–566 14:1–5 589, 595, 602 14:3–9 203 14:16–19 134 14:20–21 397 Malachi 1 78 1:1 239–240, 250, 255–257, 297, 310 1:2–3:12 266–267 1:2–5 146, 258–259 1:2–4 151, 157–158 1:2 96 1:4–5 258 1:4 256 1:5 522 1:6–2:9 258–259 1:6 346–347 1:9a 169, 171, 190, 204 1:11 221, 522 1:14 522, 569 2:1–9 259 2:7 261, 436 2:10–16 260 2:10 282 2:11 258 2:13–16 96 2:14 258 2:17–3:5 261–262

3 262–263 3:1–4 266 3:1–3 87 3:1 385–387, 409 3:3–12 550 3:4 258 3:5 559 3:6–12 261–262 3:7–9 258 3:7 121, 249–250 3:10–12 258 3:12 266, 510, 522 3:17–21 258 3:20 364 3:22–24 77–78, 88, 265–266, 291–292 3:22 472, 523 3:23–24 359 3:23 387, 437 3:24 250, 508 Psalms 27:5 142 31:21 142 42:5 142 76:3 142 96:1–13 208 105:1–15 208 106:1 208 106:47–48 208 Ecclesiastes 5:5 259 Lamentations 2:6 142 Esther 1:22 568 8:9–12 393 16:15–16 393 Ezra 1–6 41 3:4 142 5:1–2 240 5:1 500–501 6:14 434, 500–501

622 Nehemiah 8:13–18 142 13:4–30 261 1 Chronicles 6:55 417 16:8–26 208 2 Chronicles 18:26–27 420 21:12 291 22–24 142 28:11–29:9 142 34:34 499 New Testament Matthew 2:1–12 401 3:3 386 5:23–24 391 9:9–13 389 9:36 399 10:6 399 10:16 399 10:17 312 10:21–22a 404 10:35–36 404 11:7–19 387 12:1–8 390–391 12:11 399 12:22–42 390–391 12:38–42 400–401 14:33 393 15:24 399 16:16 391, 393 18:12 399 21:4–5 397 23:16–22 391 24:15–28 388 27:3–10 398 Mark 1:2–3 386 1:15 386 2:14–28 389–390 6:34 399

Index of Ancient Sources 8:11–13 400 8:12 399 8:27–42 403 8:31 395 9:11–13 387 11:1–19 397 11:27–12:41 398 13:12–13a 404 13:14–23 388 14 398 Luke 1:17 387 3:4 386 5:27–32 389 6:1–5 390 7:24–35 387 10:3 399 11:29–32 390, 399–400 12:11 312 15:4–6 399 21:16–17 404 21:20–32 388–389 John 1:23 387 7:40–43 402 12:14–15 397 19:37 398 Acts 2:17–21 405 7:42–50 406–407 7:42 93 15:16–18 93, 406 Romans 1:17 407 9:25–26 392, 396 10:9 406 Galatians 1:6–9 408 2:12–16 408 3:11 407 Hebrews 10:32–39 407

623

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Peter 1:1 607 Deuterocanonical Works and Pseudepigrapha 1 Esdras 4:45 561 Additions to Esther 16:15–16 393 Judith 2 373 3:8 373 4:9–14 372 6:2 373 8:17–23 373 8:20 372–373 Tobit 1:5–8 540–541 2:6 368–369 14:4 368–371 14:5–6 371 1 Maccabees 1:39–40 373–374 4:36–51 43 14:4–15 374–376 14:12 376–377 2 Maccabees 1:18 142 10:6 142 3 Maccabees 6:6–8 378 6:28 393 Wisdom 2:4 366 5:6 364 11:1 363 11:22 366 11:26 366 12:2 364 14:11 366

