The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161499050, 3161499050

Citation preview

JEAN-LOUIS SKA

The Exegesis of the Pentateuch

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 66

Mohr Siebeck

F orschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Bernd Janowski (Tiibingen) . Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (G6ttingen)

66

Jean-Louis Ska

The Exegesis of the Pentateuch Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions

Mohr Siebeck

Sica: bam 1946 ; studies at the Facllites Notre~ Datne de la Paix (Namur, Delgillln), Sankt Ueorgen (Frankfurt, Gennany). and the jlontitical Biblical lnstitute (Rome); 1984 doctonlte in Sacred ScriptUles: Professor of Old Testament Exegesis ~'Pentateuch) at the Pontifical Riblicallnstitute (Rome) .

.Iel1l1~~()uis

• -ISBN PDF 97S-3- 16- 1511 07-3 ISBN 978-3-1 6- 149905-0 ISS 0940...4155 (Forschungen zumAlten Testrulleut)

Die DellL'1 10::>'1

e'eii ,1:JJ" 1'~ tl'0111 tl'O;' 1'~

The adverbs underline this progression. The verb 1:11'1 in v. 17a is used on its own; it is accompanied by the adverb 1KO in v. 18a; this same adverb reappears, doubled (,NO ,NO), in v. 19, joined to the verb '1:1l:

e'eii ':11" 11(01:11'1 11(0 ,1(0 11~ tl'C111

17: 18: 19:

Lastly, indications of place could hardly be clearer: the ark is raised "off the earth" (f1Nn "llO) in v. 17b; this expression comes again, slightly modified, in v. ISa: "the waters increased greatly over the earth" (f1Nn-"ll); in that way the ark can float "on the surface of the waters" (C'On 'lEl-"ll) (v. ISb); finally, the expression f1Nn-"ll comes again a third time in v. 20 with the mention of the mountains: "the increase in the waters had intensified very, very much on the earth." The last indication of place comes in v. 19b: there is only water "under the whole heaven" (C'Otzin-", nnn)35. It is difficult not to see here a skilful work of composition. V. 17b is linked with the following verses, among other things, by taking up the verb n:11 in v. IS and the expression f1Nn-"ll in vv. IS-19. On the other hand the text contains no contradiction or any real repetition or tautology36. This is why there is no reason for dividing it into two sources.

1.3. The end of the flood (8:2-3) Here, Hupfeld is very sincere. He admits to having done everything he could to find a J text in these verses and to having succeeded]7. It is therefore the independent source hypothesis that drove this exegete to find two parallel accounts of the drop in the level ofthe waters. Do we have to fall into step with him like the majority of his colleagues? That does not seem obvious. First of all, S:2b certainly belongs to J because oftltzil ("heavy rain"), which corresponds to its concept of the flood (7:3, 12)38. Does one have to grant it v. 3b as well? Hupfeld sees a doublet in S:3a and S:3b, 5, that is to say two com"Gen 7," 11-12. 9. aber wird dadurch fill die Urkunde Jhwh [J] eine noch fehlende Angabe des Abnehmens gewonnen, und daher in ihrem Namen mit Dank angenommen. " 38 The verse fits very well into the context. The final text suggests that the end of the rain is linked to the closure of the fountains of the deep and the flood-gates of heaven (8:2a - P). See BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 267: "Eine geschickte Ergfulzung." 35

For more details, see

KESSLER,

36 This is HUPFELD'S opinion, Quellen, 37 HUPFELD, Quellen, 133: "Jedenfalls

1. Some false doublets in the story ofthefiood

9

plete descriptions of the decrease in the level of the waters. Moreover, there would be a contradiction between 8:3a and 8:3b. The first half-verse describes the slow drop in the level of the waters, and thus supposes a long lapse in time, whereas the second seems to go back to resume the description at the beginning and point out when the waters began to go down. As the date ofv. 8:3b obliges one to see a P text in it, 8:3a necessarily therefore belongs to J. The construction with the infinitive absolute in v. 3a comes again in a P text in 8:5, but it is also present in a J text like Gen 12:9, in reality closer to 8:3a than 8:5a39 . These arguments, however, are not compelling40. The difficulties disappear when one carefully studies the construction ofthe passage. P in fact is describing twice, in a parallel fashion, the fall in the level ofthe waters and, each time, following the cause/ effect scheme. In the first case, "God remembers" and sends the wind on earth (8:1aba: cause); in consequence, the waters diminish (8: Ib~: effect). Then follows a second expose that adds other details. The cause is not only the wind but the closure of the fountains of the deep and the lockgates of heaven (8:2a). The effect is the slow ebb of the waters (8:3a). 8: 1 and 8:2a, 3a are therefore constructed exactly on the same model. What follows, in this case 8:3b-5, 13-14, is to be understood as the detailed account of the same events until the complete drying up of the waters, an account that develops the "proleptic summaries" of vv. 2b~ and especially 3a4 1 P on several occasions has recourse to "proleptic summaries" in its account of the flood, as in 7:5, 17a; 8:13a; 9:1; in the divine addresses in 9:942 It is to be noted that the rise in the level of the waters was already accompanied by two "proleptic sununaries", 7:6 and 7: 17a. To this we add another reason. If J, as we have seen above, does not describe the rise of the waters, it is therefore no more surprising that it does not describe their fa1l 43 This source confines itself only to signalling the end of the rain (8:2b), rain announced by Yhwh in 7:4 and which began in 7:12. This is the strongest argument in favour of our hypothesis.

HUPFELD , Queilen, 132-133; SCHRADER, Studien, 141-142; BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 268. See BUDDE'S hesitations, Urgeschichte, 268. 41 On the "proleptic summaries" see N. LOHFINK, "Dtn 28:69 - Uberschrift oder Kolophon?," BN 64 (1992) 40-52; N. M. SARNA, "The Anticipatory Use of Information as a Literary Feature ofthe Genesis Narratives," The Creation ofSacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (ed. R.E. FRIEDMAN) (Near Eastern Studies 22; Berkeley 1981) 76-82; J.-L. SKA, "Sommaires proleptiques en Gn27 et dans l'histoire de Joseph," Bib 73 (1992) 518-527; ID. , "Quelques exemples de sommaires proleptiques dans les recits bibliques," Congress Volume -Paris 1992 (VTS 61; Leiden 1995) 315-326. 42 Elsewhere, see Gen 1: 1; 17: 1; 35:9, the n1,?n formula, the formula n1C~ ii?N: (Gen 25: 13; 36:10; 46:8; Exod 1:1 ... ), the itinerary formula in the desert (Exod 15:22; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1-2 ... ). 43 See above, 6, on 7:17b. 39

40

10

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

1.4. The drying out of the soil (8:13-14) For Hupfeld, these two verses are part of the priestly account44. It is only from the time of Schrader that v. 13b, where Noah opens the roof of the ark to see the land dry up, was to be ascribed to J45. He gives three reasons for his choice. Attention to details is the mark of J, not ofP. The expression nO'Nn 'lEi is unusual in the priestly account and proper to J. Why does v. 13b repeat literally what v. 13a says? Besides, the same statement that the earth is dry comes one last time in v. l4b, with slightly different wording46 Schrader's position has brought about unanimity. Here as elsewhere it seems that the theory of sources has prevailed over an attentive study ofthe stylistic construction of the text. The first argument seems specious. In fact, in the account of the flood the priestly account is more detailed, whereas the account called J is more than succinct47 . On the other hand, J, to which the "scene with birds" (8 :6-12) is ascribed, speaks of a "window" (8:6). Why does Noah have to lift up the roof if he can see through the window? And besides, he could already have ascertained that the earth ought to be dry after the sending out of the dove (8: 11-12). The roof (nODO) is a frequent word in the priestly account of the building of the tent and corresponds to the 'n~ in 6: 1648 As for the word nO'N, it should not cause too much surprise in P. The latter uses it with the root iDo, ("that which crawls on the ground")49 Moreover it readily alternates the terms nO'N and r'N with this root lDo,. In general, the first use of the root is followed by the word nO'N (1:25; 6:20; 7:8; 9:2). Next, P uses the word r'N: 1:26,28,30 after 1:25; 7:14, 21; 8:17, 19 after 7:8 (and 6:20). We have here a good example of the style ofP which likes, contrary to what may be thought, to introduce some variety into its system50 . It is therefore not surprising to find a similar alternation in 8: 13-14. In fact, P never repeats exactly the same thing in the same words. The first time, it uses the verb :I,n with the expression r'N-'?J)O; the second, it takes up the same verb again but with another formula, nO'Nn 'lEi; lastly, the third time,

44 HUPFELD, Quellen, 11. See also J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin 1866, 31899) 2. 4 5 SCHRADER, Studien, 145-146. 4 6 The verb td:l' (14b) replaces the verb:l-u1 (13b). 4 7 WESTERMANN, Genesis 1, 588, says that J is "iiu.l3erst sparsam" and that the description in P is, on the contrary, "wortreich," while being "monoton." 48 For nO:lC see the later priestly texts: Exod 26:14; 35: 11; 36: 19; 39:34; 40: 19; Num 3:25; 4,8.10, 11, 12,25. For the translation of,n:s: - "roof," see E. ZURRO, "Siete Hapax en ellibro del Genesis," EstBib 51 (1993) 117-130, esp. 120-122. 4 9 Gen 6:20; 7:8; 9:2; see also 1:25. A fact noted by DILLMANN, Genesis, 142 and 148. 50 McEvENUE, Narrative Style, 50, defines this style as: "Its essence is variety within system."

1. Some false doublets in the story ofthefiood

11

it prefers the verb til:!' to the verb :!,n, and it can therefore take up the word 13a again:

f'K from v. 13a: 13b: 14:

r'K01-'?110 tJ'OO1 1:J1n 0101K01 'lEl 1:J1n r1K01 0ltti:J'

There is a progression in this scene, too, as in 7: 17-19. In the first place, the narrator points out that the earth is drying out. Next, Noah takes note of the fact. There is therefore no repetition or tautology but a change of perspective: what was said by the narrator is seen by the person who, in fact, is the first person concerned by the event. This change of perspective is denoted by the particle mm which follows the verb K"1 51 . P had used the same narrative technique in 6: 11-12. In v. 11 the narrator states first that the earth is corrupt "in the sight of God." It is only in v. 12 that God becomes aware of this state of affairs. The change of perspective, from the narrator to God the "character", is also indicated by construction mn1 [ ... J K"1. Finally, the verbs :!,n and til:!' in 8: 13-14 correspond to two stages in the drying up of the waters: the first verb describes the process ("to dry up") and the second, a stative verb, the final result ("to be dry")52. In conclusion, it is more reasonable to ascribe the whole ofvv. 13-14 to P. To complete our analysis we still have to deal with two particular problems in fragments called J, that is to say ascribing 7:22-23 and 8:6-12 to that layer.

1.5. The destruction of the universe (7:22-23) Only v. 22 poses a problem. V. 21 is certainly priestly, as is confirmed by its vocabulary, among other things the use of the verb ))1l ("to expire")53. As regards v. 23, it is J by reason of the verb nno and the rare word C1P' (see 6:7; 7:4). We shall speak later on about the priestly expressions in this verse54 On v. 22 the critics have hesitated". It was Budde who settled the matter in favour of J with a line of argument that from then on settled the choices of criticism56 The 51 On this procedure, see J.-L. SKA, "Our Fathers have Told Us." Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib 13; Rome 1990) 68. 52 See O. KAISER, ":liM I," TWATIII, 160-164; SPEISER, Genesis, 53. The two verbs appear together in some poetic texts: Isa 19:5; 44:27; Jer 51 :36; Job 14: 11; in inverse order to Gen 8: Hos 13:15; Nah 1:4. 53 See Gen 6: 17; 25:8.17; 35:29; 49:33. For the rest of the vocabulary see Gen 1 :20-21; 6:17.19-20. 54 It is mainly a question of the root !DOi. 55 In favour ofP we have; HUPFELD, Quelien, 10-11; 136; SCHRADER, Studien, 140-141; T. N OLDEKE, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel 1869) 11-12; in favour of]: DILLMANN, Genesis, 145; WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 4; E. REuss, L' histoire sainte et la loi (Pentateuque et Josue) (Paris 1879) 316. 56 BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 265. Read Exod 14:21 instead ofNum 14:21.

12

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

verb n10 is parallel to the verb ll1l and is a useless repetition for it. The word iT:l1iT is proper to J (Exod 14:21; Josh 3: 17; 4: 18: IE) while P generally uses iTlD:l' (Gen 1:9, 10)57 Only the syntagma C"iT m1 recalls P (6: 17; 7: 15). V. 22a may be redactional, uniting the priestly expression C"iT m1 (6:17; 7:15) with a formula in J, 1'!lK:lC"iT-nOlDl (cf. 2:7)58. To sum up, it is difficult not to go along with Budde, especially because of the presence in this verse of elements which can hardly belong to P, the formula 1'!lK:l [ ... ]C"iT-nOlDl, and the word iT:J1n 59 . Moreover, if the verse were priestly, one would all the more expect to find a text closer to the usual expression in the Priestly Writer, :l1-1IDK 1izl:l-?::l C"iT m1 (6: 17; 7: 15). If, on the whole, 7 :22 is not priestly it is therefore J, with perhaps a trace of editorial wok (1'!lK:lC"iT m1-nOlDl).

1.6. The scene with the birds (8:6-12) Along with the majority of exegetes, we still think that this scene does not belong to P. Hupfeld has provided the main arguments in favour ofthis opinion60 The style is different; it is not content with essentials but is more attentive to picturesque detail. The numbers seven (8: 10,12) and forty (8:6) are characteristic of J61. Schrader added an important element: 8:6 speaks of a "window" (J1?iT) whereas the priestly account of the building of the ark mentions a 1iT~ (6: 16) but not a window62. The problem ofa possible doublet in this scene does not concern us immediately; besides, the Mesopotamian parallels incline one to consider the present text as unified 63 .

1.7. Conclusion In conclusion, the following verses belong to P: 6:9-22; 7:6-9, 11, 13-l6a, 17 (probably without "forty days"), 18-21,24; 8: l-2a, 3-5, 13-19; 9: 1-3,7-17, and the following to J: 6:5-8; 7:1-5,10,12, l6b, 22*-23; 8:2b, 6-12, 20-22. A later editor, who is perhaps the editor of the J fragments, has undoubtedly In confirmation, see Exod 14:15,22,29 (P) and 14:21a (J). See above, 5, n. 34. See also P. WEIMAR, Untersuchungen zur Redaktion des Pentateuch (BZAW 146; Berlin - New York 1977) 146; J. BRIEND, "Lecture du Pentateuque et hypothese documentaire," Le Pentateuque. Dibats et recherches (ed. P. HAUDEBERT) (LD 151; Paris 1992) 21-22 (intervention by an editor). 59 For the problem posed by the verbal form no'" see C. RABIN, "The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject," Textus 2 (1962) 60-76. 60 HUPFELD, Quellen, 10-11, sees a doublet in these verses: the episode of the raven (8:6-7, J) is parallel to that of the dove (8:8-12, P). He changes his mind pp. 134-136. See also SCHRADER, Studien, 143-145; BUDDE, Urgeschichte,271-272. 61 Seven: 7:4, 10; cf. 7:2. Forty: 7:4,12; cf. 7:17a. 62 SCHRADER, Studien, 143. 63 See WESTERMANN, Genesis 1, 597, for the discussion. 57 58

3. The late vocabulary o/the "Yahwistic" (J)/ragments in Gen 6-9

13

done something in 7:17 ("forty days"), 7:22 (l:I"n n1,-nOtDl), in 6:17 and 7:6 (1:1'0). Lastly, a priestly halaka is to be found in 9:4-6 64 We are now in a position to deal with the questions concerning the nature of the verses ascribed to source J.

2. The "Yahwistic" (J) texts do not fonn a complete story This has often been noted and we can only repeat what has been said elsewhere. Two important elements are missing in the J account: the description of the building of the ark and leaving the ark65 In general, exegetes suppose that in these two cases the final editor preferred the priestly account and removed the J one. This explanation, however, is unsatisfactory and the classic hypothesis hardly avoids contradiction. To show this we therefore remain within the system proposed by the documentary hypothesis. We must first ask why the editor went about it in this way only in these two cases, whereas he retained so many other doublets in the story. Perhaps it was difficult to keep two sets of divine instructions about the construction of the ark in one story. But that is less comprehensible in what concerns leaving the ark because the story, according to the opinion we are discussing, contains two descriptions of the entry into the ark (7:7-9 [J]; 7:13-16 [PD. It would be quite normal for the story to mention the pure and impure animals leaving the ark just before Noah offers the sacrifice in 8:20 since it had taken the trouble to record their entry (7:8; cf. 7:2). Not so. The logic of these choices is not obvious and no doubt we have to resign ourselves to saying that the J account is either lacking in clarity or is incomplete. Furthermore, we have seen that it does not contain the account of the entry into the ark, leaving the ark, the rise and fall of the water-level and the drying out of the earth. This proves sufficiently that there is no "J" story of the flood parallel to the one in P.

3. The late vocabulary of the "Yahwistic" (J) fragments in Gen 6-9 Many expressions used by the J account, as it is called, on analysis are shown to date from a late period; moreover, they do not occur in other texts that clas-

64 See above n. 9, for 9:4-6. WESTERMANN'S objections, Genesis 1, 620-621, are refuted by LOHFlNK, "Schichten des Pentateuch," 88, n. 78 = Studien zum Pentateuch, 291, n. 78. 65 See, for example, WESTERMANN, Genesis 1, 535.

14

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

sical source criticism considers to be J. However, the cumulative value of the remarks made hereafter make up the strength of the argument. 1. The formula 1:I'lIor OIl)' or:J, ("man's perversity [was] great"; 6:5) is only found again in Qoh 8:6, 2, The expression ,:J" n':Jrzin~ '~'-":J ("every scheme in the thoughts of his heart"; 6:5; of 8:21) is only met with in two late texts: 1 Chr 28:9; 29: 18 66 , The word '~', in the sense of "concept," "plan," is also late (Deut 31 :21; Isa 26:3; Ps 103:14), 3, The double mention of the "heart" of man (6:5) and of the "heart" of God (6:6) and the tendency of these verses to psychological reflection distinguish them from the other J stories of the same kind, such as Gen 2-3 and 4, The mention of the "heart" ofYhwh (6:6; 8:21) is unique in the texts traditionally ascribed to J. The expression occurs eight times in Jeremiah, five in the Deuteronomistic History and four in Job 67 . 4, The rare word I:Ip' (7:4, 23; "substance," "[all] that exists") does not occur anywhere else in 1, Gen 2: 19-20 (J), for example, does not use this abstract term, The only use outside Gen 6-9 is in Deut 11 :6, 5, The distinction between pure and impure animals (7:2, 8; 8:20: root ,ort!l) is also unique in J texts which never deal with cultic prescriptions of this kind. This vocabulary is absent from Gen 4:4 (J) which describes the sacrifice of Abel; on the other hand, it is typical of the cullic laws in Deut 14 and Lev 11 68 6. In the scene with Noah's sacrifice another expression proper to the technical vocabulary of worship appears, nn'lor n', , "[the] sweet-smelling [sacrifice]," "with the pleasing odour" (8:21), This expression is, once again, totally isolated in the J writings and is not present in Gen 4:3-5 (J), the sacrifice of Abel and Cain, which uses other tenns (iTnJO, "offering" and iT.otd, "to see", "to look on with benevolence''), The "sacrifice with the pleasant odour" is a fonnula characteristic of priestly cultic texts, especially in Leviticus 69 . In conclusion, one can see that the vocabulary characteristic of the "fragments" analysed comes under two main headings: a "moral" vocabulary, and a "cullic" one, Both have the hallmarks of a late period,

66 BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 76. "H. J. FABRY, "~"," TWAT IV, 413-451, 448-449. 68 Noted by DILLMANN, Genesis, 142; GUNKEL, Genesis, 62; WESTERMANN, Genesis 1, 575. 69 T. KRONHOLM, "Tn'," TWAT, VII, 382-385, 384; a formula typical ofP and H.

4. The contacts between the vocabulary of the J fragments and the priestly texts

15

4. The contacts between the vocabulary of the "Yahwistic" (J) fragments of Gen 6-9 and the priestly texts In the classic hypothesis of the division into two sources, J and P, it very soon

became necessary to admit that the J text of Gen 6-9 was riddled with redactional changes which had harmonized the latter with the priestly account. This phenomenon is once again peculiar to Gen 6-9 since other composite texts where J andP are side by side with each other, such as Exod 14 orNum 13-14, bear no trace of any such preoccupation with harmonization. In cases where these "J" fragments would be later than the priestly account, this difficulty vanishes. The author of these texts would be post-priestly and that would explain why he "copied" the style of his predecessor'o This is what we would like to show now by providing the counter-proof of some conclusions put forward at the beginning of this article. 1. The verb N':1, used by "J" in 6:7, is hard to explain. The J account of the creation uses the verbs nfZlll (2:4b) or ,~, (2:7.19) but not N':1, which is proper to P (Gen 1:21, 27; 2:3, 4a). Some have wanted to see the hand of an editor here7l It is still necessary to explain why an editor felt obliged to intervene at this point, and only at this point, to introduce the verb K':1 into the sentence, without any apparent need. The verb nfZlll in fact comes in the next verse (6:7). Is it not simpler to consider that it is a matter of a later editor writing in a style modelled on that of the priestly writer? The sequence N':1\1IDll is in fact found in Gen 2:3 and 5:1 (P). 2. The list of animals in 6:7 and 7:23 has more than one "priestly" traie 2 Among other things the exegetes have noted the presence ofthe rootfZlC', characteristic of the priestly writer73 . In another connection, these lists in Gen 6:7; 7:23 are different from the other J texts, in particular those of Gen 2: 19-20. In the latter text the expression il1tvil n'n appears, strangely absent from texts ascribed to the same Yahwist in Gen 6-9. 3. The description ofN oah in 7: 1, mn ",:1 'lEl'? P"~ echoes the priestly one in 6:9: ,'n":1 n'n [J'cn P"~ IV'N nl. The commentators have posed more than one question about this verse74, but very few have noticed that "J" here uses a "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (Occam). See, among others, BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 249-254; DILLMANN, Genesis, 125; HOLZINGER, Genesis, 78; GUNKEL Genesis, 61; SKINNER, Genesis, 151 (note); WESTERMANN, Genesis 1,547 (with bibliography); see also CASSUTO, Genesis 1-11,305-306 (trace of an ancient epic source). n See Gen 6:20; 8: 17 (P); cf. 7: 14,21; 8: 19; 9:2 (P likewise). 73 See the authors cited in n. 71. 74 For examples of this discussion on the "justice" of Noah, justified by pure grace or by reason of his merits (his obedience), see W. M. CLARK, "The Righteousness of Noah," VT21 (1971) 261-280; WESTERMANN, Genesis 1,572-574 (with bibliography); RUPPERT, Genesis 1, 336-339. 70

71

16

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

different vocabulary from the one it chose to introduce its protagonist in 6: 8: In N~1:l nl1. This may be explained more easily if we admit that the verse is a repetition of 6:9. After the introduction of Noah, the "just", by the priestly writer in 6:9, the author of7:1 wanted to show that God had "seen" this justice and that this "perception of the fact" by Yhwh was at the origin of his decision to save the hero of the flood with all his family and the animals in the ark75 This is better understood if 7: 1 is later than P and knew it. 4. How do we explain the presence ofthe binomial ;':!pl1 'pl in 7:3a, 9, typical of the priestly vocabulary in 6:19b; 7:16a, when the expression proper to "J" is lnIDN1 ID'N (7:2a)? This is strange, to say the least, and having recourse to the hypothesis of an editor is again difficult to admit. Why was he interested in such a detail? Why did he want to bring in a priestly expression at this point? It is simpler to admit that that the author of these verses wanted to vary his style and took up a turn of phrase proper to the priestly writings (6: 19b)76. 5. In 7:5 a formula indicating carrying out an order appears: .,~~ nl (z)J)'1 m;,' 1m~-'IDN. Now this formula is a characteristic of the priestly style, in the account of the flood (6:22; 7: 16a) as elsewheren It is, furthermore, similar to the one in 6:22:

;m1' 'l'J):!

[n(z)J) P J I:m7N 1nN m~ ,IZiN 7'~ m (z)J)'1

This fonnula occurs in many priestly, Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic texts, in Jeremiah and Chronicles but nowhere else in J stories78 . It is nonnal therefore to think that the text in 7:5 is under the sway of the priestly account and its particular style79 .

5. The redactional techniques of the post-priestly fragments It is helpful now to examine the way in which these fragments fit into the pre-

existing story. The editors do not work blindly and, more often than is believed to be the case, they leave visible traces of their work. The first two fragments are placed around the first block of the story, that is to say 6:9-22. A first paragraph, parallel to the priestly description in 6:9-12, 75 On the function of the "perception" that sets off an action, see R. W. FUNK, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Sonoma, CA 1988) 107-112 ("sensory focalizers"). 76 See at Gen 1:27; 5:2; Lev 3:1, 6. 77 H. RINGGREN, ''ilfD.u,'' TWATVI, 413-432, 421-422. For the P texts, see, among others, Exod 7:5,10,20; 39:42, 43; Lev 9:10; Num 1:19; 3:16; 20:27; 27:22. n See Exod 29:35; 31 :11; 39:32, 42; 40: 16; Num 1:54; 2:34; 8: 10; 30: 1; Deut 1:3, 41; 26:14; 30:2; Josh 4:10; 2 Sam 9:11; 1 Kgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 11:9; 16:16; 21:8; Jer 11:4; 35:10,18; 36:8; 50:21; Ruth 3:6; Esth 4:17; 1 Chr 6:34; 2 Chr 7:17; 23:8. 79 On Gen 7:6-9,11, 13-16a, see above.

5. The redactional techniques of the post-priestly fragments

17

introduces the important subjects ofthe later redaction, the profound perversity of the human heart and its disastrous consequences (6:5-8). V. 5, like v. 12, starts with an "initial perception" (N1") which leads to a decision80 Noah is briefly introduced in v. 8. The priestly account takes things in the inverse order: it first introduces Noah the righteous man (v. 10) before speaking about the corruption of the universe (v. 11), the perception of that fact by God (v. 12) and of his reaction (vv. 13-21). The post-priestly redaction has therefore "taken up" an element from the priestly account, the N'" of v. 12, to introduce its own description. It has put the reference to Noah at the end (6:8) so that its text is linked with that ofP which begins with the m1'?n of the hero ofthe flood (6:9). The second important interpolation, 7:1-5, comes between two formulas denoting fulfilment (6:22; 7:5). The redactional technique is thus that of the "resumption" (Wiederaufnahme)8 1. The only variation of any importance is, of course, the use ofi11il' in 7:5 instead ofC'il'?il in 6:22. Three other texts in this redaction are introduced by a '01" (7: 10, 12; 8:6). In each case the verse contains an indication of time. As regards 7:22-23, it is attached to the preceding story by the link-word '?:> which appears three times in 7:21 (P) and is met with three times also in 7:22-23. In reality, the fragment makes explicit the '?:> that is placed at the head ofv. 22. Lastly, v. 23 "resumes" v. 21 in conclusion, that is to say the list of creatures that disappeared in the flood, but for the purpose of creating a contrast with the reference to the survivors: n:Jn:J ,nN 1tDN' nl-1N 1NtD" [. ,,]C'p'n-'?:>-nN M1:l,,82 This passage, too, thus uses the technique of "resumption" to emphasize insistently the fact that God causes the tragic end of all the creatures he had made, sparing only Noah and "those who are with him in the ark." The last post-priestly section, the sacrifice in 8:20-22 and its consequences, is not marked out in any particular way, except that it resumes the name Noah in v. 18. The N1" in v. 21 echoes the ones in 6:5 and 6:12. God's reaction this time is the opposite of the one at the beginning. The significant element, however, is the fact that the most important contradictions in the story are all contained in the divine discourse in 7: 1--4. The two elements that have prompted the exegetes to divide the story into two sources are actually the number ofthe animals and the chronology. Now it is Yhwh who introduces this contradiction in his second discourse in 7:1-4, for he has the right to correct himself or add new instructions. On this occasion, he asks Noah 80 On this technique see FUNK, Poetics, 107-112 (see above, n. 75). Examples: Gen 18:2; 33:1; 34:2; 38:2; Exod 2:11; 3:2; 32:1; Num 22:2; 24:1; Judg 14:1; 16:1; 2 Sam 11:2 ... Cf. WENHAM, Genesis 1, 144. 81 C. KUHL, "Die 'Wiederaufnahme' - ein literarkritisches Prinzip?," ZAW 64 (1952) 1-11; B. O. LONG, "Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography," JBL 106 (1987) 385399; M. ANBAR, "La 'reprise'," VT38 (1988) 385-398. 82 The order is partly chiastic: in v. 21 we have tDOi, 9'J!I, ilOil::J, [ ... ] tliKil; in v. 23 tliK,

ncn~,

IDe" 91».

18

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

to take seven couples of pure animals and only one couple of impure animals and infonns him of the exact dates of the flood that is to come in a week's time and will last forty days. As in many other cases, the redaction uses the supreme authority to introduce significant changes in an already established text83 . From now on we can understand better why the divine discourse in 7: 1--4 is placed after 6:9-21 84

6. The post-priestly fragments and the Mesopotamian stories What is the origin of these fragments? The questions exegetes have asked about the position of Gen 7: 16b are going to set us on an interesting track. Several of these "fragments" actually correspond to known episodes in Mesopotamian stories that are absent from the priestly ones. The post-priestly editor would therefore have wanted to complete the P account to make it more like parallel accounts in the great civilizations of Mesopotamia85 . The following remarks will corroborate this thesis.

6.1. The problem ofGen 7:16b The closing of the door of the ark by Yhwh is an undisputed "J" text and the question does not lie there. V. 16b uses the divine name mil', while I:l'il':m comes just at the end of 16a86 . The problem arises from the fact that this half-verse is exactly in its place if one follows the plot of the priestly account, but not in the "J" account of the flood. In the latter, it ought to come much earlier, between 7:7 and 7: 12, that is, after the entry into the ark (7:7; J) and before the beginning of the flood (7: 12; J)87. The problem has received more than one solution. Some commentators in 83 On this matter see M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985). Some examples of this procedure: Gen 16:9,10; Exod 13:1-16; 16:28-29; 19:3b-8; 19:9; 32:7-9 ... The laws in Deuteronomy (Deut 12-26) correct the Code of the Covenant (Exod21-23), and the Law of Holiness (Lev 17-26) again reinterprets all that legislation. Each time, however, it is the same Yhwh who promulgates the law and entrusts it to the same Moses. 84 On the chronology ofthe flood see L. M. BARRE, "The Riddle ofthe Flood Chronology," JSOT 41 (1988) 3-20; F.H. CRYER, "The Interrelationships of Gen 5:32; 11:10-11, and the Chronology of the Flood (Gen 6-9)," Bib 66 (1985) 241-261; N. P. LEMCHE, "The Chronology in the Story of the Flood," JSOT 18 (1980) 52-62. 85 This matter was noted by WENHAM, Genesis 1,167-169, who draws conclusions about the unity of the final story from it. 86 See, among others, DILLMANN, Genesis, 144. 87 On this point see, among others, HOLZINGER, Genesis, 80.

6. The post-priestly fragments and the Mesopotamian stories

19

fact remove 7: 17b and place it between 7:7 and 7: 1288. Klostermann has even suggested seeing a late gloss in the name ;"''1,89. The primitive text had "Noah", which would be closer to the Mesopotamian parallels where it is always the hero who closes the door of the ark90 Actually, the matter is explained more simply if we admit that this half-verse is the work of an editor who wanted to complete the already existing priestly account. The order of verses is not to be disturbed; this editor is using the divine name Yhwh in the usual way and the detail comes exactly in its place. The "door" of the ark is also explicitly mentioned in the divine instructions given in P (6:16: rmEl). Why insert this detail? Very probably to bring the story into line with its Mesopotamian parallels. This is confirmed by other observations.

6.2. The Mesopotamian accounts and the "Yahwistic" (J) editor's intention It is remarkable to note that several scenes or elements present in the J fragments are found in Mesopotamian stories ofthe flood whereas they are missing in the Priestly Writer. Apart from the closing of the door of the ark, the scene with the sending out ofthe birds and the one ofthe sacrifice of which the pleasing odour attracts and placates the gods should be mentioned 91 Now these are the most important elements in the J fragments of which the culminating point is exactly the sacrifice scene. For the priestly account, on the contrary, the conclusion is to be sought in the establishment of a covenant between God and Noah - an element unknown to the Mesopotamian accounts, just like the rainbow, a sign of that covenant. Lastly, the figure seven is also present in the epic of Gilgamesh. But it is the flood itself that lasts seven days 92 These similarities between Mesopotamian stories about the flood and the "J" fragments in Gen 6-9 provide us with an important element for dating of the latter. The scene of the sending out of the birds is in fact found only in the epic of Gilgamesh (XI, 145-154). Now the oldest versions ofthis tablet XI that have reached us date from the 7th century Be at the earliest. Of course this argument has to be handled with prudence because the tradition may be older. Still, the fact that the scene is absent from the epic of Atrahasis does not speak in favour

88 For example GUNKEL, Genesis, 63; RUPPERT, Genesis 1,342 (order of verses: 7:16b, lOa, 12). 89 A. KLOSTERMANN, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrijt 1, 717, quoted by HOLZINGER, Genesis,

80.

Gilgamesh XI,3; Atrahasis, 3,2,52. Sending out the birds: Gen 8:6-12; Gilgamesh XI,145-154; sacrifice: 8:20-22; Gilgamesh XI, 155-161; Atrahasis 3,5,31-35. 92 GilgameshXI, 124-129. 90 91

20

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

of its antiquity. Be that as it may, this encourages us to envisage quite a late date for these "J" fragments of Gen 6-9.

7. Concluding remarks The "J" story in Gen 6-9 turns out to be, according to the above observations, more a series of late fragments than an independent story, complete and older than the Priestly Writer93 . The aim of these fragments, among other things, is to complete the P account here and there while drawing on Mesopotamian tradition. But why did it want to complete the already existing account? In our opinion the first aim of this J story was to justifY the function of worship in Israel by giving it a foundation in the history of the universe. It is the sacrifice of Noah, the just one, that brought about a change of attitude on God's part (8:21-22) and thus made the survival of the universe secure. It may be thought that Israel's worship was to playa similar role in the life of the people. After the exile, which for Israel was an experience similar to what the flood was to the universe, the cultic institutions had an essential function in the post-exilic community that saw therein a means of making sure of its salvation. The experience showed that perversity had not entirely disappeared and that the danger of a new catastrophe had not been completely removed. The role of worship was to call down divine forgiveness effectively. These cultic institutions are therefore largely connected with awareness of the evil there is in the heart of man (6:5; 8:21). The antiquity of the institution, which for this redaction goes back to the origins of the universe after the flood, ought certainly to confirm its legitimacy, just as much as its efficacy. For this same reason these fragments use the divine name called upon in worship, that is, Yhwh. Noah, for his part, is a "righteous" man (7:5; cf. Ezek 14: 14) who "has found favour in the sight of God" (6:8). For these post-priestly "J" fragments, the history of the universe is paradigmatic of the history of Israel; the salvation of Noah and the universe prefigures that of Israel 94 . In this sense, these fragments 93

McEvENUE, Narrative Style, 24-27, sets out to show, on the contrary, thatP depends on

J. He puts forward five reasons in favour of his thesis: the forty days mentioned in 7:17a; the formula i1~i"r"':lN nnN (7:15); the formula denoting fulfilment in 7:7 and 7:9b; the lists of

",:10.

animals; the use of the word Without going into the details of the discussion, it seems to us to be easy to return to the arguments in favour of a dependence of J with regard to P, on the strength of two main arguments: J uses this style and vocabulary only in these chapters; elsewhere he uses different expressions. 94 As principal arguments in favour of this hypothesis, let us adduce: (1) There is a correspondence in the chronology of the flood and that of the institution of worship in Israel. The flood comes after seven days and lasts forty days (Gen 7:4, 10, 12); God calls Moses on the mountain on the seventh day and the latter will stay there forty days during which God imparts to him all his instructions on Israel's worship (Exod 24:15, 18). (2) Second Isaiah compares the promise God made to Noah never to destroy the universe again to the one he

7. Concluding remarks

21

complete the priestly text which highlights the divine initiative, especially in the theology of the n',:! established by God with Noah and the universe after the flood". In the final account, this n',:! follows the sacrifice and that suggests that is was in part prepared by it, in accordance with the principle post hoc, propter hoc 96. There are other post-priestly texts that have the same intention, texts that is to say that insist on the place of cullic institutions in the life of the people. Let us quote only some examples: Exod 4: 13-16 (Moses gets help from his brother Aaron to accomplish his mission)97; Exod 6: 14-27 (genealogy of Moses and Aaron)98; Exod 16:33-34 (jar of manna placed before the "testimony")99; Exod 19:20-25 (position of Moses, Aaron and the priests during the theophany on Sinai)lOO; Num 17: 16-26 (Aaron's rod)lOl One could add the pS texts from Exod 24-31 and 35-40 (building the sanctuary)102 In the same way, recent exegesis has perceived the presence in the Pentateuch of late priestly texts taking up ideas proper to the theology ofDeuteronomy103 Let us conclude by insisting on one point. The fragments ascribed to J in Gen 6-9 have been shown to be later than P. One surely has the right to think made to Israel to assure it of eternal salvation (Is a 54:9). The same idea, but without reference to Noah, is present in Jer 31:35-37. (3) Ezek 14:14 numbers Noah among only three people who could be saved by their "justice" (!:lnp~~) from the judgment threatening Israel. 95 According to this hypothesis, the P story would date from the end of the exile or the beginning of the return, and the "J" fragments from the period of the reconstruction of the temple and the re-establishment of worship. 96 However, this oath was already announced in 6:18. On the final redaction of8:20-9:17, see, WENHAM Genesis, 188. 97 See BLUM, Studien, 27-28; 238; 362; W. H. SCHMIDT, Exodus 1 (BK II; NeukirchenVluyn 1988) 190 (with bibliography); H. VALENTIN, Aaron. Eine Studie zur vor-priesterschriftlichen Aaron-Uberliejerung (OBO 18; Freiburg - Schweiz - G6ttingen 1978) 82-84. 98 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 62; SCHMIDT, Exodus 1, 296-298; BLUM, Studien, 231. 99 E. RUPRECHT, "Stellung und Bedeutung der Erziihlung von der Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift," ZAW 86 (1974) 269-307, esp. 276; BLUM, Studien, 147 (bibliography n. 193). 100 See W. RUDOLPH, Der "Elohist" von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68; Berlin 1938) 41; BLUM, Studien, 48. 101 See RUPRECHT, "Mannawunder," 276-278; L. SCHMIDT, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin - New York 1993) 192,205. 102 See, among others, H. UTZSCHNEIDER, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung dersinaitischenHeiligtumstexte (Ex 25-40; Lev 8-9) (OBO 77; Freiburg SchweizG6ttingen 1988); P. WEIMAR, "Sinai und Sch6pfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftichen Sinaigeschichte," RB 95 (1988) 138-162. 103 See N. LOHFINK, "Die Abanderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes. Zu Lev. 26:9, 11-13," Wort und Geschichte (FS. K. EIliger) (AOAT 18; Kevelaer- Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973) 129-136 = Studien zum Pentateuch 157-168; ID. '''Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt' (Exod 15:26). Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung (Exod 15:25b, 26)," "Ich will euer Gott werden" (Hrsg. N. LOHFINK u. a.) (SBS 100; Stuttgart 1981) 11-73 = Studien zum Pentateuch,91-156.

22

The Story of the Flood: a Priestly Writer and Some Later Editorial Fragments

that this post-priestly redaction was at work elsewhere in the Pentateuch and it would be worth while to work at the problem. However, there is no reason for thinking that, only on the basis of the conclusions we have just drawn, it is possible to extend this hypothesis to all the J texts.

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11) Studies on Genesis, whether synchronic or diachronic, have in recent times given pride of place to the Jacob cycle 1 In this exegetical panorama, the Abraham cycle seems rather like the poor relative2 . The reasons for this are manifold. From the point of view of composition and classical "literary criticism", Gen 12-25 contains a good number of quite complex texts, such as for example Gen 14 and 15. Moreover, on the whole, Gen 12-25 does not stand out clearly and researchers have preferred not to take a "minefield" as starting point. For their part, synchronic, stylistic or narrative studies have centred preferably on some particular texts. Studies on Gen 22:1-19 are now innumerable. But there are few "literary" essays on the whole of the Abraham cycle 3 The 1 See, among others, A. DE PuRY, Promesse divine et legende cultuelle dans Ie cycle de Jacob. Genese 28 et les traditions patriarcaies. 2 vols (BB; Paris 1975); ID., "Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonome des origines d'Israel", Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (SVT 43; Leiden 1991) 78-96; ID., "Osee 12 et ses implications pour Ie debat actuel sur Ie Pentateuque", Le Pentateuque. Debats et recherches. XIVe Congres de I'ACFEB, Angers (1991) (ed. P. HAUDEBERT) (LD 151; Paris 1992) 175-207; J.P. FOKKELMAN,NarrativeArt in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 17; Assen -Amsterdam 1975) = (Biblical Seminar 12; Sheffield 1991); E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Viitergeschichte (W:MANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984) 1-270; R. S. HENDEL, The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Tradition of Canaan and Israel (HSM, 42; Atlanta, GA 1987); D.J. WYNN-WILLIAMS, The State of the Pentateuch. A Comparison of the Approaches of M Noth and E. Blum (BZAW 249; Berlin - New York 1997); H.M. WAHL, Die Jakobserziihlungen. Studien zur ihrer miindlichen Uberlieferung, Verschriftung und Historizitiit (BZAW 258; Berlin - New York 1997). 2 Among the main monographs one should include R. KILIAN, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsiiberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BBB 24; Bonn 1966); J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, eN - London 1975); A. ABELA, The Themes of the Abraham Nmrative. Thematic Coherence within the Abraham Literary Unit of Genesis 11,27-25,18 (Malta 1989); I. FISCHER, Die Erzeltern Israels. Feministischtheologische Studien zu Genesis 12-36 (BZAW 222; Berlin- New York 1994) (texts analysed in detail are all part of the Abraham cycle); W. VOGELS, Abraham et sa legende. Genese12, 1-25,11 (LD 110; Paris 1996). 3 See especially D. SUTHERLAND, "The Organization of the Abraham Narratives," ZAW 95 (1983) 337-343; M. NOBILE, "11 ciclo di Abramo (Gen 12-25): un esercizio di lettura semiotica", Antonianum 60 (1985) 3-41; ABELA, Themes (n. 2); ID., "Redactional Structuring within the Abraham Narrative in Genesis," Veterum Exempla (ed. V. BORG) (Melita Theologica Supplementary Series 1; Malta 1991) 35-82; J. MAGONET, "Abraham and God," Judaism 33 (1984) 160-170; I.M. KIKAWADA -A. QUINN, Before Abraham Was (Nashville, TN 1985); G. RENDSBURG, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN 1986); J. ROSEN-

24

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

reason for this is to be found mainly in the character of this part of Genesis4 . On the one hand the Abraham cycle is generally speaking made up of a series of short stories which all have a quite marked unity of their owns. These stories are also very diverse in content and style. On the other hand it is not easy to find a narrative thread uniting the different episodes. The Jacob cycle is much more unified around the patriarch's journey. The story of Joseph is even more so around the conflict between, and reconciliation of, the sons of Jacob. Lastly, there is a final reason that makes the Abraham cycle more forbidding than the other parts of Genesis. It concerns the very markedly theological character, as in Gen 12: 1-3; 15: 1-21; 17: 1-27; 18: 16-33, not to mention other passages with a theological bearing that interrupt the thread of the narrative (Gen 13: 14-17; 22: 15-18)6 All in all, the road is rough and the way ahead is winding. There is nothing very linear in this part of Genesis. All these reasons help us to understand better why it is not easy to discuss together all the stories in which Abraham is the main character. Still, that is what I am going to attempt in these pages. This task is above all of the synchronic kind. Naturally, I by no means deny that the text of Gen 12-25 is composite. The question I am asking is this: is there, on the level of the final text, an element, a "thread" that unifies all the episodes into one single story? Is it possible to find, to use the language ofnarrative analysis, a "plot" in the Abraham cycle? This first reading of the final text will enable us to ask some questions on the meaning ofGen 12-25. Later on, however, diachronic questions cannot be avoided since several texts look like "commentaries" on older stories. Our study takes in four steps: a study ofthe spatial and temporal data (1) will enable us to put forward a first hypothesis on the plot in Gen 12-25 (2); then the inquiry will centre on the more salient elements in that plot (3) and on the historical context of the formation of the Abraham cycle (4). BERG, "Is There a Story of Abraham?," in ID., King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington - Indianapolis, IN 1986) 69-98. 4 See, by way of example, ROSENBERG'S opinion, "Is There a Story of Abraham?" (n. 3), 70: "There is not a single Abraham story, but an anthology of Abraham stories"; R. N. WHYBRAY, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 52: "It cannot be said that in combining these stories the author succeeded in producing an entirely coherent account of the lives of the patriarchs. A number of stories have been placed in inconsequent positions, This is particularly true of the Abraham stories (chs. 12-25) [ ... ]" or J. BLENKINSOPP'S, The Pentateuch: Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL 1; New York 1992) 100: "The forward movement ofthe [Abraham] story is not, however, entirely even and sequential. Subsidiary themes are intertwined in such a way that anyone of them can be dropped and picked up again at a later point without obscuring the central thrust of the narrative line". This opinion is widespread among the commentators. 5 See H. GUNKEL, Genesis iibersetzt und erklart (GHAT 1,1; G6ttingen 31910) 159-162, who speaks of isolated Sagen or Sagenkranze. 6 See F. W. GOLKA, "Die theologischen Erziihlungen imAbraham-Kreis", ZAW90 (1978) 186-195.

1. Time and space

25

l. Time and space

1.1. Spatial setting' It is interesting to study the spatial setting of the Abraham cycle first because

it helps one to realize immediately that the composers of these chapters have given preference to certain places in the patriarch's life. In fact, most of the episodes are set either in Hebron8 (the oaks of Mamre) where Abraham arrives in Gen 13: 18 and stays until he settles in Gerar (20: 1) then in Beersheba (22:19). The story of the death of Sarah (Gen 23) presupposes, however, that Abraham continued to live in the Hebron area (23:2). Hebron is therefore the most important place in all the cycle since six of the fourteen chapters that make up the Abraham cycle are set in this place, which comes to a bit less than half (3/7). That is really where Abraham resides most of the time. Apart from that, one should note the many journeys in the early chapters: from Dr in Chaldea to Haran (11:31), then to the land of Canaan (12:5); the circular journey of which the main stages are Sichem (12:6), Bethel (12:8), the Negeb (12:9), Egypt (12: 10-20) and the way back through the Negeb (13: 1) towards Bethel (13:3-4). To these must be added the military campaign in Gen 14. However, the story generally confines itself to short notices except as regards the stay in Egypt which is entitled to a somewhat longer account (12: 10-20). The other places in the Abraham cycle have only a relative importance. Of the stay among the Philistines which lasted quite a long time according to 21:34 only some episodes have come down to us. They form the content of two chapters (Gen 20-21). Gen 22 describes ajourney that leads to Mount Moriah (Gen 22:2) where the "testing of Abraham" or the "sacrifice of Isaac" takes place. Then Abraham goes and settles in Beersheba (22: 19). Indications of place become somewhat vague thereafter. Ifwe have to suppose that Abraham settled in the region of Beersheba as from Gen 22:19, few episodes have that place as setting. Sarah dies in Hebron (23:2) and the long story of Isaac's marriage takes place mostly in Aram-naharaim (24: 10) and finishes in LahaiRoi (24:62). What may be concluded from this short analysis? Firstly, that of all the countries where Abraham lived (Mesopotamia, Egypt, the country ofthe Philistines and the land of Canaan) the story undoubtedly gives prominence to the land 7 On this point see K.A. DEURLOO, "Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle," Quest of the Past: Studies in Israelite Religion, Religion and Literature (ed. S.A. VAN DER WOUDE) (OTS 26; Leiden 1990) 48-62; ID., "The Way of Abraham: Routes and Localities as Narrative Data in Gen 11:27-25:11," Voices from Amsterdam (ed. M. KESSLER) (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta, GA 1994) 95-112; see also C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BK 1,2; NeukirchenVluyn 1981) 46-51. 8 DEURLOO, "Narrative Geography" (n. 7), 56: "In Genesis xv-xvii no location is mentioned; within the composition it must nevertheless be 'the oaks ofMamre"'.

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

26

ofCanaan 9 And in the land of Canaan the most important place is the Hebron area or in a more general way the southern part of Canaan, that is to say the region of Hebron (13:18; 14:13; 18:1), Gerar (20:1), Beersheba (22:19) and Lahai-Roi (24:62).

1.2. Temporal setting! 0 The study of the chronology is more interesting than that of the spatial setting. It also makes it possible to add an essential element to the Abraham cycle. The comparison between "narration time" and "narrative time" is really very instructive ll .

1.2.1. The land a/Canaan It is the Priestly writer (P) who provides the most important data concerning the

chronology of the events described in Gen 12-25. This chronology has been adopted by the editors of the text and it is that that gives its present form to the canonical text. Now according to this chronology Abraham's "career" begins, not with his birth (Gen 11:26), which is simply mentioned, but when he leaves Haran to come and settle in the land of Canaan!2 According to Gen 12:4 he was 75 when he undertook that long journey. The text underlines in a particular way the importance of this beginning to Abraham's career. Whereas the notification ofthe death ofTerah (11:31) comes before the call of Abraham (12: 1-3), it emerges from the chronology that Terah stayed at Haran and lived there for a long time after Abraham's departure. The latter, therefore, really did "leave his father's house" to obey the divine command13 Terah in fact dies at the age of205 years (Gen 11:31). He was 65 when Abraham was born (11:26),140 when Abraham goes off to the land of Canaan (cf. 12:4) and lives for another 65 years at Haran after Abraham's departure. Terah's life thus covers three periods: 65 years until the birth of Abraham - 75 years between the birth and departure of Abraham - 65 years after Abraham's departure. This no doubt intentional synunetry, of which the meaning escapes us, partly divides up the life of Terah on the basis of the events concerning his "Narrative Geography" (n. 7), 51. On this point see especially the study by J.P. FOKKELMAN, "Time and Structure of the Abraham Cycle," New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. Festschrift M.J. Mulder (ed. A. S. VAN DER WOUDE) (OTS 25; Leiden 1989) 96-109. 11 On this distinction which comes from the German literary critic G. MULLER, Erzahlzeit und erzahlte Zeit, in ID., Morphologische Poetik (Tiibingen 1968), see J.-L. SKA, "Our Fathers Have Told Us." Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib 13; 9 DEURLOO,

10

Rome 1990) 7-8, 14. 12 FOKKELMAN, "Time and Structure" (n. 10), p. 98. 13 DEURLOO, "Narrative Geography" (n. 7), 52, n. 14.

1. Time and space

27

son Abraham, more especially his departure for the land of Canaan (12: 1-5). The story mentions Terah's death just before this decisive moment as if he wanted to withdraw from the scene so as henceforth to leave all the room completely for his son 14 So Abraham begins to interest the narrator when he leaves for the land of Canaan. The story ends with his death at the age of 175 (25:7). The narrative time is therefore exactly one hundred years (from 75 to 175 years), another figure that certainly has a symbolic value. Within this life of one hundred years the story attributes major importance to the early stages, namely to the 25 years separating the arrival in the land of Canaan from the birth of Isaac, when Abraham reaches the age of one hundred years (21 :5). Ofthe fourteen chapters of narration time that make up the Abraham cycle, six are devoted to this period, i. e. more than two thirds 15. The final chapters describe some episodes extending over the years following the birth: the test in chapter 22 when Isaac must be still quite young; the death of Sarah at 127 years of age (Abraham would have been 137 and Isaac 27); the marriage ofIsaac who would then have been 40 according to the Priestly Writer at 25:20; Abraham, for his part, would have been 140 and Sarah had been dead for three years. This clearly shows that the stories that mostly held the attention are those that took place when Abraham was between 75 and 100 and was living in the land 0 f Canaan. 1.2.2. Posterity and the Covenant

Apart from the entry into the land of Canaan (12:5; cf. 16:3), other events are dated in a particular way16. Sarah's decision to give her servant Hagar to Abraham as "spouse" (16:3) and the birth ofIshmael (16:16); Yhwh's appearance to Abraham (17: 1) and the circumcision of the patriarch and his son Ishmael (17:24-25); the birth ofIsaac (21:5). The story thus notes the age of Abraham at the time ofthe birth of his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, and at the time ofthe theophany in chap 17. In this chapter Yhwh who appears as EI Shaddai (17: 1) promises Abraham a posterity and a land, announces the birth of Isaac and concludes a covenant with him of which circumcision is the sign (17:24-25). 14 The technique used in these verses is that of "overlapping." See SKA, Our Fathers (n. 11), 10-11. The narrator ends the story or the chronicle of Terah (11 :31) before starting on that of Abraham even if they have lived contemporaneously for another 65 years, one at Haran and the other in the land of Canaan. This phenomenon is not an isolated one. Cf. N. LOHFINK, "Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte", Congress Volume: G6ttingen 1977 (ed. W. ZIMMERLI) (VTS 29; Leiden 1978) 189-255, esp. 209-211 = ID., Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4; Stuttgart 1988) 213-254, esp. 236-238. For example, all the great figures of mankind, from Noah until the tenth generation, were still living when Abraham was born (LOHFINK, "Priesterschift", 210-211 = 237). 15 See FOKKELMAN, "Time and Structure" (n. 10), 100. 16 See the recapitulatory table in FOKKELMAN, "Time and Structure" (n. 10),97.

28

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

These observations confinn what has been said earlier: the stories have as their main purpose to bring out the episodes in Abraham's life that deal with his posterity in the land!7 The covenant in Gen 17 is also part of this system because it sets the definitive seal of a divine oath on these "promises". All this is well known and will surprise no one. The question is to know how these elements fit together and to do so it helps to study the "plot" of the story more closely,

2, The plot ofGen 11:27-25:11 2,1, Episodic plot!8 The plot of the Abraham cycle is not unified, Unlike the Jacob cycle and especially the story of Joseph, Gen 12-25 is not centred on a single chain of events, a conflict and its resolution, or a problem and its solution. As several authors have noted, the link between the various vicissitudes of the Abraham cycle is often quite loose and the sequence is not always very logicaP9. It is not indispensable, as in a unified plot, to read all the episodes one after the other without being able to omit any,

2,2, The land for the posterity However, certain elements unify these chapters. First of all the character Abraham who is present in almost all the story, Only chap, 19 seems to be an excep17 Just to quote one author among so many others, see ROSENBERG, "Is There a Story of Abraham?" (n. 3) 82, for whom the two main themes of the Abraham cycle are "land and progeny"; perhaps one ought to say "progeny in the land". Some authors think they can divide the Abraham cycle into two parts, each one dealing with a theme: the land (12-14) and the posterity (15-25). See DEURLOO, "The Way of Abraham" (n. 7), 102; see also H. SEEBASS, Genesis II. Viitergeschichte1: 11,27-22,24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997) 1, for whom the two themes cross in chap 15. In my opinion it is the theme of posterity that dominates the Abraham cycle. The theme of the land is subordinate to it. See infra. 18 See R.L. COHN, "Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis," JSOT25 (1983) 3-16, esp. 6 = J. W. ROGERSON (ed.), The Pentateuch: A Sheffield Reader (The Biblical Seminar 39; Sheffield 1996) 89-102, 92: the plot of the Abraham cycle is "episodic." On the distinction between "unified plot" and "episodic plot," see SKA, Our Fathers (n. 11),17-18. Examples of episodic plots: the epic of Gilgamesh; the history of Samson (Judg 13-16); the Odyssey which recounts the adventures of the return of Ulysses to Ithaca, which are not linked with each other and of which the order can be very well interchanged. Examples of unified plots: the story of Ruth, the book of Jonas, the Iliad which relates one single episode in the Trojan war, the wrath of Achilles. In fact the Iliad relates neither all the Trojan war nor all the life of Achilles but why and how Achilles becomes angry and why and how his anger is appeased. See R. SCHOLES - R. KELLOGG, The Nature ofNarrative (Oxford 1966) 208-210. 19 See the opinions quoted in n. 4.

2. The plot ofGen 11 :27-25:11

29

tion but the patriarch still comes to see the annihilation of Sodom at the end of the chapter (19:27-28)20. [fhe is not an actor, he is a witness. In addition, he has intervened in favour of his nephew in the previous chapter (18:22-23). Moreover, a large part of the story is unified around some "narrative programmes" to be found at the beginning of the story (11:27-31 and 12: 1-3) and which have to do with the two main "themes" in the story: posterity and land. One problem is that of the sterility of Sarah (11:30) which is finally solved in chap. 21. Secondly, we have the narrative progrannne in Gen 12: 1-3: Abraham receives the order to leave for a country that Yhwh will show him. A promise is linked to this order. Still, the two themes do not have the same importance. It is the question of the posterity that takes up most space in these chapters. Several indications show this well enough. Firstly, Abraham very soon arrives in the land that God wants to show him (12:4). As soon as he arrives in the land of Canaan, God explicitly promises it to him (12:7), then he "shows" it to him in its entirety after the patriarch has left Lot (13: 14)21. Hence it does not take either the reader or Abraham long to understand that the promised land is the land of Canaan. If the story continues after Abraham's arrival in the land it is because there are other problems to solve: the land is in fact already occupied by the Canaanites (12:6a). Its "possession" is therefore not immediate22 . Gen 12:7 is very explicit about this since the syntagma "to your posterity" is in an emphatic position at the beginning of the pronouncement: "To your posterity [ shall give this land"23 - "To your posterity - and not immediately to you" - perhaps one has to translate that way to bring out the nuance in this pronouncement in its present context just after the reference to the Canaanites in v. 6b. This motif of posterity is thereafter repeated each time it is necessary (13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; cf. 26:3-4; 28:13b; 35:12). The phrase is present in 20 COHN, "Narrative Structure" (n. 19),6 = Pentateuch: A Sheffield Reader, 93. 21 K. SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begriindung der Urspriinge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbiicher des Alten Testaments (W:MANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999) 112, draws attention to the verb "to see" (ilK') in the two texts. On the connections between Gen 12:1.4 and 13:14-17, see M. KOCKERT, Vatergot! und Vaterverheiflungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; G6ttingen 1988) 253, taken up by E. BLUM, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin - New York 1990) 214, n. 35. 22 See, for example G.]. WENHAM, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco, TX 1987) 279. 23 For a resume of the discussion on the dating of this text, see WENHAM, Genesis 1-15 (n. 23), 279-280 and especially BLUM, Vatergeschichte (n. 1), 334, 338, 383; D. CARR, Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY 1996) 179-182. According to Blum, the text is a late one and is part of an exilic composition of traditions about Israel's ancestors (Vatergeschichte, 297-300), a composition of Deuteronomic IDeuteronomist origin. For our purposes it is important to note that this promise is the first and that is comes at a strategic point. See B. JACOB, Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis (Berlin 1934) 344.

30

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

texts from different sources and, at this stage in the analysis, it is important to note that on this point the sources are unanimous 24 . Of course, some texts say that the land was to be given to Abraham himself (13: 15; 15:7; 17:8; cf. 28:4). It remains true nonetheless that the very first promise of the land is destined for the patriarch's posterity and not for Abraham himself. This choice is certainly symptomatic. The problem therefore is knowing which "posterity" of Abraham it will be. L. R. He1yer has shown how this motif of posterity runs through the Abraham cycle25 . Several candidates come fonvard one by one to collect the patriarch's inheritance. They will all be set aside except for Isaac, the son of Sarah. The first candidate is Lot, Abraham's nephew (12:27, 31; 12:5). He parts company from Abraham in chap. 13. Another candidate is the mysterious servant in Gen 15:2-3, Eliezer of Damascus. Yhwh himself dismisses this hypothesis (15: 1-6). As a result of a suggestion by Sarah, Abraham has a son by Hagar, Ishmael (16: 1-16) but he, too, is eventually set aside (16: 12; 17: 18-20; 21:821). The true inheritor of the land is to be Isaac who is born in chap. 21:1-7. At this point a new question crops up. Why does the Abraham cycle not come to an end with the birth of Isaac? What do chaps. 22 to 25 add further? Or do these chapters oblige us to modify our definition of this plot?

2.3. The future of the posterity The last chapters of the Abraham cycle (Gen 22: 1-25: 11) also link up with the main theme ofthe story which is the inheritance promised to the posterity. Isaac is born but the testing in chap. 22 suddenly casts a question mark over all the promises that had hitherto been made. It is not surprising that at the end of the testing a pronouncement comes to confirm everything that had been said before (22:15-18)26 Gen 22:20-24 sets the scene for Isaac's marriage27 Gen 23 recounts the death and burial of Sarah. This story has a double function. The first is to show that one generation is passing away and so it is necessary to think of the next one. The second is to show that Abraham is beginning to take possession of the land. Possessing a grave in a land means stating one's rights

24 Gen 17:8 and 35:12 for example belong to the Priestly account. For a recent discussion of the other texts see BLUM, Studien (n. 21),214, n. 35; S. BOORER, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch (BZAW 205; Berlin - New York 1992); CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 152-176; SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22), 107-116. At this stage in the analysis the dating of the texts is of secondary importance for our purposes. 25 L. R. HELYER, "The Separation of Abraham and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives," JSOT 26 (1983) 77-88. 26 This pronouncement is, in the almost unanimous opinion of the exegetes, a later addition. See note 42. 27 See, for example G.]. WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (WBe 2; Dallas, TX 1994) 121.

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

31

to reside in that land28 Lastly the marriage of Isaac solves a crucial problem for the sequel to the story, the one about the second generation. Before dying Abraham wants to be sure that his son's wife belongs to the same clan and he completely rules out her being a Canaanite (Gen 24:3). The inheritance must therefore stay within the same "extended family" so that the Canaanites have no right to this patrimony. The final arrangements made by Abraham concerning his other sons, born of other spouses (25: 1-6), specify once again Isaac's own and unique rights. He it is who receives "all Abraham's goods" (25:5), while the patriarch's other offspring receive "gifts" (25:6)29 Thereafter Abraham can die in peace (25:7-11). The final chapters of the Abraham cycle consequently have a logical connection with the essential theme of the Abraham cycle. They say who the inheritor is to be, what the inheritance is to be and they clarify a series of points on this matter left in suspense. To take up the vocabulary of Gen 12:7, these chapters make explicit with all the needed clarity to which posterity the land to which Abraham came to settle in will belong. But why does the narrative insist so much on this aspect? Why so much concern over the future? An attentive reading of Gen 12-25 actually shows that this concern is already there in the rest of the story.

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity of Abraham 3.1. Abraham and the addressee of the story There is a striking aspect of the Abraham cycle that can be expressed in quite simple tenns in the vocabulary of narrative analysis: the plot is "open", that is to say it contains a whole series of elements that go beyond the natural conclusion of the story, the death of Abraham (25:7-11). !fit is true that the problem posed by the sterility of Sarah finds a solution in chap. 21: 1-7, other narrative programmes go well beyond the setting of the life of Abraham that we have analyzed above, the 25 or 30 years of his life in the land of Canaan. On this point the Abraham cycle stands out quite clearly from the other patriarchal cycles. 28 See, among others, 'iVENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 27), 130-131; CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 122, n. 21, who mentions legal documents coming fromEmar on this subject. In this connection it is interesting to note that all the patriarchs want to be buried in the promised land. This is also to be the case with Ruth who thus shows her wish to belong to the same people as her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 2:16-17; cf. the parallel between Gen 12:1 and Ruth 2:11). On Gen 23 see E. CORTESE, "Abramo: Promessa della terra e morte fuori dalla terra: Gen 23", Parola, Spirito e Vita 28 (1993) 11-24. 29 See M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington, IN 1985) 349-354.

32

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

A comparison between Gen 12:1-3 and the "narrative programmes" of the Jacob cycle and the story of Joseph will bring out the fact 30 Gen 12: 1-3 actually contains a promise that can hardly be fulfilled during Abraham's lifetime: "I will make of you a great nation" (12:2a), It is likewise clear that it is not within the Abraham cycle that the land can be given to his posterity (12:7), The promise of a numerous progeny (13: 16; 15:5; 17:4-6; 22: 17) also presupposes a "future" in the story that goes beyond its conclusion in chap, 25, In the same way, Abraham will hardly be able to see some of his descendants becoming kings (17:6) or seizing the "gate" (of the cities) of their enemies (22:17), In general, apart from the promise of a son, all the other promises are part of a programme that refers the reader to a prolongation ofthe story31. In some cases the promise is also valid "forever" - The Abraham cycle is therefore a story that refers to something far beyond its own limits, to a time that is the reader's own time and even further on, to an indefinite time ("forever"). The Jacob cycle, too, contains a certain number of elements of this kind. The initial pronouncement in Gen 25:11-12 has in mind the destiny of the two peoples and not just that of the two brothers who are to be their ancestors, However, the pronouncement has an immediate bearing on the conflict that is to set the two twins at odds and be resolved in chap, 33, The blessings of Jacob have the same double function (27:28-2939-40), The second important pronouncement in the Jacob cycle, 28:13-15, likewise has two distinct parts, Promises for a distant future predominate in the first of them: "The land on which you are lying I will give to you and your descendants, Your posterity will be like the dust of the earth and you will extend towards the west, towards the east, towards the north and towards the south, In you all the families of the universe will be blessed, in you and in your posterity" (28:13b-14), On the other hand, the outlook of the second part is the lot of Jacob as such: "Behold, I am with you, I will guard you wherever you go and I will bring you back over this land because I will not abandon you until I have accomplished everything I promised you" (28: 15), This second part contains the "programme" of the rest of the story, from Jacob's departure (28: 10) until his return to the land where he was born (33:18-19; 35:1-8), In this sense the Jacob cycle is much more unified: the narrative programme is to a large extent carried out within the limits of the story32 30 For a more developed comparison between these narrative cycles, see COHN, "Narrative Structure" (n.19); WENHAM, Genesis 1-15 (n. 23), 256-258. On the narrative programmes of Gen, see L.A. TuRNER, Announcements of Plots in Genesis (JSOTSS 96; Sheffield 1990) 51-114 (Abraham); 115-141 (Jacob); 143-173 (the sons of Jacob). The point of view taken here is, however, more restricted than that of L.A. Turner. 31 This point has been made by, among others, C. WESTERMANN, Der Verheiflungen an die Vater. Studien zur Vatergeschichte (FRLANT 116; G6ttingen 1976) 111-122. 32 On the close links between Gen 13: 14-17 and Gen 28: 13-14, see BLUM, Vatergeschichte (n. 1),290-291; CARR, Fractures (n. 24),181.

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

33

In the story of Joseph the progrannne is fully carried out within the story itself. Joseph's dreams concern only himself and his family (37:5-11) and the conflict that sets him at odds with his brothers is solved within the limits of the story, Only some isolated passages point to a more distant future, They are all concerned with the return to the land, The first is a pronouncement that is addressed, not to Joseph, but to Jacob (46:2-5), God promises to accompany him into Egypt, then to bring him out again, The other passages all come at the end of the story, in chap, 50, Joseph tells his brothers that one day God will bring them back to the land promised to their fathers (50:24) and he gets them to swear on oath that they will take his bones from Egypt to bury them in that land which God will give them (50:25)33, The development is clear: from the Abraham cycle to the story of Joseph by way of the Jacob cycle the stories are more and more unified and the programmes are achieved more and more within the narrative itself. As regards the Abraham cycle, this remark leads one to believe that this story has an important proleptic function for the future of IsraeL It is less the story of Abraham as such that interests the reader than its bearing on the destiny of the people whose ancestor he is. Alongside this first essential aspect there is another one that merits holding our attention: the paradigmatic aspect ofthe figure of Abraham,

3,2, Abraham, the faithful observer of the Torah 34 As we have just seen, it is not so much the plot that holds the attention as the character of Abraham as such. In this sense the stories in Gen 12-25 are somewhat removed from classical biblical narrative where the action always has greater importance than the description of the characters 35 . Yet the deviation from the rule is minimal: the narrative is above all interested in the "actions", not in the psychology of Abraham. But it must be noted that those "actions" only rarely have Abraham as their subject. The patriarch does not strikingly draw attention to himself with his initiatives or daring enterprises. On the contrary, he is generally passive: he undergoes, he obeys, he reacts, or he follows.

33 On these texts, see BLUM, Viitergeschichte (n. 1),255-256; D. CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 166-167. These texts are late. 34 See B. EGO, "Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels. Traditionsgeschichtliche Uberlegungen zu einem Aspekt der biblischen Abrahamsbildes", Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffogeschichte in alttestamentlicher, friihjiidischer und urchristlicher Tradition (eds. F. AVEMARIE - H. LICHTENBERGER) (WUNT 92; Tiibingen 1996) 25-46. This aspect has often been highlighted by the commentators in connection with the texts quoted in this paragraph, especially Gen 18:19; 22:18 and 26:5. See, among others, DE PuRY, Le cycle de Jacob (n. 1), p. 95: "Abraham becomes - in a proleptic way - the first observer of the Torah (Gen xxvi 5; cf. 22: 15)." (Our translation). 35 See SKA, Our Fathers (n. 11),83.

34

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

He is submissive to events rather than shaping them according to his wishes 36 . In that he is very different from Jacob. Another striking trait in Abraham's character - a trait which also largely explains his passivity - is his great age. Abraham is a "grandfather" still more than a father. Why is Abraham so aged for P (Gen 12:4b) as for the other sources (cf. 18: II)? The reason is most likely cultural. In the ancient world and in the biblical world an old man is venerated, honoured, but he can hardly be argued with. No doubt for this reason he was chosen as Israel's first ancestor to the detriment of Jacob. The latter, being younger, more enterprising, was consequently also more subject to criticism. A calm, staid and respectable person such as Abraham was more likely to be accepted by the majority. This compliance ofthe elderly Abraham often comes out in his attitude to the Torah, a Torah he observed even before it was proclaimed by Moses. Abraham is in fact explicitly presented several times as a faithful observer of the Torah that has not yet been proclaimed. Many authors have noted that these texts also highlight Abraham's obedience 37 Another aspect has not perhaps been so well noted: the link between texts that "state" Abraham's faithfulness and obedience and some others that "show" these qualities in the narratives 38 .

3.3. Texts that speak of Abraham'sfidelity Abraham's obedience is mentioned for the first time in a divine utterance in chap.18:17-19 "Yhwh said to himself: Am I going to hide from Abraham what I have decided to do? Abraham is on the way to becoming a great and powerful nation and in him all the nations ofthe earth will be blessed. I have marked him out to enjoin on his sons and his house after him to be faithful to the Torah of Yhwh and to act in accordance with right and justice that Yhwh may carry out for Abraham what he promised him". The vocabulary of this passage is late and verse 19 is often considered an even more recent addition39 . It is also part ofa text that in all likelihood was in36 See WESTERMANN, Verheiflungen (n. 32), 61, n. 36: "Wo sich im Abraham-Kreis eine dramatische Dichtung des Geschehens findet, steht Abraham nicht eigentlich in der Mitte; er ist Zuschauer oder Teilnehmer, aber weder der entscheidend Handelnde noch der direkt Leidende. Der Abraham-Kreis enthiilt viele Erziihlungen, in denen ein Mensch bedroht oder gefahrdet wird; - es ist niemals Abraham selbst." 37 See CARR, Fractures (n.24), 153-161 (late, semi-deuteronomic); FISCHER, ETZeltern (n. 2), 370-374 (late texts). 38 In accordance with the distinction made by literary critics between "telling" and "showing." See W. C. BOOTH, The Rhetoric ofFiction (Chicago, IL 21983) 2 (quotation from J. W. Beach). The distinction goes back to H. James. See SKA, Our Fathers (n. 11),53-54. 39 For the various arguments and bibliography, see CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 159-161; EGo, Abraham (n. 35),33, nn. 33 and 34. From the stylistic point of view one should note a series of joins or stitches uniting Gen 18:1-15 with Gen 19:1-28; 18:16.22.33; 19:1.27 (cf. 18:1). Except for 19:27, the sentence each time places the position oftwo people or ofa person and

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

35

serted between the end of the visit ofthe three men to Abraham (Gen 18: 1-16) and their visit to Lot (19:1-26). This divine pronouncement does more than stress Abraham's obedience. Two points are worth dwelling on: (1) Yhwh makes the patriarch an example to be followed and a pedagogue for future generations; (2) Abraham's obedience is a precondition for the fulfilment of the promises. It is because Abraham will show himself docile and obedient that Yhwh will be able to carry out what he promised the patriarch (18: 19b)40. In this sense Abraham is a forerunner of Moses. Well before the theophany on Sinai the patriarch had already taught the Torah to his descendants4!. Gen 18:19 seems to want to create a "golden age" and paint an ideal figure. Among other things, Abraham is an ideal father because he will act in accordance with the prescriptions of Deuteronomy that require parents to teach their children the Torah (Deut 6: 1-3.6-7.20-25; cf. Exod 12:25-27)42 Another late text is Gen 22: 15-18: "The angel ofYhwh for the second time called from heaven and said: I swear by myself, it is Yhwh who speaks, because you have acted in this way and did not spare your son, your only one, I shall surely bless you and make your posterity numerous so as to make it as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore and your posterity shall conquer the cities of its enemies. All the nations of the earth shall be blessed by your posterity for you have listened to my voice"43 As in the preceding text, the divine utterance creates a link between obedience to the Torah and the promise, but this time obedience is an accomplished fact: Abraham has obeyed and Yhwh promises "because" Abraham has obeyed. For that reason, the promise follows Abraham's action, it does not precede it44. The patriarch's obedience thus becomes a guarantee for the future. In his a group of people in opposition. On the first level (wayyiq.tol), the narrator places the visitors, the messengers orYhwh (18:16a.22a.33a; 19:1; cf. 18:1). On the second level he puts the human person (construction: subject + participle): Abraham (18: 16b.22b.33b; cf. 18: 1) and Lot (19: 1). This may reveal the activity of a redactor who has knowingly united two older stories (18: 1-15* and 19: 1-26*). On these chapters, see especially KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 22), 180. 4 0 See, among others, WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 27), 50; CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 160; EGo, "Abraham" (n. 35), 32-34. 41 EGO, "Abraham" (n. 35), 33. 42 WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 28), 50. 4 3 On this text EGo, Abraham (n. 35), 28-30. For most exegetes this text is more recent than the story in Gen 22: 1-14.19. Exceptions are: 'iVENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 27), 101-103; G. W. COATS, Abraham's Sacrifice of Faith: A Fonn-Critical Study of Genesis 22, Interpretation 27 (1973) 389-400; VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 2), 230-231, and T.D. ALEXANDER, "Gen 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision," JSOT25 (1983) 17-22. On the secondary character ofthis oracle, see J.-L. SKA, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 82-83. On this text, see R. W.L. MOBERLY, "The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah," VT 38 (1988) 302-323. The main argument in favour of the secondary nature of the oracle is that the angel is speaking for the second time (22: 15) while he could have said everything the first time (22:11-12). 44 EGO, "Abraham" (n. 35),29.

36

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

docility to God's voice, Abraham is the solid foundation on which Israel's future is built The third text is in chap. 26, in a pronouncement addressed to Isaac when he has just emigrated to the kingdom ofAbimelech because ofa famine, Yhwh appeared to the patriarch and says to him: "Do not go down into Egypt, dwell in the land that I shall show you, Stay in this country, I shall be with you and shall bless you because it is to you and your posterity that I shall give all these lands, I shall accomplish what I swore on oath to Abraham your father, I shall make your posterity as numerous as the stars in the sky and I shall give it all these lands and in your posterity all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because Abraham listened to my voice and observed my precepts, my orders, my decrees and my laws" (26:2-5)45 Once again the oracle establishes a close link between Abraham's obedience and the accomplishment of the promises. This time, however, they are accomplished in favour of Isaac, which is new46 . Isaac is the first to benefit from Abraham's "merits'>' which is a pledge for the patriarch's descendants, In very simple tenns, the future descendants of Abraham can, like Isaac, rely on God's fidelity to his promises by reason of Abraham's obedience47 The (possible) infidelity of future generations will not be able to put in jeopardy what is already guaranteed by the positive attitude of Israel's ancestor, These oracles twice refer to the famous story of the testing of Abraham (often, but more improperly, called the "sacrifice of[saac": Gen 22:1-14,19), In this way Gen 22: 18 certainly is an allusion to the immediately preceding episode (22: 1-14) when the angel ofYhwhjustifies the promise in these words: "because you have listened to my voice" - ''?P:J nllolZi 1lZiK :Jpll (22:l8b), The same expression appears again in the oracle in Gen 26:5a in identical tenns 45 On this text see, among others, BLUM, Viitergeschichte (n. 1),362-363; CARR, Fractures (n.24), 154-155; EGo, "Abraham" (n. 35), 31-32; SCHMID, Erzviiter und Exodus (n. 22), 1l0. 46 See G. VON RAD,Das erste Buch des Mose. Genesis (AID 2-4; G6ttingen 1°1976) 217; WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 27), 190. 47 This text is often considered to be Deuteronomist. However, the vocabulary is more Priestly than Deuteronomist, as is noted by WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 27), 190; EGo, "Abraham" (n. 35), 30, n. 30. The expression n1CttiC(-nK) 1Ctt1 appears in the Priestly texts such as Lev 8:35; 18:13; 22:9; Num 1:53; 3:7.38; 8:26; 9:19.23; 18:3.4.5; Ezek 44:8.15.16; 48:11; cf. Zech 3:7; Mal 3:14; 1 Chr 12:29; 13:11; 23:32; 2 Chr 23:6; Neh 12:45; in Deuteronomic and Deuteronomist literature it appears only in Deut 11: 1; Josh 22:3; 2 Kgs 11 :6.7 (about the temple; it is no doubt an expression particularly connected with worship); the expressions n1~CcnK) 1Cd and especially c~pn (TlK) 1Ctti are not typically Deuteronomic/Deuteronomist, far from it. They also appear very frequently in Priestly texts. For n'~(-nK) 1Cd, see Deut 4:2; 6: 17; 8: 11; 10: 13; 13 :19 (the vast majority of uses; but see also Exod 16:28; 20:6; Lev26:3; Neh 1:7.9). For c'pncnK) 'CIZi, see Exod 15:26; Deut4:40; 26:17; 1 Kgs 3:14; 8:58; 9:4; Amos 2:4; 2 Chr 7:17; Ps 105:45; 119:5.8. For m1n 'CIZi, see Exod 16:28; the plural n1m is not Deuteronomic but rather late; see Exod 16:28; 18: 16.20; Lev 26:46; Isa 24:5; Ezek 43:11; 44:5.24; Ps 105:45; Dan 9:10; Neh 9:13.

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

37

when Yhwh addresses Isaac and promises him that he will fulfil his promises - '''P:1 O;":1N lll:ltD-'IDN :1pll - "because Abraham listened to my voice" (26:5a). The word-for-word repetition of the phrase leaves no doubt about the allusion to 22:1-14.19. The rest of the sentence is much more general because it refers to Abraham's conduct concerning all the divine precepts without making any distinction: "and because he has observed my precepts, my orders, my decrees and my laws" (26:5b). Nonetheless, these two texts, Gen 22:18b and 26:5a, underline the special meaning Gen 22 acquired in Israel's later tradition: it is because Abraham came through this test that Israel can look with confidence to the future and be assured that Yhwh will fulfil his promises to his people. These three texts are often associated by recent commentators who date them from the post-exilic period. The vocabulary, influenced by Deuteronomic phraseology, but often slightly different, is one of its characteristic marks 48 Moreover, these three oracles stand out from their context. The link between Gen 18:19 and 18:17-18 is rather weak: in vv. 17-18 Yhwh wishes to reveal his plan to destroy Sodom to the patriarch. What is the link between this decision and Abraham's future task of teaching the "way ofYhwh" to his posterity (v. 19)? Verse 18 presupposes rather an unconditional promise whereas the one in v.19 is conditional. Lastly, in v.19 Yhwh speaks of himself twice in the third person, which is strange49 . Gen 22:15-18 is a secondary addition to the story of Abraham's testing50 The redactional nature of Gen 26:3b-5 appears not only in the vocabulary but also in the fact that it is concerned with a quotation from Gen 22:15-18, another late addition51 . Besides these late texts that state that Abraham showed himself a faithful observer ofthe Torah or entrust him with the task ofteaching it, there are others that illustrate and show that he corresponds perfectly to that description. This will be the subject of the next paragraph.

48 See BLUM, Viitergeschichte (n. 1), 362-363 and 400; c. LEVIN, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; G6ttingen 1993) 170 and 205-206 (Gen 26:5 refers to Gen 22:18 and is therefore more recent); and especially CARR, Fractures (n. 24), 160-161, who links up the three texts (18:19; 22: 15-18 and 26:3b-5) and ascribes them to a semi-Deuteronomistic revision of Genesis. 49 See the resume by LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 49), 170; he takes up the points made by KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 22) 180, n. 79 and 182; L. SCHMIDT, "De Deo." Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gespriichs zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22jJ. und von Hi 1 (BZAW 143; Berlin - New York 1976) 134. 50 See n. 42. 51 LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 49), 205.