Sirach 1:9–10 357, 360 17:23 361 19:2 362 21:2 360–361 44–50 264, 352–363 44 362 46:12 419, 437 48:10 291, 359 49:10–12 238 49:10 1, 91, 238, 271, 274, 283, 352, 355, 359, 363, 419, 437, 446–447 49:11 357 50 352 1 Enoch 39:5 378 52:7 379 89:66 561 101:2–6 379–380 102:11 380 4 Ezra 14:45 92 Jubilees 1:25 392 Joseph and Aseneth 12:11 378 19:8 392 Vitae Prophetarum 5:1–2 416 6:1–2 419 7:1–2 421 8:1 421 9:1–4 422 10 423 11:2–3 426 12 428–430 13 431 14:1–2 432 15 433–435 16 424, 436

624

Index of Ancient Sources

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts 1QpHab 208, 408–409 1QS 8:12–17 386 4Q167 280 4Q168 280 4Q394–399 408 4QFlor 93 4QTempleb 540 4QXII 167, 274–277, 280–283, 287, 290, 293 5QAmos 276, 290 11QTa 541 CD VII:14–20 93 MurXII/Mur88 275–277, 281, 288 8ḤevXIIgr

275, 288

Rabbinic Tradition b. Bava Batra 12a 442, 456 13b 453–454 14b–15a 455–457, 489 14b 271 98b 446 b. Berakhot 5a 461 26b 311

b. Megillah 24a 450–452 b. Menachot 59b 442 b. Pesahim 87a 443 b. Sotah 41a 452 b. Yoma 69b–70a 451–452 m. Avot 1.1

441, 456

m. Ta’anit 2.1 445 y. Mo’ed Qatan 3.3 444 Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 16.8 444, 450–451

Index of Authors Abraham, Kathleen 567 Achenbach, Reinhard 538 Ackroyd, Peter R. 45, 601 Ahlström, Gosta W. 549 Ahn, John J. 581–582, 586 Aland, Kurt 385 Albertz, Rainer 4, 17, 20, 26, 31, 33, 49, 140, 154, 179, 252, 443, 489, 555–556, 558, 562, 584 Alexander, Philip S. 306–308 Allegro, John 280 Allen, Leslie C. 154, 597 Allison, Dale 391, 400 Alt, Albrecht 490 Altmann, Peter 535, 539 Amsler, Samuel 592, 594 Andersen, Francis I. 176, 478, 586, 592–594, 597–598 Anderson, Benedict 555 Anderson, Bradford A. 151, 156 Anderson, Gary A. 371 Andrado, Paba N. de 388 Assis, Elie 159, 226, 560, 562, 589–590 Audet, Jean-Paul 273 Avemarie, Friedrich 435 Bach, Robert 128 Baker, David W. 526 Baldwin, Joyce G. 233 Barthélemy, Dominic 288 Barton, John 93, 95, 125, 134, 554, 558, 565, 573 Baumann, Gerlinde 182, 192–194 Baumgarten, Albert 438 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 542 Beasley-Murray, George R. 403 Beck, Martin 4, 18, 90, 97–98, 125, 151, 217, 221, 573, 584 Becker, Uwe 558, 570 Beckwith, Roger T. 542 Bedford, Peter R. 231, 602 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 354, 356–357 Behrens, Achim 60 Ben Zvi, Ehud 4, 18, 26, 92, 95, 116, 151–153, 168, 171, 187, 207, 219–220, 443, 446,

489, 573, 583–584, 586, 588, 595–596, 604, 606 Bennett, Bob 72, 80 Benoit, Pierre T. 288 Berges, Ulrich 243, 555 Bergler, Siegfried 68, 128–129, 155–157 Berlejung, Angelika 243, 247, 565 Berman, Joshua 207 Bernhardt, Johannes C. 378 Berquist, Jon L. 514 Beuken, Willem A.M. 45–46 Beyer, Bryan E. 502 Biberger, Bernd 371 Biddle, Mark E. 141 Billen, Albert V. 331 Birch, Bruce C. 124 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 266, 554, 560 Blischke, Mareike Verena 364, 366 Blomberg, Craig L. 388 Blondheim, David S. 327 Boda, Mark J. 69–70, 74–75, 87, 225, 233, 241, 484, 519–521, 523–524, 526, 562, 564, 583, 600–605 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 327 Bons, Eberhard 299 Bornand, Rachel 155 Bosman, Jan P. 194–195, 473–474 Bosshard(-Nepustil), Erich 90, 94, 98, 101, 130, 152, 155–156, 246, 503, 563, 573 Bourdillon, Michael F.C. 554 Bowker, John 306 Bowman, Craig 96 Braaten, Laurie J. 508 Bracke, John M. 595 Bremmer, Jan N. 554 Breuer, Yohanan 306, 308, 314, 319–321 Breytenbach, Cilliers 386 Briant, Pierre 231, 568 Brock, Sebastian P. 327 Brooke, George J. 91–93, 275, 287 Bruce, Frederick F. 399 Budd, Philip J. 538 Bulmerincq, Alexander von 255 Bultmann, Rudolf 400 Burchard, Christoph 392

626 Burkitt, Francis C. 331, 333 Busse, Ulrich 403 Camp, Claudia V. 514 Capelle, Paul 331 Capes, David B. 406 Carr, David M. 207, 447 Carroll, Robert P. 581, 605 Carter, Charles E. 243 Cassuto, Umberto 327 Cathcart, Kevin J. 306, 309–314, 319, 499 Charlesworth, James H. 378 Chary, Théophane 600, 603 Cheyne, Thomas K. 458 Childs, Brevard 458, 540 Chilton, Bruce D. 305–307, 309–313, 319, 386, 397 Christensen, Duane L. 190, 194, 208, 555 Churgin, Pinchos 311 Clark, David J. 226 Clements, Ronald E. 469 Clines, David J.A. 233, 507 Coggins, Richard J. 46, 90, 93, 125–126, 131, 134, 558 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 442, 454 Collins, Terence 93–94, 96, 102, 129, 202–203, 205 Conrad, Edgar W. 91, 94 Cook, John G. 421 Corley, Jeremy 356 Corzilius, Björn 17, 179–180 Cranfield, Charles E.B. 396 Crawford, Sidney W. 541–542 Crenshaw, James L. 128, 549 Crüsemann, Frank 113, 117, 534 Cuffey, Kenneth H. 95, 102 Curtis, Byron G. 202 Dafni, Evangeline G. 300–301 Dahmen, Ulrich 130, 132 Danby, Herbert 405 Daniels, Dwight R. 113 Davidson, Steed V. 555, 557 Davies, G. Henton 142, 588 Davies, Philip 534 Davies, William D. 400 Dearman, J. Andrew 388 Deissler, Alfons 154, 159

Index of Authors Delitzsch, Franz 474 Dentan, Robert C. 475 Derrett, J. Duncan M. 397 DeSilva, David A. 541 Deuel, David  519 DeYoung, James B. 388 Di Lella, Alexander 354 Di Pede, Elena 4 Dicou, Bert 152, 560 Dietrich, Walter 17, 191–192, 194, 202, 558, 564 Dimant, Devorah 428 Dines, Jennifer M. 291, 294, 296–299 Dodd, Charles H. 389 Dods, Marcus 273 Dogniez, Cecile 300 Döhling, Jan-Dirk 479–480 Dohmen, Christoph 473, 480 Dold, Alban 334, 337, 346 Donner, Herbert 83 Dozeman, Thomas B. 171, 534 Dunn, James D.G. 388 Dusinberre, Elspeth R.M. 568 Duval, Yves-Marie 329 Ebach, Ruth 134–135 Edelman, Diana V. 170–171 Edler, Rainer 218 Ego, Beate 428, 435, 568 Ehrlich, Carl S. 527 Eidevall, Göran 588 Eidsvåg, Gunnar M. 289, 300 Eissfeldt, Otto 68 Elgvin, Torlief 277 Elliger, Karl 73, 241 Ellis, Teresa A. 447 Emmerson, Grace I. 116 Engel, Helmut 363, 373 Escobedo, Mario 512 Estin, Collette 329 Evans, Craig A. 399, 401, 405, 458 Everson, Joseph A. 204, 427 Ewald, Heinrich 1, 139, 255 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 4, 189, 193–194, 300 Fernández Marcos, Natalio 326–328, 332 Fey, Reinhard 111 Field, Frederick 332, 338–40