38

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

3.4. Texts describing Abraham'sfidelity Most ofthe texts describing Abraham's fidelity belong to the most recent layers ofGen 12-25. The figure ofa faithful and obedient Abraham who observes the Torah and teaches all his sons to do the same comes, in all probability, from a composition or a series of post-exilic re-readings. Gen 18:6 carries a slight redactional retouch52 When Abraham asks Sarah to prepare some cakes for his guests he tells her to grind three measures of flour. The Hebrew text, however, has two words to denote this "flour: tTOP and n'?o. The two words are not coordinated but simply juxtaposed. The second denotes the ritual flour that belongs to the ritual vocabulary of vegetable offerings in the books of Leviticus and Numbers". Most likely, a redactor wanted to specify that Abraham had followed the ritual prescriptions of the Torah in preparing the meal. It was all the more important because, for the text, or at least for the present text, it is Yhwh himself who appears to Abraham that day (cf.18: 1 and 18:2.16.22). The long story of Isaac's marriage (Gen 24) undoubtedly shows Abraham's desire to follow the prescriptions forbidding marriages with foreigners, especially the Canaanites occupying the land. In that, he is observing the laws in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:3-4; cf. Exod 34:16; Judg 3:8) and the injunctions of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 10:12; 10:1-44; Neh 10:31; 13:23-27). This text is now considered to be late. It could well be one of the most recent texts in the Abraham cycle 54 To this list must be added a text often overlooked and quite complicated, too, Gen 14: 18-20". In it Abraham is paying the tithe to Melchizedek, king of 52 See J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel (Berlin 1883) 62-53; GUNKEL, Genesis (n. 5) 196; J.-L. SKA, "Genese xviii 6 - Intertextualite et interpretation: 'Tout fait farine au bon Moulin"', Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (ed. M. S..EBCl) (VTS 80; Leiden 2000) 61-70 [reprinted in this volume]. 53 See, for example, Lev 2:1.2.4.5.7; 5:11; 14:10,21 ... ; Num 7:13.19.25.31.37 15:4.6.9; Ezek 46: 14 ... (52 uses in all). 54 See especially VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 2), 240-248; BLUM, Viitergeschichte (n. 1), 383-389; A. RoPE, An Inquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah, Die HebriiischeBibel und ihre zweijache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift R. Rendtorff (Hrsg. E. BLUM - C. MACHOLZ - E. W. STEGMANN) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 27-40. The main arguments in favour of a late date are (1) the problem of mixed marriages which appears in late texts (for instance in P - Gen 28:1-9; or in Esd - Neh); (2) the use of the expression "God of heaven (and earth)" (Gen 24:3.6; cf. 2 Chr 36:23 ~ Ezra 1:2 [edict of. Cyrus]; Neh 1:4-5; 2:4.20; Jonah 1:9); (3) the figure of the angel as guide (Gen 27:7.40) which only appears in late texts (Exod 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2; see BLUM, Pentateuch [no 22], 365); (4) the prolix style that is far removed from the well-known sobriety and conciseness of the older narratives; (5) the many allusions to other texts in the Abraham cycle (Gen 11 :29 and 24: 15; 12: 1-2 and 24:1.4; 12:7 and 24:7; 13:2 and 24:34; 16:14 and 24:62) and even the Jacob cycle (the figure of Laban). 55 Among the many studies on this text, see especially W. SCHATZ, Genesis 14. Eine Untersuchung (EHS XXIII,2; Bern 1972); BLUM, Viitergeschichte (n. 1),426-464, n. 5; J.A. EMERTON, "Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis xiv," VT21 (1971) 24-47; ID., "The

3. Some prominent aspects ofGen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

39

Salem and priest of the God most HighS6 It is quite probable that Salem stands for Jerusalem and Melchizedek for the temple priesthood57 Besides, 14: 18-20 is most likely a redactional addition that interrupts the story of the campaign and of the sharing out of the booty (18:13-17.21-24)58. The king of Sodom has just met Abraham in v. 17, but he only speaks to him in v. 21 which is the logical sequence to the story. Moreover, there is a contradiction between what is described in v. 20 and what Abraham says in vv. 22-23. If Abraham paid Melchizedek the tithe of all he had, including the booty that he is bringing back from the military campaign59 , he cannot tell the king of Sodom that he does not want to take anything belonging to the latter. Abraham's conduct in this passage (Gen 14:20) is obviously paradigmatic. The story calls on the sons of Abraham to imitate their ancestor by submitting to the priesthood in Jerusalem and paying the tithe to it. In return the priests will "bless" Abraham (and his descendants). This text is quite significant because it presupposes that Abraham and Melchizedek do not belong to the same people. Ought we to see in this a trace of the quarrels and controversies of the Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Gen xivI8)," Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (VTS 41; Leiden 1990) 45-71; ID., "Some Problems in Gen xiv," ibid., 73-102; SCHMID, Erzaler und Exodus (n. 22), 176, n. 32 (with bibliography). The text is regarded as late by many authors. See the arguments in GUNKEL, Genesis (n. 5),288-290. (1) The style is not that of the old narratives of the Abraham cycle. Among other things it is no longer a matter of a popular story, but of a learned text that has a clear "historical" or "historicizing" intent. Then again, the text mixes other purely legendary and unlikely traits with these historicizing notices. (2) This style is characteristic of the Persian and Hellenistic period. This is the period when there appear warlike stories of the same kind in which great victories over Israel's enemies are described (Judith, 1-2 Chronicles, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs). (3) The text presupposes a certain knowledge of the Mesopotamian world and an interest in the great empires like those one finds in stories like Esther, Daniel and Judith. The arguments put forward by H. SEEBASS against this view, Genesis II. Vatergeschichte I (11,27-22,24) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997) 58, seem less convincing to me. The text may very well have incorporated some old elements such as certain nouns, the reason for the rescue campaign, the rules regulating booty and the links between Gen 14:18-20 and Psalm 101:4. But it is by starting with the style and the "trend" ofthe story as a whole that one should date the text. Among other things, Abraham goes to war with the kings coming from Mesopotamia; we are therefore far from the stories in the Book of Judges. It is therefore not enough to find some old stones if the whole building is to be old. On the contrary, biblical writings very often use old material again. The important thing to establish is the date of the whole work, not just that of the material. See J.A. SOGGIN'S assessment, Das Buch Genesis. Kommentar (Dannstadt 1997) 236-237, who sees a "spate 'aggadah" in this chapter. 56 See the prescriptions in Num 18 :21-32; Lev 27:31; Deut 12:6-7.17-19; 14:22-27. 57 See EMERTON, "The Site of Salem" (n. 56); K. BALTZER, "Jerusalem in den Erzvatergeschichten der Genesis? Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu Gen 14 und 22", Die Hebraische Bibel und ihre zweijache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift R. Rendtorff (Hrsg. E. BLUM - C. MACHOLZ - E.W. STEGEMANN) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 3-12; cf. Ps 76:3 where Zion and Salem appear as synonyms. 58 On this point, see J.A. EMERTON, "The Riddle of Genesis xiv," VT21 (1971) 403-439, esp.408. 59 Which is the most natural interpretation of the text.

40

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

exilic and post-exilic period when serious conflicts set the "people ofthe land" at odds with the priesthood who had returned form Babylon (cf. Ezek 33:24)? It is possible. Be that as it may, Abraham's conduct towards Melchizedek in the circumstances is certainly presented as exemplary. Finally, two texts bring in a contrast between Abraham's attitude and that of Israel in the desert. It concerns Gen 15:6 and 22:1-14.19. In the first case the faith of Abraham stands in contrast to the incredulity ofthe people in the desert. Similarly Abraham passes the test to which God subjects him (22: 1.12), while Israel was not to be so fortunate in this enterprise. It is quite striking to see that the Abraham cycle contains two themes inherent in the theology of the stories ofIsrael's sojourn in the desert that are quite important, the theme offaith and the theme of testing. The latter comes again in the Book of Judges as well. Moreover, these two themes are completely isolated in the Book of Genesis. They only appear in the Abraham cycle. It is therefore natural to think that they were brought into it later on. Other considerations go along the same lines. The theme of faith is met with in the famous and much discussed text of Gen 15:6. The link between this passage and the other texts on faith has been stressed by many authors 60 It is enough to recall that the Pentateuch distinguishes two periods in this matter, before and after the arrival in the desert. The first period is one of faith, the period of Abraham (Gen 15:6) and of the people (Exod4:3l; 14:31). The second is one of incredulity that leads to the condemnation of the generation that came out of Egypt (Num 14:11; 20:12; Deut 1:32; 9:23; cf. 2 Kgs 17: 14)61 Abraham belongs to the first period and is therefore the person who incarnates the golden age. Gen 15 is a text that, in its present composition, is late and very likely postsacerdota1 62 The main argument in favour of this late date is the fact that this chapter contains very many allusions to other texts. It must therefore nonnally be later than them. These allusions are of a literary order or content order. Let us cite at least the prophetic vocabulary (15:1), the cullic vocabulary (15:9), and the covenant vocabulary (15:15, 18); the allusions to the patriarchal migrations (15:7), to the sojourn in Egypt, to the Exodus, (15:13-16), to the

60 See especially R. RENDTORFF, "Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung der Viitergeschichte", Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments. Festschrift C. Westermann (Hrsg. R. ALBERTZ u. a.) (G6ttingen - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980) 74-81, esp. 80-81. 6! See the recent work by SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n.22), 282-284. See also J.-L. SKA, Le passage de la mer. Etude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d'Exode 14.1-31 (AnBibl09; Rome 1986, '1997) 143-145, 151. 62 For recent discussion and bibliography, see SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22),172186; see also J. HA, Genesis 15. A Theological Compendium ofPenta teucha I History (BZAW 181; Berlin - New York 1989); SOGGIN, Genesis (n. 54),255-256.

3. Some prominent aspects of Gen 12-25: the posterity ofAbraham

41

theophanyon Sinai (15: 17-18), and the entry into the promised land (15: 16)63. The image of Abraham as a believer is therefore late. Gen 22, which contains the second theme, the one about testing, is also a late text and more than likely post-exilic 64 • The main indications pointing in this direction are primarily of a theological order: (1) the motif of "testing" (22: 1) does not appear before Deuteronomy. The testing of an isolated individual is a theme to be found only in very recent texts (2 Chr 32:31; Ps 26:2)65 The theme of the fear of God as obedience at the time of an incomprehensible and humanly unjustified testing has no exact parallel except in the prologue to the Book of Job. The relationship between these two texts prevents the introduction of too great a period of time between the composition of both texts 66 . (3) The literary links between Gen 22:2 and 12: 1 have often been remarked on. This relationship obliges us to date these two texts grosso modo to the same period. And if Gen 12: 1 is a late text it is normal that Gen 22 should be so as well". In this passage, Abraham passes the test God submits him to (cf. 22: 1). Later on Israel, too, will be put to the test (see Exod 15:25; 16:4; Deut 8:2.16; 13:4; Judg 2:22; 3:1.4). Now, especially in the Book of Judges, it is certain that Israel did not always succeed in passing the test. The purpose of this test was to find out whether Israel was going to follow the Torah ofYhwh. A very clear answer is given in 2 Kgs 17:7-23. Gen 22, on the other hand, wants to show that at the beginning of Israel's history Abraham anticipated all the tests of his 63 For many exegetes 15:13-16 is a later addition. See the authors quoted by SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22), 176, n. 29. Schmid himself is opposed to this opinion largely because he proposes a very late date for the text (see Erzvater und Exodus, 181-182). See also T. ROMER, "Genesis 15 und Genesis 17. Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der 'neueren' und 'neuesten' Pentateuchkritik," DBAT26 (1989190) 32-47; ID., "Genese 15 et les tensions de la communaute juive post-exilique dans Ie cycle d'Abraham", Transeuphratene 7 (1994) 107-121. For us the matter is of minor importance, but there are good reasons to see in this passage a later addition, especially because of the resumption ofv. 12 in v. 17. For other borrowings and allusions, see SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus, 182-186; HA, Genesis 15, (n. 63). 64 Gen22 is a late text: see BLUM, Vatergeschichte (n. 1), 328-331 (not before the 7th century); see also ALEXANDER, "Genesis 22" (n.44); T. VEIJOLA, "Das Opfer des Abraham - Pradigma des Glaubens aus dem nachexilische Zeitalter", ZTK 85 (1988) 129-164; LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 49), 176-177; G. STEINS, Die "Bindung Isaacs" im Kanon. Grundlagen undProgramme einer kanonisch-intertextuellen Lektiire von Gen 22,1-19 (HBSI9; Freiburg i. Breisgau 1999). 65 BLUM, Vatergeschichte (n. 1),329. 60 VEITOLA, "Opfer" (n. 65), 150-151. On the fear of God, see Gen 22: 12 and Job 1: 1.8-9; 2:3. 67 For a discussion, see J.-L. SKA, "L'appel d' Abraham et l'acte de naissance d'Israel", Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic History. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (eds. M. VERVENNE -J. LUST) (BETL 133; Leuven 1997) 367-389; on the relations between Gen 12:1 and 22:2 and the date of Gen 22: see 386-387 (with bibliography). The article is reprinted in this volume.

42

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

progeny and that success, recognized and rewarded by the angel ofYhwh first in 22: 12 then in the late utterance in 22: 15-18, is a pledge for the future of all the people. Lastly, the initial passage, Gen 12: 1-4a, presents a docile and obedient Abraham. God's order is inuuediately followed by a formula denoting fulfilment (12:4a). The text is late and its purpose is to show that the beginning of Abraham's career as ancestor of Israel is an act of obedience 68 . In other words Abraham has become Israel's ancestor "through obedience". To this obedience is linked the promise: "Go, leave your country, your relatives and your father's house and go to the country I shall point out to you, so that I can make a great nation of you, bless you, exalt your name and that you may be a blessing [ ... ]"69. It is in the land that God will indicate that the promise will be fulfilled. Abraham obeys (12:4a) and the reader naturally expects the second part of the divine pronouncement describing the coming blessing to be put into effect. The "overture" to the story inuuediately brings out Abraham's obedience and makes it a guarantee for the people whose ancestor he is. All these texts do not of course come from the same hand, but from at least the same late post-exilic period and they show the same tendency. Their purpose is to show not only that Abraham faithfully observes the Torah. There is another essential statement contained in these texts, i. e. through his fidelity and obedience, Abraham has secured his people's future.

4. Historical milieu There is one final point to be clarified lastly: Who reread the Abraham cycle in this way? What "Israel" recognizes itself in this Abraham who observes the Torah and "secures" fulfilment of the promises? This Abraham is a native of Mesopotamia (15:7) and, at Yhwh's injunction, leaves everything to come and settle in the land of Canaan (12:1-3). There he lives according to the precepts of the Torah. He observes the cullic prescriptions (Gen 18:6) and those on mixed marriages (Gen 24), and he pays tithes to the king-priest in Jerusalem (Gen 14). He listens to the voice of God in an exemplary manner (12:4a), even when that voice gives him a barely understandable order (Gen 22). This image has already been sketched by the sacerdotal writer. For P, Abraham also comes from Mesopotamia (11 :28.31). He faithfully carries out instructions on circumcision (Gen 17:23-27). Consequently, even for P Abraham 68 See the article mentioned in the previous note. On this text, see also SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22), 65-67; 107-115. 69 On the consecutive meaning of w yiq.to! or "indirect volitive," see 10iion-Muraoka § 116, b and h (with reference to Gen 12:2).

4. Historical milieu

43

comes from a far country and faithfully observes the Torah. The later additions have filled in the first sketch. It is not difficult to see that this portrait of Abraham takes on more than one trait of the "gola". The prescriptions that Abraham keeps are the ones that are dear to the group that came back from exile and finally imposed themselves on Jerusalem. It is probable that at an early stage this group appealed to the exodus as the "founding myth" to justify its claims70 Then, because of the opposition of the "people of the land", the "gola" reinterpreted the figure of Abraham to make him the first "pilgrim" coming from Mesopotamia, a journey that prefigured the return of the exiles. In this way the "gola" deprived its opponents of a weighty argument. Abraham was in fact more the father of the returning exiles than of those who had stayed in the country71 Not being able, within the framework of this article, to give a complete documentation or an exhaustive argumentation on it, I shall be content with quoting some of the more significant passages in support of this thesis72. The first and clearest is Ezek 33:24 73 The prophet Ezekiel mentions a quarrel between the exiles - of whom he is one - and those who stayed in the country after the destruction of Jerusalem ("the dwellers in these ruins", Ezek 33:24): "Son of man, the dwellers in these ruins who live on the soil of Israel say: He was alone, Abraham, and he received the land as inheritance. We are numerous and it is to us that this land will be given as inheritance". The text presumes that the inhabitants of the land based their prerogatives on recourse to the figure of Abraham. The prophet, for his part, dismisses these claims by appealing to the Torah: "It is on blood that you feed, you raise your eyes to your idols, it is blood that you shed, and the land, is it that what you would receive as inheritance? You live by your sword; you [the women] commit abominations, you the men, you defile your neighbour's wife, and the land, would you receive it as inheritance?" (Ezek 33:26-27). According to this oracle the right to the land is a function of the observance of the Torah. Ezek 33:23-29 clearly contrasts two antithetic ideas on the "right to the land": the fact of being a descendant of See, among others, DE PURY, Le cycle de Jacob (n. 1), 95-96. This was J. \VELLHAUSEN'S idea, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin 1883) 360; see also G. GARBINI, Storia e ideologia nell 'Israele antico (Biblioteca di storia e storiografia nei tempi biblici 3; Brescia 1986) 111-123, esp. 112-114 on Dr of the Chaldeans. G. Garbini's book contains some quite daring ideas on the "Philistine" origin of the figure of Abraham, or at least of some of its traits. Garbini's book was translated into English: History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (London 1988). 72 See the reflections by WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (n. 70),318, n. 1, about texts on Abraham outside the Pentateuch. Wellhausen noticed that all these texts are late. 73 On this text, see T. ROMER, Israels Vater. Untersuchungen zur Vaterthematik in Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1990) 513-517; D. I. BLocK, The Book o/Ezechiel. Chapters 25-48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1998) 256-261. 70

71

44

Essay on the Nature and Meaning of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:29-25:11)

Abraham and observance of the Torah. For our purposes it is important to see that the figure of Abraham is appealed to by those who stayed in the country after the deportation to Babylonia, while the exiles refer to the Torah and consequently to a conditional promise. [sa 51:1-2 could well come from this same milieu74 The prophet is certainly addressing the inhabitants of Jerusalem (51:3) and he wants to stir up their hope for a better future. To this end he uses the figures of Abraham and Sarah who must have been popular in this milieu at the time. The similarity with Ezek 33:24 is evident: "Listen to me you who seek justice, you who seek Yhwh: Look towards the rock whence you have been cut, the deep trench whence you have been brought out. Look at Abraham your father and Sarah who gave birth to you. He was alone when [ called him, now [ have called him and blessed him and made him many". Like Ezekiel 33:24, [sa 51:2 contrasts the past with the present, the figure of the one sole Abraham with the numerous progeny. For our purposes it is enough to note that the figures of Abraham and Sarah have a hold in the popular tradition of the Jerusalem country. [sa 63:16 is clearer on the question of the quarrel dividing the occupants of the country and the members of the "gola" who have returned to settle in the country75 This oracle denies that Abraham could be the father ofIsrael. Yhwh alone merits that title: "For you are our father. Abraham, indeed, knows us not and Israel does not recognize us. It is you, Yhwh, who are our father and your name has been 'Our Redeemer' from of old". The oracle then states very clearly that the beginning ofIsrael's history is the time of the exodus and not that of the patriarchs (63:11-14: "the time of Moses"). [fwe compare [sa63:16 with Ezek33:24 and [sa51:2, the prophet's opponents in [sa 63: 16 must be the inhabitants of the country, those that were not deported": Recently, several authors have also sought to find in this "people of the country" (f1KOT 1:l11) the milieu in which the patriarchal traditions developed. The figure of Abraham must have been pre-eminent among the great landowners in the country of Judah and must have served, as Ezek 33:24 testifies, to support and justifY the prerogatives of this section of the population which, according to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, was opposed to the return of the exiles and their settlement in the countryn.

74 See ROMER, Israels Vater (n. 73), 516-517. 75 See ROMER, Israels Vater (n. 73), 517-51 and 537. 76 On this point, see B. SCHRAMM, The Opponents of the Third Isaiah. Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSS 193; Sheffield 1994). 77 See DE PURY, Le cycle de Jacob (n. 1), 92; followed by SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22), 117-120 (bibliography, 119, n. 356). The patriarchal traditions, as we find them in the Book of Genesis, are most likely of popular origin but their redaction has a different bearing. Henceforth they form an official tradition legitimizing the rights of a politically organized group. See also ROMER, "Genese 15" (see n. 63).

5. Conclusion

45

In the passage in Gen 12-25 we are above polemics. Abraham is no more criticized. On the contrary, he becomes the ancestor of all who have come from Mesopotamia to settle in the country. In fact, Abraham does an exodus before the exodus (Gen 15:7). Furthermore, he becomes a model to be followed because he is a faithful observer of the Torah, a thing which Ezekiel reproaches the "dwellers in these ruins" for not being. The figure of Abraham is thus completely reinterpreted in terms of the concerns of the "gola". It is taken from the inhabitants of the country and turned against them, so to speak, since Abraham is becoming what they are not: he came from Mesopotamia and he observes the Torah. Unless the "people of the country" willy-nilly, at least in part, have managed to gain some advantages and have reached a compromise with the religious and lay authorities in Jerusalem. This figure of Abraham is the one Neh 9:7-8 depicts, which once again confirms that we must wait for the Persian period to find the milieu in which the text of Gen 12-25 took the form in which we now know it78 The passage in Neh 9:7-8 insists particularly on the call of Abraham and his "fidelity": "You it is, Yhwh God, who chose Abraham, you brought him out ofUr of the Chaldeans and gave him the name of Abraham. You found his heart loyal (lI:iNl) in your sight and you made a covenant with him, [promising himJ to give him the land of the Canaanites [ ... J and to give it to his posterity. You kept you promise because you are just". Abraham's loyalty is a quality stressed by the late texts in Gen 12-25. With N eh 9, Abraham is integrated into the history of Israel and forms the first solid link in it. This is the Abraham we find henceforth in the Book of Genesis.

5. Conclusion To return to our initial question on the "plot" of the Abraham cycle, it has become clearer that the choice of episodes and the arrangement of the whole obey the demands of a theological and ideological order. The old accounts of Abraham have been reread, first by the priestly writers, then in the milieu of the second temple, to make the ancestor of Israel into the symbolic figure of the "gola". The traditional figure which was popular among the people who stayed in the country during the exile in Babylon was taken up by the "gola" during the Persian period and remodelled in accordance with its own theological axioms. 78 On the figure of Abraham in this text see SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus (n. 22), 303-304. The theology of Neh 9 is greatly influenced by P (cf. Gen 17 for the change in the name of the covenant) but the vocabulary of the covenant is that of Gen 15: 18. See SOGGIN, Genesis (n. 54), 251.

The Call of Abraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a) Certain passages in Genesis are often to be found at the centre of recent debates on the Pentateuch. Among them the "patriarchal promises" or "ancestral promises" must be placed l For a long time exegetes thought that these passages belonged to the oldest traditions on the ancestors of IsraeF. Recently, some people have come out in favour of an exilic and even post-exilic date3 . These promises would be, at least for some of these critics, of deuteronomistic origin and aimed at linking up the different patriarchal stories" The debate continues today. Among recent studies there are several that still defend the antiquity of these debated texts 5 Is it possible to add any anything further to the debate? Are these patriarchal promises predeuteronomic, deuteronomistic or postdeuteronomistic? Within the framework of this article we would simply like to study Gen 12: 1-4a and thus contribute to a discussion in which C. Brekelmans

1 On the problem in general, see C. WESTERMANN, Die Verheiflungen an die Vater. Studien zur Viitergeschichte (FRLANT 116; G6ttingen 1976) 92-150. 2 See, for instance, H. SEEBASS, "Geh6rten VerheiJ3ungen zum 1iltesten Bestand der V1iterErziihlungen?," Bib 64 (1983) 189-210; J. SCHARBERT, "Die Landverheillung als 'Urgestein' der Patriarchen-Tradition," Melanges bibliques et orientaux en I' honneur de M M Delcor (ed. A. CAQUOT) (AOAT 215; Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) 359-368; S. BOORER, The Promise of the Land as Oath (BZAW 205; Berlin - New York 1992); for L. SCHMIDT, "Die V1iterverheiJ3ungen und Pentateuchfrage," in ZAW (104) 1992, 1-27, Gn 12:7 and 28:13-14 are certainly predeuteronomic. 3 J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, eN - London 1975); R. RENDTOFF, Das ilberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin - New York 1976); E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Viitergeschichte (BWANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984); M. KOCKERT, Viitergot! und Viiterverheiflungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; G6ttingen 1988). 4 See especially RENDTORFF, Problem (n. 3), 75-79. 5 See especially BOORER, The Promise of the Land (n. 2); L. SCHMIDT, Viiterverheiflungen (n. 2); cf. ID., "Eine radikale Kritik an der Hypothese von V1itergott und V1iterverheillungen (Matthias K6ckert)", ThR 54 (1989) 415-421; K. BERGE,DieZeit des Jahwisten. EinBeitrag zur Datierungjahwistischer Viitertexte (BZAW 186; Berlin- New York 1990); J. SCHARBERT, Der Landverheiflung an die Viiter als einfache Zusage, als Eid und als 'Bund', Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift K. Baltzer (ed. R. BARTELMUS e. a.) (OBO 126; Freibourg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1993) 337-354; L. RUPPERT, '''Zieh fort ... in das Land, das ich dir zeigen werde' (Gn 12:1). DerWegweisende und erscheinende Gott in Gn 12 und 13," Ce Dieu qui vient. FestschriftB. Renaud (ed. R. KUNTZMANN) (LD 159; Paris 1995) 69-94.

1. The question

47

took a prominent part in his day 6 These few pages wish to pay tribute to the person and his work, even if we will probably follow other tracks.

l. The question Our inquiry will be confined to the first "promise," Gen 12: 1-4a, a fundamental text from more than one point of view. However, it will not be a matter of putting it back on the list of frequently discussed questions such as the "Yahwist's kerygma"7 The problem that will occupy us will be rather to show that this passage is more recent than the context in which it appears. From then on, it will be possible to put forward a hypothesis on the period and milieu in which it was composed. Recent studies on Gen 12: l-4a consider that this text is a unified one, and that for two main reasons. First, the binomial expression "order" (Weisung: 12: 1) and "promise" (VerheiJ3ung; 12:2-3) is well attested in the patriarchal stories 8. Then the repetitions, like the triple progression in v.l ("leave your country, your relatives, your father's house") and the five uses of the root 1':1, "to bless" (12:2-3) are characteristics of style that denote the careful work of one author and not the presence of different hands 9. 6 C. BREKELMANS, "Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Blemente in Genesis bis Numeri. Bin Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums," Volume du Congres. Geneve 1965 (ed. G. W. ANDERSON) (VTS 15; Leiden 1966) 90-96; ID., "Elements deuteronomiques dans Ie Pentateuque," Aux grands cmrefours de la revelation et de I 'exegese et de I 'Ancien Testament (ed. C. H. HAURET) (Recherches bibliques 8; Bruges - Paris 1967) 77-91. 7 For recent discussion on the subject, see BERGE, Zeit des Jahwisten (n. 5),11-76 (with bibliography), who locates the text at the beginning of the monarchy. On the other hand, BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 349-359 (with bibliography), places the text in the exilic period and criticizes G. VON RAD'S thesis, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT 78; Stuttgart 1938) = Gesammelte Studien zumAlten Testament (TBii 8; Miinchen 1958) 9-86, 72-75; H. W. WOLFF, "Das Kerygma des Jahwisten," EvTh 24 (1964) 73-98 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TBii 22; Miinchen 21973) 345-373; O.H. STECK, "Genesis 12,1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten," Probleme biblischer Theologie. Festschrift G. von Rad (ed. H. W. WOLFF; Miinchen 1971) 525-554. For a position similar to Blum's, see KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3),248-299. For earlier discussion, see especially A. DE PURY, Promesse divine et iCgende cultuelle dans Ie cycle de Jacob. Genese 28 et les traditions patriarcales. Tomes I-II (Etudes bibliques; Paris 1975) 48-55. 8 The main parallels are Gen 17:1-2 (P); 26:3; 31:3; 32:10. Several of these texts are related (see infra). 9 For the various arguments, see BERGE, Zeit des Yahwisten (n. 5), 11-31. On dividing up the text, see, among others, WEIMAR, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW 146; Berlin - New York 1977) 44-47; RUPPERT, Ziehfort (n. 5), 81-83. The latter for example, thinks that the word ln1'?1or:n is secondary because the expression n:::101 l':lN: says the same thing again. But why ascribe the first expression to a redactor and not the second? Besides, the three words f'K, n,'?iO and :IN: n'~ are found elsewhere together (Gen 24:7; cf. 31:3: 1mK f1K andm~10; Ruth 2:11: 1m':>10 f1K110K1 T~K). On the words f1K andm':>10, see Gen 11:38; 24:4; 31:3, 13; 32:10; Num 10:30; Ru 2:11; Jer 22:10; 46:16;

48

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

On this basis it is possible to examine the links between Gen 12: 1-4a and its immediate context, that is to say, the Abraham cycle.

2. Is Gen 12: 1-4a connected with the texts that precede and follow it? It is helpful at first to examine the beginning and end of this short passage. The opening is abrupt. The divine utterance begins with a 101('1 that is not preceded by any narrative introduction, as is the case, for example, in 12:7: "YHWH appeared to Abraham and said to him ... " It is of course possible to start a story with a '?C!lP'1 10 The problem does not lie there, because Gen 12:1 presupposes an "exposition" that informs the reader about the identity of Abraham and the

place of this divine communication. The divine utterance actually only has meaning ifAbraham l1 is in his family and country and ifthat country is not the promised land l 2 Now in the present state of the text it is almost solely in the priestly account that the reader can find this infonnation; P it is that indicates Abraham's point of departure, Haran (11:31); his kith and kin (11:27, 31); P again it is who introduces Lot (11:27, 30)13 Moreover, it is quite likely that

Ezek 16:3; 23:15. See also Gen 20:13 (Samaritan '::IN: n':Jo, and and 'n,?"10 fiNO). It is a matter of "variations on the same theme." The formula in Gen 12:1 is longer and more solemn, but the context makes it easy to understand why. Ruppert also ascribes the following expressions to an editor ("Bearbeiter"): "I will make of you a great nation," "I will make your name great," "I will bless him who blesses you and I will curse him who curses you. " The first expression ("I will make of you a great nation") ought to follow the promise of the blessing, not precede it. The promise of a great name, which follows the promise of the blessing, corresponds to the one about the "great nation" and comes from the same editor. The formula "I will bless him who blesses you and curse him who curses you" restricts the blessing "for all the families ofthe earth" and must therefore be secondary. A careful study of the text hardly favours this opinion. As we shall see, Gen 12:3 does not promise a universal blessing but simply means that the families of the earth will use the name of Abraham in blessing each other, saying: "be blessed like Abraham." Thus there is no tension between the formulas in v. 3. The blessing and the name are two themes that appear together in Ps 72: 17. The promise about becoming a "great nation" is recurrent in the patriarchal promises (cf. for example Gen 17:4-6; 18: 18; 46:3; see infra). The redundant style ofthis oracle is intentional and suits this "overture" to the story of Abraham and Israel perfectly. 10 See W. GROSS, "Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang althebriiischer Erziihlungen," Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (VTS, 32; Leiden 1981) 131-146, 134-135. 11 Although the Hebrew text has Abram, to simplify things we shall speak of Abraham (cf. Gen 17:5). 12 See C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BK, 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) 170; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),343, n. 11. 13 See M. NOTH, Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart 1948) 12, n. 28.

2. Is Gen 12:1-4a connected with the texts that precede andfollow it?

49

11:28 is itself also a priestly verse!4 If this is indeed the case, only the priestly writer speaks explicitly of a migration by Abraham starting at Haran. However, Gen 12: 1-4a contradicts the facts as presented by P in two essential points. On the one hand, Terah had decided to leave his native land on his own initiative. Nowhere is there a question of a divine order (11 :31b and 12:5 - Pl. On the other, for P, Terah's clan already knows what the purpose of the journey is because it is setting out "to go to the land of Canaan." Abraham is only bringing to completion the plan of his father's journey (11 :31 and 12:5). In 12: 1, on the contrary, it is YHWH who decides which direction to take: "Go [... J towards the land that I will show yoU"!5 In conclusion, the links between 12: 1 and what precedes are rather loose. Gen 12: 1--4a presupposes an awareness of infonnation that, in the present text of Gen 11-12 is given by P , but the text does not have an introduction of its own. The same difficulties arise concerning the end of the oracle (12:4a). The text ofGen 12:1-4a ends with a fonnula describing an action which, in itself, can have two functions: either to summarize the whole of Abraham's migration (conclusive summary) or to introduce a more complete story as a kind of subtitle (proleptic or introductory summary)!6 In the present text Abraham's migrations continue in 12:5-9, 10; 13:1-4, 18,20. Gen 12:5 (P), as we have seen above, contains another concept of Abraham's journey that had been begun by Terah his father!7 V. 6 could be the logical sequence ofv. 4a. But there, too, the passage is not made without difficulty. (1) First of all nothing says that the patriarch really arrived "in the land that Yhwh had shown him." Of course, the narrative does not necessarily have to say that Yhwh pointed the land out to him. Gen 22: 1, 3 can be quoted in support of such a way of proceeding. 14 The vocabulary and construction are proper to the priestly version in this paragraph: (1) ... ~ x rtO't 11 :28 and 11 :32b; C"tD~ 11K: 11 :28b and 11 :32b. Besides, v. 31 cannot be understood without v. 28: why does Terah take "Lot, the son of Haran, the son of his son" with him if Haran is not dead? Now this is stated in v. 28, which must therefore belong to the same source. And who are Haran and Terah for anyone who has not read 11 :27? The only reason for ascribing vv. 28-30 to J is the desire to find two complete sources in 11:26-32. For some, c',tv~ "N is a gloss (cf. H. GUNKEL, Genesis, [GHAT, 1; G6ttingen 31910] 157; the reason is that, according to Gunkel, v. 28 must belong to J and not to P). For the generality, see VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3) 225, who ascribes 11:27-32 entirely to P, as does BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 440-441; see also WESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12), 152-153; BERGE, Zeit des Jahwisten (n.5), 16, n. 27; J.A. EMERTON, "The Source Analysis of Genesis xi 27-32," VT 42 (1992) 37-46, who reverts to the classical position. For him 11:27.31-32 belong to P and 11:28-30 to J. 15 See GUNKEL, Genesis (n. 14),262-263; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),333. 16 See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),333, citing Volz, Cassuto and Eerdmans. 17 BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 333 and 441, finally ascribes 12:5 to P, at least as regards the essentials, despite hesitations expressed by RENDTORFF, Problem (n. 3), 121-122. The parallelism between 11 :31 and 12:5 actually prevents any attribution of these verses to two different sources.

50

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

God tells Abraham to depart "towards the mountain [he] will show [him]." But he never shows it to him. However, Gen 22:3 does say that Abraham set out "for the mountain that God had pointed out to him"18 Nothing like this in Gen 12:6. The "land" is defined, but it does not say in the text that it actually is the land indicated by Yhwh in 12: 1. (2) Besides, when did Abraham "arrive" in the land of Canaan? The text only says that he went through the country (Gen 12:6 - f1N:11:l:11N 1:1))'1). The priestly story, on the other hand, uses the two verbs 1"01, "to go," and N1:1, "to arrive" to signifY the departure and arrival of Abraham and his clan (12:5)19 As we read 12:6 without any prejudgement and in abstraction from the immediate context it also seems that Abraham had always been in the land of Canaan in which he moved around like a nomad. The old accounts of Abraham show the patriarch as a nomadic shepherd, but not as a stranger come from afar and living in an unknown country. He is a "stranger" and behaves as such in Egypt (Gen 12:10-20) or among the Philistines (Gen 20), but not in the land of Canaan. Apart from Genesis, it is only in late texts such as Josh 24:3 or Neh 9:7 that we have to look for clear statements about Abraham migrating from Mesopotamia20 . In Gen 12-25 it is also the recent texts that mention this long journey. This is the case, for example, in Gen 15:7 where YHWH is presented as the one "who brought [Abraham] out from Dr of the Chaldeans to give [him] this land as inheritance." At present, most exegetes consider this text as recent21 . 18 GUNKEL, Genesis (n. 14), 165-166 (who speaks ofa "Liicke" in this context); BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),383, n. 143. 19 See A. CAMPBELL - M. O'BRIEN, Sources of the Pentateuch, Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis,:MN 1993) 98, n. 21 and 99, n. 23, who suppose there are two gaps in source J, one before and the other after 12:1-4a. In both cases the final editor preferred P to J. Cf. H. HOLZINGER, Genesis (KHCAT, 1; Freiburg - Leipzig - Tiibingen 1898) 137. 20 On Josh 24:3, see V. FRITZ,Das Buch Josua (HAT, 117; Tiibingen 1994) 235-239 (with bibliography). V. 3 is ascribed by Fritz to the deuteronomist historian who wrote at the end of the monarchy or at the beginning of the exile. On a postexilic date, see J. VAN SETERS, "Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament," In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honour ofG. WAhlstrom (eds. W.B. BARRICK and J. R. SPENCER.) (JSOTS 31; Sheffield 1984) 138-158; T. ROMER, Israels Vater. Untersuchungen zur Vaterthematik in Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1990) 320-330, 325 ("nachexilisch"). On a pre-exilic date, see D.J. MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Documents and in the Old Testament (AnEib, 21A; Rome 1978) 221-234 (234: "a block of pre-Dtic material"); W. T. KOOPMANS, Joshua 24 as Poetic Nmrative (JSOTS 93; Sheffield 1990). The arguments in favour of a late date are quite convincing (ROMER, Vater, 326-330). For example, along with Neh 9, Josh 24 is one of the only "histories of Israel" that begins with the patriarchs and not with the exodus (cf. Deut 6:21-23; 26:5-9). For our purpose, it is enough to note that outside Genesis the theme of a journey by Abraham from Mesopotamia to Canaan does not appear before the deuteronomist historian. Moreover, Fritz shows that it is not possible to reconstruct the earlier stages of the text. 21 N. LOHFINK, Die Landverheiflung als Eid. Eine Studie zu Gen 15 (SBB 28; Stuttgart

2. Is Gen 12:1-4a connected with the texts that precede andfollow it?

51

It does in fact use the "formula about leaving Egypt" to apply it to Abraham

and so to make the patriarch's journey "an exodus before the exodus"22. This reinterpretation can hardly be an ancient one. In fact it presupposes a clash between the various traditions that form the Pentateuch and a reflection on the links that may unite them. This text can be very well understood after the exile, when Yhwh calls for Abraham's journey from "Chaldea" to the land promised as an inheritance to be undertaken again23. Gen 20: 13 is likewise a recent text. In this verse Abraham tries to justify his conduct in the eyes of Abimelech, King of Gerar who took Sarah into his harem, believing that she was the patriarch's sister. In substance, Abraham says to Abimelech: "When God made me wander far from the house of my father, I said to her [to Sarah]: This is the favour that you are going to do for me: wherever we go, say of me: this is my brother." The story in Gen 20 is certainly later than the one in Gen 12: 10-20. The references to the preceding story, the moral reflection and the evident desire to justify Abraham's conduct are sufficient proof of it24. Moreover, v. 13 is very likely a late addition25 . Two indications support this opinion. First of all, v.13 alludes both to Gen 12 1967) 11-23, in fact "the oldest promise of the land." Recent studies take another line. See VAN SETERS, Abraham (n.3), 249-278 (278: "late exilic period"); BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 362-383 (D-Bearbeitung); M. KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3), 204-247 (244: "exilischnachexilische Zeit"); J. HA, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium ofPentateuchal History (BZAW 181; Berlin - New York 1988) 209 ("exilic period"); E. NAGEL, Genesis 15: The Doubling of a Form (Diss. Rome 1993); cf. H. HAGELIA, Numbering the Stars: A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15 (CB.OTS 39; Stockholm 1994) 79-86. To support the thesis for an early date, LOHFlNK, Landverheiflung, 20-23 relies especially on Gen 24:7 which uses the same language as Gen 15:18. The same Yahwist would be at work in both texts and Gen 24:7 would be a quotation ofGen 15:18: "[YHWH] who swore to me: To your descendants I will give this land." However, Genesis 24 is considered for many reasons to be a postexilic text. See VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3),240-248; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 383-389 (following Sandmel and Winnett); A. RoPE, "An Inquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah," Die Hebriiische Bibel und ihre zweijache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift R. Rendtorff (eds. E. BLUM - C. MACHOLZ - E. W. STEGEMAN) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 27-40. 22 See J. WEINGREEN, "hw!f 'tyk in Genesis 15,7," Words and Meanings, Festschrift D. W. Thomas (eds. P.R. ACKROYD - B. LINDARS) (Cambridge 1968) 290-215; VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3),265; HA, Genesis 15 (n. 21), 48; HAGELIA, Genesis 15 (n. 21), 79. 23 This could be the reply of the exiles to the "people of the land" who quote Abraham in their favour in Ezek 33:24: "Abraham was alone and he inherited the earth. We are many; it is to us that the land is given as heritage." Like the exiles, Abraham came from Mesopotamia. The exiles are therefore the "real" descendants of the Patriarch to whom the land was promised (Gen 15:7) and those who stayed in the country cannot treat them as intruders. 24 See VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3), 167-183, esp. 171-172: "the narrator [in Gen 20] has the earlier episode [Gen 12:10-20] in mind"; WEIMAR, Untersuchungen (n. 9), 55-78, esp. 75-78; WESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12),389-391; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),405-410), esp. 405-407; T.D. ALEXANDER, "Are the Wife/Sister Incidents of Genesis Literary Compositional Variants?," VT 42 (1992) 145-153; G. J. WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (WBC 2; Dallas, TX 1994) 68-69. 25 See VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3), 172; \VEIMAR, Untersuchungen (n. 9),65; C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; G6ttingen 1993) 180.

52

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

by mentioning the "house of the father" (':IN n':l)26, and to Gen 12:13, where Abraham makes a similar request of his wife. Gen 20: 13 can only be understood ifGen 12: 1 and 12: 13 are already part of the same narrative whole. In all logic, it must be posterior to them. Secondly, the reason alleged by Abraham in 20: 13 is redundant and does not actually excuse him at all. It even makes his case worse, since the lie has been repeated. Now why generalize a particular situation? Must what is happening "in this place," i. e. the absence of any fear of God mn I:I1PO:l, "in this place" (20: 11), necessarily be repeated 1:l1pOn-'?;" "in every place" (20: 13)27? Of the three reasons he gives for his conduct in Gen 20:11-13 only the first is really valid and it alone is well anchored in the story ("There is no fear of God in this place and they will kill me because of my wife"). Actually, the "fear of God" is mentioned explicitly in v. 8, as in v.l!. In v. 12 Abraham states that his lie is only a half-lie and this verse could well be an early addition28 As for v. 13, it comes out of the setting of the story to appeal to the wider context (Gen 12: 1 and 12: 10-20). When they are not directly required by the plot itself, the allusions to other stories or to a group of stories are in general secondary additions. Like Gen 20:13, Gen 24 also alludes to Abraham's distant "fatherland." That is where the patriarch sends his servant to seek a wife for his son Isaac. Gen 24:7 is very clear about this: "YHWH, the God of heaven, who took me from the house of my father and from the land of my kith and kin, he who spoke to me and swore to me: To your descendants I will give this land [ ... ]." This text, which explicitly quotes Gen 12: 1, along with Gen 12: 1 and 20: 13, is also one of the three texts that alone say that Abraham had to leave the "house of [his1father" (':IN n':l). There are several good reasons for thinking that Gen 24 is a post-exilic text29 : (1) The text contains many references to the Abraham cycle, and even to the Jacob cycle (Laban). (2) The figure of the angel (24:7, 40) who accompanies Abraham's servant appears only in late texts (Exod 23:20; 32:34; 33:2). (3) Not allowing marriage with a foreign woman is a concern that occurs in P (Gen 28: 1-9) and Ezra-Nehemiah. (4) The expression "God of

26 The Samaritan even adds: "and from the land of my kith and kin" - ,n-r"o f'NO' (cf. 12: 1; 24:7). 27 WESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12), 399-400; "Die Erkliirung von 20: 13 verbessert die Situation nicht" (399). 28 The meN Cl' ("moreover, truly") could well be the sign of some editorial influence. Cf. WEIMAR, Untersuchungen (n. 9). 65; WESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12),399, LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 25), 179. Abraham is trying to excuse his conduct, but he does not answer the question from Abimelech who had asked him why he had acted in that way (20:10). 29 See the studies cited n. 21. LOHFINK, Landverheiflung (n. 21),21, n. 37, quotes the authors who think that Gen 24:7 is an addition. If Gen 24 is a recent text, this addition must be even more recent.

2. Gen 12:1-4a and Gen 31:3

53

heaven" (24:7; cf. 24:3) dates from the Persian period30 (5) The prolix style that is quite different from that of the ancient writers, much more concise. All this leads us to suppose that some editorial work brought pieces from different sources together to create the story of Abraham's migration in Gen 12: 14a, 4b-5, 6-9. This story is relatively unified, but some traces of the work of composition remain. In conclusion, it has to be admitted that Gen 12:1-4a is a floating text. It has no very firm attachments either with what precedes or what follows 31

2. Gen 12: 1-4a and Gen 31:3 Gen 12: 1-4a, which serves as introduction to all the Abraham cycle, would therefore be a secondary passage, inserted later into its context. A preliminary confirmation of this idea may come from a comparison with a similar text, Gen 31:3, which must belong to the same editorial activity. After many vicissitudes when with his uncle Laban, Jacob feels that the wind is changing. His cousins accuse him of swindling (31: 1). And his father-in-law changes his attitude (31:2). This is when YHWH gives the fugitive this order: r1K-'K :i1tD 10ll n'nK1 1m'101 1'n1:!K - "Return to the land of your fathers and to your kith and kin and I will be with you" (31:3). The resemblances with Gen 12:1 are numerous. (1) First, the vocabulary, because in both cases the words "land," "father" and "kith and kin" (m'10) appear. (2) Then, the two oracles begin in the same way with a mn' 10K'1 that nothing prepares us for. (3) Thirdly, Gen 31:3 is inserted into an older context32 V. 5 links up with v. 2 over v. 3. In what he says to his two wives, Jacob mentions the fact that Laban has "changed his attitude towards him," but utters not one word about what God said]]. One might think that the end of v. 5 alluded to the end of v. 3, but this is not so. In v. 3, Yhwh promises Jacob that he "will be with him" in the future when he returns nOll n'nK1 - "I will be with you"), whereas in v. 5 Jacob is speaking of the past: '10ll n'n ':!K 'n'K1 - "but my father's God was with me." (4) Furthermore, Gen 31:3 is a narrative program that makes Jacob's return to his See 2 Chr 36:23 and Ezra 1:2 (edict of Cyrus); Neh 1:4,5; 2:4, 20; Jonah 1:9. See I. FISCHER, Die ETZeltern Israels. Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12-36 (BZAW 222; Berlin - New York 1994) 358, n. 60. She criticizes KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3),250-262, for whom Gen 12: 1-4a, 6-8(9); 13:1, 3-4, 14-17, 18a make up a unit. For Fischer, Gen 12: 1-4a is too different to form part of this unit. 32 For a fuller discussion, see BLUM, Komposition (n.3), 121; see also RENDTORFF, Problem (n. 3), 58; \VESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12), 598-599; H.-C. SCHMITT, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik (BZAW 154; Berlin - New York 1980) 109-110; LEVIN, Jahwist, 236 ("redaktionelle Zutat"). 33 Gen 31 :2: !J.1tD7tD 710n:J 11:lJ' 1:l:l'K ilJil1 p7 'JEl-nK :JPJ!I' lei'l Gen 31:5: CI)',IZi "ero '''K 'll'Ir'~ P'~ 'lD-nK '~lK 1"" "1I.lK". 30

31

rnt,

54

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

fatherland the fulfilment of a divine order. This verse therefore reinterprets the whole complex of Gen 31-33 by giving a theological tone to it right from the start. (S) The structure of the two texts in question is identical: the imperative of the divine order (12:1; 31:4a) is succeeded by a promise introduced with a w'yiqto[34 (6) Lastly, Gen 31:3 takes up the subjects in Gen 12: 1 to give them a different meaning. The "land of the fathers" has become the land of Canaan, the promised land. There, too, are Jacob's kith and kin. This is not the case with Abraham, of course, who has to leave his "kith and kin" and set out towards the unknown. Abraham thus sets out for the land to which Jacob will return35 . It is difficult not to see the same hand at work in both cases 36 .

3. Gen 12: 1-4a and the priestly account (P: 11:27-32*) and 12:4b, 5 As it is the priestly account (P) that provides the immediate setting into which Gen 12: 1--4a is inserted, is it fitting to examine this text with greater attention. In this priestly account the emigration by Terah and Abraham takes place in two stages. Firstly, Terah sets out for the city of Dr in Chaldea to come and settle in the land of Canaan, but he stops at Haran (Gen 11 :31). He comes there with Abraham, his son, Lot, his nephew and Sarah, Abram's wife. Terah settles at Haran where he eventually dies (11:32), but Abraham continues the journey with his family. He sets off from Haran and arrives in the land of Canaan (12:S). Gen 12: 1-4a comes exactly between Terah's journey and Abraham's37 The priestly chronicle can be put together without any problem, were it not for the chronological note in 12:4b which, in itself, ought to follow 12:S, not precede it38 . In the priestly text, the end of v. 4 supposes that Abraham has already departed from Haran ("Abraham was seventy-five when he went out from Haran"), whereas the departure took place only in v. S. Why this inversion? That is explained quite easily if it is admitted that an editor inserted 12: 1-4a into the pre-existing priestly text. But since v. 4a already described Abraham's Gen 12:2: ~'i) ")~ 1fDDN - "and I will make a great nation of you [ ... ]"; 31 :3b: i'i'i'iN' (promise of assistance). In both cases the cohortative may have a nuance expressing purpose: "in order to make you a great nation"; "in order that I may be with you." See Joiion- Muraoka § 116b. 35 See RENDTORFF, Problem (n. 3),50 and 58, n. 3. 36 This "return" by Jacob is announced by the oracle in Gen28:15 in which YHWH promises Jacob "to be with him" (lOD ':l)N min) and "to bring him back" (l'n:::Win). See also 28:21; 31:13; 32:10. Cf. BLuM,Komposition (n. 3), 152-164. 37 See FISCHER, Erzeltern (n. 31),367. 38 See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),448, n. 9, whoreferes to K. BUDDE, "Ella Toledot," ZAW 34 (1914) 241-253, esp. 249, n. 9. 34

leD - "and I will be with you"

4. The narrative program in Gen 12:1-4a and the Abraham cycle

55

departure, this same editor preferred to have this verse followed by the chronological note now to be found in v. 4b. In this way, he connected this note with Abraham's departure related in v. 4a. This gives particular prominence to the divine utterance in 12:1-3. This editorial work can only be subsequent to the priestly story. Is Gen 12: 1-4a also post-priestly? In general, the more recent text is the one that is inserted into another that is, necessarily, older. This first argument is not enough, however. For Gen 12:1--4a may well be a text or an ancient fragment that a post-priestly editor brought in here. The enquiry will therefore have to be taken further to get a more precise answer.

4. The narrative program in Gen 12: 1-4a and the Abraham cycle Other indications, however, incline one to think that the text in Gen 12: 1--4a is rather recent. Firstly, the passage is completely isolated, not only in its immediate context, but also in its more remote context39 . The theme of migration to an unknown country is not explicitly taken up any more after the fulfilment fonnula in v. 4a. As for the other themes in the divine utterance, the "great name," the "great people," and the blessing, they are not developed by the later stories40 . In simpler tenns, Gen 12: 1-3 contains a narrative program in two parts: the command in v.1 and the promises in vv. 2-3. The command is carried out in v. 4a, but the promises are not really fulfilled in the Abraham cycle. The "program" in vv. 2-3 is very extensive and its horizon goes beyond that of the "story of Abraham and Sarah." Gen 12:2-3 actually envisages the distant future, when the descendants of Abraham will form a "great nation" (?1'l '1l; 12:2) and therefore concerns the patriarch less than it does the people of Israel whose ancestor he is. Consequently, Yhwh's first speech to Abraham in Gen 12: 1-3 makes the beginning of the "story of Abraham" the beginning of the "story of Israel"41. For the author of Gen 12: 1-4a the act of obedience that leads the patriarch to an unknown land is the act of the birth of a people. On Abraham's obedience depends the future of Israel. It really is a founding moment in "history."

See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),354-355. The essay by G. W. COATS, "The Curse in God's Blessing: Gen 12:1-4a in the Structure and Theology of the Yahwist," Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift H.H. Wolff (eds. J. JEREMIAS - L. PERLITT) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) 31-41, rests on somewhat vague thematic links. No story really describes a "curse" called forth by a hostile attitude to Abraham. See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 354, n. 41. 41 Cf. BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 354. 39

40

56

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

This founding act can be interpreted in at least two ways. Either, as has been said quite often, the promises have been fulfilled and the text is written to exhort the "families of the earth" to benefit from that blessing. Or else Abraham's descendants are called upon to imitate their ancestor, i. e. to come and settle in the land that Yhwh showed him so as to become a "great nation" there and to see the peoples using the name of Abraham in blessing'2 To put the alternative in other terms, (1) was the text written at the beginning of the monarchy to show that the promises made to Abraham were accomplished at that time? Or (2) does Gen 12: 1-4a date from the exile (or even from the postexilic period)? Is it then addressed to all the sons of Abraham still living in the Diaspora, especially in Mesopotamia to get them to come (back) and settle in the promised land? The answer to this question largely depends on a study of some peculiarities of the vocabulary in Gen 12:1-4a.

5. The vocabulary of Gen 12: 1-4a The vocabulary of Gen 12: 1-4a tilts the balance in favour of a late date. On closer inspection, in fact, this text is made up of expressions from different sources and for the most part belonging to recent texts. A brief examination goes to confinn this opinion.

5.1. The words riN and iTOiN As Cliisemann has noted, in this passage the words riN and iTOiN have an opposite meaning to the one they have in the story of the origins (Gen 1_11)43 In Gen 1-11, r'N in general means "universe" and iTO'N, "soil," "arable soil." Now in Gen 12:1-3 these terms take on a very different meaning: riN means "land," "country," hence a geographically defined territory, and iTO'N, "universe." Cliisemann adds that the terminology of 12:1-3 is actually found again more in the priestly account than in the texts traditionally ascribed to the Yahwist. It is in P, for example, that everyone belongs to a "nation" ("l), to a clan (iTnEltDO) and lives in a particular "country" (riN) (Gen 10:5, 20, 31, 32)44 The word ni"'O ("kith and kin") is also used by the priestly account For the justification of this translation, cf. infra. F. CRUSEMANN, "Die Eigenstandigkeit der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion urn den 'Jahwisten'," Die Botschaft und die Boten. FestschriftH. H. Wolff (eds. J. JEREMIAS - L. PERLITT) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) 11-29. 44 CRUSEMANN, "Eigenstandigkeit" (n. 43),29. The texts quoted belong to the "table ofthe peoples." In Gen 10:32 the words ''U and ilnElttio are indeed found, but the word f'N: means "universe," as for example in Gen 10: "These are the clans ofthe Noahites according to their generations and as regards their nations. From these clans the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood." 42

43

5. The vocabulary olGen 12:1-4a

57

(Gen 11 :28)45 The expression is the one found again in Gen 31: 13b: "land of the kith and kin," "homeland" (,m?,O "his homeland")46 Cliisemann's argument is not of course flawless, because the meaning that is given to the words "nation," "clan," and "land" in Gen 10 is not proper to p47.

r'K:

5.2. The "great nation" - ?"l "l Two other reasons, however, confirm Crusemann's insights: the expression "great nation" (?"l "l) and the fulfilment formula (12:4a). The expression "to make x a great nation (?"l "l? [XrnK iTiDll; 12:2) occurs only here in the Abraham cycle. Apart from Gen 12-25, it reappears in two other places, in Exod 32: 10 and Num 14: 12 48 A similar formula is used about Abraham in Gen 18:18, where Yhwh says that the patriarch "will surely become a great and powerful nation": c,~,

7m '~7 01'01' "., C01':lKt

This sentence is followed by a blessing formula quite like the one in 12:3. Further on, in Gen 46:3, God gives Jacob a similar promise: "I will make you a great nation there [in Egypt]," - cUi 10'iDK ?"l "l? Apart from that, the expression "great nation" is used of Ishmael's descendants in Gen 17:20 (P) and 21:18 (cf. v. 13); ofIsrael in Deut 4:6 (cf. 4:7.8) and 26:5; of the Babylonians in Jer 6:22; 50:41. These are the most significant occurrences. An attentive examination of these parallel passages leads to the consideration that Gen 12:2 stands at the point where the deuteronomistic and priestly traditions converge. It is in these late traditions alone that Abraham becomes the father of one or several "nations." Several clues point in this direction. First of all, Gen 18: 18 has a deuteronomistic colour about it, as has often been noticed49 . The expression 1:I'~ll' ?"l "l comes again in Num 14:12; Deut 26:5; in the plural in Deut4:38; 9:1; 11:23: Josh 23:9. Gen 12:3, however, uses a simpler turn of phrase, with just one adjective (?"l). The blessing of which Gen 18: 18 speaks is like the one in 12:3, with just one difference: instead of iTO,KiT ntTEltDO?;' (12:3; cf. 28:14), we find r'KiT "'l?;', as in 22:18 and 26:4. Gen 12:3 is therefore cast in a mould that could come 45 At least for those who consider 11:28 to be a priestly verse, which is very likely (see above). 46 The line of argument is taken up again by BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 359 (with n. 2); KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3),265; WENHAM, Genesis 1-15 (WEC 1; Waco, TX 1987) 270-271. 47 Critical remark about BLUM, Komposition (n.3), 359, n. 2. 48 R. KILIAN, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsuberlielerungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht(BBB 24; Bonn 1966) 1; BLuM,Komposition (n. 3),298 and400. 49 See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 400 (with bibliography); KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3), 171-176; 259, n. 471; cf. LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 30), 170.

58

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

from a deuteronomistic workshop, but the differences there are could prevent it from being recognized as a product of that foundry. Gen 46:3 is a foreign body in the story of Joseph50 Besides the aforementioned expression "", .,,~, this text has another point in conunon with Gen 12: 1-4a. God encourages Jacob to go down into Egypt for it is there that he will become a "great nation." These passages are part of a series of divine orders that punctuate the patriarchs' itinerary. Gen 12:1 concerns Abraham; 26:2-3, Isaac; 31:3,13; 32:10 Jacob's return to his homeland; 46:3 Jacob going down to Egypt51 These texts surely form part of the structure of the story because they contain the "narrative programs" of the patriarchal migrations. Not all these texts, of course, come from the same hand. Yet it should be noted that most of them appear as foreign bodies in their context. This is especially true of Gen 26:2-3; 31:3; 32: 10 and 46: 1_5a52 So it is very likely a matter of editorial contributions that are more recent than the texts into which they have been inserted53 . It would be very interesting to be able to show the existence of a closer link between Gen 46:3 and 12:2, because the two texts encase, in the form on an inclusion, all the patriarchal migrations. Yhwh had promised Abraham to make of him a "great nation" (12:2) and it is in Egypt that that 50 See P. VOLZ - W. RUDOLPH, Der "Elohist" von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68; Berlin 1938) 149 and 165; c. WESTERMANN, Genesis 37-50 (BK 1,3; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) 169-170; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 246-249 (with bibliography); 298-301; cf. LEVIN, Jahwist (n. 30),305 ("nachendredaktionelle Ergan.zung"); N. KEBEKUS, Die Joseferzahlung. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 37-50 (Intemationale Hochschulschriften; Miinster - New York 1990) 158-166. Cf. L. RUPPERT, "Zur Offenbarung Gottes des Vaters Gen 46, 1-5). Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Uberlegungen," Beitrage zur Theologie der Patriarcheniiberlieferungen. Festschrift J. Schabert (ed. M. GORG) (Stuttgart 1989) 271-286 = ID., Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments (SBAAT 18; Stuttgart 1994) 143-159. For L. Ruppert, Gen46:1--6 was composed by the Jehovist at the time of Hezekiah. However, the line of argument is not entirely convincing. (1) The expression ",,) ''Il (46:3) necessitates, in our opinion, dating the text to a more recent period (see infra). (2) In the same way, the idea that God could go down to Egypt with Jacob (46:3-4) could hardly have appeared before the exile. See Jer 23:23; the vision in Ezek 1-2; and especially second Isaiah who was going to develop the theology of a Yhwh, God of Israel and God of the universe. For the older theology, see 1 Sam 26:8. In that text David states that in the desert, outside the land of Israel, he has to serve other gods. Again, in the time ofEzekiah, the vision of Egypt is often negative (Is 30:1-7; 31: 1-3). (3) Finally, the text also links the patriarchal traditions with the exodus, since God promises Jacob "to bring you up again from Egypt." This idea is probably a late one, too. See Gen 15: 13-16, a recent text. For BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 377-379, Gen 15:13-16 combines deuteronomistic and priestly elements. It also interrupts the action in vv. 9-12.17-19. 51 See the analysis by BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),297-301 (table 301); KOCKERT, VatergOIl. (n. 3),268-274. 52 For a demonstration of this, see BLUM, Komposition (n. 3.),299 (Gen26:1-3); 121 (Gen 31:3); 152-158 (32:10-13); 246-249 (46:1-5a). 53 On Gen 31: 10, which is part of the narrative block constituting 31: 1-16*, see BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),117-132. According to BLUM, this text is part of an editorial layer (see 127). For LEvIN,Jahwist (n. 30), 242, Gen 31:13 would be among some late additions.

5. The vocabulary olGen 12:1-4a

59

promise is going to be fulfilled (46:3). The promise linked with the first journey is fulfilled after the last. From this point of view, the recurrence of the expression '?"l "l in 46:3 is not perhaps fortuitous. However, very few textual elements make it possible to support this hypothesis. The style ofthe two texts is actually quite different54 To take a step further, we have to analyze the complete expression "to make x a great people,"'?"l "l'? [XrnN ntD». It is only used in Gen 12:2; Exod 32: 10 and Num 14:12. The last two of these texts are deuteronomistic". Comparing the three texts is instructive. Exod 32 describes the first revolt by Israel at the time of the episode of the golden calf and Num 13-14 describes the revolt that follows the exploration of the promised land and leads to the condemnation of the generation ofthosewho came out of Egypt. In Exod 32: 10 and Num 14:12: Yhwh, addressing Moses, twice suggests exterminating the rebellious people in order to make the man of God the ancestor of "a great nation"56. On both occasions Moses refuses. In Exod 32:13, he even asks God to remember the promises made to the patriarchs. The meaning of these texts is quite clear: Israel's ancestor is not Moses but Abraham. Conversely, the members of the "great nation" are the descendants of Abraham and not only the descendants or disciples of Moses. Perhaps it is possible to see in these statements the desire to place Abraham and Moses in relation to each other and to show that Abraham has priority over Moses in one fundamental point57 . In other words, to find the roots of the people ofIsrael we have to go back beyond the exodus and the Mosaic institutions to Abraham's first migration, to his faith, his obedience and the divine promises made to him58 . In what period should these discussions about the respective positions of Abraham and Moses be situated? One text alludes to 54 To quote just some more important elements: (1) In Gen 12: 1 it is Yhwh who speaks; in Gen 46: I-Sa, it is tl'i1?K (46:2) or the "God of the father" (46:3). (2) God speaks to Jacob in a nocturnal vision (46:2); nothing like that in 12:1, which starts abruptly with a 10K't (3) There is no dialogue in 12:1-4a, whereas the scene in 46:1-5a starts with a call and a response (46:2). (4) Instead of?"l "ll!D,VlfI (12:2),46:3 uses the expression ?"l "l?-'::;) 10'!DK. Gen 12:1-4a is close to Gen 31 :3, an isolated text also starting abruptly with a 10K", while Gen 46: 1-4a is closer to Gen 31: 11-13. To the dream in 31: 11 there corresponds the vision in 46: 1. In both cases there is an introductory dialogue (31: 10; 46:2). It is an angel of God that speaks in 31: 11 (C'i1?K 1K?C) and it is C'i1?K that addresses Jacob in 46:2. 55 For Exod 32:10, see NOTH, Pentateuch (n. 12),33, n. 113; E. AURELIUS, Der Fiirbitter Israels. Eine Studie zu Mosebild im Alten Testament (CBOT 27; Lund 1988) 91-110; E. BLUM, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin - New York 1990) 73; for Num 14:12, see NOTH, Pentateuch (n. 12),34; ID., Das Vierte Buch Mose. Numeri (AID 7; G6ttingen 1966) 96; BLUM, Studien, 133-134; AURELIUS, Fiirbitter, 130-141, esp. 132, n. 14. 56 It is to be noted that Num 14: 12 uses the expression favoured by the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic texts, ?"r"l? 1rlK i1!D,VlfI. 57 It is only in Deut (1 :37; 3:26; 4:21; 32:51) and in the priestly tradition (Num 20: 1-13) that Moses is condemned by God. Nothing of the kind is found concerning Abraham. 58 Cf. Rom 4; Gal 3:6-11 for the use of this idea in the NT.

60

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

it, Isa 63:7-19 (cf. 63: 12.16), and ittakes Moses' side. Our text would therefore come from another milieu, not so influenced by prophetic tendencies and more inclined to magnifY Abraham. To be convinced that Abraham may have been at the centre of certain debates as from the time of the exile it is enough to read Ezek 33:24 and Isa 51:1-2 59 This certainly puts us in the exilic/post-exilic period. Moreover, it may be asked whether these questions did not arise at the time the Pentateuch was formed. It was at that time necessary to fix the place of the patriarchal traditions in relation to the Mosaic traditions 60 . Still on the subject of Abraham and Moses, it is tempting to bring Gen 12:2 and Exod 19:6 together. On the one hand, Yhwh promises Abraham to make him the father of a "great nation" if he obeys the order to leave all for an unknown country. On the other, the same Yhwh promises Israel, through the mediation of Moses, to make his people a "holy people" ifhe listens to the divine voice and keeps the divine covenant (Exod 19:3-6). In short, Abraham was to be the father of a "1" '1', and Moses the organizer of a iD1'P '1'. Apart from the assonance, the content and the setting of these two oracles have more than one analogy. Here we have two program-speeches coming at the beginning of two particularly important stages in the history of Israel. These two narrative programs, beyond the setting of the story, envisage the future people of Israel in the midst of the nations. Once settled in its land, the "1" '1', descended from Abraham (12:2; 18:18) and from Jacob (46:3) is summoned to become a'1' iD1'P under the shepherd's crook of Moses. Still, the textual support is too tenuous for a sound theory to be constructed about the links connecting these two texts. For example, Exod 19:3-6 has no explicit reference to Gen 12: l-4a. However, Exod 19:6 contains a final detail that deserves mention. Like Exod 19:6, Gen 12:2 uses the tenn '1J "nation," not 1:11', "people" in connection with Israel. The use of the word '1' has its importance because it has a political and territorial connotation61 . This language comes again in the priestly account. Three times Yhwh actually promises Abraham to make him "the father of a multitude of nations" or the ancestor of "nations" (Gen 17:4,5: c'1'l1D;r :IIC"; cf. 17:6). The same promise is made to Sarah (17: 16). The Ishmaelites are 59 On these texts, see ROMER, Vater (n. 20), 513-517, 535-538; N. LOHFINK, Die Vater Israels im Deuteronomium. Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Romer (OBO 111; Freiburg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1991) 101. 60 A first attempt to articulate these two traditions is found in the priestly text inExod 6:2-8. 61 For the discussion, see L. ROST, "Die Bezeichnungen fur Land und Volk im Alten Testament," Festschrift 0. Procksch (Leipzig 1934) 125-148 = Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (Heidelberg 1965) 76-101; A.R. HULST, "'1), Cl', Volk," THAT II, col. 290-325, esp. 310-313; G.]. BOTTERWECK-R.E. CLEMENTS, ""1)," TWAT I, col. 965-973; I. LIPINSKI, "Q1)," TWAT VI, col. 177-194. See especially B.A. SPEISER, '''People' and 'Nation' of Israel," JBL 79 (1960) 157-163 = Oriental and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia, PA 1967) 160-170; A. CODY, "When is the Chosen People called a goy?," VT 14 (1964) 1-6.

5. The vocabulary ofGen 12:1-4a

61

certainly among these peoples, because in 17:20 God explicitly says that he will make a "great nation" (; cf. 21: 13, 18) to arise out ofIshmael. To Jacob the same ',d ?K was to promise to make him the ancestor of "a nation and a great assembly of nations": C'1l ,:>;rp1 '1l (35: 11 )62 Still in the priestly account, Isaac had promised Jacob that ',IIi?1t would bless him and make him "an assembly of peoples" (C'J:lJ.) ,:>;rp; 28:3). Apart from the "variation within the system," proper to P and Hebrew prose 63 , and which explains the stylistic differences, it should be noted that P gives prominence to the use of the word '1l in the promises to Israel's ancestors 64 . Why this use of'1l rather than CJ.) in P and some late texts? Two explanations are possible. According to the first, more theological one Israel would have become, by reason of the infidelity that led to the exile, a (pagan) nation among the nations 65 . The second is perhaps simpler. After the exile Israel is still a "people" (CJ.)), but the problem is knowing whether it can still be a "nation" ('1l) in the midst of the other nations, for example within the Persian empire. Now to be a "nation" in the proper sense ofthe word Israel must enjoy a certain sovereignty and possess territory of its own. If Gen 12:2 uses the word '1l it is therefore not by chance. God had already promised the ancestors that Israel would not only be a "people" but a "nation." In other words, Israel will be able to have an identity of its own, i. e. political, cultural and religious autonomy. A text like Exod 19:3b-6 tries to solve the problems inherent in this question and proposes a new solution: Israel will, of course, be a nation, but a nation that defines itself primarily by its religious institutions. Israel will therefore be a "holy nation" (tzi1'P '1l; Exod 19:6)66.

62 On this text see W. GROSS, "Jakob, der Mann des Segens. Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des priesteschriftlichen Jakobsiiberlieferungen," Bib 49 (1968) 321-344, esp. 327. 63 See S.B. McEvENUE, The Nmrative Style ofthe Priestly Writer (AnEib 50; Rome 1971) 50, who defines P. 's style thus: "Its essence is variety within system." 64 See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 457-458, who sees a designation of Israel in this "assembly of nations." Perhaps one should think ofthe two kingdoms of the North and the South and, after the exile, of the provinces of Judea and Samaria. Blum himself recognizes that it is a question of a tentative explanation. Still, among the descendants of Abraham, at least the Ishmaelites have to be numbered because Ishmael, too, was to become a ?1') '1) (Gen 17:20; cf. 21: 13, 18), as do the Edomites who formed a kingdom before Israel (Gen 36:31-39; cf. 17:6). Another, even simpler, explanation is to see hyperbolic expressions reflecting Israel's post-exilic hopes in these formulas. On the other hand it is really difficult to translate '1) as "tribe," as J. HOFTIJZER suggests, Die Verheiflumgen an die drei Erzvater (Leiden 1956) 10-11, and, before him, Dillman, Procksch, Jacob and others; cf. BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 456 (with n. 45); BERGE, Zeit des Jahwisten (n. 5), 53, n. 64. 65 See L. PERLITT, Bundestheologie imAlten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969) 173-174. 66 This is what we endeavoured to show in our article "Ex 19,3b-6 et l'identite de l'Israel postexilique," Studies in the Book ofExodus: Redaction - Reception - Interpretation (ed. M. VERVENNE) (BETL 126; Leuven 1996) 289-317 (reprinted in this volume).

62

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

The two explanations of the use of the word '1l in the late texts are not entirely mutually exclusive. However, the second one more closely corresponds to the nonnal content of the word "l, "nation, with political status." Only in texts from late Iudaism does the word "l take on a pejorative meaning and come to mean "pagan nation," "pagan"67. To sum up, the theme of the "great nation" is one which has its roots in both the priestly texts and in the deuteronomic / deuteronomistic tradition. N onetheless, Gen 12:1-3 keeps its own characteristics. The conclusion must be that this text is late, and even dates perhaps from a time when deuteronomistic and priestly styles and ideas came together in the same current of tradition.

5.3. Thefuljilmentformula (J2:4a) The "fulfilment formula" that comes in 12:4a certainly does not belong to the usual vocabulary of traditional I. On the contrary, this fonnula is frequent in the priestly account and in texts from the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic traditions. The formula found in Gen 12:4a, namely m;,' [... J j:Ji jIliN:J, comes again in the priestly account in Gen 21: 1; Exod 7: 13,22; 8: 11, 15; 9: 12,35. In the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic texts it is also very frequent 68 . This formula has its importance, since it makes Abraham the first "fulfiller" of a divine order in the history ofIsrael. The patriarch thus becomes a model of obedience for all his descendants. Here again Gen 12: 1-4a stands at the crossroads of the priestly vocabulary and the deuteronomistic vocabulary.

5.4. The "great name" and the blessing It frequently happens that these two themes are placed in relation with the royal ideology69 Actually, the expression "to make a great name," "magnifY the name" ('?il,pi. with I:llli) is unique70 The expression '?1ill:llD is used in the dynastic oracle in 2 Sam 7:9 about David. The "name" in the sense of "renown" is a theme also found in 2 Sam 8:13 and 1 Kgs 1:47. The oracle in 2 Sam 7 is a relatively recent text7 r . See CLEMENTS, ,,) (n. 61), col. 973. Cf. 2 Kgs 17:8,11,15,33; Ezek 20:32; 2 Chr 28:3. Deut 1:11, 21; 2:1; 6:3,19; 9:3; 10:9; 11:25; 12:20; 15:6; 27:3; 31:3 (12 occurrences); Josh4:8; 13:14,33; 14:10, 12; 22:4; 23:5 (7 occurrences); Judg2:15; 6:27; 1 Sam 28:17; 1 Kgs 2:24; 5:19; 8:20; 2 Kgs 17:23; 24:13; 1 Chr 22:11; 2 Chr 6:10; 23:3; Job 42:9; Jer 27: 13; 40:3. See further, Gen 24:51; Exod 9:35; 12:25; Num 5:4; 17:5; 27:23. 69 STECK, "Genesis 12,1-3" (n.7), 552, n. 70; VAN SETERS, Abraham (n. 3),274; E. RuPRECHT, "Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der einzelnen Elemente von Genesis xii 2-3," VT 29 (1979) 444-464, esp. 451-457. Ruprecht draws on texts like 2 Sam 7:9; 8:13; 1 Kgs 1 :47 and numerous extrabiblical parallels. 70 K.J.LIAN, Abrahamsuberlieferungen (n. 48), 2. 71 For the discussion, see BLUM, Komposition (n.3), 155-156; G. HENTSCHEL, Gott, 67 68

6. Gen 12:1-3, Gen 22:1-4 and the Davidic monarchy

63

As regards the blessing, it, too, has associations with the royal ideology (ps 72:17; 21:7)'2 The themes of the "name" and the "blessing" are found together in Ps 72: 17 where it is said that the name of the king will serve as blessing. Now this is just what is said about Abraham. On the basis of parallels like Gen 48:20; 2 Kgs 22: 19; Jer 4:2; 24:9; 25: 18; 29:22; Ps 72: 17; Ruth 4: 11-13; Zech 8:13 the meaning ofGen 12:3 is as follows: "All the families of the earth will bless each other saying: Be blessed likeAbraham''73 Likewise, the "name" and the fact of becoming a "blessing" are linked to each other. Acquiring a name means that that name can be used as "blessing." If this line of interpretation is followed, Gen 12: 1-4a takes up these elements in the royal ideology to apply them to Abraham. These "good things" are no longer promised to David and the monarchy but to Abraham's obedience. The text, of course, can only be understood if it was composed after the end of the monarchy, that is, in the exilic or post-exilic period. Recently some objections have been raised against this position that will have to be examined in detail. After Moses and the law, it is David and the kingship that see Abraham preceding them in the history and theology of Israel.

6. Gen 12: 1-3, Gen 22: 1-4 and the Davidic monarchy The interpretation that has just been suggested is not unanimous, however. Basing himself mainly on an analysis of the formula m:l'ItOl nn!lIZiO':>::>, Berge seeks to locate Gen 12: 1-3 at the beginning of the Davidic monarchy. The "families of the earth" are not "nations" or "peoples" but rather clans integrated into a "state." The "land" (0I0'1t0l) is the land of Israel. The text would therefore aim at making Abraham's blessing, which comes to them through the Davidic monarchy, available to all the tribes and clans living in the land of Israel'4 Berge draws especially on the analysis of the word OIn!llZio in making his case. According to this author, the word has no political or military connotation. In the context of Gen 12: 1-3 therefore it denotes the races and clans Konig und Tempel. Beobachtungen zu 2 Sam 7,1-17 (Erfurter Theologische Schriften 22; Leipzig 1992); H.J. STOEBE, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (KAT VIII,2; Giitersloh 1994) 207-241. 72 See STECK, "Genesis 12,1-3" (n. 7),552, n. 70; H.H. SCHMlD,DersogenannteJahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (ZUrich 1976) 133-135; VAN SETERS, Abraham, (n. 3), 274; RUPRECHT, "Hintergrund" (n. 69), 457-459; BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 353. 73 See BLUM, Komposition, (n. 4), 349-355. For another, less convincing, suggestion, see J. SCHREINER, "Segen fUr die Volker in der VerheiJ3ung an die Vater," BZNF 6 (1962) 1-31, esp. 6-7; D. MILLER, "Syntax and Theology in Genesis xii 3a," VT 34 (1984) 472-476. 74 BERGE, Zeit des Jahwisten (n. 5), 52-62.

64

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

integrated into the only "state" mentioned in the text, i. e. the "great nation" descended from Abraham. The text of Gen 12: 1-3, therefore, has no universal bearing. It is quite true that the term "tTEltDO has no political or regional connotation but designates a racial or family community75. Yet Berge's reasoning is somewhat puzzling. Firstly, it is very difficult to speak of the Yahwist without defining better what one is talking about. The hypothesis of a complete and independent yahwist document dating from the beginning of the monarchy is the subject of quite a lot of controversy, to put it mildly76. Then again, exegetes and historians are asking questions about the beginnings of the monarchy in Israel. What documents go back to that period? What can be said for sure about the origins of the monarchy77? Thirdly, why restrict the text to so narrow an outlook as the one suggested by Berge? If the text meant to speak only about the land of Israel and the "families" occupying that territory, could it not have been clearer? Finally, the formulas "1l"~ (18:18; 22:18; 26:4) and"~ "01N" ntTEltDO (12:3; 28: 14: first and last occurrences) alternate in parallel texts and this does not favour Berge's interpretation. The reason for this variation may be more stylistic than ideological. To strengthen the case in favour of an exilic and even post-exilic date regarding Gen 12:1-4a, it helps to add a final argument drawn from some striking similarities existing between this text and the beginning of Gen 22. These likenesses have often been noted in recent studies78 In short, (1) Gen 12:1-3 are the first words spoken by Yhwh to Abraham and Gen 22:2 is the last important order that God (1:1',,"N) gives to the patriarch. (2) In these two texts are to be found the only two occurrences of the expression 1"-1" (12:1; 22:2). (3) The divine order is in each case followed by an enumeration going from the more general to the more intimate. In Gen 12: 1-3, Abraham has to leave (a) his country; (b) his kith and kin; (c) his father's house. In Gen 22:2 he has to take (a) his son; (b) his only one; (c) the one he loves; (d) Isaac. (4) In Gen 12: 1 Yhwh

r1N"

H.-J. ZOBEL, "iTn~C," TWATV, col. 86-93, esp. col. 87. See, among recent authors, the reflections by E. ZENGER, "Die Bucher der Torah! des Pentateuch," Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. ZENGER e. a.) (Studienbucher Theologie 1,1; Stuttgart 1995) 110-111. 77 For some recent studies on the question, see P. R. DAVIES, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTS 148; Sheffield 1992); R. NEU, Von der Anarchiezum Staat. Ennvicklungsgeschichte Israels vom Nomadentum zur Monarchie im Spiegel der Ethnosoziologie (NeukirchenVluyn 1992); T.L. THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 4; Leiden 1992); and especially J. W. FLANAGAN, David's Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel's Early Iron Age (JSOTS 73; Sheffield 1988). 78 This has often been noted. See, among others, RENDTORFF, Problem (n.3), 50: Y. MAZOR, "Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and the Psychological Composition," Bib 67 (1986) 81-88, esp. 82; WENHAM, Genesis 16-50 (n. 24),104; and especially V. HAMil-TON, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1990) 370-371. 75 76

6. Gen 12:1-3, Gen 22:1-4 and the Davidic monarchy

65

asks him to leave for the "country I will show you" -1N'N ,tziN f'Nn-"N. In Gen 22:2, it is "on one of the mountains I will tell you" that Abraham is to sacrifice his son -1'''N 'ON ,tziN c',nn ,nN "ll. (5) In Gen 12: 1, YHWH asks Abraham to leave his past. In Gen 22: 2, God asks him to leave his future. The links between the two texts are difficult to deny and both must have been written in the same milieu and approximately at the same time. Now recent studies

tend to bring forward the date of composition of Gen 22 considerably79 The indications the exegetes go by are of a stylistic and theological orderED: (1) A story of which the main thrust is clearly theological ("erzahlte Theologie") cannot be very 0ld s1 (2) The theme of the testing hardly appears before Deuteronomy82. (3) The angel who "speaks from the heavens" (Gen 22: 11) is a late development of the figure of the angel ofYhwh who, in the old texts, behaves like a normal human being83 . (4) In the older accounts, Abraham sacrifices where he is. The order to sacrifice in a particular place presupposes the theology of Deuteronomy. It is even quite likely that the text designates Jerusalem

in an obscure wayS4 (5) From the narrative point of view, Gen 12:1-3 and 22: 1-14 are not really necessary for the plot of the macro-story in Gen 12-25. It is true, of course, that the Abraham cycle does not fonn a very homogeneous

narrative. But one of the threads of the story is surely the quest for an heir 85. The real problem, from the beginning, is Sarah's sterility (11 :30). We have to wait for Gen 21 and the birth of Isaac to reach the solution to this problem. The expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael is quite a natural consequence of that birth. In short, the Abraham cycle could without any difficulty end with Gen 21. Nothing leads us to suspect that God is going to "put Abraham to the test" (22: 1). This chapter 22, in other words, contains an unexpected rebound in the story,

which does not mean that it is insignificant. Just like Gen 12: 1-4a which adds an astonishing theological dimension to the story, Gen 22 takes up the theme of the "son of the promise" to give it an unsuspected depth. All this, however, bears the trace of a late reworking that has read a cycle of older stories again with new concerns in mind.

79 See BLUM, Komposition (n. 3), 328-330; KOCKERT, Viitergot! (n. 3), 321; FISCHER, ETZeltern (n. 31), 333-337; T. VEIJOLA, "Das Opfer des Abraham - Paradigma des Glaubens aus dem Zeitalter," ZTK 85 (1988) 129-164. 80 See VEIJOLA, "Das Opfer des Abraham" (n. 79),149-156. 81 WESTERMANN, Genesis 2 (n. 12),435. 82 BLUM, Komposition (n. 3),328-330. 83 VEITOLA, "Das Opfer des Abraham" (n. 79), 152. 84 Ibid., 153-154. 85 See, among others, L.R. HELYER, "The Separation of Abram and Lot," JSOT26 (1983) 77-88.

66

The Call ofAbraham and Israel's Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1-4a)

7. Conclusion At the end of this enquiry, it is difficult to put Gen 12: 1-4a back to the beginning of the monarchy. Nor is it possible to make a deuteronomistic text out of it. It is more a question of a post-exilic text close to a crossroads where the deuteronomistic and priestly traditions meet and which sees the act of Israel's foundation in the faith and obedience of Abraham. This birth is linked with Yhwh's unconditional promises. To sum up, Gen 12:1-4a reflects rather the theological and human concerns of a post-exilic community in search of its roots. If we may be permitted to formulate a hypothesis at the end of this study, we would say that the oracle in Gen 12: 1-4a is surely one of the main texts that enabled that post-exilic community to integrate the figure of Abraham and the ancient stories about him into the Pentateuch. The person was probably very popular and so could not be eliminated from the official tradition on which the Second Temple community was built. His role had therefore to be rewritten. This is why, over and above the polemics in Ezek 33:24 or Isa 63: 12: Gen 12: 1-4a makes Abraham the first "pilgrim" coming from Mesopotamia in obedience to a divine order. The "people of the country" (Ezek 33:24) are no longer the only ones who appeal to the patriarch to justify their claims. On the contrary, the exiles can also appeal to Abraham to affirm their rights; like Abraham, they obeyed an order from Yhwh. It was Yhwh himself who made them leave everything so as to give them a land and make them a "great nation." Gen 28: 15 and 31:3 most likely fulfil the same function with regard to Jacob, he also being no doubt very popular. This person is severely criticized by the prophets, however, for example in Hos 12 or Jer 9:3 86 . Consequently, Jacob as well needed to be "revised and corrected." This is the function of the divine oracles in Gen 28:15 and 31:3 which, along with some other similar texts, transform Jacob into a model for the exiles returning to their homeland in obedience to the word of Yhwh. The Jacob cycle is therefore no longer to be read as the story of a fugitive or a more or less lucky artful character but of the ancestor guided and assisted by Yhwh in all the vicissitudes of his life. Likewise, another divine oracle encourages Jacob to go down into Egypt to become the ancestor of a "great nation" there (Gen 46: 1-5). These divine oracles therefore become readers' guides so that the post-exilic community can recognize itself in its ancestors.

86 See, among others, A. DE PuRY, "Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonome des origins d'Israel," Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (SVT 43; Leiden 1991) 78-96; ID., "Osee 12 et ses implications pour Ie debat actuel sur Ie Pentateuque," Le Pentateuque. Dibats et recherche. XIVe Congres de I'ACFEB, Angers, 1991 (ed. P. HAUDEBERT)

(LD 151; Paris 1992) 175-207.