627

Index of Authors Fischer, Bonifatius 326, 328 Fishbane, Michael B. 451, 456, 458 Flesher, Paul V.M. 305–307, 309–313, 319 Floyd, Michael H. 42, 53, 208–209, 555 Focant, Camille 391 Fox, Michael D. 444 Fraade, Steven D. 307, 309 Franz, Matthias 473 Freedman, David N. 176, 442, 478, 586, 592–594, 597–598 Frenschkowski, Marco 425, 428 Frevel, Christian 73, 81 Fuller, Russel E. 1, 91, 95, 167, 282, 287, 290, 292–293, 471 Ganzel, Tova 265 García Martínez, Florentino 423 Garrett, Duane A. 515 Gärtner, Judith 143, 572 Garton, Roy E. 535, 539  Gelston, Anthony 289, 490 George, Mark K. 514 Gera, Deborah L. 373 Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 205, 209, 231 Gese, Hartmut 433, 435, 558 Geyer, John B. 555 Gheorghita, Radu 407 Gibson, Jonathan 158 Ginzberg, Louis 460 Glazier-McDonald, Beth 561 Glenny, Edward 289, 296–301 Gnilka, Joachim 391 Goldberg, Abraham 307 Golomb, David M. 306–308 Gonzalez, Hervé 54 Goodwin, Mark J. 392–394 Gordon, Robert P. 306–307, 309–314, 319 Goren, Yuval 395 Görgemanns, Herwig 415 Goswell, Greg 142–143, 145 Gottlieb, Isaac B. 455 Grabbe, Lester L. 143 Grant, Robert M. 397 Greenberg, Moshe 554 Greenwood, David C. 588 Grey, Matthew 447 Gribomont, Jean 327 Gruen, Erich S. 568

Gryson, Roger 330 Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. 316 Guillaume, Philippe 90, 92, 95, 167, 275, 282, 293 Gunn, David M. 514 Haag, Ernst 245 Hadjiev, Tchavdar S. 4, 18–19, 95, 101–102, 141, 295, 589, 599 Haelewyck, Jean-Claude 325, 346 Hagedorn, Anselm C. 4, 131, 135, 151, 191–192, 555, 557, 560, 564, 565, 568–569, 583 Hallaschka, Martin 4, 51–52, 59, 229, 248, 546–547, 563 Hallermayer, Michaela 367 Halvorson-Taylor, Martien A. 581, 597 Ham, Clay A. 93, 387, 390, 399 Hanson, Paul D. 69 Hare, Douglas R.A. 415 Harper, William R. 588, 593 Hays, Richard B. 402 Healy, John F. 536 Heckl, Raik 243 Heil, Christoph 404 Hendel, Ron 388 Hengel, Martin 306, 310, 418, 425 Henson, Hensley 331 Hess, Richard S. 517 Hetzenauer, Michael 337 Hiebert, Theodore 589 Hildesheim, Ralph 353, 355, 359 Hill, Andrew E. 77, 158 Hillers, Delbert R. 597–598 Hitzig, Ferdinand 111 Ho, Ahuva 309, 317–318, 321 Holt, Else 113 Honigman, Sylvie 374, 378 Houghton, Hugh A.G. 331 House, Paul R. 91, 193, 205 Houtman, Albertina 305–308, 310, 320 Howard, George 289 Hübner, Hans 364 Hugenberger, Gordon 96 Irsigler, Hubert 218, 220 Jacob, Edmond 587 Jaffee, Martin S. 318