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15 "Les savants n'ecriventjamais tant que sur les matieres qu'ils savent Ie moins""The learned usually write about things they know least about. j" This quotation from lean Astruc who wrote some 250 years ago aptly applies, I think, to many of our writings on Genesis 15. We often measure our ignorance about the Bible, about the Pentateuch, and about Genesis 15 in particular. Let us simply hope that this will be docta ignorantia. I could start this article with a short summary of the history of recent research on Gen 15 (a Forschungsbericht), but I am not sure that this is the best way of starting the exegesis of the text. 2 Before discussing different interpretations and hypotheses, I deem it better to make contact first with the text itself and to collect as many elements as possible, as my good friend Sherlock Holmes would suggest. For this reason what I will propose is a kind of groundwork that precedes the redaction of a commentary. To follow the advice of my late 1 Amore literal translation would be, "The learned never write as much as they do on what they know least about." Quoted from J. ASTRUC, Conjectures sur la Genese. Introduction et notes de PielTe Gibert (Bruxelles 1753; Paris 1999) 376. Original title: Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux don! il paral! que Moyse s'est servi pour composer Ie Livre de la Genese, avec des Remarques qui appuient ou qui eclaircissent ces Conjectures (Bruxelles 1753). 2 For summaries of the history of research on Gen 15, see, among others, O. KAISER, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15," ZAW 70 (1958) 107-126, 108, n. 4 (from Wellhausen until 1958) [= V. O. FRITZ - K.-F. POHLMANN - H. C. SCHMITT (eds.), Von der Gegenwartsbedeutung des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien zur Hermeneutik und Redaktionsgeschichte (G6ttingen 1984) 107-126)]; L.A. SNIJDERS, "Genesis XV: The Covenant with Abraham," OTS 12 (1958) 261-279, 261-265; H. CAZELLES, "Connexions et structures de Gen 15," RB 69 (1962) 321-349, 321-325; A. CAQUOT, "L'alliance avec Abram (Genese 15)," Semitica 12 (1962) 51-66, 51-55; N. LOHFlNK, Landverheiflung ais Eid. Eine Studie zu Gn 15 (SBB 28; Stuttgart 1967) 24-30; J. VAN SETERs,Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT - London 1975) 249-253; C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BKAT 1.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1981) 253-255 = English translation by J. J. Scullion: Genesis II (London - Minneapolis, :MN 1985); J. HA, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (BZAW 181; Berlin 1989) 30-38; Herbert MOLLE, Genesis 15. Eine Erzahlung von den Anfangen Israels (FzB 15; Wiirzburg 1988) 14-43; T. ROMER, "Recherches actuelles sur Ie cycle d'Abraham," Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. WENIN) (BETL 155; Leuven 2001) 179-211, 198-203. For a synopsis of the different proposals about the sources in Gen 15, see HA, Genesis 15, 30-31; M. KOCKERT, Vatergot! und Vaterverheiflungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 148; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1988) 325-327. For a recent work on the figure of Abraham, see R. S. HENDEL, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (New York 2005).

68

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

teacher, Luis Alonso SchOkel, I have to produce fruit by the sweat of my brow, but I'll try to give the fruit, not the sweat. In my opinion, three questions deserve a closer examination after going through the usual problems of translation, text criticism, and philology: (1) Is Genesis 15 a narrative? (2) Is the style of Gen 15 deuteronomic or deuteronomistic? To put it better: How deuteronomic is Gen IS? (3) Where does Gen 15 come from? There are of course other questions, many more questions, but I chose these three questions to develop some points of methodology rather than questions of exegesis as such.

l. Is Gen 15 a narrative? To answer this question about the very nature ofGen 15, let us then begin with a simple, almost "naIve" reading of the text. The first sentence contains several elements of interest. To be sure, the first words of a text generally contain some keys to the understanding of the whole text, and they have to be read carefully. A writer may also startle his Iher readers, mislead them, or even deceive them, as in the case of "unreliable narrators." The writer may also give some partial indications that must be subsequently completed, modified, or corrected. The very first expression, iT"NiT C"~'iT '"N - "after these things/ events," is one of the typical way to introduce a whole narrative or a narrative segment (a "scene") and to link it in a loose way to its context (Gen 15:1; 22:1; 39:7; 40: 1; 2 Kgs 17: 17; 21: 1; Esther 2: 1; 3: 1)3 The formula is present uniquely in narrative texts and is, according to Wolfgang Schneider, one of the four main ways of introducing a narrative, namely an indication of time followed, but not always immediately, by a waWiqtol. The nonnal construction, in this case, is: indication of time + x + wayyiqtol. In Gen 15:1, we have first the verb, il'il (qi.itaT), followed by a wayyiqtol in v. 2 ('ON'1)4 Other examples are Gen 1:1; 1osh5:1; lKgs 14:1; 2Kgs 18:13; 20:1; 1er26:1; 27:1; 39:1; Ezek40:1 ... This means that the writer of the text is introducing the readers to a narrative, 3 Sometimes, the expression is preceded by 'ii'1, as in Gen 39:7; 40:1; 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:1. Another similar expression which has the same function is ii"Kii C'i~iii 'iMN 'ii"; see Gn 22:20; 48: 1; Josh 24:29; with slight variations (without 'ii" and plus nCKii1), see 2 Chr 32:1. See K. SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begriindung der Urspriinge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbiicher des Alten Testaments (W1vfANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999) 176 (bibliography n. 31); c. LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog: Genesis 15," Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift Otto Kaiser (ed. M. WITTE) (BZAW 345/1; Berlin - New York 2004) 237-257, 238-239 who does not distinguish clearly between these different formulae and seems to think that we have the formula with 'ii" in Gen 15:1. 4 W. SCHNEIDER, "Und es begab sich ... Anfange von Erziihlungen im biblischen Hebraisch," BN70 (1993) 62-87, esp. 76-78.

1. Is Gen 15 a narrative?

69

at least to a kind of narrative, because a chronological sequence is presupposed by the introductory formula. The fonnula, however, can be interpreted in different ways. The text can be understood as a real, fully-fledged narrative, with a plot, a story-line, an arc of tension developing through an exposition, a complication with one or more scenes, and a final resolution. Or it can be understood as an imitation of a narrative or even a parody. At this point everything is possible and the reader has to collect other elements to detennine the very nature of this kind of "narrative." After the typical fonnula introducing a narrative, however, we find a second fonnula typical of prophetic literature, frequent in Ezekiel, iT1i1'-'~' i1'il 10N' "mO:l1:l1:lN-'N 5 We can at this point make some important and very interesting observations. First, Gen 15 is the only text in the Hebrew Bible where we find both formulae together. But there are enough texts where the word-event fonnula is accompanied by an indication oftime. 6 There is strong tendency, again in Jeremiah first (at least 8 times), then in Ezekiel (9 times), to find oracles accompanied by an indication of time and in Ezekiel by a precise date. The same tendency is to be observed in Haggai and Zechariah. This may mean that we have here a point of contact between Gen 15 and exilic or postexilic prophetic literature, but the point must be pursued before we come to a clear conclusion in this respect. Second, as John Van Seters noticed, the combination of the word-event formula with the word "mo, "vision," or the root "m ("to see") is not frequent7 We find it elsewhere only in [sa 2: 1 and Amos 1: j8 The purpose of this short note might be again to underline the solemnity of the moment. [ would suggest that the narrator does not spare any effort to create a prophetic setting. The

5 More than 40 uses of the formula ''iN il'il'-'~' 'il'1: Ezek 3: 16; 6: 1; 7: 1; 11: 14; 12: 1, 8, 17,21,26; 13:1; 14:2, 12; 15:1; 16: 1; 17: 1, 11; 18: 1; 20:2; 21: 1, 6, 13,23; 22: 1, 17,23; 23:1; 24:1,15; 25:1; 27:1; 28:1,11,20; 30:1; 33:1,23; 34:1; 35:1; 36:16; 37:15; 38:1. With"'" as in Gen 15:1, see Ezek 1:3; 26:1; 29:1,17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 7. The formula is also present in another prophetic book of more or less the same period, the book of Jeremiah: 1 :4, 11, 13; 2:1; 13:3,8; 16:1; 18:5; 24:4; 28:12; 29:30; 32:26; 33:1, 19,23; 34:12; 35:12; 36:27; 37:6; 42:7; 43:8. See also Jon 1:1; 3:1; Hag 2:20; Zech4:8; 6:9; 7:1,4,8; 8:18, other late books. For other uses, see 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4; 1 Kgs 6:11; 13:20; 16:1; 17:2,8; 21:17, 28; 2 ehr 11 :2; Isa 38:4 ... The formula in Gen 15, 'iN il\"-'~' ii"il is also present in late, exilic or post-exilic texts: 2 ehr 12:7; Jer 1:2; 14:1; 25:3; 32:6; 39:15; 24:20; 46:1; 47:1; 49:34; Dan 9:2; Hag 1:1; 2:10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1 ... See also 1 Kgs 16:7; 1 Kgs 18:31; 2 ehr 12:7. See LEVIN, "Jahwe undAbraham," 242, n. 20. o For instance 2 Sam 7:4; 1 Kgs 13:20; Jer 25:3; 28:12; 33:1; 36:27; 39:15; 42:7; 43:8 (indication of place); 49:34; Ezek 3: 16; 12:8; 26: 1; 29: 1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32: 1, 17; Hag 1: 1; 2:20; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1. 7 See VAN SETERS, Abraham, 253. 8 See LEVIN, "Jahwe undAbraham," 242, n. 23. SCHMID,Erzviiter, 185, speaks of Is a 1:1.

70

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

short remark shows that Abraham is the recipient of a message and, moreover, of a "vision," exactly as other prophets.9 Third, the word-event formula has been studied and interpreted in various ways. IOIts position right at the beginning of the narrative has certainly a peculiar function, namely to introduce the reader into the prophetic world. One thing is clear however, namely that Abraham is not a prophet as, for instance, Isaiah or Jeremiah are. He does not belong to that category although Gen 20:7 calls him N'::Il in the context of the events that take place in Gerar and mostly because his prayer is heard by God. Anyway, nowhere else is there any allusion to Abraham as a prophetic figure. Abraham is first of all an ancestor, the forefather ofIsrael, a traditional figure of the past, the head ofa family, and the proprietor of numerous flocks. But he is not known anywhere in the tradition as a prophet in the full sense of the word. He is not even a prophetic figure in prophetic texts such as Ezek 33:24 and Isa 51:2 which mention him l l The most we can say, at this stage, is that Abraham becomes, to a certain extent, a prophet too. The narrator, using the vocabulary of prophetic literature, aims at convincing the reader of the special quality of this divine conununication. In other words, the narrator makes Abraham the addressee of a prophetic oracle. He rewrites some pages about Abraham to give him a greater importance and a better standing. We have here, within the Abraham cycle, apparently, an early example of what is sometimes called rewritten Bible or, at least, a reinterpretation of Abraham's figure in the light of prophecy. 12 The third formula present in Gen 15:1 is Ni'n-'?N - "do not be afraid," which is conunonly associated with an oracle of salvation.13 But there is again 9 We use the name Abraham for the sake of simplicity although the patriarch is still named Abram in Gen 15. 10 See, for instance, E.M. NAGEL, Genesis 15. The Doubling of aFonn (Diss. Rome 1992) 93-94 (the text associates Abraham with prophecy, but Abraham is not a real prophet); KAISER, "Untersuchung," 110; H. H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen undFragen zur Pentateuchforschung (ZUrich 1976) 122-123; KOCKERT, Viitergot!, 207,213-215; SCHMID, Erzviiter, 180 ("Abraham [ist] der erste Prophet Thws"); LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham," 241-243. I would rather say that Abraham becomes a prophet. 11 On these texts, see M. KOCKERT, "Die Geschichte der Abrahamiiberlieferung," in Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (ed. A. LEMAIRE) (VTS 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 103-128. 12 On the concept of re-written Bible, see G. VERMES, "Biblical Midrash," The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (E. SCHURER; 2d ed. by G. VERMES - F. MILLAR- M. GOODMAN) (Edinburgh 21986) 326; G.J. BROOKE, "Rewritten Bible," RDSS 2, 777-781 (777); S. W. CRAWFORD, "The Rewritten Bible at Qumran: ALook at Three Texts," Frank Moore Cross Volume, Eretzlsrael26 (eds. B. LEVINE e. a.) (Jerusalem 1999) 1-8 (1); G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Pseudepigrapha, Qumram Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. STONE) (CRINT 2; Philadelphia, PA 1984) 89-156 (89). The definitions vary from one author to the other. 13 See, among others, NAGEL, Genesis 15, 95-98, who underlines the generality of the formula and links the oracle in Gen 15 with the post-exilic period. Also see M. NISSINEN, "Fear Not: A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase," The Changing Phase ofForm Criti-

1. Is Gen 15 a narrative?

71

something peculiar to be observed. Nowhere is this formula introduced by the word-event formula. In general, the word-event formula introduces an order or a mission. 14 In several cases a message is entrusted to the "prophet," a message that is to be transmitted, either directly or indirectly. 15 In the case of Gen 15, on the other hand, the message is directed to the addressee only. In other words, this is a private, not a public or an official communication. And it is unusual to introduce such a communication with the word-event formula. The reasons for this choice can be many. Abraham is perhaps considered here as the ancestor of a nation and, therefore, as a "public person" or, more simply, the narrator wants to give God's communication more weight and solemnity. Again, we could say that this is a way of enhancing Abraham's person and this particular moment of his life. We will also have to inquire about the reasons why the text wants to give so much importance to Israel's ancestor. 16 The accumulation offonnulae at the beginning of the narrative is intentional, of course, and creates a special, very formal, atmosphere. But can we say that we have in Gen 15 a narrative, as the introductory formula suggests? We have, for sure, some narrative elements. There are two actors, Yhwh and Abraham, there is a dialogue with statements (see v. Ib, 7), questions (see vv. 2, 8), and answers (see vv. 4-5,9-10.17-18), and there are a few elements of dramatic action, especially in v. 5 and vv. 9-12.17-18. But the reader misses, as many commentators have noticed, a real narrative arc of tension. I7 In other words there is no real problem that must be solved by the actors in a narrative action. There are questions and answers, but no dramatic action. The "events" have an illustrative function. In v. 5, Abraham has to come out and count the stars only to make the stock expression "as numerous as the stars" more graphic. The action does not solve any problem. In the second case, the conclusion of the covenant (vv. 7-21), Abraham prepares the ritual and Yhwh passes through the animals to perform the ritual. We have the description of a covenant ritual, but there is no challenge, no obstacle, no difficulty, no opponent, no real problem to solve. V. 11 may mention a slight problem, but it does not last long since cismfor the Twenty-First Century (eds. M.A. SWEENEY - E. BEN ZVI) (Grand Rapids, MI 2003) 122-16l. 14 See, for instance, Jeremiah's vocation in Jer 1:4, 11, 13; 2:1; or Ezek 3: 16, where Yhwh appoints the prophet as sentinel. 15 For instance Jer 28:1; 29:30; 33:1; 35:12; 37:6; 42:7; 43:8; Ezek 6:1; 12:1,8, 17,21, 26; 13:1; 14:2; 16:1 . 16 VAN SETERS, Abraham, 255, also finely observes that the oracle of salvation precedes the complaint in vv. 2-3, which is awkward. 17 H. GUNKEL, Genesis. Tanslated by Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA 1997) 182 (with slight corrections): "The passage could hardly be called a 'narrative.' There is no development of a plot. It bears, therefore, a similar character to chap. 1 and 12:1-4." Also see E. M. Nagel's opinion on Gen 15:1-6, in Genesis 15,90: "Gn 15,1-6 is not a narrative, nor is it integrally part of a larger narrative" and 180: "There is no significant arc oftension or a fonnal structure in Gn 15." Many authors are of the same opinion.

72

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

Abraham immediately drives away the birds of prey. We carmot say that "the narrative is the meaning," to quote Hans Frei's famous phrase 18 . Orto use the vocabulary of Wayne Booth, there is much telling and little showing. I9 The covenant ritual is not prompted by a narrative necessity, but by an objection. In other words, we are not in the world of dramatic, concrete, action, but in the world of abstract problems. The narrative is similar to so many anecdotes we find in rabbinic literature. The absence of action is even more striking in the case of 15:6 as Gunkel noted a long time ago and saw in this feature a sign of a recent composition: "But especially the abstract representation of v. 6 ('he believed') is a very significant sign of late style. An early narrator would have recounted an act at this point which would have portrayed Abraham's faith, as in 12:4; 22:3 ff."20 What is Genesis 15 then, if not the imitation of a narrative? It picks up some elements of a narrative to illustrate a truth and make it more vivid. The narrative is contrived, not natural, it is instrumental to the truth it has to convey. I suggest calling this literary genre an "explicatory" or "exemplifYing narrative" the purpose of which is to illustrate, to teach, to expound a truth rather than to involve the reader in a particular experience which has its meaning in itself. 21 The presence of these few narrative elements, however, adds an element of vividness and intensity to a text that would be otherwise too dry and, even, tedious. As it stands now, Gen 15 has at least something ofthe literary qualities of other well-wrought narratives in the Abraham cycle, although it surely does not reach the same level and cannot be classified as a real narrative. 22

2. How "Deuteronomic" is Gen 15? Many exegetes have pointed out the presence of some Deuteronomic phraseology in Gen 15 23 One of the first is surely Sir John William Colenso who 18 H. FREI, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Henneneutics (New Haven, CN 31978) 270. 19 W. C. BOOTH, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago 21983) 2-20 (quoting Joseph Warren Beach onp. 2). For an analysis ofthe formula, see, among others, NAGEL, Genesis 15,93-94; LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham," 242. 20 GUNKEL, Genesis (English translation), 182. 21 See NAGEL, Genesis 15, 180: "The reader is not invited primarily to participate in a drama in which God and Abram are characters [ ... ]." 22 See LOHFINK, Landverheiflung, 31-34, who defines Gen 15 as "nachgeahmte Erzahlung," "imitation of a narrative," "imitative narrative." There are several proposals of the same kind. 23 For a summary, see SCHMID,Erzvater, 173, with n. 16. The main representatives of this thesis are KAISER, "Untersuchung," 118; the authors listed by P. WEIMAR, "Genesis 15. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch," Die Vater Israels. Beitrage zur Theologie der Patriarch eniiberlieferungen im Alten Testament. Festschrift Josef Scharbert (ed. M. GORG) (Stuttgart

2. How "Deuteronomic" is Gen 15?

73

discovered, as early as 1865, the presence of a "[Deuteronomist] who was the editor of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, which he interpolated tlnoughout especially with the addition of the book of Deuteronomy. "24 The presence ofthis Deuteronomist is to be found in Gen 15 too. The main elements attributed to his intervention are: Gn 15:5: "Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be" and Deut 1: 10: "Yhwh your God has multiplied you, so that today you are as numerous as the stars of heaven." Gn 15:7: Then he said to him, "I am Yhwh who brought you from Dr of the Cha1deans, to give you this land to possess" and Deut 1,27: "It is because Yhwh hates us that he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to hand us over to the Amorites to destroy us."; 4,20: "But Yhwh has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now." As is known, Deut uses the verb N~' (hif.) to describe the exodus. 25 15:7: "to give you this land to possess" (nnlV'" nllln r'Kn-nK 1" nn")Deut 3: 18; 5:31; 9:6; 12: 1; 15:4; 19:2.14; 21: 1 [con nO'K]; 25: 19; Josh 1: 11. 15: 18: "to conclude a covenant" (n":1 n,,) - see Deut 4:23; 5:2, 3; 7:2; 9:9; 28:69; 29:11, 13,24; 31:16; Josh 9:6,11,15,16; 24:5; Judg 2:2 .. 26 We can surely find in Gen 15 expressions and fonnulae which have a clear deuteronomic or deuteronomistic colouring. Can we say, however, that we have in Gen 15 "A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives," as Moshe

1989) 361-411, 361, n. 1; S. TALMON, '''400 Jahre' oder 'vier Generationen' (Gen 15,13-16): Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?," 15-26 in Erhard BLUM e. a. (eds.), Die hebraische Bibel und ihre zweijache Nachgeschichte. FS Rolf Rendtorff (Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990) 13-25, 13; Ed NOORT, '''Land' in the Deuteronomistic Tradition - Genesis 15: the Historical and Theological Necessity of a Diachronic Approach," Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (ed. Johannes Comelis DE MOOR) (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 129-144, 142-144; Moshe ANBAR, "Gen 15: A Confiation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives," JBL 101 (1982) 39-55. For Lothar PERLITT, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 68-77, Gen 15 is essentially an Elohistic text, but reshaped in proto-Deuteronomic form. 24 John William COLENSO, Critical Analysis of the Book of Genesis , the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. Part V (London: Longmansl Green, 1865) 53 (56-58). Quoted by Thomas ROMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2006) 20. The refence is also given by Erhard Blum in Rolf RENDTORFF, "Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung der Vatergeschichte," in Rainer ALBERTZ e. a. (eds.) Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments. FS Claus Westermann (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 74-81 (80, n. 33). 25 Johannes N. M. WUNGAARDS, "h6~i' andh'lh: A TwofoldApproach to the Exodus," VT 15 (1965) 91-102. 26 Cf. On 21 :27, 32; 26:28; 31 :44.

74

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

Anbar put it?27 According to me, this is not the case. 28 The text contains words and expressions of Deuteronomic origin, but the text is not written in a Deuteronomic style. Style, as we know, is not just a matter of words and formulae. To quote Karl-David Ilgen, "Doch machenja die einzelnen Worter, und die einzelnen Redensarten den Stil noch nicht aus, wie jeder Sprachkenner weiB; es kommt auf den ganzen Bau def Rede, auf die Foige def Satze, auf die Wendungen der Gedanken" - "The single words and the single expressions do not make a style, as every linguist knows; it is a matter of how sentences are constructed, how sentences follow each other, how ideas are articulated." And he adds: "Der richtige Gebrauch der einzelnen Worter ist Werk des FleiBes; die Verbindung derselben zu einer Rede ist Werk des Genies" - "The right use of the single words is work of diligence; the organization of these words into a discourse is work of a genius." He gives a very enlightening example: "Es kal1ll z. B. jemand nichts als Ciceronisch W6rter gebrauchen, und sein Stil kann nichts weniger als Ciceronisch seyn; und umgekehrt kal1ll jemand ein und das andere nicht Ciceronische Wort mit unter laufen lassen, und doch ist sein Stil Ciceronisch." - "Anyone can just use Ciceronian words, but his/her style can be anything but Ciceronian; and conversely anyone else can use a mixture of Ciceronian and non-Ciceronian words, and his/her style can be Ciceronian." Gen 15, to come back to our topic, uses deuteronomic or deuteronomistic formulations, but the chapter is not written in a deuteronomic or deuteronomistic style. We have here anything but deuteronomic / deuteronomistic rhetoric. A rapid comparison with typical examples of that rhetoric, such as Deut 4, Deut 8, or 2 Kgs 17 inescapably leads to the conclusion that Gen 15 is of another kind. The mixture of narrative and speech, the organization ofthe sentences, the awkward succession of the different elements, the lack of transition between the first and the second part of the text, all of it is foreign to classical deuteronomic / deuteronomistic style. Moreover, as more than one author has observed, there are important differences between the "deuteronomic fonnulae" when they are used in their original context and their use in Gen 15. For instance, the formula "the land that I give you to possess," in Deuteronomy, is never addressed to an individual, but

27 See reference n. 21. For Erhard Blum, Gen 15 is a key text in his D-Komposition, the composition of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic origin and spirit. See Erhard BLUM, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 389-392; ID., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin - New York: de Guyter, 1990) 103. 28 See the hesitations of HA, Genesis 15, 195; David M. CARR, Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 165, and the strong objections in SCHMID, Erzvater, 173-175. The idea of a "justification by faith" - and not by the observance ofthe commandments (cf. Gen 15:6 and Deut 6:25) - and of a unilateral covenant are not Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic.

3. Where does Gen 15 come/rom?

75

always to the people of Israel. The covenant formula is indeed very frequently used in Deuteronomy and the deuteronomistic literature. There is however an essential difference between Gen 15:18 and these texts, as E. Nagel, D. Carr, and Th. Romer have observed, namely that the covenant in Gen 15 is unilateral, unconditioned, and concluded with an individual, not with the people 29 The deuteronomic covenant is based on the observance of the law. For E. Nagel, the covenant ofGen 15 is close to that ofGen 17, a priestly text. 30 With James Barr and Christoph Hardmeier, we have to remember that "context" is always essential for the understanding of words, sentences, fonnulae, and literary genresY The conclusion of this inquiry is clear: I do not think that we can qualify Gen 15 as "deuteronomic." What is it then? In my opinion we have here a "literary patchwork," a "collage" or even a "pastiche" made up of different elements coming from different traditions and different schools. With this we come however to our third and last question.

3. Where does Gen 15 come from? Gen 15 gives great importance to Abraham. He is the beneficiary of a prophetic oracle, he is the first "believer" in Israel's history, his journey from Dr of the Chaldaeans is an exodus that precedes Israel's exodus out of Egypt,32 Yhwh's oath to Abraham precedes the covenant at Mount Sinai/Horeb and is unilateral ... This means, however, that Abraham most probably needed such a re-evaluation because he was underestimated in some circles. We have

29 NAGEL, Genesis 15, 8-10; CARR,Reading the Fractures, 165; ROMER, "Genesis 15 und Genesis 17," 38-41; ID., "Genese 15 et les tensions de la communaute juive post-exilique dans Ie cycle d'Abraham," Transeuphratene 7 (1994) 107-121; ID., "Recherches actuelles," 205; for further bibliography, see SCHMID, Ervater, 174, n. 22. 30 Walter ZIMMERLI, "Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Bin Beitrag zum VersHindnis der Priesterschrift," TZ 16 (1960) 268-280 = ID., Gottesoffenbarung. GesammelteAu/satze (TB 19; Miinchen: Kaiser, 1963) 205-216. 31 James BARR, The Semantics 0/ Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961); Christoph HARDMEIER, Textheorie und biblische Exegese. Zur rhetorischen Funktion der Trauennetaphorik in der Prophetie (BeTh 79; Miinchen: Kaiser, 1978). This is also one of the conclusions of recent studies in the so-called Discourse Analysis. See Walter Ray BoDINE (ed.), Discourse Analysis o/Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SBLSS; Atlanta, GA 1995); Deborah SCHIFFRIN, Deborah TANNEN and Heidi E. HAMILTON, Handbook 0/ Discourse Analysis (Oxford, UK - Malden, :MA: Blackwell, 2001). 32 On the typology ofBxodus in Gen 15:7, see, among others, Michael FISHBANE,Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) 376. Cf. John WEINGREEN, "hw~'ty in Gen 15:7," in Peter ACKROYD - Bernard LINDARS (eds.), Words and Meanings. FS D.W. Thomas (Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 209-215, who offers an interpretation close to the rabbinic tradition, namely that Yhwh saved Abraham from peril of some sort.

76

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

a confinnation of this fact in several texts, for instance in Isa 63:16 33 where it is said that For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, Yhwh, are our father; our Redeemer from of old is your name.

The text is not completely clear, but there is surely an opposition between Abraham and Israel! Jacob on the one side and Yhwh on the other. What is at stake are the titles "father" and "redeemer." The preceding verses clarify this claim. Yhwh is the only father and redeemer of Israel because of the exodus (63:11-14): 11 Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. "Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? "Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit, 12 who caused his glorious ann to march at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name, 13 who led them through the depths? Like a horse in the desert, they did not stumble. 14 Like cattle that go down into the valley, the spirit ofYhwh gave them rest. Thus you led your people, to make for yourself a glorious name. 15 Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and glorious habitation. "Where are your zeal and your might? The yearning of your heart and your compassion? They are withheld from me.

The real act of salvation, for Isa 63, is the exodus. V. 16 emphasizes that the real reason for hope is exodus, not Abraham, nor Israel! Jacob. That behind these affirmations we may find different groups and different theologies is certain. My point for the time being is to show that we can hear in the Bible some critical voices towards Abraham (and Israel! Jacob). 34 Another text supposes a marked opposition between Abraham on the one side and the defenders or promoters of the torah on the other, namely Ezek 33:23-24,35 23The word ofYhwh carne to me: 24Mortal, the inhabitants of these waste places in the land of Israel keep saying, "Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given us to possess."

The oracle goes on to say, 25Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord Yhwh: You eat flesh with the blood, and lift up your eyes to your idols, and shed blood; shall you then possess the land? 26you

33 On this text see, among others, ROMER, Israels Vater, 537; KOCKERT, "Geschichte der Abrahamiiberlieferung," 113-114. 34 Albert DE PURY, "Dos leyendas sobre el origen de Israel (Jacob y Moises) y la elaboraci6n del Pentateuco," EstBib 52 (1994) 95-131; Thomas ROMER, Israels Vater. Untersuchungen zur Vaterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; UniversiHitsverlag, Freiburg Schweiz - Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G6ttingen, 1990); Komad SCHMID, Erzvater und Exodus. 35 See ROMER, Israels Vater, 513-517; KOCKERT, "Geschichte der Abrahamiiberlieferung," 104-107.

3. Where does Gen 15 come/rom?

77

depend on your swords, you commit abominations, and each of you defiles his neighbor's wife; shall you then possess the land?

In plain words, the prophet contests that the only title to the possession of the

land could be Abraham. 36 The real condition for the possession of the land is the observance of the law and being Abraham's descendant is only secondary. It is tempting to read Gen 15 in the context ofthese controversies, as Thomas Romer once suggested. 37 Can we find some confinnation of this? There are some elements common to these texts. First of all, Gen 15: 1 uses a prophetic fonnula which is particularly frequent in Ezekiel. This suggests, in my opinion, that the divine communication to Abraham is at least of the same "quality" as that of the prophetic oracles present in the book of Ezekiel and other books of the same period. The second element is the root til" used as a verb in Gen 15:7-8 and in Ezek 33:24 as a verb with respect to Abraham (r'Nn-nN 1Ii"1 - "[Abraham was alone and] he inherited the land") and in the substantive ntll'11:l, "inheritance."38 This root is used only here in the Abraham cycle and there are thus some good reasons to believe that this particular text tries to answer the objections found elsewhere against Abraham's titles and against the claims of those who founded their rights on Abraham. More important, Ezek 33:24 and Gen 15 are the only texts in the whole Bible where we find the name Abraham associated with the root til", i. e. with the "inheritance of the land," and not only with the gift of the land. This solenm confirmation of the promise of the land may also be read in the context of a certain number of texts present in Ezekiel and listed by Ch. Levin. They all express distrust and discouragement. 39 As for this possession of the land, the text justifies it through the description of a covenant, unilateral and unconditioned, which is depicted in tenns recalling the theophany on Mount Sinai. But two elements must be underlined. There is a double reinterpretation of the covenant at Sinai/Horeb. First there is a covenant with Abraham that precedes the covenant at Mount Sinai / Horeb. Second, as already noted, there are important differences between this

See also Ezek 11 :15 where Abraham, however, is not mentioned. ROMER,Israels Viiter, 515-516; cf. KOCKERT, "Geschichte der Abrahamiiberlieferung," 106-107 who asserts that Gen 15 might be part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Ezek 33, but cannot corne from the Abraham tradition supposed by Ezek 33. I would say that Gen 15 is the Abraham tradition supposed by Ezek 33, but re-elaborated and transformed to answer the objections raised by the golah against its lack of theological foundation. 38 A noun used only in Deut 33:4 (poem); Ex 6:8 (P); and especially in Ez 11:15; 25:10; 33:24; 36:2, 5; of people Ez 25:4; 36:3. 39 LEVIN, "Jahwe undAbraham," 256. See Ezek 11:2,15; 12:22; 18:2, 19,25,29; 20:32; 33:10, 17,24; 36:2, 13,20; 37:11. Ezek 33:23-24 seems however much closer to Gen 15 than the other texts. 36

37

78

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

covenant and that of Mount Sinai I Horeb. 40 This covenant is not based on the observance of the law, it is unilateral and unconditioned. Afinal element can be interpreted in this context, namely the formula in 15:7 which describes Abraham's migration with a formula applied in all the other cases to the exodus, Then he said to him, "I am the Yhwh who brought you from Dr of the Chaldaeans, to give you this land to possess."

Two affirmations are essential in this sentence, as in the case of the covenant. First, there is an exodus before the exodus. This means that Abraham is not inferior to Moses. Second, as an answer to the objections which are echoed in a text such as Isa 63:16, Gen 15:7 affirms that Yhwh brought Abraham out ofUr of the Chaldaeans. This is one ofYhwh's "mighty acts" of salvation, as it were, and Abraham can claim the same privilege as Moses and as the generation of the exodus. One cannot oppose, as some were tempted to do, a "secular" myth of origins (Abraham) with a theological one (exodus), Abraham too, according to Gn 15, was brought out by Yhwh, Abraham's journey from Ur is of exactly the same "theological" kind as Israel's exodus out of Egypt The interpretation proposed up to now may cause some problems when one reads Gen 15:13-16, because these verses suppose the second exodus. These verses, however, are often considered as an addition. They interrupt the action initiated in vv. 7-10 which resumes in v. 17. There is also a certain tension between the promise in v, 18 and what is said by the same Yhwh in vv, 13-16, because the solemn declaration in v. 18 must be corrected by what precedes in vv, 13-16, This was already noted by Wellhausen 41 Some scholars raised objections against this opinion.42 The main arguments are the following: (1) there is no criterion to separate vv, 13-16 from the rest of the chapter; (2) the passage vv, 13-16 is not a doublet of v, 18, but defines the setting of this promise with greater precision; (3) the incident involving the birds of prey has little meaning without vv, 13-16 because they recall the 40 NAGEL, Genesis 15,8-10,137-138. 41 Julius WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1866; 21889; 31899) 20-21; the opinion is already expressed by Hermann HUPFELD, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem untersucht (Berlin: von Wiegandt und Grieken, 1853) 143, n. 58 (quoted by LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham," 248, n. 52). This was for long an opinio communis. See, among many others, Samuel R. DRIVER, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 41905) 177; John SKINNER, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910,21930) 282; LOHFINK, Landverheiflung, 26,39-40. For a more complete bibliography, see BLUM, Vatergeschichte, 377, n. 111 and 112; SCHMID, Erzvater, 176, n. 29. 42 See especially HA, Genesis 15,52-55; Thomas ROMER, "Genesis 15 und Genesis 17. Beobachtungen undAnfragen zu einem Dogma der 'neueren' und 'neuesten' Pentateuchkritik," DBAT 26 (1989190) 32-47, 40-41; ID., "Recherches actuelles," 202-203; SCHMID, Erzvater, 176-177.

3. Where does Gen 15 come/rom?

79

dark days of the oppression in Egypt; (4) the expression ll,n ll" - "you will know for sure" (v. 13) is to be connected with the question in v. 8, ll'K nO:J "how shall I know?" (5) There are allusions to the Decalogue both in v. 7 and vv.13-l6. These objections, however, are not entirely convincing. 43 (1) The main criterion used to isolate vv. 13-16 is the narrative logic, as noted by several authors after Wellhausen. (2) The resumption ofv. l2a (K':J? lZiolZin 'n',) in v. l7a (nK:J lZiolZin 'n',) is another sign of the presence of an insertion 44 (3) There are tensions between what is said in vv. 13-16 and the solenm affinnation in v. 18. For instance, the land promised in v. 6 is the land of the Amorites, whereas the land promised to Abraham in v. 18 is much larger. More important, there is a conflict between the two "exoduses," the one mentioned in v. 7 and that foreseen in vv. 13-16. On the one side, God brought Abraham out ofUr of the Chaldaeans to give him the land and on the other he brings Israel out of Egypt to give it the land. The first affinnation loses its force when the second one is added to it. The opposition between the two "myths of the origins" which is fundamental for A. de Pury, Th. Romer, and K. Schmid suddenly disappears. (4) The appearance of the birds in v. 11 can be understood in many different ways. Several authors consider this verse as an addition preparing for the insertion ofvv. 13_16 45 (5) The connection between v. 8 and v. 13 is not obvious 46 In v. 8 Abraham asks how he will know he will inherit the land. In v. 13 the problem is no longer the inheritance of the land, but the oppression in Egypt. V. 13 is not an answer to the question in v. 8. This answer is rather to be found in the ritual in v. 17 and the solemn declaration in v. 18, when Yhwh says, "to your descendants I give this land," a sentence with performative force 47 (6) 4 3 See especially LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham," 247-248; Ludwig SCHMIDT, "Genesis XV," VT 56 (2006) 251-267, 263-264 (vv. 12-16 are the work of a Bearbeiter who is also responsible for the insertion of vv. 1, 2a, 3b-6, and 19-21). NAGEL, Genesis 15, offers a detailed analysis of the text and considers it as post-exilic, but does not explicitly treat the problem of its origin. 44 See FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 85. 4 5 See Jan Christian GERTZ, "Abraham, Mose und Exodus. Beobachtungen zur Redaktion von Gen 15," in Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jiingsten Diskussion (eds. Jan Christian GERTZ - Komad SCHMID - Markus WITTE) (BZAW 315; Berlin - New York: de Gruyter, 2002) 63-81, 72; cf. KOCKERT, "Die Geschichte der Abrahamiiberlieferung," 127, for whom the whole chapter, and not only Gen 15:13-16, is post-priestly and belongs to the most recent texts oftheAbraham tradition. With Bernhard D. EERDMANS, Alttestamentliche Studien. 1. Die Komposition der Genesis (Gie.Sen: T6pelmann, 1908) 39, he considers that Gen 15 is posterior to Gen 17 and corrects it. See also Thomas ROMER, 'Genesis 15 und Genesis 17,' 32-47; ID., "Recherches actuelles," 203-205: "Gn 15 apparait ainsi comme un texte post-sacerdotal" (205). 46 GERTZ, "Abraham, Mose und Exodus," 71. 4 7 See BLUM, Komposition, 381-382; Andreas WAGNER, Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse (BZAW 253; Berlin - New York: de Gruyter, 1997) 109-110; GERTZ, "Abraham, Mose und Exodus," 73.

80

Some Groundwork on Genesis 15

There are allusions to the Decalogue in v. 7, but not only to the Decalogue. The exodus formula is found elsewhere. The allusion to the fourth generation is not

limited to the Decalogue either and is rather vague anyway. In summary, we have stylistic and ideological/theological arguments to see in Gen 15: 13-18 a late addition: (1) a resumption (vv. 12a and 17a); (2) the presence of a more "priestly" style whereas the rest is more deuteronomistic or prophetic; (3) the conflict between two different ideas on exodus and two different interventions of God. All in all, if we see in Gen 15 a text coming from Abraham's descendants, the population that remained in Juda, it is easier to understand vv. 13-16 as a "theological" correction added by the other group, namely the representatives of the golah. In this way, the text becomes acceptable and can be part of a common series oftraditions. 48

Conclusion Gen 15, according to me, stems from a group of scribes who do not possess the literary skills and the competence of other scribes such as the well-trained scribes of the deuteronomic / deuteronomistic or priestly schools. 49 Their imita-

tive style betrays their "popular" origin. The writers ofGen 15 are thus to be found among the "inhabitants of these ruins" mentioned by Ezekiel 32:23-24 (cf. 11:15) and among the "people of the land" often in conflict with the golah in Ezra - Nehemiah 50 They give their claims a theological foundation

48 For a similar setting, but a different interpretation of Gen 15, see Romer, "Genese 15 et les tensions de la communaute juive post-exilique dans Ie cycle d'Abraham." For Romer, Gen 15 is an "ecumenical" text that represents an effort of reconciliation between the different factions. On that interpretation of Abraham, see Albert DE PURY, "Abraham: The Priestly Writer's 'Ecumenical' Ancestor," Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. FS John Van Seters (eds. Stephen L. McKENZIE - Thomas ROMER) (BZAW 294; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) 163-181. 4 9 On the "schools," see Andre LEMAIRE, Les ccoles et la jonnation de la Bible dans I 'Ancien Israel (OBO 39; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht - Freiburg Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 1981); David JAMIESON-DRAKE, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (JSOTS 109; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); James L. CRENSHAW, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1998); David M. CARR, Writing on the Tablet oj the Heart. Origins oj Scripture and Literature (Oxford: University Press, 2005). 50 On this period, see, among others, Tamara C. ESKENAZI - Edith P. JUDD, "Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10," in Tamara C. ESKENAZI and Kent H. RICHARDS (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOTSS 175; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1994) 266-285; Mario LIVERANI, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele (Bari - Rome: Laterza, 2003) pp. 297-322; English translation: Israel's History and the History oj Israel (BibleWorld; London - Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005).

Conclusion

81

by clothing Abraham with prestigious gannents coming from some essential biblical traditions, especially the prophetic world, the theology of exodus and that of the covenant. 51

One could add the ritual world of sacrifices alluded to in v. 9. See, among many others, Genesis 15, 138-147; SCHMID, Erzvater, 181 (bibliography, n. 65); LEVIN, "Jahwe und Abraham," 254. 51

NAGEL,

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15 In iconography, as in the memory of many readers, it is under a tree that God appeared to Abraham in the episode in Gen 18. The story mentions the "tree" twice (18:4,8), but only in 18:1 is there a question of "oaks" (MT: "at the oaks of Mamre"). Yet there is another element that occupies a choice place in the passage. This is the tent that, for its part, earns five mentions (18: 1, 2, 6, 9,10). Abraham receives his guests under the tree (18:4, 8); Sarah is in the tent (18:6, 9, 10). If there is a tendency to attach more importance to the tree than to the tent, it is probably because God occupies that comer of the stage. Nonetheless, the tent plays a not insignificant role in this story. This is what we would like to show in these few lines. To do so we shall proceed in three stages. We shall see first of all what the general structure of the story is, then analyze the function of the scenery at each stage of the narrative before concluding briefly. Our study follows the general lines of recent research in the field of narrative. The example we have chosen will make it easier, we think, to grasp how dialogue between narrator and reader can occur in a concrete case. More precisely, this episode quite well illustrates one of the stratagems of biblical narrative. The narrator provides the reader with a certain amount of information which the characters do not have. For the reader, the interest of these stories lies in seeing how the characters will eventually discover what he has known from the start l How does our text use this stratagem? To see how, it helps to notice that the episode is made up of two distinct scenes2 . In the first, the action unfolds for the most part under the tree and in the second the tent becomes the most important element in the scenery. These two IOn this kind of reading (Reader Response Criticism) see especially W. ISER, Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie Aesthetischer Wirkung (Miinchen 1976); Eng. trans. The Act of Reading (Baltimore:MD 1978); The Reader in the Text: Essays in Audience and Interpretation (ed. S.R. SULEIMAN - I. CROSMAN) (Princeton, NJ 1980); U. Eco, Lector infibula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi (Milan 1979). On the Bible, see especially Semeia 31 (1985) entirely devoted to "Reader Response Approaches to Biblical and Secular Texts." 2 We borrow this term from the vocabulary of the theatre and cinema. Changes of scene usually correspond to changes of place, movement in time, at the beginning of a new action, at the entry or exit of one the characters. Cf. "scene" in S. BARNET - M. BERMAN - W. BURTON, A Dictionary of Literary, Dramatic and Cinematic Tenns (Boston,:MA 21971). In our particular case, the action is different and Sarah comes on the scene only in the second part.