628 Jassen, Alex 457 Jauhiainen, Marko 435 Jenson, Philip P. 151 Jeremias, Jochim 424 Jeremias, Jörg 17, 22, 66, 113, 118–119, 125–126, 128, 130–131, 134–135, 140, 144, 152, 155, 159, 249, 397, 469, 479, 548, 558, 561, 594 Jobes, Karen H. 286 Jones, Barry A. 92–93, 95, 146, 195, 197, 207, 282, 289–290, 292–293, 296 Joosten, Jan 306, 321 Joüon, Paul 234 Kaiser, Otto 357, 362, 471, 485 Kasher, Rimon 308 Kaufman, Stephen A. 306, 320, 594 Keefe, Alice A. 545 Keel, Othmar 233, 247, 420–421 Kelle, Brad E. 441, 545, 581 Keller, Carl-A. 589, 596 Kelly, John N.D. 329 Kelly, Joseph R. 134, 169 Kessler, Rainer 26, 43, 53, 102, 176, 181, 184, 188, 202–203, 208, 226, 239, 241, 248, 255, 258–262, 292, 474, 483–484, 556, 558, 560, 569, 581, 584, 588, 599–600, 602 Klawans, Jonathan 448 Klein, Michal L. 307 Klostermann, August 40 Knohl, Israel 537–538 Knoppers, Gary N. 80 Ko, Grace 192, 197, 606 Koch, Klaus 226, 239 Köckert, Matthias 554, 561, 570 Koenen, Klaus 262 Koet, Bart J. 359, 388 Kohn, Risa L. 265, 601 Kooij, Arie van der 299, 306 Kottsieper, Ingo 243, 306, 310, 320 Kratz, Reinhard G. 469, 557–558, 564, 569, 571, 573 Krause, Joachim J. 151, 560 Kreuch, Jan 111 Kreuzer, Siegfried 377 Krispenz, Jutta 532, 545–546 Kronholm, Tryggve 142 Küchler, Max 420–421, 432–433

Index of Authors Kuenen, Abraham 456 Kunz, Andreas 252 Labendz, Jenny R. 447 LaCapra, Dominik 557 Lagrange, Marie-Jospeh 391 Lange, Armin 68, 278, 357 LeCureux, Jason T. 94, 96, 196, 596 Leeuwen, Raymond C. van 195, 204, 473–477 Lefebvre, Henri 514 Lehmann, Paul 334 Lemaire, André 43 Lenzi, Alan 453, 455 Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta 93 Lescow, Theodor 159 Leuchter, Mark 96, 447, 456–457, 460, 478, 582 Leuenberger, Martin 228–229, 569 Levenson, Jon D. 461 Levin, Christoph 18, 22, 27, 155, 179, 220, 295, 458 Levine, Baruch A. 537 Levinson, Bernard M. 535 Lichtenberger, Hermann 435 Lier, Gudrun E. 306–307, 309–310, 313, 317–318 Lightstone, Jack N. 453, 460–461 Lim, Bo H. 301 Lipiński, Edward 601 Littman, Robert J. 371 Lo, Alison 597 Lohfink, Norbert 18, 472, 477 Lundbom, Jack R. 535 Lust, Johan 401, 582 Lux, Rüdiger 41, 230, 239–240, 251, 563, 567 Luz, Ulrich 400 Lybaek, Lena 391 Maat, Henk P. 206 Macchi, Jean-Daniel 17, 151, 155, 469 MacDonald, Nathan 534–535, 540 Macintosh, Andrew A. 117, 587–588 Mack, Burton K. 353, 355 Mack, Russell 193 MacKenzie, Roderick A.F. 359 Magdalene, Rachel 567 Maier, Christl M. 514

629

Index of Authors Manfredi, Silvana 364 Marböck, Johannes 359 Marcus, Joel 391, 419 Marks, Herbert 159 Mason, Rex A. 47 May, Herbert G. 225–226 Mayes, Andrew D.H. 535 Mays, James L. 22, 392, 394, 588 McDonald, Lee M. 458 McKane, William 180, 598 McNutt, Paula M. 514 Meinhold, Arndt 152, 239, 241, 249, 259 Meiser, Martin 363 Menken, Maarten J.J.  385, 389, 394, 402 Meyers, Carol L. 241, 532–534, 566, 603–604 Meyers, Eric M. 241, 566, 603–604 Michaels, J. Ramsay 403 Middlemas, Jill 582 Milik, Józef T. 290 Miller, David M. 388 Mills, Mary E. 509, 514 Mitchell, David C. 309 Mitchell, Hinckley G. 225 Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike 415, 430–431 Mohrmann, Christine 326 Moore, Rebecca 601 Moreschini, Claudio 331 Morgan, David M. 509–510 Moyise, Steve S. 385, 392, 406–407 Mroczek, Eva 443, 445 Muldoon, Catherine L. 166, 169, 172 Mulzer, Martin 426 Muraoka, Takamitsu 234, 289, 291, 297 Nägele, Sabine 142 Naumann, Thomas 116 Neef, Heinz-Dieter 113 Nel, W.A.G. 141 Nelson, Richard D. 151, 535–536 Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther 364 Neusner, Jacob 142, 314–315, 317–318, 442, 445 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 379–380  Niemann, Hermann M. 117, 556 Nihan, Christophe 471, 542 Nissinen, Martti 22, 247 Noetzel, Jutta 255, 258, 260–263

Nogalski, James D. 1–2, 16, 20–21, 46, 50, 68–69, 77–78, 87, 90, 92, 95, 97–103, 119–120, 126, 128–135, 139, 142, 144–146, 151–155, 157–159, 166, 170, 179, 186–187, 202, 205, 217, 221, 228–229, 266, 274, 293, 296, 443, 450, 452, 489–490, 509, 512, 544, 546–548, 562, 584, 586, 604 Nolland, John 389, 400 Novotny, Jamie R. 601 OʼBrien, Julia M. 194 OʼBrien, Mark A. 458 OʼKennedy, Daniel F. 234 Oesterley, William O.E. 334–335, 341 Ogilvie, Robert M. 331–332 Økland, Jorunn 514 Olávarri, Emilio 152 Oswald, Wolfgang 417, 534 Page, Stephanie 492 Pajunen, Mika S. 92, 95, 167, 275, 282 Paul, Shalom M. 592–594 Pearce, Laurie E. 567 Perlitt, Lothar 189 Pesch, Rudolf 391 Petersen, David L. 90, 97, 460, 501, 510–511, 581, 603–604 Peterson, David G. 406 Petitjean, Albert 601 Petterson, Anthony R. 158, 474 Pfeiffer, Henrik 560, 564 Pierce, Ronald 69 Pietersma, Albert 418 Pola, Thomas 41–42 Pomykala, Kenneth E. 142 Prinsloo, Gert T.M. 509, 514 Pritchard, James A. 491 Raabe, Paul R. 554, 596 Rad, Gerhard von 496 Radine, Jason 4, 18–19, 140–142, 144–145 Ranke, Ernestus 334 Reade, Julian E. 427 Redditt, Paul L. 4, 69, 77–78, 85, 91, 139, 143, 164, 167, 171, 201, 264, 478, 489, 546, 604 Reeder, Caryn A. 388 Reeves, John C. 542 Reimer, David J. 554