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

83

scenes could be named "the reception under the tree" (18: 1-8) and the "conversation by the tent" (18:9-15). Certain clues make it possible to corroborate this twofold division. The first scene centres on Abraham's hospitality. It ends with the meal the guests take under the tree (18:8). At this point the story pauses after a series of rapid movements described in verses 2.6 and 7 (we find the verb f", "to run" twice here and the verb ,m:!, "to hurry" three times). In effect, the narrative tension created by the appearance of the three men and Abraham's request is partly resolved. The visitors have accepted the patriarch's offer and can now appreciate the welcome extended to them. It should be noted that this scene takes place almost entirely outside, "under the tree" (18:4, 8). This tree is no doubt to be sought among the "oaks of Mamre" of which 18:1 speaks. The tent is also mentioned, of course, but it stays in the background. Abraham leaves "the entrance to the tent" to go and meet the visitors (18 :3b; cf. 18: 1b). We find it again in v. 6. Abraham goes to see Sarah "in the tent" to ask her to get the cakes ready. The main scene, however, really takes place "under the tree," because it is there that the guests are settled. It is there, lastly, that Abraham stands at the end of the scene (18:8: '~ll) whereas at the beginning he was "seated at the entrance to the tent" (18: Ib: :!I!i'). These two positions, just like the mention of the trees, form the framework of the scene (18:1,8). All of Abraham's hospitality, which leaves its particular mark on this scene3 , may be sununed up in these two images: Abraham at first "seated at the entrance to the tent" (18: 1), then "standing [ ... J under the tree" beside his guests who are eating (18:8). Abraham is certainly the most active character in this first part of the story. The second scene is going to answer some questions that have remained in suspense. Firstly, the reader may be wondering whether Abraham (and Sarah) are going to discover the identity of their guests. Nothing has emerged so far. Besides, he / she still does not know why Yhwh has appeared to Abraham (18: 1). Now very rarely does God appear in the Bible without a precise reason. This second scene stands out quite well from the first. If Abraham played the most important part in the first, the second focuses attention on Sarah, whereas the reader had hardly had a glimpse of her before now (18:6). In the scenery, the tent suddenly comes to the fore, since that is where Sarah is (18:9, 10). Another distinctive trait: the dialogue occupies a decisive place in this second part. Apart from v. 11, we have hardly anything else. In the first scene, the narrative was slightly superior to the dialogue4 Next, the vocabulary of birth gives its particular colouring to this section and there is hardly any question of hospitality. Finally, the tree disappears, so to speak. There is nothing about it 3 We have here one of the biblical scenes in which the rites of hospitality are best described. Cf. R. DE VAUX, Les Institutions de I 'Ancien Testament I (Paris 21961) 25. 4 Of these eight verses, the dialogue takes up three and a half verses, and the narrative four and a half.

84

The Tree and the Tent: the Function o/the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

after v. 8. It is the tent that becomes the strategic prop on the stage, as we shall see (18:9, 10). To sum up, it seems reasonable to subdivide the episode into two parts distinct from each other by the scenery element in the foreground, the tree in the first and the tent in the second. The moment has now come to analyse in more detail the function of the scenery In the course of the various stages of the story. What purpose can this stage-setting serve? The first part of the story puts the elements in place. Their function is to appear more clearly in the second. The opening of the first scene already contains more than one interesting point. In Gen 18: 1 the narrator passes on a number of items of information to the reader which immediately put him in a privileged position. It is Yhwh that appears to Abraham. But the latter is not supposed to know this 5 The fact is emphasized in two ways in the story. The first is quite clear. The sentence fixes the protagonists in a diametrically opposite fashion. It uses a wayyiqtol to describe God's appearing and a participle to show us Abraham. Yhwh is active in the foreground, and Abraham static in the background and fixed in his seated position. But the reader comes across Abraham before the latter has caught sight of God6 The second signal is only a silent indication at this stage of the reading. It is one of those details that an attentive reader owes it to himself! herselfto remember because it will playa capital function in due course. Yhwh appears "at the oaks ofMarure" while Abraham "was sitting at the entrance to the tent." The two items of scenery are already there. Why? It is of course too early to say. It is worth noting, however, that the narrator wanted to point out these details in the setting of the scene, just as he noted the time ("at the hot time of the daY,"I:lW, I:ln:J, v.lb). Gen 18:2 reverses the perspective and brings us a step forward in the plot. This time, the narrator shows us what Abraham is seeing: three men stand before him. This change in the point of view is well underlined by the use of the particle mm 7 We see through Abraham's eyes. And, of course, Abraham does not recognize Yhwh. The reader cannot fail to be aware of the advantage he/ she has over Abraham in v.I. A second element emphasizes this new perspective in the story. This time the sentence uses a wayyiqtol to describe Abraham's 5 This fact was noted by J. MAGONET, "The Bush that Never Burnt" (Narrative Techniques in Exodus 3 and 6)," HeyJ 16 (1975) 304-311, especially 305-306. 6 On this function of circumstantial propositions, cf. A. BERLIN, Poetics and Interpretation o/Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series; Sheffield 1983) 63-64. 7 For other example, see J.P. FOKKELMAN, Nmrative Art in Genesis (Ass en-Amsterdam 1975) 50-51; R. ALTER, The Art o/Biblical Nmrative (New York 1981) 54;A. BERLIN,Poetics, 62-64; 92-95; S. KOGUT, "On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of hinneh in Biblical Hebrew," Studies in Bible (ed. S. JAPHET) (Scripta Hierosolyrnitana XXXI; Jerusalem 1986) 133-154. Here we also have an example of "free indirect speech"; cf. M. WEISS, "Eigenes fiber die Baufonnen des Erziihlens in der Bibel," VT 13 (1963) 458-475 , in particular 460-462.

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

85

action and the position of the visitors is depicted with a participle (C':!~l). Lastly, the use of the verb MK' in these two verses sets the two perspectives off well: [ ... JC'tDlN iltD"W illil' [... J N'" [... J il1i1' [... J N'" ... ("And Yhwh [ ... J appeared [ ... J and he saw [ ... J three men [ ... ]"). However, the story contains another contrast. If Abraham did not recognize his visitors, he comes up very close to them. He is far from them on the level of "knowledge" but he is close to them by reason of his hospitality. This is where the scenery comes in. As we pointed out above, Abraham was "sitting at the entrance to the tent" in v.I. At the end of the scene he is "standing under the tree," near his guests. This movement is significant. It seems that Abraham has no rest until he can occupy that position in v. 8. He, an old man, in the heat of the day (18:lb.2), ran, and the narrative follows him in a hectic to and fro towards his guests, Sarah, and the herd. This haste he tries to communicate to Sarah and his servant (18:6a, 7b). To be sure, it is the layout of the scenery ("tent" and "tree") that makes it possible to visualize this association which is complete when the patriarch finally stops "under the tree." Before going on to the second scene, there is still a verse to be read with some attention: 18:6. The tent actually reappears in it for a brief moment. Abraham goes to it in a hurry to see Sarah to ask her to get the cakes ready. The narrator, for the first time, points out the presence of Sarah "in the tent." Did the visitors also see her? We do not know, but the question asked in v. 9 suggests that at least they pretend not to know. The fact of the matter is that the information is given only to the reader and not to the three men. In the long run, the reader knows more than Abraham (who does not know the identity of his guests) and can think he knows more than the three visitors, among whom is Yhwh (who of course have not seen Sarah in the tent). In any case these two questions remain open. At the close of this reading the function ofthe scenery begins to appear more clearly. There is a part of the scenery that remains hidden from some characters, and that is what happens in the tent. The second scene is going to use these facts in a remarkable way. As for the tree, it has been, from the beginning, the place where Yhwh is and the place where Abraham comes to see him. In the second scene attention is immediately brought to bear on the tent (18:9b). But the reader gets a first surprise. The visitors know Sarah's name 8 How? The text says nothing about it. But that means that the visitors have ac8 It seems that the question is incongruous. Among the Bedouins, for example, a guest does not take the liberty to ask a question about his host's wife. Cf. J. SCHARBERT, Genesis 12-50 (Die Neue Echter Bibel; Wiirzburg 1986) 148. This author also suggests that the visitors wanted to thank Sarah for the meal she had prepared. This custom, however, seems more European than oriental. Moreover, the fact that the guests know Sarah's name and know about her sterility has struck many exegetes. But according to B. Jacob these things may have been known in the district; cf. B. JACOB, Das ersteBuch der Torah. Genesis (Berlin 1934) 442.

86

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

cess to infonnation that seemed to be reserved to the author and the reader. Verse 10 is surely the most important for our purposes. The text notes that when the visitor makes his promise (10a), "Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent and that was behind him"'- The translation is perhaps difficult but it seems clear enough that the visitor turns his back to the tent. In other words the scenery once again gives the reader an advantage over the characters in the story. It is the situation ofthe tent that makes it possible to create this particular effect. The reader, from his/her point of view, enjoys a view denied to the protagonists on the stage. He / she can see those who are under the tree and Sarah in the tent. And he/ she can see that Sarah is spying on what is going on under the tree, unbeknown to Abraham and his visitors. What is going to happen? As is sometimes the case, the narrator chooses this moment to slip a word into the reader's ear. This "commentary"lOin v.l1 slows the pace down and heightens the tension in the story. As for v. 12, it reveals to us Sarah's secret laughter and her inner monologue ll . What she says confinns the commentary by the narrator who thus proves he is trustworthy 12. The reader's awareness continues to grow in relation to that of the people who are under the tree. He/ she sees Sarah, the narrator's remarks in v. 11 have prepared him/her to understand her laughter and he/ she could read the patriarch's wife's own thoughts. Thereby he/she enjoys a double advantage: he/she can see Sarah in the tent and read her secret thoughts. Thanks to the narrator, he / she overcomes the double obstacle of the tent and of an unexpressed thought. This scenario makes it possible to appreciate the theatrical twist in v. 13 at its full worth. Yhwh suddenly asks Abraham why Sarah laughed and why she doubted the promise of a birth because of her age. The reader cannot but be surprised. On the one hand, Yhwh, in a flash and without any intermediary, appears on the level of awareness which was that of the narrator and the reader. On the other, he confirms what the narrator had passed on confidentially to his 9 The matter is debated. But the pronoun N'il can designate either the tent or the entrance to the tent; both words are masculine. Cf. JACOB, Genesis, 441: "Der Eingang des Zeltes war hinter ihm." 10 The narrator acts explicitly here. Anglo-Saxon criticism calls this kind of action "telling" and distinguishes it from "showing." On these two ways of writing narrative, cf. P. LUBBOCK, The Craft ofFiction (London 1921) 62; W. BOOTH, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago - London 21983) 3-20; on the Bible, see, among others, R. LACK, Letture strutturaliste deWantico testamento (Rome 1978) 70-72; M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington 1985) 102-103; 109-118 and passim. 11 On this term, see E. DUJARDIN, Le monologue interieur. Son apparition. Ses origines. Sa place dans l'reuvre de James Joyce (Paris 1931). About the Bible, cf. N.P. BARSIOTIS, "Der Monolog im Alten Testament," ZAW 73 (1961) 30-70; R. LAPOINTE, Dialogues bibliques et dialectique interpersonnelie (Paris - Tournai - Montreal 1971); c. CONROY, Absalom! Absalom! (AnEib 81; Rome 1978) 130-131; STERNBERG, Poetics, 451-455,477-478. 12 On this, see BOOTH, Rhetoric, 75, 169-210; STERNBERG, Poetics, 59-85.

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

87

readership (v. 11) and those secret reflections of Sarah which he had revealed (v.12). Once again the narrator shows that he is trustworthy. But God proves most of all that his "omniscience" is in no way inferior to the narrator's13. The scene is not without its irony 14. Sarah, who was unexpectedly discovered by the reader, is unexpectedly discovered by God. The name of Isaac thereby receives more than one connotation: it will always recall laughter that has a story to it, a story in which God proves his omniscience 15. The last verses of the scene (18:14-15) insist on what we have just discovered. Verse 14, first of all, can be understood in at least two different ways. The first meaning is quite obvious: "Is there anything impossible for God?" means in this context: "cannot God promise and give a child to a sterile couple?" It could also be asked whether a second meaning is not hinted at: "is anything hidden from Yhwh? Is it impossible for him to know secret thoughts?" He has just shown that that is not S016 Both meanings are possible, and they support each other. Sarah, discovered unexpectedly, then tries to find the refuge that was hers. She has difficulty in admitting that she could have been discovered and wants to set things up again to her own advantage with a subterfuge that replaces the tent. She denies, for she believes that the visitor could not have seen her nor, in particular, have read her thoughts. But it is to no avail. And the story ends with this confirmation by God: "No, you really did laugh." This abrupt conclusion deserves some comment. Firstly, it seems that the scenery has disappeared from the stage. There is no longer any question of the tree or of the tent. In fact everything has become clear. There are no obstacles to Yhwh's knowledge. In sununary, the scenery no longer has any reason for being there. Secondly, it is to be noted that the text does not provide any real answer to the questions it asked. Did Abraham and Sarah recognize their visitors? Noone knows. The story indeed points the way. The elements are there. But who is going to gather them to formulate the answer we wait for? And who is going to answer the rhetorical question in v.14? Our story certainly appears to come into the category of "open parables," where the reader is the only one able to draw the conclusion 17 . This brings us to our own conclusion. If the narrator took so much care to describe the scenery in this episode was it not to get the reader, right from the start, to decipher a message? The demonstration of God's power is aimed 13 The concept of omniscience was worked out by LUBBOCK, The Craft of Fiction. As regards the Bible, cf. among others, STERNBERG, Poetics, esp. 84-99. 14 The irony depends in general on the difference in cognitive levels. Cf. BOOTH, Rhetoric, 175. 15 See the excellent analysis of this point by STERNBERG, Poetics, 91-92. 16 On this ambivalence, see STERNBERG, Poetics, 100. 17 On the "open parable," see R. M. EASTMAN, "The Open Parable: Demonstration and Definition," College English 22 (1960) 15-18; BOOTH, Rhetoric, 286-287.

88

The Tree and the Tent: the Function of the Scenery in Gen 18:1-15

primarily at the reader, it seems. The name of Isaac will certainly stay attached to Sarah's "laughter." But perhaps there were other smiles in the course of the story and they are none the less important for that. The fact remains that it is the arrangement of the scenery that enabled the narrator to give the reader a privileged position in comparison to the characters in the story so as to show him later how Yhwh makes play of this kind of advantage!8

18 These short reflections suggest a reading of the text in its present form. In no way are we denying that this text may be composite. See the study by R. KILIAN, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsiiberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BBB 24; Bonn 1966) 96-189; synoptic table 167-169; or C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BK 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) 331-332 who speaks of the combination of two stories. Our aim was simply to show that the final redaction ofthis composite text may reveal a coherent composition. For view a fairly similar to ours, see E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Viitergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984) 276-280.

Genesis 18: 6 - Intertextuality and Interpretation - "It All Makes Flour in the Good Mill" Intertextuality and interpretation 1 : how do these two phases of exegesis agree? Intertextuality is often linked to "inner-biblical" exegesis and consequently it seems superfluous to want to introduce a second phase of interpretation. Why interpret what is already interpretation? These few lines would like to show, on the contrary, that it is not always enough to establish the existence of a phenomenon of intertextuality to be able to grasp its meaning. The example I am taking is one of the simplest. In the story ofYhwh's appearance to Abraham (Gen 18:1-16), in verse 6, Abraham goes to the tent where Sarah is and asks her to grind three measures of flour to make some cakes. The Masoretic text contains two words next to each other without any co-ordination, when speaking of flour: ncp and n"02 The Samaritan Pentateuch is similar to the Masoretic text on this point, but the LXX and the Vulgate have only one word: OEI'LbaAL-':l (Exod 19:5b) is unique as well. One has to look to second Isaiah and hymn literature to find statements that are similar and as clear about Yhwh's universal sovereignty 35. Here again we are most of the time in the post-exilic world, but, for sure, one cannot say that the expression is typically Deuteronomic IDeuteronomistic. 2.1.2.6. 0'1:1'rl rl':>N (Exod 19.6b)

The conclusion of the oracle, Exod 19:6b, "These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites," of course reminds one of the "titles" in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1; 4:45-46; 28:69; cf. 33:1; 6:1; 12:1). Expressions intro32 See PERLITT, Bundestheologie (n. 1), 173-175. 33 For the discussion, see BARBIERO, "mamleket kohanim" (n. 1),437, who cites G. VON RAD, "Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium," Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (TBii 48; Miinchen 1973) 18, and J. H. LERoux, "A Holy Nation Was Elected: The Election Theology of Exodus 19:5-6," The Exilic Period: Aspects ofApocaiypticism (ed. C. VAN WICK WOUTER) (Pretoria 1984) 74. 34 For the same usage, see Gen 17:16; 48:19; Exod 33:13; 2 Sam 7:23 = 1 Chr 17:21; and the poetic texts such as Ps 33:12; Ps 93:3,10; 106:34-35; Isa 1:4; Jer 33:24; Zeph2:9; Hag 2: 14. Josh 3: 17; Judg 2:20 also use the word '1) in reference to Israel. 35 For second Isaiah, see Isa45:12,18; for the hymns, see Ps 66:4; 96:1,9; 98:4; 100:1; 1 Chr 16:23 where all the earth is summoned to acclaim Yhwh. See also the expression f'N-":> l"N (Josh 3:11,13; Mic4:13; Zech4:14; 6:5; Ps 97:5).

2. Some preliminary questions

147

duced by n?N may also close a discourse in priestly or related literature (see Lev 26:46; 27:34; Num 26:63; 29:39; 30: 17; 34:29; 36: 13). But this is also the case with Deut (5:22; 26:16; 28:45). Once again, the style does not allow us to decide in favour of one school or the other36. 2.1.2.7. C'lpt (Exod 19.7a)

The elders, who are the ultimate addressees ofYhwh's words transmitted to Moses (Exod 19:7a), have led some to think of a priestly origin for our text (cf. Lev 9: 1)37. But the "ancients" playa similar role in Deut 5:23 38 . Now we are in the same context since Deut 5:23 is part of the Horeb theophany in Deu!. On this point also the text can just as well be D as p39 2.1.2.8. Summary To summarize, Exod 19:3-6 certainly links up with a tradition that has one of its main sources in the world of Deuteronomy. But too many indications prevent us from assigning this Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic world as its only homeland. Unique or rare turns of phrase and the relationship with late priestly texts and post-exilic prophetic works as regards concepts and vocabulary cannot be overlooked. Exod 19:3-6 is a passage where diverse traditions come together and which is therefore situated in quite a late period, later than Deuteronomy and the "classical" style of Deuteron omistic writings. This Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic heritage was really worked out again with a new situation in mind and in a particular setting that is no more that ofDeuteronomyAo. 2.1.3. The meaning ofC'ln~ n~?OO (Exod 19:6) The syntagmaC'ln~ n~?OO is a hapax legomenon of which the meaning is hard to determine. The most generally favoured interpretations fall into two groups. For some, the meaning is collective: "kingdom of priests," "priestly kingdom," whether the priestly dignity goes with each individual or with the people as such. For others, it is a question of a "kingdom [ruled] by priests." 36 See CAZELLES, "Alliance du Sinal" (n. 7), 308, in which he uses this expression as an argument in favour of a priestly origin for Exod 19:3-8, and HOSSFELD, Dekalog (n. 6), 188, who, on the contrary, holds out for a Deuteronomist origin. The style, however, is closer to priestly expressions; see OTTO, "Kritik" (n. 9), 173. 37 CAZELLES, "Royaume de pretres" (n. 6),290. But Cazelles also quotes Deut 19:12; 21:15 where the ancients represent the people. 38 HOSSFELD, Dekalog (n. 6), 188. 39 On the "ancients" in Exod 9:7, see J. BUCHHOLZ, Die A·ltesten Israels im Deuteronomium (GTA 36; G6ttingen 1988) 42-43; in Deut, especially as regards Deut 5:23, see N. LOHFINK, "Die Altesten Israels und derBund. Zum Zusammenhang vonDtn 5,23; 26,17-19; 21,1.9fund 31,9", EN 67 (1993) 26-42. 40 See BARBIERo, "mamleketkohanim" (n. 1),438.

148

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

The second opinion was put forward by, among others, Moran. According to this author, when ;':l?OO is used in parallel with "l, the first word means in general "king," "royal power," and the second "subjects," "nation ruled." This opinion came up against some strong objections. (1) It has already been pointed out that ;':l?OO does not always mean "kingdom," "power exercised by," "royalty," but also "kingdom." This holds true also for passages where the term is used with the word "l, as in Exod 19:6 41 (2) It seems more normal to interpret tl'l;'!:l n:l?OO in parallel with the other expressions in the passage, that is to say, tzi"p "l and ;'?lO. Here we have three qualities of all the people and there is no linguistic sign obliging us to interpret the formulatl'l;'!:l n:l?OO otherwise, for example as the function of a particular group within the people42 . (3) The passage as a whole contains an offer from Yhwh to Israel as a whole. Now it is hard to comprehend how the fact of being governed by priests could motivate Israel to listen to Yhwh and be faithful to his covenant. Rather, Yhwh is promising Israel a new "quality" for all the people; he does not seem to be informing them of a new form of government43 (4) The passage plays on the distinction between Israel and the other peoples, especially in 19:5b: "You shall be my apanage out of all the peoples". It is difficult to understand what role a further distinction within Israel can play at this moment between "priesthood" and "laicity," which would detract somewhat from the first meaning of the passage44 You either belong to the people of God or you do not. (5) In the same vein, the text does not indicate that Israel will be distinguished from the other nations by its mode of government but rather by a special relationship that Yhwh is setting up with his people45 These objections have convinced more than one author46.

41 See the texts mentioned by BARBIERO, "mamleket kohanim" (n. 1),429; the texts that prove the point best are 1 Kgs 18:10; Jer 1:10; 18:7,9; 27:8; 51:20, 27; Ezek 37:22; Nah 3:5; Zeph 3:8; Ps 46:7; 79:6; 105:13 (~ 1 Chr 16:20); 2 Chr 32:15. Cf. Isa 13:4; Hag 2:22; 2 Chr 20:6. 42 R.B.Y. SCOTT, "A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix,6)," (OTS 8; Leiden 1950) 213-219, esp. 219; J.B. BAUER, "Konige und Priester, ein Heiliges Yolk (Ex 19:6)," BZ 2 (1958) 283-286; CHILDS, Exodus (n. 6), 374; cf. MCCARTHY, Treaty (n. 3), 271, n. 55; RENAUD, Theophanie (n. 5), 50. 43 R. MOSIS, "Ex 19:5b.6a: Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexicalische Semantik," BZ 22 (1978) 1-25, esp. 11. 44 According to the interpretation suggested by MOSIS, "Aufbau," (n.43), 16-17, one should translate "You shall be for me a personal share among the peoples. Yes, all the earth is mine, but you, you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." 45 Cf. RENAUD, Theophanie (n. 5), 50. 46 Apart from the authors mentioned, see also D. J. DUMBRELL, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Exeter 1984) 80-105; E. W. NICHOLSON, God and His People (Oxford 1986) 164-178; BLUM, Studien (n. 6), 51, n. 22 (with bibliography). Cf. the restatements by H. CAZELLES, "La tMophanie au desert. Mountain of God. SinaI. Horeb," Tradici6 i traducci6 de la paraula. Miscel-l'nea Guiu Camps (Montserrat 1993)

2. Some preliminary questions

149

However, it is possible to come back against these arguments. First of all it has to be admitted that the word ;'I:l?tltl in the construct state and followed by a personal name does have the meaning of "country ruled by," "kingdom governed by." Among the clearest examples of this construction, we may quote "the kingdom of Og" (Num 33:23; Deut 3:4, 10, 13); "the kingdom of Yhwh" (2 Chr 13:8); "the kingdom of his father" (2 Chr 21:4); "the kingdom ofJehoyaqim" (Jer 27: 1: cf. 26: 1); "the kingdom of Zedekiah" (Jer 28: 1); the same is true for the plural m:l?tltl, "kingdoms" (Josh 13:12,21,27,30,31; cf. 2 Sam 16:3). The expression C'l;'l:l n:l?OO would be of the same type since "priests" denotes persons and the term ;'I:l?OO, "kingdom" necessarily implies the idea of a "royal" power. In fact there is no royal power without a king. The expression would be better understood at the time of the second temple. Israel is of course no longer an independent "kingdom" for it is part of the Persian Empire and has had to give up restoring the monarchy. Its identity derives from its religious and cultic institutions, as suggested especially by the Law of Holiness. It is therefore a "kingdom ruled by the priests (ofYhwh)" and that is what distinguishes it from the other nations. In other words, the post-exilic community would receive from Yhwh, and from him alone, an identity it was unable to receive from the Persian empire. Other arguments go along the same lines. Firstly, Exodus 19:3-6 contains several terms of the same kind which it convenient to interpret together: ;'I?lO, C'Oll, ;'I:l?Otl, and '1l. It is generally admitted that the termCll designates an entity of which the unity is based especially on ties of blood, whereas .,,~ insists rather on the political and territorial aspect47 Now the problem that arises after the exile is not in the first place to know whether Israel is still a people (Cll) whose unity is of a genealogical and agnatic kind. It is rather one of knowing whether Israel really is a "nation" ('1l), that is to say in practice whether it possesses its own territory and political organization which enable it to stand out from the other "peoples." This situation is similar in many points to that of the exodus. Israel has just come out of Egypt. But in what way is it a nation? What institutions are going to give it its structure and coherence as distinct from the other "peoples" or "nations" This is why the post-exilic community can cast itself back into the past of the exodus to find the solution to its problems there. Furthermore, the monotheism as found in, say, second Isaiah, gave rise to some tricky questions. IfYhwh, the God ofIsrael, is also the God of the uni19-32, esp. 21, n. 7. He suggests the following translation: "kingdom ruled by priests along religious lines." 47 See B.A. SPEISER, '''People' and 'Nation' of Israel," JBL 79 (1960) 157-163 = ID., Oriental and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia 1967) 160-170; G. J. BOTTERWECK, "'1)," TWAT 1, col. 965-971, esp. col. 966-967; B. LIPINSKI, ''CD,'' TWATVI, col. 177-194, esp. col. 189; cf. A.R. HULST, ''CD 1'1), Volk," THAT II, col. 290-325, esp. 310-313.

150

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

verse and of all the nations it would be necessary to redefine the links uniting Yhwh with his people ifthe latter did not wish to be reduced to a nation among all the others. Lastly, the idea of "kingdom entrusted to the priests" is easily understood in the context ofthe difficult relations between Israel and the "peoples" (O'Oll). It is not so much a question of the great foreign nations as of the "peoples" occupying the land ofIsrael after the return from exile who are at odds with those returning from exile. The clash appears in post-exilic prophetic writings and becomes acute in Ezra-Neh, as we shall see later on. It is really a question of knowing who holds power: those returning from exile or those who remained in the country. To answer these questions, Exod 19:6 speaks of a "kingdom of priests." In this way Israel will have its own institutions and, thanks to Yhwh, a unique place in comparison with the nations. On the one hand, while in a normal "kingdom" the king represents the divinity (2 ehr 13:8), in Israel it is the priesthood that will fulfil that function and will thus be the guarantor of Israel's identity48. On the other hand, this institution, being of a sacral nature, stresses the unique bond that Yhwh is establishing with Israel and which sets it apart from the other peoples. Israel is indeed a "holy nation" (tD"p "l) and the "apanage," and the "personal share," the "private domain" (i1?~O), which Yhwh obtained for himself at the exodus by bringing the people to himself (Exod 19:4)49 Finally, it is through its own organization and its institutions that Israel is distinct from other nations. These institutions go back to the period of the "foundation ofIsrael," that is to say, the exodus. They were willed by Yhwh and established through the mediation of Moses. They therefore bear the stamp of authority. This answers the objections mentioned above: Israel's privileges are in part a fonn of government. This also makes it possible to understand why neither text nor context make any allusion at all to a priesthood of the people of Israel with regard to the nations 50 . Exod 19:5-6 speaks of Israel's privileges and not ofa universal mission. Despite everything there still remain some difficulties to be overcome. Actually, t:l':lil~ is not a proper name as in most of the cases mentioned above. Besides, it is a plural and on this point, too, the expression is unique. Finally, the expression ?N11D' n:l?OO (1 Sam 24:21), "kingdom of Israel," "kingship of Israel" which certainly does not mean "kingdom ruled by Israel," but "the kingdom that is Israel" or rather, in accordance with the context, "kingship over Israel." The construct chain ... n:hoc must not therefore necessarily Especially if second Isaiah makes Cyrus the "anointed one ofYhwh" (Is a 45: 1). the term iT?lO, see M. GREENBERG, "Hebrew iT?lO: Accadian sikiltu," JAOS 71 (1951) 172-174; E. LIPINSKI, "n?lO", TWATV, col. 749-752. 50 This is what N OTH, among others, says, Exodus (n. 6), 125; see also HULST, "OJ: I''il, Volk," (n. 47), 314 and the article by BARBIERO (n. 1). 48

49 On

2. Some preliminary questions

151

mean "kingdom ruled by ... "51 Still, Israel does not designate here some individuals but a territory or a conununity. The expression implies that Israel is an autonomous political entity ruled by a king, as the beginning of the verse in which Saul says to David: "I know that you will be king [1"on 1"0] and that the kingdom of Israel [or: the kingship over Israel] will remain in your hands" clearly states. The text in Exod 19:6 could, of course, have been clearer and said, for exn1,"OI:l'" ,.,-,,: "for all the kingdoms ample: tl'J;!' n,"oo '''-1,,'n onK1 of the earth belong to me. As for you, however, you shall be a kingdom of priests"52. It is always risky to want to imagine what a text ought to have said or could have said. Besides, the sequence of the terms ""lO, 0'0», O'l'" n'''I:lI:l, and tzj1'P '1l is sufficiently clear, in our opinion, to indicate the "political" value of the term "'''I:ll:l. Finally there is a parallel text still to be discussed, a difficult one as well. It is Isa 61 :5-6:

r'K"

r'K" "',

"Foreigners will be there [at your service] and will feed your flocks, sons of the stranger will be your ploughmen and dress your vines. As for you, you shall be called 'priests ofYhwh,' you shall be spoken of as 'ministers of our God,' you shall feed upon the riches of the nations and you shall take pride in [having taken over] their glory."

According to H. Cazelles, this text puts the priests in opposition to the people53 Verses 3-4.7-8 speak of the people not to the people. Only vv. 5-6 are in the second person and are addressed to the priests alone. Foreigners wi11look after the fields, flocks and vines that belong to them. Actually, the members of the tribe of Levi owned towns and land according to Num 35: 1-8; Josh 21: 1_4254 Yet this view does not conunand general acceptance. The opposition is not really between "people" and "priesthood" but between Israel and the nations". Moreover, passing from the third to the second person is a conunon occurrence in Isa 56-66 56 In addition the beginning ofv. 7 a is in the second person: "instead 51 See also Hag 2:22; 2 Chr 20:6: C'1)jT n;:)?CC, "the kingdoms of the nations," "the kingdoms that make up the nations"; Ps 135: 11: 1.!J~;:) ro?CC, "the kingdoms [of the land] of Canaan." 52 For the expression fiKi1 ro?OC, see Deut 28:25; 2 Kgs 19:15, 19; Ps 68:33; Isa 23: 17; Jer 15:4; 24:9; 29:18 (cf. 34:1); with the plural nlll'K1l, 1 Chr 29:30; 2 Chr 12:8; 17:10; 20:29; 36:23; Ezra 1:2; withC'1), see 2 Chr 20:6. 53 CAZELLES, "Royaurne de pretres," (n. 7), 292. 54 See also 1 Chr 6·40-66· 13·2· 2 Chr 11·14· 31·19· Neh 13 ·10· Ezra 48·13 55 See the word C,';t, -O~ ~~:J1 ·(61:5) and 0.'1)'(61;6).' It is diffic~lt to appiy these terms to Israel, particularly to those who do not belong to the priesthood. Cf. RENAUD, Theophanie (n. 5), 51. 56 See Isa 56: 1-2; 59:1-3,4-8; 62: 1, 2; 62:6; 63: 13-14; cf. 66: 1-4. It is difficult to explain all these cases by sources or different redactions. Besides, the phenomenon is not confined to Trito-Isaiah.

152

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

of your shame [you will receive] a twofold portion ... " - illtDO c:>ntD:! nnn 57 For the Masoretic text, those addressed in vv. 5-6 (the "priests ofYhwh") and 7 (the people) are consequently identical'8 All things considered, to conclude this discussion it is better to interpret Isa 61:6 in the sense of a privilege promised to Israel by its God whereby it will be a people of "priests." Isaiah 61:5-6 describes more in detail what this status could mean: agricultural and pastoral work will be done by foreigners; the people will feed on the wealth ofthe nations. The text may be alluding to the offerings brought by the nations and mentioned in Isa 60: 5-7; cf. 60: 16-17 59 . This same chapter 60 speaks of the "service" of the foreigners who, among other things, will take upon themselves the rebuilding of Jerusalem (60: 10, 12, 14). So how is it different from Exod 19:6? In our opinion, in two ways. In the first place, Isa 61:5-6 belongs to the "optimistic" era when relations between Israel and the nations are viewed positively. Exod 19:3-6 is not so sure about this and insists more on what must distinguish Israel from the other "peoples." Secondly, Isa 61:5-6 speaks in a figurative way of the future destiny of Jerusalem after the rebuilding of the temple and of the advantages that will result from "conversion" and the peoples' pilgrimage. On the other hand, Exod 19:3-6 is more concerned with the organization of the conununity visa-vis the "peoples." By way of conclusion to this long discussion, the expression C'liT:> n:>,oo can be understood in the sense of "kingdom entrusted to the priests," "kingdom governed by priests," "priestly kingdom." The text takes over an essential idea in Deut on the "holiness" of the people to interpret it in function of P and H. Nevertheless, it is preferable to translate the term as "priestly kingdom" for three reasons 60: (1) It does justice to the objections made above, in particular it is necessary to take into account the close parallelism between C'liT:> n:>'J:lO and tD1'P '1l, in particular the parallelism between iT:>'J:lO and '1l on the one hand and C'liT:> and tD1'P on the other, even if they are not exactly synonyms. This parallelism between "kingdom" and "nation" underlines the collective 57 The Qumran text has the second person for the whole of the verse. The LXX has a different text in the third person. 58 Some authors, however, correct the text and read the suffix of the third person plural (CM-). See BHS (D. Winton Thomas). 59 An idea expressed by Isa 2:2-4; Mic 5 :1-3; Zech 2: 15-16; 14:16-21. 60 The expression C~il:l M:l?OC may be translated as "priestly kingdom," see Jotion-Muraoka § 129 f. For other examples see ?'il i':1~, "valiant warrior" (Judg 11:1); 'W,P iii, "my holy mountain" (Is a 11 :9; 56:7 ... ); 'W,P CW, "my holy name" (Lev 20:3; 22:2, 32); P'~-'):ll(, "honest balances" (Lev 19:36); 1?Cii-n':1, "the royal palace" (2 Sam 11 :2, 9, among others). For the plural, see C':l?C NO:l, "the royal throne" (2 Kgs 11: 19); tl"?ii 'i1', "the Levitical cities" (Lev 25:32,33 ... ) ... In fact the adjective "priestly" does not exist in Hebrew. See, for example, C'~jj:l n~ro, "priests' robes," "priestly robes" (plural, as in Exod 19:6; Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:70,72). On the other hand the meaning oftl')ii:l ro?oC is slightly different from the expression C'~jj:l 1:1n, "company of priests," "company made up of priests" (Hos 6:9).

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

153

character of the expressions in this passage. The address is made to all Israel, more concretely to the people who had undergone the experience of the exodus and whom God had set apart by "bringing it to himself' (19:4), and not only to the priests. It is promising all Israel that is will accede to a common dignity and status, one of "kingship" and "nation." Then the text goes into details about the nature ofthe "kingship" as well as the "nation"; one is "priestly" as the other is "holy." (2) The text brings out Israel's privileges vis-a-vis the nations and not those of the priesthood vis-a-vis the people. The priesthood is the instrument and guarantee of these privileges, especially the "holiness." (3) It is only later on that legislative texts, especially P and H, will describe Israel's institutions and the function of the priesthood. In Exod 19:3b-8 the people are called upon to adhere to a certain kind of "kingship" or "kingdom" before knowing the details of the way it works. That is why the expression has a certain fluidity - a certain amphibology - about it which is also at the origin of the discussions about this text. In a few words, the collective meaning, "priestly kingdom," applied to the whole nation, is the first and more obvious meaning of the expression. The second meaning, "kingdom ruled by priests," remains implicit and is only a consequence of the first.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6 3.1. Exod 19:3-6 and the Priestly Writer (Pg) We start the analysis with a comparison with the priestly document (Pg) the purpose of which will be to show, among other things, that Exod 19:3-6 is actually later than it. It will also make it possible to show the links between Exod 19:3-6 and the Law of Holiness, links that have been somewhat neglected in recent research 61 . In reality, Exod 19:3-6 differs from pg on two main points: (1) the Sinai covenant; (2) the notion of holiness and, on these points, it is closer to H (the Law of Holiness) than to pg62 61 Links between Exod 19:3-6 andH were noted by W. STAERCK, "Zum alttestamentlichen Erwiihlungsglauben," ZAW 55 (1937) 1-36, esp. 8-10; WHITLEY, The Prophetic Achievement (n. 6),29; HAELVOET, "TMophanie" (n. 6), 377, n. 15. Fohrer falls into step with them ("Priesterliches K6nigtum" [n.4], 362). See also E. S. GERSTENBERGER, Das dritte Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6; G6ttingen 1993) 16-17. 62 On the relationship between pg and H, see A. CHOLEWINSKI, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. Eine vergleichende Studie (AnEib 66; Rome 1976) 334-338, for whom H is more recent than P. The existence of a "Law of Holiness" independent ofP was contested recently by V. WAGNER, "Zur Existenz der sogenannten 'Heiligkeitsgesetz' ," ZAW 86 (1974) 307-316; BLUM, Studien (n. 6), 318-328; the thesis of a Law of Holiness independent of, and later than P is defended by I. KNOHL, "The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School," HUCA 58 (1987) 65-117; ID., The sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis,:MN 1995); J. :MILGROM, Leviticusl-16 (AB, 3/1; Garden City,

154

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

3.1.1. The notion o/n":J It is well known that pgknows of only two "covenants," both ofthem unilateral

as well; the first, concerning the universe, with Noah and his family (Gen 9); the second concerns the chosen people only and God establishes it with Abraham (Gen 17). pg, on the other hand, carefully avoids talking about n":J in what concerns Sinai (cf. Exod 6:2-8; esp. 6:7). The foundation of Israel's faith is the oath sworn to the patriarchs, not the bilateral covenant on Sinai that makes the survival of the people dependent on fidelity to the law, as in Deut63 . For Exod 19:5, on the contrary, Sinai is a "covenant" (n":J). And fidelity to this "covenant" is the condition for Israel's new status (19:5b-6). On this point Exod 19:3-6 is close to Lev 26, the last chapter of the Law of Holiness. This chapter, too, brings in again the concept of covenant in the Sinai pericope64 . Lev 26, however, is a kind of theological compromise because, alongside the Sinai covenant (the n":J in 26:9, 14,44) it also mentions the unconditional and unilateral covenant with the patriarchs 65 . Which covenant are we talking about? For some, Exod 19:5 would be alluding to Gen 1766 . In our opinion it is difficult to go that way. The protasis uses the future for both verbs: "if you listen and if you observe [in the future 1my covenant." Was the covenant made in the past?