630 Rendtorff, Rolf 91, 97, 135, 195, 371 Rigsby, Richard O. 533 Roberts, Jimmy J.M. 388, 526 Roberts, Mike 72, 80 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit 582, 584, 604 Rooke, Deborah W. 143–144, 533, 549 Rose, Wolter H. 230 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay 461 Rösler, Wolfgang 117 Roth, Cecil 397 Roth, Martin 4, 130, 135, 151, 189, 192, 194, 197, 251, 510, 565, 571 Rothenbusch, Ralf 563 Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. 142 Rudnig-Zelt, Susanne 18 Rudolph, Wilhelm 40 Sabatier, Pierre 333 Sadler, Rodney S. 572 Safrai, Shmuel 307, 318 Salvesen, Alison 329 Sanders, Ed P. 397 Sanders, James A. 407 Sanders, Ted 206 Sandt, Huub van de 405, 407 Sauer, Georg 355–356 Scaiola, Donatella 4 Schaper, Joachim 248 Schart, Aaron 2, 4, 16, 20–22, 38, 66, 69, 78, 81–82, 86, 90–92, 95, 97–100, 103, 118–119, 128, 130–132, 135, 140–141, 152, 154–157, 159, 165, 168–169, 172, 181, 187–188, 190, 194, 201–203, 239, 265–266, 289–290, 292–293, 299, 489–490, 556, 581, 584–585 Schechter, Solomon 447 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 306–307 Schipper, Bernd U. 558 Schmid, Konrad 17, 265, 461, 469, 570, 582, 605 Schmidt, Werner H. 22, 140 Schmitt, Armin 363, 366 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph 17 Schmitz, Barbara 373 Schneider, Dale A. 98, 119, 140, 280 Schniedewind, William 256, 460 Schöttler, Heinz-Günther 55 Schultz, Richard L. 102, 170–171, 207 Schüngel-Straumann, Helen 369, 371

Index of Authors Schütte, Wolfgang 117, 119 Schwantes, Milton 156 Schwartz, Daniel R. 378 Schwartz, Seth 442, 448, 460 Schwemer, Anna Maria 415–418, 420–432, 434–438 Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard 4, 135, 151, 155, 217, 221 Scoralick, Ruth 4, 91, 100, 130, 136, 146, 151, 192, 194–195, 470, 473–474, 477, 481–482, 560 Seebass, Horst 539 Seeligmann, Isaac L. 554 Seidel, Moshe 539 Seitz, Christopher R. 98, 125, 197, 452, 470, 474, 481–482 Sellin, Ernst 598 Sérandour, Arnaud 49 Seters, John Van 207 Seybold, Klaus 22, 26, 33 Shepherd, Michael B. 92–93 Sherwood, Yvonne 112 Silva, Moisés 286 Sivertsev, Alexei M. 454 Smelik, Willem 305–311 Smith, Ralph L. 225 Snyman, Fanie 255, 257–263 Soja, Edward W. 514 Sonnet, Jean-Pierre 474, 479 Sperber, Alexander 309 Spivak, Gayatri C. 557 Spronk, Klaas 165, 170, 172, 187, 190, 192, 194 Stade, Bernhard 68 Stadelmann, Helge 356, 359 Stansell, Gary 184 Steck, Odil H. 49, 52, 69, 82, 238, 257, 266, 282, 556, 566, 569–570, 582, 605 Steiner, Richard C. 456 Steinman, Andrew E. 556 Steins, Georg 471, 485 Steinsaltz, Adin 454 Stemberger, Günter 314, 316, 445, 448–451, 480 Stendahl, Krister 387 Stenzel, Meinrad 334 Stern, Ephraim 561 Steuernagel, Carl 1, 15 Steyn, Gert J. 446

Index of Authors Stone, Michael E. 346 Strack, Hermann L. 314, 316, 445, 448–451 Strazicich, John 101, 129, 548 Strine, Casey A. 582 Stromberg, Jacob 267 Strugnell, John 280 Stuart, Douglas 129, 154, 589, 592–593 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 379 Sweeney, Marvin A. 90, 95, 100, 126, 129, 136, 142, 146, 159, 166, 195, 197, 202, 207, 295–296, 443, 470, 489–490, 493, 495–503, 548–549, 565, 588–590, 596, 599 Swete, Henry B. 287, 293, 326–328 Sysling, Harry 305–308, 310, 320 Tai, Nicholas H.F. 78–79, 81–82 Tanner, J. Paul 392 Taylor, Richard A. 225 Thate, Michael 425 Thiele, Walter 326 Thompson, Henry O. 516 Tidiman, Brian 191 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 51, 54–55, 57–59, 67, 248 Tigchelaar, Eibert 423 Tilly, Michael 374–375, 378 Timmer, Daniel C. 142, 145, 194, 196, 206, 513, 556, 558, 562 Tollington, Janet E. 42–43, 48 Toorn, Karel van der 291, 445, 453, 455, 460 Törnkvist, Rut 112 Tov, Emanuel 274–275, 277, 280–281, 287–289, 292–293, 306 Tropper, Amnon 441 Trotter, James M. 116 Trout, Dennis E. 346 Troxel, Ronald L. 447 Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 385 Tsafrir, Yoram 417, 423, 426, 429 Tuan, Yi-Fu 514 Tuell, Steven 546–547 Tzoref, Shani 557 Ueberschaer, Frank 356, 360 Uehlinger, Christoph 563 Ulrich, Eugene 326, 328, 541 Utzschneider, Helmut 68, 93, 283, 298

631 Valve, Lotta 264 VanderKam, James C. 379 Vayntrub, Jaqueline 459 Verhoef, Pieter A. 233 Vielhauer, Roman 18–19, 93, 95–96, 101, 571 Viljoen, Francois P. 391 Vos, J. Cornelis de 418 Wacker, Marie-Theres 112, 479 Wagenaar, Jan A. 151 Waltke, Bruce K. 178 Watson, Francis 91, 93 Watts, James D. 447 Watts, John D.W. 96, 203, 205, 209 Weeks, Stuart 367, 369 Weigold, Matthias 278, 357 Weimar, Peter 134 Weinfeld, Moshe 19 Weissenberg, Hanne von 92, 95, 167, 275, 282 Wellhausen, Julius 141, 247 Werse, Nicholas R. 4, 151, 156–157 Weyde, Karl W. 257–262, 265 Willi, Thomas 243 Willi-Plein, Ina 238, 566 Williamson, Hugh G.M. 563 Willis, John T. 26 Wilson, Robert R. 484 Wilson-Wright, Aren 569 Wineland, John D. 525 Winston, David 364, 366 Wintermute, Orval S. 392 Witte, Markus 353, 363 Wöhrle, Jakob 3, 17, 19–21, 23–24, 30, 38, 51, 57–58, 66, 69, 82–85, 90, 95, 96, 98, 100–103, 118–120, 125–128, 131–134, 140, 143, 147, 151, 154–155, 157–159, 165, 169, 179, 189–190, 201, 206–207, 226, 228–230, 234, 240, 244, 247–248, 250, 264, 266, 293, 490, 511, 556, 560, 563–564, 565, 569, 572, 584–585, 589 Wolfe, Rolland E. 2, 140 Wolff, Hans W. 22, 47–48, 115, 119, 124–125, 128, 134, 154, 231, 233, 395, 515, 525, 549, 586–587, 589, 592–596 Wolter, Michael 424 Wright, Benjamin G. 418, 447 Wright, David P. 534

632 Wright, J. Edward 457 Wright, Jacob L. 587 Wright, Nicholas T. 399 Wunsch, Cornelia 567 Wyatt, Nicholas 536 Yadin, Azzan 442, 448, 459–460 Yates, Gary E. 196 Yee, Gale A. 22, 116

Index of Authors Zapff, Burkard M. 4, 164–165, 168, 170, 179, 184, 187–188, 194, 354–356, 358, 510, 556 Zenger, Erich 17, 113, 128, 471–472, 477, 480 Ziegler, Joseph 287, 289, 329, 330, 335, 340, 343–344, 368, 377, 428 Zimmerli, Walter 554 Zingerle, Anton 273 Zyl, Anna F. van 309