NY 1991) 3-35 (who discusses Knohl's thesis); E. OTTO, "Das 'Heiligkeitsgesetz' Leviticus 17-26 in der Pentateuchredaktion," Alles Testament. Forschung und Wirkung. Festschrift H. GrafReventlow (eds. P. MOMMER - W. THIEL) (Frankfurt 1994) 65-80. Our remarks will go along the lines ofan evolution and adjustment of the ideas in P in the "Law of Holiness." The main differences between P and H are the way of looking at the people and the land, the notions of covenant and holiness, legislation about the Passover (Exod 12 and Lev 23) and the style often closer to D than to See OTTO, Ethik (n. 14),237. 63 W. ZIMMERLI, "Sinaibund undAbrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum VersHindnis der Priesterschrift," TZ 16 (1960) 268-280 = ID., Gottesoffenbarung. Gesammelte Aujsatze zum Alten Testament (TBii 19; Miinchen 1963) 205-216. M See N. LOHFINK, "Die Abanderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetz. Zu Lev. 29,9.11-13," Wort und Geschichte. Festschrift K. Elliger (AOAT 19; Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973) 129-136 = ID., Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAAT 4; Stuttgart 1988) 157-168; ZIMMERLI, "Heiligkeit" (n. 29), 511-512; see also P. ACKROYD, Exile (n. 15), 90: "This would seem to suggest a combining of two motifs, one more characteristic of the P material [the covenant with the patriarchs], the other belonging more definitely with the Deuteronomic line of thought [the Sinai covenant]." 65 IfPg mentions one covenant with the patriarchs, the one with Abraham, in fact (Gen 17:7; Exod 2:24; 6:4), Lev 26 speaks of a covenant with each of the three patriarchs, not quoted in the usual order but in inverse order: Jacob, Isaac, Abraham (Lev 26:42). 66 N. LOHFINK, "Bundestheologie" (n. 9), 355; CAZELLES, "Royaume de pretres" (n. 7), 290; ID., "TMophanie au desert" (n. 46), 308; see, again, N. LOHFINK, "Der Begriff 'Bund' in derbiblischen Theologie," ThPh 66 (1991) 161-176, esp. 173; followed by DOHMEN, "Sinaibund" (n. 23), 51-83, esp. 76. But for Lohfink, Exod 19:5 has a double function: it refers to Gen 17 and is an introduction to the Sinai pericope. The covenant in Exod 19:5 which Israel must "keep" would be at once the covenant with Abraham and the covenant on Sinai.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

155

In itself, Exod 19:5 could be alluding to Gen 17:9, 10, that is to say to the n'i:l made with Abraham of which circumcision is the sign, for it is the only use of n'i:l with the verb il:llD before Exod 19 in the present text of the Pentateuch. Yet there are other uses of this syntagma67 . Then, is it not simpler to consider that the text is using two parallel and quite general expressions with the verbs .vow and 10W, as in other cases where it is most often a question of "laws," "commandments," "prescriptions"68? The decisive argument, however, is different. \¥hen a passage talks about the covenant with Abraham, the patriarch is either present in the story (Gen 15: 17) or he is explicitly mentioned (Exod 2:24; 6:3-4, 5; Lev 26:42; 2 Kgs 13:23); in other cases the texts speak ofa "covenant with the fathers" (cf. Deut 4:31; 7: 12; 8: 18). It would be rather surprising if the text of Exod 19:5 did not specify that it was talking of the covenant with Abraham and circumcision when the context quite naturally leads one to think of the Sinai covenant. The n'i:l is therefore the one concluded in Exod 24:3-8 rather than an earlier event69 In simple terms, Exod 19:5 gives (back) to the theophany on Sinai the meaning it had for Deut, in which Yhwh makes a covenant on Horeb (Deut 5:2, 3; cf. 29:69; 4: 13; 9:9, ll)'G Sinai had no meaning for P any more but it finds it again in H (Lev 26)'1. According to this hypothesis Exod 19:3-6 ties up with D beyond P, as does H. And the text uses the vocabulary ofGen 17:9, 10 perhaps to show that it is applying to Sinai the concepts that P kept for the covenant made with Abraham. "See Dent 29:8 (n"~ "~'-nK ,0lIl); 1 Kgs 11:11 (Solomon); Ps 78:10; 103:18; 132:12 (king); Ezek 17:14 (king). Otherwise it is generally God who "keeps covenant and fidelity": Dent 7:12; 1 Kgs 8:23 ~ 2 Chr 6:14; Neh 1:5; Dan 9:14. 68 See Gen 26:5; Exod 15:26; Deut4:6; cf. related expressions in Deut 5:1; 6:3; 7:12; 12:28; 13:5, 19; 15:5; 26:17; 28:1, 13, 15,45; 30:10, 12; Josh 22:2; Prov 8:32. Most ofthese texts come from the Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic world. 69 It is not possible for us to analyse the relationship between Exod 19:3-8 and 24:3-8 here. See, among others, E. BLUM, "Israel a la montagne de Dieu. Remarques sur Ex 19-24; 32-34 et sur Ie contexte litteraire et historique de sa composition," Le Pentateuque en question. Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible ala lumiere des recherches recentes (Le monde de la Bible; Geneve 1989,21991, 32002) 271-295; ID., Studien (n. 6), 45-71; DOHMEN, "Sinaibund" (n. 23),57-58; 69-73; A. SCHENKER, "Les sacrifices d'alliance, Ex XXIV,3-8, dans leur portee narrative et religieuse - Contribution a I'etude de la bertt dans l'Ancien Testament," RB 101 (1994) 481-494. It will be noted in this connection that Exod 24:3-8, too, unites elements of Deuteronomic origin, such as the n'i:1il iElO (Exod 24:7; 2 Kgs 23:2, 21; cf. Deut 29:20; 31 :36) and others of priestly origin, such as the blood that "consecrates" Israel in accordance with a ritual closely resembling the consecration of priests in Exod 29 and Lev 8, with the blood sprinkled half on the altar and half on the people or the priests. It is by virtue of this ritual and of the covenant on the basis of the "book" that Israel really becomes i1';l)O, tl'':li1:l n:l?Ol.:l, and '"11 (Exod 19:5-6). 70 See G. BRAULIK, Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog. Studien zum Aujbau von Deuteronomium 12-26 (SBS 145; Stuttgart 1991) 11. 71 For further details on the relation between these different "covenants," see DOHMEN, "Sinaibund" (n. 23), 76-77 and his discussion of BLUM'S position, Studien (n. 6),294.

a:n,p

156

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

3.1.2. The notion a/holiness For pg, "holiness" is a notion limited to worship; Yhwh sanctifies the altar, the dwelling and the members of the priesthood, that is to say Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:44). Another thing is thatthe priestly document never speaks of "holy people." It does not exclude it, of course, but it uses other terms, such as il1.u or "np72 The problem of Israel's place among the nations does not yet arise, or not yet with the same acuteness. At the time of its redaction, namely at the end of the exile or at the beginning of the return, it was more important for pg to define the essential elements for the survival ofIsrael itself. It is again in Leviticus and in the Law of Holiness that we find this notion of "holiness" applied to all the people. Holiness is not, of course, "promised" exactly as in Exod 19:5-6, it is rather required or is the exclusive work ofYhwh (Lev 20:7-8; 22:31-33)73 But this "holiness" is a quality of all the people (Lev 19:2; 20:7; 20:8, 24-26; 21:8; 22:31-33; cf.11:44-45). Lev 21: 12-15 and 22:9,16, however, speak ofYhwh "sanctifYing" priests. Here again H gets the two notions to coexist, the one of the holiness of all the people and the one of the particular holiness ofthe priesthood74 This "holiness" separates Israel from the nations in Lev 20:24-26 as in Exod 19:5-6. To be sure, this "holiness" of the people can only act when Yhwh is present in the midst of Israel through the tabernacle, the altar and the priesthood75 Three texts in Lev are particularly significant. They actually mention election as the foundation of the requirement of holiness: Lev 20:26; 22:33; 11 :45 76 The idea of election found in Exod 19:4-5 ('''It o::>nlt 1t::11t, and o'o.lm-"::>o n"lO) is expressed in Leviticus with the aid of the verb "'::1, "to separate," dear to writers of the priestly school'" "I am Yhwh your God; I have separated ['n"'::1n] you from the peoples" (20:24); "You shall be holy to me; for I Yhwh am holy, and I have separated [",::1It,] you from the other peoples to be mine" (20:26). The relationship between the expressions Iti"p "l [ ... ] '''-n'nn (Exod 19:6a) and O'Iti,p'" on";" (Lev 20:26a) should be noted. It is through 72 This problem comes up in the story of Korah (Num 16-17*). See Num 16:3: "All the congregation are holy, every one ofthem, and Yhwh is among them." In our opinion, this text is later than Exod 19:3-6. See our article "De la relative independance de l'ecrit sacerdotal," Bib 76 (1995) 396--415. Cf. BLUM, Studien (n. 6), 263-271; B.A. LEVINE, Numbers 1-20 (AB 4; New York 1993) 428--432; L. SCHMIDT, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin - New York 1993) 113-179. 73 BLUM, Studien (n. 6), 318-319. 74 ZIMMERLI, "Heiligkeit," (n. 29), 503. 75 See BLUM, Studien (n. 6),318-319: "Nach den Stiftungen von Heiligtum und Kult geht es hier also folgerichtig urn das geforderte Korrespondenzverhalten (ganz) Israels" (Italics original). It is for other reasons and despite that continuity that, in our opinion, the distinction between H and P must be maintained. See above n. 62. 76 STAERCK, "Erwiihlungsglaube" (n. 61), 9. 77 See B. OTZEN, ',,",':1,", TWATI, col. 518-520, esp. col. 519-520.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

157

election that Yhwh has "separated" Israel from the nations and he calls upon Israel to become "holy" so as to remain faithful to that election. With a slightly different vocabulary Exod 19:4-6 expresses the same idea. Lastly, for the Law of Holiness as for Exod 19:4-5 election coincides with exodus (see Lev 19:36; 23:43; 25:38, 45, 55; 26: 13, 46)78 It is Lev 11:45 that most clearly links up the three notions also present in Exod 19:3-6, namely the exodus, election, and holiness of all the people:

O';f.lK? c;:)? n'n? 0""0 f'KO c;:)nK n?llCn mn' 'lK ';' 'lK 1Zi"p ';' O'IZi'p tJn"m "For I am the Yhwh who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; you

shall be holy, for I am holy."

The vocabulary is particular but the idea is close to the statements in Exod 19:4579 Of course one could object that Exod 19:4-5 does not use the verb ",:1 (hif), like Lev 20:24, 26. But nor does it use the verb n1:1 ofDeut 7:6; 14:2 in which the expression C'O))" "~O ,,"lO C)) occurs. Finally, it is significant that the "nations" from which the community must separate are not really distant nations. It is a matter, in the vocabulary of Leviticus, of "nations whom Yhwh is expelling before you," namely the peoples who are eliminated by the conquest when Israel settles in the land of Canaan (Lev 18:24, 28; 20:23). The Law of Holiness echoes texts like Deut 7 forbidding "alliances" with these peoples. The Law of Holiness insists rather on another aspect: Yhwh's people must beware of "impurities" committed by these nations because it is for these impurities that Yhwh expelled them in the sight of Israel. Most of these prescriptions are of a sexual nature (Lev 18:20). These laws suggest that there were still peoples in the land that were not "sanctified." Actually it would be surprising if the Law of Holiness spoke of practices no longer observed, dating from the time ofthe Canaanites who were occupying the country at the time of the conquest. These laws and injunctions only have meaning if the danger was still there facing those whom they were meant for. The word C'1l is a "cipher" used to define those who are not part of, or ought not to be part of, the communityS° This is why they are identified 78 See ZIMMERLI, "Heiligkeit" (n. 29), 499; F. CRLrSEMANN, "Der Exodus als Heiligung. Zur rechtsgeschichtlichenBedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes," Die Hebriiische Bibel und ihre zweijache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift R. Rendtorff (eds. E. BLUM - C. MACHOLZ - E. w. STEGEMANN) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 117-129. 79 On Lev 11:44-45, see ZIM:MERLI, "Heiligkeit" (n. 29), 502-503; GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (n. 61),132-134: "[Die Speiseregeln] dienen der Identifikation der eigenen Gruppe (Konfession) und zur Abgrenzung nach auJ3en hin. Das kommt unrniBversHindlich in den beiden SchluJ3erklarungen Lev 11 :44-47 zurn Ausdruck" (133). 80 GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (n. 61),233-235, also shows that these laws of the Persian period are primarily intended to provide the community of Israel with a religious and moral identity distinguishing it from the nations when the people no longer enjoyed real political autonomy, "wie das in der Geschichte der Menschheit haiifig der Fall ist" (235).

158

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

with the Canaanites of a bygone age and are threatened with exclusion from the people (Lev 18:29; ni:l, nif). This idea was to come back in the polemics in Trito-Isaiah and in Ezra-Neh where criteria of a religious or moral order are superimposed on racial affiliation and sometimes tend to eclipse it. pg, on the contrary, is still very attached to this racial affiliation. The genealogies and patriarchal narratives, except for Ishmael (Gen 17) and Esau (Gen 26:34-35; 28: 1-8) suffice to show this. In conclusion, the concepts in Exod 19:3-6 are nearer to those in H and other post-exilic passages than those in pg.

3.2. Exod 19: 3-6, post-exilic prophetic activity and Ezra-Nehemiah 8 ! We have already noted above the relation and the differences between TritoIsaiah and Exod 19:3-6, especially as regards the collective priesthood of Israel and the notion of "holy people." Other writings appeared, still during the post-exilic period, having more than one point in common with our text, in particular some late Deuteronomistic texts, the pronouncements of Zechariah and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Several texts actually develop ideas found in Exod 19:3-6 such as Israel's unique place among the nations, the importance of the Exodus and of the holiness of all the people. These passages also make it possible to define the overall context of this "project for society" better. A significant evolution should also be noted in the way of thinking about relations between Israel and the "nations," whether it be the nations in general or the "nations" occupying Israel's territory. In an earlier, more optimistic phase some people had a glimpse of a kind of conversion of the nations to the God of Israel. In this context, second and third Isaiah spoke of a pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem and of a priestly function of the people with regard to these foreign people. Then this hope became blurred. The nations were not in fact "converted." The work of restoration and rebuilding came up against opposition in the country itself, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah prove. In the course of this second phase Israel's relations with the nations are viewed in not such an optimistic way. The texts insist more on the distinction. This is the air that is breathed in the "Law of Holiness." Finally, the hostility is evident in Ezra-Neh. Exod 19:3b-8 belongs, in accordance with our enquiry, rather to the second phase, the one of the "distinction."

81 On the problems of this period see especially ACKROYD, Exile (n. 15); see, among others, the chapter entitled A Subject People: Judah under Persian Rule, 188-238. The Persian period is, of course, little known, as P. Ackroyd emphasizes, along with other specialists.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

159

3.2.1.1srae/'s privileges vis-a.-vis the nations The notion of Israel possessing a particular quality setting it apart from other nations by reason ofa unique relationship with YHWH, God ofIsrael and Lord of the universe, is found going back to a text like Deut 26: 19: cf. 28: 1. In these two passages a promise is made to Israel that it will become 1:I'1l-'" .,)) 11''')) "superior to all the nations", if it is faithful to the covenant with Yhwh82 These two passages offer a particular solution to the problem ofIsrael's place among the nations: by virtue of the covenant with the only Yhwh, Israel will obtain a unique status among the nations and will thus be able to safeguard its identity. As in Exod 19:3-6, Israel's unique character is thus linked to fidelity to the covenant. Deut 26: 16-19 and 28: 1 are late texts. A post-exilic verse, of which the composition probably precedes that of Exod 19:3-6 follows along the same lines as Deut 26:19. It is Zech 2:14-16 and here again a tendency similar to those of the preceding texts takes shape beyond the vocabulary83. "1 4Shout for joy and rejoice, daughter of Zion, for behold I am corning and shall dwell in your midst, says Yhwh. 15Many peoples shall cleave to Yhwh in that day and shall become my people (O.U? ~? '~i11), and I shall dwell in your midst, and you shall recognize that it is Yhwh, the almighty who sent me to you. 16Yhwh shall inherit Judah who shall be his portion on the holy land (lIi'pn nO'!! ':>ll 1p':>n [... J ':>m1) and he shall choose Jerusalem again."

This oracle announces the conversion of many nations who are going to become members ofYhwh's "people"84 Yet Judah and Jerusalem keep a particular place since they fonn the "share of inheritance" that Yhwh possesses as his own Cp"n). The universalism of this post-exilic oracle is corrected by the old notion of choice that grants a place apart to Judah and Jerusalem. It does not disappear from the horizon, therefore, and will even get stronger when

82 The text is difficult and its interpretation is debated. The only expression important for us is C~1lil-?~?.l.' 11~?.l.'. For the interpretation see N. LOHFINK, "Dt26,17-19 und die 'Bundesfonnel' ," ZKT 91 (1969) 517-553 = ID., Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I (SBAAT 8; Stuttgart 1990) 211-261. These texts are probably late and therefore quite close to Exod 19:3-6. See E. NIELSEN, Deuteronomium (HAT, 1,6; Tiibingen 1995) 238 and 253-256. 83 C.L. MEYERS - E. M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zecharaiah 1-8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY 1987) 176-178; the majority of exegetes consider Zech 2:10-17 as a commentary on visions written later than them. 84 See Isa 56:6-7; D.L. PETERSEN, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary (OTL; London - Philadelphia, PA 1984) 180-184.

160

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

the great hopes for the return will gradually decline, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah show. 3.2.2. Ezra-Nehemiah There is no point in insisting on the complexities connected with the exegesis of Ezra-Neh. For our purposes it will be enough to say that their composition presupposes the existence of a torah probably quite close to the Pentateuch we know and that the books of Ezra-Neh were composed, in our opinion, after Exod 19:3-6. On two points the work of Ezra-Neh shares the concerns expressed in Exod 19:3-6: (a) the importance of the exodus, or the interpretation of the return as a second exodus, (b) the "holiness" of the people, as for H, Trito-Isaiah and some of Zechariah's oracles, and the separation which this implies 85 . This analysis will let us add an important item to the enquiry: the links between Exod 19:3-6 and the milieus of the gOld. 3.2.2.1. The importance of the exodus 86 The experience of the exodus is the Archimedean point of the whole line of argument in Exod 19:3-6. On the verbs in the indicative in 19:4 rests the promise expressed in the future in vv. 5-6. Yhwh does not call the patriarchs to mind explicitly. Yet they are not completely excluded, since the words are addressed to the "house of Jacob and to the sons of Israel." But the passage makes no mention of the patriarchal promises. Now the same atmosphere is found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In both books the description of the return is actually a "second exodus." The scribe Ezra and his companions are leaving Babylon on the first day of the first month, the month of Nisan, that is (Ezra 9:7). This date suggests a connection with that of the Passover and the first exodus, according to priestly legislationS7 It is also the "hand of YHWH" that guides the march (Ezra 7:6,28; 8:18,22,31; Neh 1:10; 2:8). This "hand of God" - ,11;1' " - was present in the accounts of the first exodus (Exod 3: 19; 6: 1; 9:3; 13:3,9, 14, 16; 14:31)88. Three other themes are added to 85 See the fundamental article by K. KOCH, "Ezra and the Origins of Judaism," JSS 19 (1974) 173-197. 86 See especially KOCH, "Ezra" (n. 85), 184-189; ACKROYD, "God and His People" (n. 15), 145-162 = ID., Chronicler (n. 15),290-310. 87 See KOCH, "Ezra" (n. 85), 186; see Exod 12:2; Num 33:3. This position is criticized by T. C. ESKENAZI, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta, GA 1988) 67, n. 67. The theme of the exodus is present, but veiled. The story insists on the arrival, not the journey. Still, the number of allusions is enough to speak of "new exodus." Moreover, the theme is used to justify the task of restoration; it cannot therefore be at the centre of the description. 88 KOCH, "Ezra" (n. 85), 187; cf. J.-L. SKA, "Recit et recit metadiegetique en Ex 1-15. Remarques critiques et essai d'interpretation de Ex 3,16-22," Le Pentateuque. Dibats et recherches (ed. P. HAUDEBERT) (LD 151; Paris 1992) 135-171, esp. 162.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

161

that: the "ascent" (Ezra 7:7,9; cf. 1:10) the possible allusion to the spoliation of the Egyptians in Ezra 1:6, and the presence of the Levites (Ezra 8:15-20; Num 10:17.21)89. Finally, the arrival in the promised land is comparable, in some respects, to Joshua's conquest. For example, Ezra requires separation from the "populations of the country" (n'~'K;r '0.1)), in practice the population that was not deported and was opposed to the return. And these "populations" are identified with the Canaanite populations occupying the country before the arrival of Israel under the leadership of Joshua"° As for the patriarchs, they are almost completely absent from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Abraham is mentioned once in the long prayer by N ehemiah (Neh 9:7). The ethnic point of view is not overlooked, of course. The numerous genealogies in Ezra-Neh are there to prove it. However, because of conflicts arising between the community of exiles and the people who had stayed in the country, the fact of having taken part in the "exodus" becomes fundamental. This experience of the "exodus" or the "new exodus" is a title legitimating the exiles' claims and allowing them moreover to disqualifY their adversaries whom they consider to be the equivalent ofthe Canaanites living in the country at the time of the conquest and who, in their opinion, are therefore doomed to disappear91 These various considerations help us understand better the context in which Exod 19:3-6 could have arisen and why it stresses the exodus above all. Isa 63:7-64: 11, especially 63: 11-14 and 63: 16, are along the same lines. The truly founding experience, for the people who came back, is the exodus, under the leadership ofYhwh and Moses (63:11-14). Indeed, "You are our father. Abraham does not know us, nor does Israel either. You, Yhwh, have been our father, our Redeemer from of old, that is your name" (63: 16)92 For the community of those returning, the theological foundation for the restoration cannot only be Abraham. A new wonder is needed, equal to the first exodus and the first conquest, so that the community may be born again. Furthermore, a text from Ezekiel shows that Abraham was more than likely the figure conjured up by those who had stayed in the country to legitimate their rights: "Recit metadiegetique" (n. 88), 162, n. 87. See B. SCHRAMM, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSI93; Sheffield 1994) 60. See also Lev 18:24,28; 20:23 (see supra). Contrary to a quite widespread opinion, Schramm shows that these populations are fonned for the most part of aborigines and not foreigners who would have occupied a country emptied of its inhabitants at the time of the exile. 91 Cf. J. BLENKINSoPp,Ezra-Nehemiah (OIL; London - Philadelphia, PA 1988) 174-177, for whom the main question dealt with in this text is the identity of the community of the second temple. 92 See T. ROMER, Israels Vater. Untersuchungen Vaterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1990) 536-567. 89 SKA,

90

162

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

"The inhabitants of these ruins, on the land of Israel say: Abraham was alone and he inherited the land. As for us, we are many and to us the land is given as inheritance" (Ezek 33:24).

The text could hardly be clearer about the conflict that arose at the time of the exile between the gold and those who had stayed in the country93 Ezekiel places the genealogical and ethnic principle in contrast to the law, namely a moral principle: "So say to them: Thus says Yhwh God: you eat over and above the blood, you raise your eyes to your idols, you commit crimes, and you would have the land as posses-

sion! ... " (Ezek33:25). This opposition between two parties, who presuppose two concepts ofthe titles to membership of the people and of the rights of each one, is characteristic of the period. It is not surprising that Ezra-N eh insist so much on the law. If Exod 19:3-6 really is a late, post-deuteronomistic and post-priestly text, it, too, must bear some traces of this conflict. In this hypothesis the poetic description of the exodus in Exod 19:4 becomes the foundation for a theology that gives greater justification to the goals of the community of the gOld than to those of the "people of the land" who did not know the exile and therefore cannot take part in a second "exodus." In this sense Exod 19:3-6 prepares the way for the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,just as it reaps the heritage of Ezekiel and Trito-Isaiah94 This no doubt also explains why the exodus occupies such a place in the present Pentateuch.

3.2.2.2. The holiness of the people and its conditions Ezra-Nehemiah insist on the "holiness" of the people as does the Law ofHoliness. The subject comes up more especially in the controversy over mixed marriages. Here again it is no longer enough of course to be a descendant of Abraham to be one of the people. Other conditions must be fulfilled 95 The people are in fact a "holy seed" zera' haqq6de§ - (Ezra 9:2)96 It cannot be contaminated by mixed marriages. Put simply, the fact of adding the word q6des to the well-known wordzera c , "seed," "descendance," which is frequent in the patriarchal stories 97 , introduces a principle of distinction within the peo93 ROMER, Vater (n. 92), 513-517; cf. N. LOHFINK, Die Vater Israels im Deuteronomium. Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Romer (OBO 111; Freiburg, Schweiz - G6ttingen 1991) 101. 94 See D. L. SMITH, "The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society," Second Temple Jewish Studies. 1: Persian Period (ed. P.R. DAVIES) (JSOTS 117; Sheffield 1991) 73-97. 95 This is also the divine response to the claims of the "inhabitants of the ruins" in Exek 33:25-29. 96 On this point, see KOCH, "Ezra" (n. 85), 192. "Gen 13:15-16; 15:13, 18; 17:7-8,9-10; 22:17-18; 24:6; 28:13-14; 35:12.

3. The historical and theological context of Exod 19:3-6

163

pIe: there are those who remain "holy" and those who do not. This holiness is also that of the temple, the "holy place" (m' qom qod§o - "the place of his [YHWH's] holiness"; Ezra 9:8), It is tied to the observance of certain prescriptions such as the prohibition of mixed marriages (Ezra 9; Neh 10), Some studies on Ezra-Nehemiah have also shown that these books tend to broaden the notion of holiness that in P is reserved for the sanctuary, the altar and the priesthood98 For Neh 12:30, the holiness of the sanctuary extends to the whole city and to the people who live in it: "The priests and the Levites cleansed themselves and cleansed (same verb) the people, the gates and the walL" Thus the people and the city share the holiness of the temple, Gates and ramparts are "consecrated" (Neh 3: 1 - qd§, pi) If Levites must guard the gates of the city (Neh 7:1; 13:22), as they are charged with guarding the temple, it is really because the city has become a "sanctuary,,99. And Jerusalem becomes the "holy city" ('rr haqqodeS; N eh 11: l.l8). This rare phrase is found only in late texts such as Isa 48:2; 52: 1; Dan 9:24 10 0. This criterion introduces a "separation," which is also described by the verb bdl, frequent in the Law of Holiness. But if, for H, it is primarily a question of separating Israel from the nations, for Ezra-Neh the line of separation cuts across the people and separates "holy people" within it from "contaminated people." This bdl (hif) root appears frequently in Ezra-Neh: Ezra 6:21; 8:24; 9: 1; 10:8.11.16; Neh 9:2; 10:29; 13:3. Ezra 8:24 and 10: 16 are not so important because there the verb only means "to choose." The other passages faithfully reflect the mentality of the time. Thus, Ezra 6:21 explains that those who celebrated the Passover after the return had cleansed themselves. The people in question are members of the gold, of course. But also "all those who had separated themselves from the impurities of the nations in the country". It is therefore possible to pass over from the "nations of the country" to the "people of larael" for those who cleanse themselves. The criterion is no longer simply belonging to a race but the observance of certain rules that can make "holy" or "pure" that which is not yet SOlOl . Another thing is that whoever belongs to the "community" can lose this privilege ifhe does not observe certain rules of conduct, someone, for example, who refuses to come to the meeting that decides matters concerning mixed marriages (Ezra 10:8; cf. 9:1; 10:11). There is another point in the book of Nehemiah that draws attention to itself: whoever wishes to belong to the "people of Israel" must "separate himself' 98 1.M. MEYERS, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City, NY 1965) 203; ESKENAZI, An Age of Prose (n. 87), 119-121 (and passim). 99 ESKENAZI, An Age of Prose (n. 87), 85. 100 Ibid., 114. 101 See SCHRAMM, Opponents (n. 90),60-61; SMITH, "The Politics of Ezra" (n. 94),85-86.

164

Exodus 19:3-6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel

(root bdlJ from foreigners. In concrete terms he has to separate himselffrom the bene nekiir, "from the sons of the foreigner" (9:2), from the "from the peoples of the country" (10:29) or from "every foreign element" (13:3)102 On what principle was this separation carried out? According to Neh 20:29 it is required by the "law of God" (torat hii'eliihfm) or simple the "law" (tord; 13:3) contained in the "book of Moses" (seper miiSeh; 13:1). It is not unreasonable to think that on this point Ezra-Neh may be alluding to texts like Exod 19:3-6 and the Law ofHoliness 103

4. Conclusion Exod 19:3-6 has not perhaps delivered up all its secrets. Still, it seemed to us instructive to situate it in its most likely context, namely the return from the exile and the rebuilding of the post-exilic community. The theology that emerges from this "overture" to the Sinai peri cope is close to the one that takes shape in Trito-Isaiah, in various parts of the book of Zechariah and is found later in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah 104 The people develop a "resistance culture" so as not to be absorbed and disappearl05. They seek their identity in a new definition of their relationship with the nations starting with the theological traditions of herr! and the exodus. Their new frontiers are not so geographical and political; they are of the order of the "sacred" and "holiness," qualities extended to all the people. In this it is possible to recognize primarily the mark of the community of those returning from exile, that is to say the community of the gold.

102 On the phrase rnKil OJ:, in the singular or plural, in Ezra- Neh see the fundamental study by A. G.H. GUNNEWEG, 'rnNiTCl' -A Semantic Revolution," ZAW95 (1983) 437-440. For Gunneweg as for Schramm this "people of the country" consists of aborigines and not foreign populations. 103 See BLUM, Studien (n. 6), 352-355. Ezra-Neh already presuppose the existence of our Pentateuch in its substance (and complexity). 104 On the relationship between Ezra-Neh and the Pentateuch see, among others, C. HOUTMAN, "Ezra and the Law: Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch," Remembering All the Way (eds. B. ALBREKTSON et al.) (OTS 21; Leiden 1981) 91-115; R. RENDTORFF, "Ezra und das 'Gesetz'," ZAW96 (1984) 165-184. 105 On this term see S:MITH, "The Politics of Ezra" (n. 94),80-86. Within the limits ofthis article we cannot discuss J. WEINBERG'S theory on the "Biirger-Tempel-Gemeinde." On this, see especially J. WEINBERG, "Die Agrarverhaltnisse in der Biirger-Tempel-Gemeinde der Achiimeniderzeit," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (eds. J. HARMATTA - G. KOMOROCZY) (Budapest 1976/1990) 473-486; ID., The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTS 151; Sheffield 1992), and the commentary by BLENKINSOPP, "Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah," Second Temple Studies I (n. 64), 22-53; SMITH, "The Politics of Ezra" (n. 64), 93-96 (with bibliography). See also D. L. PETERSEN, "Israelite Prophecy: Change versus Continuity," Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (VTS 43; Leiden1991) 191-203, esp. 197-203.

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: II "[The chief men of the people ofIsrael] beheld God, they ate and they drank" (Exod 24: lIb). A fair number of commentators have seen in this brief description a meal to mark a covenant between Yhwh and the chief men in Israel, in this case Moses, Aaron, N adab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel (Exod 24: 1.9)1 Some strong reservations have been expressed about this, but several exegetes still maintain this position. Is it possible to settle the question? And if the answer is in the negative, how is the text to be interpreted? After a short statement of the question we shall examine the different solutions to the problem before suggesting an interpretation, then a date for the text.

l. The various proposals 1.1. The covenant meaf2 This opinion goes back to H. GreBmal1ll and it has often been taken up since 3 . It rests on some biblical texts and some non-biblical parallels. The biblical 1 For a brief statement of the question, see E. BLUM, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin - New York 1990) 53 (bibliography, ll. 31). The main authors will be mentioned in the notes that follow. 2 By covenant we mean the establishment of anew relationship between persons or groups of persons by public act and formally sanctioned. For more details, see infra. 3 See H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (FRLANT 18; G6ttingen 1913) 183; J. PEDERSEN, Der Eid bei den Semiten. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamitischen Orients 3 (Stra/3burg 1914) 24-27 (parallels); 48; ID. Israel. Its Life and Culture I-II (London - Copenhagen 1946) 305-306; W. BEYERLIN, Herkunft und Geschichte der iiltesten Sinaitraditionen (Tiibingen 1961) 40-42; T. C. VRIEZEN, "The Exegesis of Exodus xxiv 9-11," The Witness of Tradition (OTS 17; Leiden 1972) 100-133, esp. 112-113; D. J. MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Fonn in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnEib 21A; Rome 1978) 254, n. 19; parallels 265266; R. SMEND, "Essen und Trinken - ein Stiick Weltlichkeit des Alten Testaments," Beitriige zur alUestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift W. Zimmerli (G6ttingen 1977) 446-459, esp. 455-456 = Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien I (BeT 99; Miinchen 1986) 200-211; N. LOHFlNK, "Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Zum gleichnamigen Buch von Lothar Perlitt," Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I (SBAAT 8; Stuttgart 1990) 325-361, esp. 357. Among the older commentaries, see H. HOLZINGER, Exodus (KHAT 2; Tiibingen 1900) 106; B. BAENTSCH,Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (HAT 1,2 G6ttingen 1903) 216; M. NOTH,Das zweite Buch des Mose. Exodus (AID 5 G6ttingen 1959) 159.

166

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

texts are three in number: Gen 26:26-30; 31:44-54 and Exod 18:124 The nonbiblical parallels come from Bedouin and Arab cultures 5 Gen 26 and 31 speak explicitly of a meal that seals a covenant and the word n'1:J appears each time in the context. What about Exod 24? There are many objections. In fact, it has been said, the meal may be part of a covenant ceremonial, but it need not necessarily be S06. Moreover, in the context ofvv. 9-11 there is nothing to indicate that there is question of a covenant, as is the case in Gen 26:26.30 or 31:44.54 7 God does not take part in the meal, as do Abimelek or Laban and their men (Gen 26:30; 31:54) and there is no question of communion sacrifices (cf. Gen 31:54)8 Sacrifices are offered, but in Exod 24:5, a unit independent of Exod 24:9-11 9 As for the sacrifices in Exod 18: 12, they are followed by a meal in the presence of God -1:l'n'?I\,'-'lEl'? - and the context contains no allusion to a covenant 10 . Nor is it any longer possible to interpret 24: 11 in terms of 24:3-8 and to say, for example, that the meal in v. 11 must be understood as the solemn conclusion of the covenant in 24:8. Why does the meal not immediately follow the covenant as in Gen 26:30 and 31:54? Why do not all the people take part in it? Why do the chief men have to climb the

Among more recent commentaries, see B. S. CHILDS, Exodus: A Commentary (London - Philadelphia, PA 1974) 498, 507, 509; F. MICHAEL!, Le Livre d'Exode (CAT II; Neuchatel- Paris 1974) 227; J. I. DURHAM, Exodus (WBe 3; Waco 1987) 345 (with some nuances); J. SCHARBERT, Ex odus (NEB; Wiirzburg 1989) 100. 4 On Gen 26 and 31, see in particular D.J. MCCARTHY, "Three Covenants in Genesis," CBQ 26 (1964) 179-189; on Exodus 18:12, see A. CODY, "Exodus 18:12; Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites," Bib 49 (1968) 153-166. 5 MCCARTHY, Treaty, 254, especially n. 19. On the Bedouins, see G. QUELL, "diatheke," TU0VTII, 106-13 7, esp. pp. 121-124; on the Arabs, see PEDERSEN, Eid, 24-26. For parallels in the Ancient Near East, see VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 112, n. 1 and 2. 6 E.W. NICHOLSON, "The Interpretation of Exodus xxiv 9-11," VT24 (1974) 77-97, esp. 86. 7 L. PERLITT,Bundestheologie imAlten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969) 187-188; E. KUTSCH, Verheiflung und Gesetz. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten "Bund" im Alten Testament (BZAW 131; Berlin - New York 1973) 89. 8 PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 187; NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 86-87. 9 Commentators are almost unanimous on this. In the divine utterance in verses 1-2*, God commands Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders to climb the mountain. This order is carried out in v. 9 which again mentions the people in v. 1. Verses 10-11 describe what happened on the mountain, the vision and the meal. As for vv. 3-8, they interrupt this unity by introducing a scene in which the content, the characters and the setting are different. Here we have a proclamation of the divine will followed by the people's response, a sacrificial liturgy accompanied by the sprinkling of blood, everything being presented as the solemn conclusion of a covenant. Moses is alone facing the people and is helped only by the "youth" of v. 5. Everything takes place at the foot of the mountain. See, among others BAENTSCH, Exodus, 213; PERLITT,Bundestheologie, 182; NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 78-79. For some discordant voices (the Targums, Ibn Ezra, Cassuto, Abrahams), see NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 78, n. 1 and 86, n. 1. 10 PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 188; NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 87.

1. The various proposals

167

mountain ll ? These objections have convinced exegetes representing different tendencies 12 . Other texts have been appealed to in support ofthe thesis but they have been just as problematic. They have been added to the dossier because the "elders" feature in them in one way or another as in Exod 24: 1.9. Josh 9: 14 mentions a meal shared by Israelites and Gibeonites in the setting of the covenant Joshua concluded with the latter (9: 15)13 But the food brought by the Gibeonites was meant to convince Israel that they had come from afar: the bread is stale and crumbly, just as the wine jars are cracked, their clothing and sandals worn out (9:12-13; cf. 9:8-11). If the Israelites take some food, it is to verify what the Gibeonites say and not to conclude a covenant. The second part ofv. 14 confirms this. They eat but they do not consult Yhwh. They have made their own inquiry by taking the food offered and were taken in by the Gibeonites' trick because they did not refer the matter to Yhwh. The whole of v.14 speaks of a move preceding the covenant, which explains why Israel let itself be deceived. The covenant itself, however, is concluded only in v. 15. Hence there can be no question of a covenant meal in this passage. 2 Sam 3: 17-21 contains several parallel elements to Exod 24:9-11: The elders (2 Sam 3:17), the banquet (3:20) and the covenant (3:21). Yet 2 Sam 3:20-21 does not describe concluding a covenant, but rather a meeting in the course of which Abner proposes to David that he bring all Israel to him to conclude a covenant between the tribes from the North and the future king (3:21). The text speaks of a banquet offered to Abner by David (3:20) and of Abner's being able to leave "in peace" (3:21), but not about a covenant between the twO!4 2 Sam 5: 1-3, the covenant between David and the tribes from the North at Hebron, contains no allusion to a meaP5. Verse 3 only says that the covenant was sealed "in the presence ofYhwh" which certainly does not mean that there was a sacrifice or a meal.

11 NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 88; E. RUPRECHT, "Exodus 24:9-11 als Beispiel lebendiger Erzahltradition aus der Zeit des babylonischem Exils," Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments. FestschriftC. Westermann (Gottingen - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980) 138-173, esp. 139-140. The latter insists on the methodological difficulty which consists in relying on 24:3-8 to interpret 24:9-11. Exod 24:3-8 is more recent than 24:1 * .9-11 and hence can have had no influence on the composition and meaning of the latter. 12 E. W. NICHOLSON, "The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv 9-11," VT 26 (1976) 148-160, esp. 148-150; ID., God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford 1986) 131-132; P. WELTEN, "Die Vemichtung des Todes und die Konigsherrschaft Gottes. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Jes 25:6-8; 24:21-23 und Ex 24:9-11," TZ 38 (1982) 129-146, esp 141; BLUM, Studien, 53; B. RENAUD, La theophanie du Sinai": Ex 19-24. Exegese et theologie (CRE 30; Paris 1991) 120-122, 177. 13 VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 112. The Gibeonites are sent by the "elders" (9: 11). 14 SMEND, "Essen und Trinken," 456. 15 Cf. VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 112.

168

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

Other exegetes have replied by basing themselves mainly on the context. Thus some have said that the aspect of non-verbal communication must not be overlooked!6 The covenant in Exod 24:11 is implicit in the very act of the meal. It is true that a meal necessarily implies a human aspect and if the meal is an exceptional one, it implies just as exceptional a relationship betw"een those sharing it. The content of the latter is not always made explicit by direct speech. However, the relationship established among those at the meal may be of different kinds, according to the context, and the fonnal covenant is only one of the possibilities to be envisaged in the analysis. What characterizes a covenant is the explicit commitment of the partners and that commitment is of a juridical order 17 Now nothing in Exod 24:11 indicates that there is any act of this kind. The actors on the scene keep quiet and the narrator does not offer any comment along those lines. Hence there is no unmistakable clue that the meal is a covenant meal to the exclusion of other interpretations, unless one gives the word "covenant" a very wide meaning like "establishing any kind of relationship between partners who have no links of consanguinity between them." In that case, however, the tenn loses much of its precision and usefulness. Still, the debate can bounce back, for some claim that Exod 24:3-8 and 24:9-11 may have been composed one in tenns of the other and, consequently, the idea of covenant in one is also extended to the other18. In spite of everything, it has to be admitted that if the work of redaction wanted to make vv.9-11 the solemn conclusion of the covenant in v.S, it does not appear clearly. What is missing in this covenant after the declaration by Moses in v.S? Most covenant stories actually end without any meaP9. Besides, various elements remain without explanation: the meal is put off, unlike what happens in Gen 31 :54, for example; it takes place on the mountain and not where the sacrifices were offered; all the people entered into the covenant, but only a group of privileged persons shares the meal; the meal is preceded by a vision. There is still one last argument of a theological nature in favour of the hypothesis of the covenant meal. If God does not share in it, this is because it

MCCARTHY, Treaty, 254, n. 19. MCCARTHY, Treaty, 10: "At least the word [treaty or covenant] does imply a link, something more that mere sufferance or friendship, between relatively sovereign societies defined and codified in writing" (italics ours). The definition is also applied to individuals who can create relationships that are not bestowed by nature, that is to say by blood connections. These relationships are "[ ... ] defined and visibly accepted" (21) (italics ours). The explanation of Exod 24: 11 proposed by McCarthy, however, hardly corresponds to his own definition of the covenant. 18 N. LOHFINK, "Bundestheologie im Alten Testament," 357. 19 Gen 9:12-17; 15:18; 21:27.32; Josh 9:15; 24:25; 1 Sam 18:3; 2 Sam 5.3; 2 Kgs 11:17; 23:3 ... Gen 26:30; 31:54 look like exceptions. 16 17

1. The various proposals

169

is unthinkable that a story should ever relate anything of the kind20 But then one has to ask why such an ambiguous sign would have been chosen without the narrator taking the trouble to give precision to his intention. Either God takes part in the meal to seal the covenant, as in the parallel texts, or the text is suggesting in one way or another that here we have a real celebration of the covenant although God is not one of those at table. Now we have neither one nor the other in Exod 24: 11. Moreover, there is no real parallel in which a meal in the presence of God is clearly part of a covenant ritual. So we have to give up that line of argument, too.

1.2. The ritual meal In this meal it is possible to see a rite similar to the one mentioned more than

once in the laws in Deuteronomy such as Deut 12:7, 18; 14:26; 27:7; see also 1 Chr 29:22. Exod 18: 12, which we have already spoken about, may be added to these texts21 . In all these cases sacrifices are offered, people eat, enjoy themselves "in the presence ofYhwh" (011n' 'lEl?) or "in the presence of God" (I:l'?mm 'lEl?, only in Exod 18:12). The meaning of the expression "they saw God, they ate and drank" would simply be: "they saw God and rejoiced" or: "they saw God and adored,,22 Some people go still further and see a liturgical ceremony in the meal in Exod 24: 11 - a ritual and even sacrificial meal (TT:Jtj23 Yet this explanation raises a difficulty, for in all the examples mentioned earlier, the meal follows a sacrificial act. Now there are no sacrifices in Exod 24:9-11 and it is not possible to call upon those in Exod 24:5 which, we repeat, belong to another story, i. e. another source24.

VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 112-113. NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 93-94. Same idea in RENAUD, Theophanie, 178. 22 NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 94. See also PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 188 and the authors mentioned by BLUM, Studien, 53, n. 31. 23 BLUM, Studien, 53: "ein gottesdienstliches Festmahl, ein ":It"; RENAUD, Theophanie, 177: "une celebration festive ou s'exprime la communion avec Dieu." Much earlier, Ramban thought that the chief men of Israel had, on their return and at the foot of the mountain, eaten the meat of the communion sacrifices offered in 24:5. See RAMBAN (NACHMANIDES), Commentary of the Torah. Exodus. Translated and annotated by C.B. Chavel (New York 1973) 429-430. 24 NICHOLSON, "Origin," 148-149; ID., God and His People, 131-132, who in this way corrects his earlier opinion. The proposal made by S. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1-6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichlich untersucht (BZAW 139; Berlin 1975)153-154, who sees the continuation of 24:4ap.6 in 24:9.11 b, is hardly defensible. The binomial "eating and drinking" is present in only one text concerning worship (1 Chr 29:22). All the texts that speak of a ritual meal make it clear that it takes place "in the presence ofYhwh" (mii'-'~EI?), an expression that is absentfromExod 24:11; cf. Deut 12:7, 18; 14:26; 27:7; 1 Chr 29:22; cf. Exod 18:12. Lastly, how does one reconcile the vision with the hypothesis of a ritual meal? We do not mention the difficulties that splitting things up involves. 20 21

170

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

1.3. Eating and living If it is difficult to speak of a ritual meal in the strict sense, another explanation goes along the same lines while remaining more general. Starting out with texts

like 1 Kgs 4:20; Jer 22: 15; Qoh 5: 17, and perhaps Amos 7: 12, it is possible to interpret the expression "eating and drinking" in the sense of "living a prosperous way of life," "enj oying life" Of, more simply, "living"25. This exegesis is furthermore based on the possible parallelism between two pairs of expressions "they saw the God of Israel" and "he did not lay a hand on the chief men ofIsrael" on the one hand and "they beheld God" and "they ate and drank" on the other26. The syntagma "they ate and drank" would correspond therefore to "he did not lay a hand on the chief men of Israel." In other words the fact of eating and drinking means that the chief men could survive in the presence of God whereas, according to the biblical concept, seeing God

begets death27 Yet the idea has aroused some reservations. Is there not the risk of confusing

a connotation with the primary meaning of the text28 ? And the parallelismus membrorum is not perfect. The two members are of different sizes and v lOb is not included in the construction ("and under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone [ ... ]"29 To this there is added another objection. Biblical stories in general describe in a very different way the reaction of those who were able to survive a vision like that 30 . So we have to look elsewhere.

2. The function of the vision and the meal Two themes are united in these verses, the vision and the meal. It may be help-

ful to analyze them together and see whether they can have a similar function.

2.1. The vision The visio Dei is not really developed. Still, the text uses the two normal verbs in this case';-TN' (v. 10) and mn (v. 11). The narrator has recorded only two details of this vision. Firstly, the chief men see the paving under God's feet. Next, it is said explicitly that God did not lay hands on them (v. lla). They were able to survive that exceptional experience, like Jacob, Gideon, Samson's parents 25 26 27 28 29 30

NICHOLSON, "Origin," 149; ID., God and His People, 131-132. NICHOLSON, "Origins," 149-150; ID., God and His People, 131-132. Exod 33:20; Deut 5:24; Judg 6:22-23; 13:22-23; Isa 6:5 . BLUM, Studien, 53, n. 31. RENAUD, Theophanie, 122-123. Cf. Gen 32:31; Judg 6:22; 13:22; Is 6:5. See also Exod20:18-19.

2. The function of the vision and the meal

171

orlsaiah (Gen 32:31; Judg 6:22-23; 13:22-23; Isa 6:5). In simpler terms, God receives them into his palace without anything unpleasant happening to them. 2.1.1. The prophetic setting Now the visio Dei is a privilege granted first and foremost to prophets. It comes in several stories about vocation the purpose of which is to legitimize a prophetic utterance or the prophetic mission as such. These stories have been called "investiture stories" because their purpose is to describe when and how God conferred a particular dignity and mission on certain persons - the dignity of counsellors, messengers or emissaries - and invested them with divine authority 31. The vision is one of the elements that authenticate God's envoy. The best-known examples are those of Isaiah and Micah ben Yimlah32 Isa 6: 1-11 and I Kgs 22: 19-22 also have more than one element in common33 . The fact of having "seen" (Isa 6:1; 1 Kgs 22:19) authenticates Isaiah's mission and Micah's mission. In the case of Micah, the prophet can report the deliberations of the divine council that he heard. Isa 6:5 insists on the sense ofunworthiness that came over the prophet at the sight of his Lord (6: 1). A seraph then comes to purifY his lips to make him fit to stand in the presence of the "Lord king of hosts" (6:5-7). He can "see" and "hear," as the verse following shows: "And I heard the voice of the Lord that said: 'Whom shall I send?'" (6:8). The prophet can now become a messenger. The mission is based upon the truth of that visual and auditive experience34 . The stories in Exod 3: 1-4: 17 and Judg 6: 11-24 also have an authentication function. They legitimize the mission of Moses and Gideon 35 . To both of them the angel of Yhwh appeared (Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12: ;"11;" IN?O N1,,)36. The

31 N. HABEL, "The Fonn and Significance of the Call Narratives," ZAW77 (1965)297-323, says in conclusion: "Thus the word of the call narrative gives the individual's credentials as a prophet, messenger and ambassador from the heavenly council. This word summarizes the ultimate commission from the Master" (323). See also K. BALZER, Die Biographie der Propheten (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975) 23: "Sachlich hat der Einsetzungsbericht die Aufgabe der Legitimation des in der Biographie Dargestellten in seiner Offentlichen Funktion." For other details about vocation stories, see also W. VOGELS, "Les recits de vocation des prophetes," NRT 95 (1973) 3-24, esp. 11 (vocation of the "servant plenipotentiary and confidant," like Moses and Gideon) and 13-16 (vocation of "counsellor," Isa 6 and 1 Kgs 22:19-22). 32 BALTZER,Biographie, 108-113,148. 33 W. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel 1-24 (BK XIII,l Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968) 18-21; H. WILDBERGER, Jesaja 1-12 (BK X,l; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972) 236. 34 BALTZER,Biographie, 110-111. 35 BALTZER, Biographie, 29-38 (Gideon); 38-44 (Moses). 36 For an analysis of the vocation story of Gideon (Judg 6: 12-17.24), see U. BECKER, Richterzeit und Konigtum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW 192; Berlin - New York 1990) 145-151 (with bibliography).

172

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

text in Exod was to take up this theme more than once37 Exod 3: 16 shows that the mission of Moses is founded on his vision. The divine message that Moses has to pass on to the elders begins with these words: "Yhwh, the God of your fathers, has appeared to me [ ... J" (;rNil). Moses' doubts are also about this fact: according to him, the Israelites will say: "Yhwh has not appeared to you" (;[1;r' ,,"N ;rNil-N"; 4: 1). With no vision there is no mission possible38 . About Gideon, K. Baltzer has indicated the three main elements that justifY his vocation and clear him of the suspicion of being ambitious or the tool of a powerful family (cf. Judg 6:15): God himself entrusts him with a mission (6:14); Gideon can speak with the divinity and therefore becomes a "servant of God," assured of the divine assistance (6:16a); he was able to see the angel ofYhwh face to face without dying (6:22-23)39. The third element is the one that interests us more. Afinal example will confirm the essential role that the vision plays in the life of the prophets. It comes from the Elijah and Elisha cycle. When Elijah is about to be taken up into heaven he asks his disciple Elisha what he wants to receive. The latter asks for two thirds of his master's spirit (2 Kgs 2:9). Some time ago H. Grotius linked this text with Deut 21: 17, where it is said that the eldest son has a right to two thirds of the family inheritance40 Elisha therefore asks to be able to inherit his master's prophetic spirit and thus become his legitimate successor. Elijah places a condition on this legacy: his disciple must see him when he is taken up to heaven (2 Kgs 2: 10). Ifhe can behold that heavenly phenomenon it means that he has access to a world forbidden to ordinary mortals 41 and that he is Elijah' worthy heir42 2.1.2. The divine council Other texts confirm this view. They speak explicitly of a "council" (i10; Amos 3:7; Jer 23: 18,22)43 The true prophet is the one who "sees" and "hears" 37 These texts do not of course belong to the same source. Our purpose is only to analyze the developments ofthe subject in the tradition. For the analysis ofthe text see, among others, W.H. SCHMIDT, Exodusl-6 (BK 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988) 100-207. 38 BALTZER, Biographie, 40. 39 BALTZER, Biographie, 37-38. 40 Quoted by J.A. MONTGOMERY: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1960) 354. 41 BALTZER, Biographie, 101. Cf2 Kgs 6:17 where Elisha asks God to show a servant the invisible anny that is all around the prophet. 42 This is the common opinion of the exegetes: see, among others, H. GUNKEL, Jahve und Baal (Die Religion des Alten Testaments 2; Tiibingen, 1911) 32; J. GRAY, 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary (OTL; London - Philadelphia 21970) 475; T. R. HOBBS, 2 Kings (WBC 13; Waco 1985) 21. The "vision" is characteristic of a prophetic person such as Balaam; see Nurn22:31; 24:4,16. 43 See, among others, E. T. MULLEN, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980) 217-220.

2. The function of the vision and the meal

173

what is going on in the heavenly court: "For who has stood in ('Oll) the council ofYhwh? Let him see (N"') and hear (llOIZi',) his word!"; Jer 23: 18a)44. In this latter text from Jeremiah, the vision is not an isolated fact. The prophet is called upon to "see" and "hear" continually what is going on in the divine council. This element comes elsewhere in Jeremiah as in the Elijah and Elisha traditions. These traditions about Elijah and Elisha have preserved an expression that describes them as permanent members of the divine council: they "stand in the presence ofYhwh." The verb 'Oll ("to be standing") is the one that appears in Jeremiah (23: 18; cf. supra). In 1 Kgs 17: 1 (cf. 18: 15), Elijah introduces himself as the one who speaks in the name of "Yhwh, the God of Israel before whom I stand", "l!l" 'n'Oll ,IZiN "N,iD' '''''N "''''. The privilege of being able to "stand before Yhwh" is the seal that authenticates his words45 . The same expression is found again twice on the lips of Elisha (2 Kgs 3:14; 5:16)46 Jer 15:19 ("if you return [ ... ] you will stand before me [Yhwh]") and 18:20 ("Remember [Yhwh] how I stood before you") use the same verb, just like 1 Kgs 22: 19 about the army ofthe heavens that makes up the heavenly court and the divine council in Micah ben Yimlah's vision. The syntagma 'l!l" 'Oll ("to stand in the presence of," "to be at the service of') is therefore used for the divine beings and for the prophet47 . In the secular world the expression means "to be at the service of," which, in most cases, is equivalent to occupying an official function. This is the case with Joseph at Pharaoh's service (Gen 41:46), Joshua at the service of Moses (Deut 1:38), David at the service of Saul (1 Sam 16:21-22), Abishag at the service of David (1 Kgs 1:2), of Solomon's servants (1 Kgs 10:8), Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadrezzar's general (Ier 52: 12), of Daniel and his companions at the court 0 f the same king (Dan 1: 5)48 The same idea may be expressed by the verb :J~' /:J~l ("to stand [in the presence of]"). It is used, always of members of a council, in Job 1:6; 2:1; Prov22:29; Zech 6:5 49 In Deut 10:8; Judg 20:28; 1 Kgs 8:11; Exod 44:15, the expression designates priestly service. 2.1.3. Seeing the king

To support these conclusions on the role of the vision, it is fitting, last of all, to invoke a series oftexts that come from the secular world, and in particular from 44 We translate from the MT. For a discussion ofthe text, see W.L. HOLLADAY,Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-25 (Henneneia; Philadelphia 1986) 633. 45 H. RINGGREN, ,.,o.v," TWATVI, 194-204, esp. 198-199. 46 2 Kgs 3:14 adds: n1~ to mil'. 47 RINGGREN, "'O.v," 199. 48 RINGGREN, "'O.v," 198-199. 4 9 J. REINDL, ":l~ I~\ " TWATV, 555-565, esp. 561.

174

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

that of the royal court. There, too, the fact of "seeing" corresponds to a special status. The expression "to see the face of the king," which in general means "to be received in audience," is actually granted to privileged persons. The fact of "seeing the king" may, like the visio Dei, have its dangers (lKgs 18: 1-2, 15: Elijah and Ahab). This is especially the case in a late text like Esth 4: 11 (cf. 5: 1-2). Some texts stress the solemnity of the "vision" that is accompanied with a certain ritual (1 Sam 25:23; 2 Sam 24:20). It is possible to impose certain conditions on the one wishing to be received, as the story of Joseph shows (Gen 43:3, 5; 44:23, 26) or the story of David and Abner (2 Sam 3: 13). Anyone in disgrace is unable to "see the face" of the king, as in the case of Moses sent away by Pharaoh (Exod 10:28-29) or Absalom, kept in the background by David (2 Sam 14:24,28,32). The court officials are those who "see the face of the king" (2 Kgs 25:19 ~ Jer 52:25; Esth 1:14: l?O;Pl5l '111)50. On the exegesis of Exod 24: 11, let us keep in mind especially the fact that "seeing" the king does not go without saying, that it is an event that involves certain risks, that "seeing" or "not seeing" means being in favour or out of favour and that the expression "those who see the face of the king" denotes the sovereign's immediate entourage, his ministers and the court grandees. It is not necessary to stress the parallelism between these texts and Exod 24: 11 any more.

2.1.4. Conclusion: the vision in Exod 24:11 All these texts clearly show that in the prophetic tradition the inaugural vision is the moment when God makes the one he has chosen his official envoy. The vision provides him with his credentials. The similarities with Exod 24: 11 are striking and favour interpreting the latter text along the same lines. The chief men of Israel benefit from a vision which they survive, they are admitted into the presence of God in his heavenly dwelling and thus can henceforth belong to the "divine council." This scene has as its purpose the establishment of their authority and the legitimization of their function in the service of God. They are not, of course, "envoys" like the prophets and the scene is not a vocation story. Their mandate is different and other texts would have to be studied to fix the rights and duties of these "chief men" with accuracy51. The statements coming

50 H. F. FUHS, "i1Ki," TWATVII, 225-266, esp. 244; H. SIMIAN-YOFRE, 't:l'~!l," TWATVI, 629-659, esp. 647. 51 See, for example, BLUM, Studien, 339-345 (with bibliography) on postexilic institutions. The priesthood and the elders were, according to him, the two institutions ofthe postexilic community that had been able to survive the catastrophe and that considered themselves the true heirs of Moses and therefore marked with the seal of divine authority. For the priesthood and Moses, see Exod 29 and Lev 8: Aaron and his sons are consecrated by Moses. For the elders, see Num 11:16-17,24-30: the seventy elders receive the spiritthat is on Moses.

2. The function of the vision and the meal

175

from the royal milieu buttress these remarks, for "seeing" the king corresponds there to a special status, too.

2.2. The meal If the purpose of the vision is to set up the authority of the chief men, what is that the purpose of the meal? If meals in the presence of God are not very frequent, the Bible speaks more often of a meal "in the king's presence." In general it is about an exceptional favour reserved for important court officials and certain privileged persons. As in the case of the visio Dei, this favour invests those who enjoy it with a particular dignity. That is what we would like to show now. Two syntagmas are worth drawing attention to. The first, "eating at the king 's table" (l'?O,qn'?IZi[-'?ll] '?'Ie) means that the king personally provides for the entertainment of the particular person or group. It may be a way of rewarding someone's fidelity or generosity. This is the case with Barzillai to whom David offers this possibility. He declines it, but it is extended to his sons (1 Kgs 2:7; cf.2 Sam 19:34). David had bestowed this favour on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. But in that case David's intention was of course, by this expedient, to keep a close watch on a possible rival (2 Sam 9:7, 10,11,13).2 Sam 9:11 helps to pin down the full significance of the gesture: Mephibosheth was to be treated "like one of the king's sons." "Eating at the king's table" is synonymous with "belonging to the royal family." So it is that David shared Saul's table with Jonathan (1 Sam 20:29; cf. vv. 25-34) and that all his absences were noted. He, too, was a choice guest under strict surveillance. The prophets of Baal and Astarte eat together at the table of the queen Jezebel (1 Kgs 18: 19), while God undertakes to feed the prophet Elijah with ravens as intermediaries (17:4) or the widow of Zarephath (17:9). Lastly, at the end of the monarchy, Nehemiah speaks of the one hundred and fifty Jews and leading men who are received at his table and are therefore on his hands and not on those of the people (Neh 5: 17). The text in Ezra 4: 14, in which the officials of the court of Persia describe themselves as "those who eat the salt of the palace," can be compared with these examples. The examples show that the formula "eating at the king's table" means at least two things: being on the king's hands and being part of his family in the broad sense 52 . It is a matter of permanent status, not a special favour. Nothing permits one to think that the meal in Exod 24: 11 is of this order. Neither vocabulary nor context are along these lines.

52 R. DE VAUX, Les institutions de l'Ancien Testament I (Paris 21961)187; VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 113.

176

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

The other expression is not so common, but no doubt closer to the one we are studying'3 In tInee texts the formula "eating in front of the king" (l':>C" 'lEl':> ':>~K) appears'4 David reserves this honour for Uriah in the dramatic circumstances of the well-known story in 2 Sam 11: 13. When the king of Babylon, Evil-Merodach, decides to pardon Jehoiachin, he grants him, among other things, to "eat and drink in his presence all the days of his life" (2 Kgs 25:29 ~ Jer 52:33). Lastly, King Ahasuerus, at the beginning of the Book of Esther, arranges a big feast for all the dignitaries of his empire "in his presence" (Esth 1:3). The favour may be an occasional one, for example in the case of Uriah or the highly-placed officers of the Persian empire. It is permanent in the case of Jehoiachin, but the text fixes it explicitly ("all the days of his life"; 2 Kgs 25:29-30 ~ Jer 52:33-34). The Book of Esther makes it possible to add another element. The feast offered by Ahasuerus to his dignitaries is different from the one he offers the inhabitants of Susa (Esther 1:5) and from the one arranged by the queen (1:9). Only the dignitaries feast "in the king's presence" (1:3). The conclusion must be that being able to "eat and drink in the presence of the king" is an honour reserved on occasion for the ruling class ofa kingdom or for individuals, in exceptional circumstances. In conclusion, "eating in the presence of the king" is not an ordinary event and the privilege is reserved for the most highly-placed notables in the kingdom. Several of these elements occur in Exod 24:11, since there is only one meal and those sharing it form the "elite among the Israelites" ('l:J '':>'~K ':>K11/)')".

2.3. The meal and the vision It seemed fitting to deal with the two themes separately. At the moment, it will help to show that the interpretation ofExod 24: 11 depends on their correlation. Unfortunately, as far as we know there is no Old Testament parallel that contains both elements, vision and meaP6. So no light can be sought from that quarter. Yet the previous analyses have shown two things. Firstly that the vision and the meal are both privileges granted on rare occasions. In the texts ana-

53 The similarity has been noted byVRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 113; SMEND, "Essen," 141-142; RENAUD, Theophanie, 178, 180. But Vriezen and Smend then speak of a covenant meal and Renaud of a cultic meal. 54 For the Mesopotamian parallels, see VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 112, n. 2: eating ina pani saJri, "facing the king." 55 Whatever the etymology and the exact meaning ofthe term may be, it denotes a restricted group occupying a particular position among the people. For more details, see VRIEZEN, "Exegesis," 102; NICHOLSON, "Interpretation," 83. 56 In the New Testament, see Acts 1:3-4; 10:40-41; cf. John 21: 1, 13-14; Luke 24:36-43.

3. Date and background to the origin of Exod 24:9-11

177

lyzed the vision coincides with the beginning of the prophetic mission or with its exercise. The one who "sees God" is generally one of the divine council (1 Kgs 22:19; Jer 23:18). On the other hand, the meal is an honour that goes to those whom the king wishes to favour in a particular way (Uriah and Jehoiachin (2 Sam 11: 13; 2 Kgs 25:29) or who belong to the narrow circle of his closest collaborators (the grandees in the Persian empire: Esth 1:3). Exod 24 falls perfectly into this category. The chief men can "see" God without suffering any harm. They are therefore admitted into his family circle. The meal simply confirms that fact. If the cultic overtones are lacking, it is because a different aspect is predominant. We have an investiture scene that inaugurates and legitimizes the function of the chief men within the people of Israel'7 If the text contains no incontestable allusion to the covenant it is because the latter is concluded between God and all the people, not between God and only the representatives ofthat people. It is not a question of establishing a juridical public link between God and the chief men but of setting up and authenticating the latter's position with regard to the people. To do this, Exod 24:9-11 used language proper to the prophetic tradition, that of the visio Dei, and combined it with a subject coming from royal traditions (the meal "in the presence of the king"). Common to both elements was the question of belonging to the "divine council." But when and why was that question asked? This makes us now tackle the problem of the date of Exod 24:9-11.

3. Date and background to the origin of Exod 24:9-11 A number of exegetes today consider that Exod 24:9-11 is of postexilic origin. The most convincing arguments have been provided by E. Ruprecht". He starts his study with a reflection of the methodological order: if the text is old, how was the tradition able to keep it while some of its elements, such as the vision granted to a sizeable group, is in flagrant contradiction with more recent theologies such as the one in Deuteronomy (Deut4:12, 15; 5:23-27) or the Priestly Writer (Exod 24: 15-18; Num 17:5)? Then, more concretely, he relies on the presence of the elders, the vocabulary and the cullic background of Exod 24:9-11. The presence of the elders does not mean that the text is to be considered as going back to the pre-monarchic period, because that institution is vouched for throughout the whole ofIsrael's history up to the postexilic

57 PERLITT,

Bundestheo!ogie, 186: "So hat der Bericht eine deutlich initiierende Kraft

undAbsicht." 58 RUPRECHT, "Ex 24:9-11," 142-143. For an earlier date, see PERLITT, Bundestheo!ogie, 189; E. W. NICHOLSON, "The Antiquity ofthe Traditions in Exodus xxiv 9-11," VT25 (1975) 67-79; MCCARTHY, Treaty, 265 (bibliographyn. 42).

178

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

period. Isa 24:23 comes indisputably from this last period59 The vocabulary contains two elements that bring our passage into touch with Ezekiel. The first is the comparison without a tertium paragonis, "ElOn nl:J? nlDlll:I:l ("like a pavement of sapphire stone"; Exod 24: lOb). The closest texts come from the visions in Ezek 1:22,26-27; 8:2; 10:1. The second is the syntagma "Elon nl:J? ("pavement of sapphire"). The sapphire is mentioned by Exod 28:18; 39:11; Isa 54: 11; Ezek 1 :26; 10: 1; 28: 13; Job 28:6; 6: 16; Lam 4:7; Cant 5: 14, all late texts. Exod 24: 10 is closer to the visions in Ezekiel because the majesty of the moment is not so tied to the ceremonial, as in Isa 6, as it is to the material of which we get a glimpse. As for the cultural background, it has to be sought in the Mesopotamian temples that Israel may have known during the exile. In our opinion, the decisive argument is that of the vocabulary. To this one could add that it would be difficult to imagine that such a text could have come into existence at a time when the prophetic institution was in full vigour and the visio Dei was its exclusive prerogative. After the exile it was never to be the same again and most likely Israel wondered about who could take over from the "seers." Let us add three more pieces to this dossier, even if they are not decisive. The word ,nt!l ("purity"; Exod 24: 10) is rare and its uses are somewhat late (Ps 89:45; Lev 12:4, 6). The text in Ps 89:45 is difficult and its date is debated60 Likewise, two texts that use the two verbs "to see" (nN' and nm; Exod 24: 10, 11) in parallel to describe a vision of God are late (Job 19:26-27; 23:9)61 Lastly, the use ofl:l~ll ("bone") in the sense of "self' (Exod 24:10) is typical of many recent texts, especially in the priestly milieu and in Ezekiel (Gen 7:13; 17:23,26; 12:17,41,51; Lev 23:14, 21, 28-30; Ezek2:3; 24:2; 40:1)62 These elements do not of course provide full proof but they are grist to the mill of those who prefer a recent date 63 . All things considered, the text comes where several traditions converge: the prophetic world, with the vision vocabulary and the concept of the "divine council," a style bearing the stamp of the priestly world, the idea of a meal "in the presence of God" or "in the presence of the king," coming from the ways and customs of eastern courts and, it must be added, the presence of the 59 On the elders, see J. BUCHHOLZ, Die A·ltesten Israels im Buch Deuteronomium (GTA 36; G6ttingen 1988); H. REVIV, The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution (Jerusalem 1989). On Isa 24:23 see T. M. WILLIS, "Yahweh's Elders (Isa 24:23): Senior Officials of the Divine Court," ZAW 103 (1991) 375-385. 60 M.E. TATE,Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20; Dallas TX 1990) 414-417, after a long discussion inclines towards an exilic or a postexilic date. For the translation, see p. 412. 61 Psalm 63 is very difficult to date according to most commentators. For other texts that do not speak of the visio Dei, but use the verbs ilKi and mn, see Num 24:16-17; Isa 30:10; 33:17.20; Prov 24:32. 62 Other texts: Deut 32:48; Josh 5:11; 10:27. 63 H. H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (ZUrich 1976) 110-112; BUCHHOLZ, Die A·ltesten, 33-39, also call for a late date.

3. Date and background to the origin of Exod 24:9-11

179

elders, an institution that has links with the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic world 64 • All this argues in favour of a late date, of course. The arguments in favour of an earlier date are much vaguer, for they rarely appeal to the composition of the text but more often to the atmosphere or general tone of the passage 65 It is true that the description given in Exod 24:9-11 differs in its simplicity from the other descriptions of the theophany on Sinai 66 as it does from the descriptions of prophetic visions 67 . But simplicity is not necessarily a sign of antiquity. The most recent additions to the Pentateuch are most of the time the result of changes made with a precise purpose. Some postexilic texts have several points in common with Exod 24:9-11, as the rest ofthis study will show. Ifwe do not find the theology of the "name" again here, the one proper to Deuteronomy, or that of "glory,,68, typical of the priestly tradition, that does not make us choose an early date either. The late redaction of the Pentateuch is not necessarily limited to texts of deuteronomistic or priestly origin. It has been possible to argue that Moses was absent from the origin of the tradition in Exod 24:9-11 69 . This argument of course holds true only of the early tradition, and not for the present text which is the subject of our enquiry70. 64 BUCHHOLZ, Die A·ltesten, 33-38, for whom Exod 24:9-11is meant to rehabilitate the "elders" accused by Ezekiel of being no longer suitable for worship (Ezek 8:7-12 and Exod 24:11a); K.J. HOPPE, "Elders and Deuteronomy: AProposal," EglT 14 (1983) 259-272; ID., The Origins of Deuteronomy (University Microfilms International; Ann Arbor - London 1978-1980); ID., "The Meaning of Deuteronomy," BTB 10 (1980) 111-117. 65 H. GreJ3mann thought he had found the first stone of the Sinai tradition in this text (Mose. 182). 66 NICHOLSON, "Antiquity," 75-76. 67 MCCARTHY, Treaty, 265. 68 MCCARTHY, Treaty, 265. He also speaks of the simplicity of the text that recalls Gen 2 and its jewels (Gen 2:12). But that feature is more reminiscent of Ezek 1:28; Isa 54:11 (see supra). 69 NICHOLSON, "Antiquity," 76-79. Moses does not play any particular part in this scene, and that makes his present doubtful. Still, it should be noted that the verbs j'f,,V (24: 1) and '1.1"1 (24:9) are in the singular and that Moses is the subject. Moses is therefore well anchored in this part of the text (RENAUD, Theophanie, 32). Doubts have also been expressed on the originality of the mention of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu because they remain inactive in the scene. See A.H.J. GUNNEWEG, Leviten und Priester. Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jiidischen Kultpersonals (G6ttingen 1965) 86; PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 183; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium, 153; F.L. HOSSFELD, Der Dekalog: seine spaten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45; Freiburg Schweiz - G6ttingen 1982) 201; BUCHHOLZ, DieA·ltesten, 34; BLUM, Studien, 89-90, n. 96 et al. All that is quite possible but the argument is also true of the elders. That is why we prefer to keep to the text in its present terms. 70 E. ZENGER, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zumjahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (FzB 3; Wiirzburg 1971) 164, sees the work of the Jahwist in Exod 24:9-11. He would have written under Hezekiah and his aim was to support the reform introduced by that king. It is difficult to see how that "vision" of the chief men of Israel can fulfil such a function. Where are the king and the temple? See E. W. NICHOLSON'S criticism, "The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv, 9-11," VT 26 (1976) 148-160, esp. 152-153.

180

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

The side-by-side presence of Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the elders recalls the postexilic period when priesthood and elders filled the gap left by the monarchy. Some late texts will confirm the fact that the elders and/ or the high priest belong to the divine council in the eyes of the postexilic community, to the exclusion of others claiming that honour.

3.1. The absence of the king in the divine counci/-Jer 30:21 This passage from Jeremiah deals with the future king: "Their prince shall be one of their own and their ruler shall come from their midst; I will bring him near and he shall approach me; for who would otherwise dare to approach me,

says Yhwh?". The text avoids the name ,,,~ ("king") and prefers the more neutral tenns "'K ("noble," "prince") and ?tdc ("ruler," "chief," "sovereign"). The oracle insists on two points. Firstly, the future sovereign will be a member

of the people ofIsrael and not a foreigner any more (cf. Deut 17:15). Next, he will have access to God. In other words he will be accepted by Yhwh in his new capacity. The matter arising here is linked with the end of the monarchy. The failure of that institution is blatantly obvious. That is why, in future, it will be important that the king be acceptable to God. Yet the vocabulary is concerned with worship. The verb :l1p ("to approach") is only used in the hiph. in some texts that speak of the priests (Num 16:5,10) or of King Ahaz in the exercise offunctions connected with worship (2 Kgs 16: 12)'1 The text is important for our subject, for it tries to solve the problem by insisting on the fact that the king will be able to be an intimate friend of God. It also insists on the fact that approaching God is in itself impossible. But it remains outside the traditions on the "divine council" and uses the vocabulary of worship. On the other hand, no postexilic text was to indicate the presence of the king or the future messiah

in the divine council. This corresponds to the decline of the kingship at this time and adequately explains why Exod 24:9-11 does not contain any allusion to that institution.

3.2. The elders - Isa 24:23 This text is closer to Exod 24:9-11 because it speaks of the elders: "The moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for Yhwh of hosts reigns on Mount Zion in Jerusalem and his glory [appears] before his elders." The links between the two passages have already been studiedn It is generally believed that Isa 24:23 depends on Exod 24:9-1)73 The alleged reason is that the text mentions the 71 W.L. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26-52 (Minneapolis, MA 1989) 179. 72 WELTEN, "Vemichtung," 129-146 (see ll. 12). 73 J. VERMEYLEN, Du prophete !saYe a /'apoca/yptique. IsaYe, J-XXX"v," miroir d'un demi-

3. Date and background to the origin of Exod 24:9-11

181

elders and the glory at the same time. It thus combines two traditions, the one about the vision on the mountain (Exod 24:9-11) and the one about the glory in the priestly account (see for example Exod 24: 16-17). It must therefore come after them74 . One element is surprising in this passage. Why are only the elders present on the mountain? No king, priest or prophet appear in this text. The only representatives received into Yhwh's presence on Mount Zion are the elders. The glory is "before them" (11:1:1 1'lpr 1ll1). That glory had appeared on Mount Sinai, in the eyes of all Israel (Exod 24: 17). It had then taken possession of the tent in the desert (Exod 40:34-35), then of Solomon's temple (1 Kgs 8:11). It had left that temple and the land ofIsrael, according to Ezek 10:4, 18, 19; 11 :22-23 but it then came back to dwell on Mount Zion (Ezek 43:2-4; 44:4). Still, the glory, typical of the priestly texts is not, as one might expect, in the presence ofthe members ofthe priesthood but in that ofthe elders. Must it be said that the glory is reserved for the elders, to the exclusion of any other group, or simply that it is present first and foremost for the elders? What the texts are silent about is difficult to interpret. The least that must be said is that Isa 24:23 grants them the place of honour by eclipsing all the other candidates for this privilege. This text certainly seeks to set up their authority and superiority by having recourse to the vocabulary of glory.

3.3. The High Priest - Zech 3:7 Here, on the contrary, it is Joshua the high priest who is admitted into the presence of God. The story wants to legitimate Joshua's particular position by bringing him into the divine council": "Thus says Yhwh of hosts: '!fyou walk in my ways and if you keep my requirements, you it is who will rule my house and you it is who will have charge of my courts; and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here"76 The verb 1Cll ("to stand") here, as in other texts analyzed above, is used to characterize the members of the divine council77 But what role is the high priest going to play within this assembly? For some, he is to take part in the heavenly liturgy, although the text hardly alludes to this78 . Others have spoken of intercession79. Here again the story of the vision is silent on the matter. Lastly, for a third group, the text millenaire d'experience religieuse en Israel I (BB; Paris 1977) 360-361; H. WILDBERGER, Jesaja 13-27 (BK X,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978) 949-950. 74 See, among others, WELTEN, "Vemichtung," 136. 75 BALTZER, Biographie, 179. 76 For the translation see, among others, D.L. PETERSEN, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; London - Philadelphia 1984) 206-207. 77 See supra, p. 315. 78 S. AMSLER, Aggee - Zacharie 1-8 (CAT XIc; Neuchatel- Paris 1981) 81-82. 79 W. NOWACK, Die kleinen Propheten (HKAT III,4; G6ttingen 1903) 355; F. HORST, Die zw6ljkleinen Propheten. Nahum bis Malachi (HEAT 14; Tiibingen 31964) 228.

182

Vision and Meal in Exodus 24: 11

would be putting into relief the fact that the high priest has access not only to the Holy of Holies but to divine intimacy in heaven 80 But one would expect a more cultic vocabulary, with the verbs :J'P or tDll ("to approach") and some liturgical features to describe the background to the scene. It seems more reasonable to consider that the text is describing the investiture of Joshua with his functions as the one in charge of the temple, which is explicitly mentioned in the same verse: "You will rule (l',n) my house and have charge of my courts" (3:7a~)8 1 That responsibility extended to the temple rather than to all the house of Judah. The parallelism between 'n':J ("my house") and "~m ("my courts") favours this interpretation of the word "house,,82 There was a law court in the temple according to Deut 17:9 and Ezek 44:24 83 . But Zech 3:7 gives the high priest an exceptional place by granting him the monopoly of the administration of the temple, to the exclusion of the king, and by giving him access to the divine council s4 Actually, the king could intervene in the affairs of the temple, as certain texts in the Books of Kings ShOW 85 . Furthennore, access to the divine council gives the high priest authority similar to that of the prophets 86 All things considered, the vision describes the investiture of the high priest as administrator and establishes his new authority 87. However, it should be noted that the privilege is bound up with observance of the laws decreed in v. 7a: "If you walk in my ways, if you observe my directives [ ... j" and that the high priest must first be purified (3:4-5).

4. Conclusion These late texts show that during the postexilic period the question was asked about who could belong to the "divine council." In fact, only the elders and the high priest are mentioned. Just as in Exod 24:1,9-11. This entitles us to 80 T. CHARY, Aggie, Zacharie, Malachite (SB; Paris 1969) 76-77. 81 c.L. MEYERS-E. M. MEYERS,Haggai - Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25; Garden City, NY 1987) 178 and 197: "the priest must execute justice and thus needs access to divine will." 82 PETERSEN, Zechariah, 205. 83 PETERSEN, ibid. 84 J. JEREMIAS, Die Nachtgeschichte des Sacharjah. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117; G6ttingen 1977) 216. 85 1 Kgs 2:26-27: Solomon dismisses Abiathar from his functions as priest; 1 Kgs 8:5.6266: Solomon offers sacrifices and consecrates the temple (8:64); 2 Kgs 16: 10-18: King Ahaz changes the arrangement of the temple and offers sacrifices; 2 Kgs 12:5-17: King Jehoash has the temple repaired; 2 Kgs 22:3-7: King Josiah does the same. 86 JEREMIAS, Nachtgeschichte, 218; PETERSEN, Zechariah, 208. 87 E. SELLIN, Das Zw6ljprophetenbuch (KAT 12; Leipzig 1922) 448; HORST, Die zw6lj Propheten, 228, speaks of an "Investiturakt" conferring a geistliche "Rechtsstellung" on Joshua.

Summary

183

conclude by saying that the clues that came to light in the course of our enquiry into the text itself as well as into the earlier tradition favour the interpretation suggested concerning the meal in Exod 24: 11: its primary function is to legitimate the worthy heirs of Moses, after the catastrophe of the exile, as members of the divine council, in this case the members of the priestly class of Aaron and the representatives of the elders. But if Exod 24:1,9-11 mentions the group of the seventy elders along with the ancestor of the priestly class, Aaron, with two of his sons, Isa 24:23 speaks only of the elders and Zech 3:7 only of the high priest Joshua. The apocalypse ofIsaiah locates the scene on Mount Zion, where it would be more natural to find the members of the priesthood. Zechariah, for his part, opens a door for the high priest of which only the prophets know the secret. In these texts there are places where traditions cross each other and which show searches groping for a solution going on and probably tensions that must have existed in the postexilic period. Exod 24: 11 is rather the reflection of an attempt at reconciliation between the two main groups, the priesthood and the institution of the elders. Their experience of God and the patronage of Moses by themselves establish the power and responsibility of both. That experience is situated on Mount Sinai, at the origins of the history of Israel as a people. The vision and the meal set the seal on the communion of this manifold authority 88.

Summary The meal in Exod 24: 11 has often been interpreted as a covenant meal. Other interpretations, e. g. as a cultic meal, are more or less in the same line. This article, however, suggests considering the meal and the vision in Exod 24:9-11 as elements which confirm the authority of the leaders of Israel, that is, the members of the priesthood and the elders. They alone are worthy successors of Moses. The article goes on to examine the dating of the text and shows that it is preferable to see it as a post-exilic composition. The analysis of texts such as Isa 24:23 and Zech 3:7 confirms this opinion.

88 In the New Testament these two groups are found together, sometimes accompanied by the scribes, in Matt 16:21 (I !Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22); 26:3,47 (I !Mark 14:43); 27:1, 3, 12, 20,41; 28: 11-12; Mark 11 :27; 14:53; 15:1; Luke 20: 1; 22:52; Acts 4:23; 23: 14; 24:1; 25: 15.

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50) and the Canon of the Old Testament In his excellent article on Sirach in the Supplement au Dictionnaire de fa Bible, M. Gilbert points out the problems connected with the section of Sirach commonly called the "praise of the fathers" (Sir 44-50)1 The discussion centres mainly on the composition and the literary genre and the most important studies are those by B. L. Mack2, T. R. Lee 3, and R. Petraglio" A second question has held the attention of many exegetes for some years: the relationship between this historical fresco by Sirach and the formation of the Hebrew Scripture canon5 Most authors think that the Torah (,,11n) already had a canonical status - in so far as one can use the tenn - in Ben Sirach's time. Moreover, it would be possible to find, actually in the praise of the fathers, one of the first references to the existence of a "canon" of the prophets or, at least, of a list of authoritative books attributed to "prophets" (I:l'K':Jl). The third part of the Hebrew canon ofthe Old Testament (1:l':J1n:J or "writings") gives rise to great difficulties, as is known, and the text of Sirach 44-50 hardly provides anything that might clarify the situation. It is the "Prophets" that are specially discussed in recent times. Two opposing positions confront each other. On the one side o. H. Steck states that Sirach already knew about a "canon" of the prophetic books 6 1 M. GILBERT, "Siracide," DES XII (Paris 1992) col. 1389-1437, espec. 1431-1433. Literary geme: col. 1422. The article contains a complete bibliography on Sir 44-50. See also T.v. REITERER, "Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira (1980-1996)," The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. P. C. BEENTJES) (BZAW 255; Berlin - New York 1997) 23-60, es55-57. 2 B.L. MACK, The Wisdom and Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago - London 1985). 3 T. R. LEE, Studies in the Fonn of Sirach 44-50 (SBL Dissertation Series 75; Atlanta, GA 1986). 4 R. PETRAGLIO, II libro che contamina Ie mani. Ben Sira rilegge il libro e la storia d'Israele (Teologia 4; Palermo 1993). 5 On this problem, see GILBERT, "Siracide" (n. 1), col. 1423-1424 ("Ben Sira et l'Ancien Testament"), with bibliography (col. 1424). Cf. J. L. KOOLE, "Der Bibel des Ben Sira," OTS 14 (1965) 374-396, who states that Sirach already knew the three parts ofthe Hebrew canon, law, prophets and writings. He was criticized by J. G. SNAlTH, "Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus," JTS NS 18 (1967) 1-12. M. Gilbert doubts whether Sirach had an idea of "canon of Scripture" ("Siracide," col. 1423). 6 O. H. STECK, Der Abschlufl der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991) 136-144; ID., DieProphetenbiicher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis. Wege der Nachfrage und

1. The two opposing views

185

On the other, several English-speaking exegetes hesitate to say that books other than those in the Torah could have formed a definitive "canon" so long ago. According to these authors, the "Prophets" would designate only a series of books that do not form part of the Torah but belong to the religious heritage of the post-exilic community. That list would still be "open" in Sirach's time7 In this short essay which is intended to honour one of my very first initiators into exegetical methods, I shall try to bring some supplementary elements to the discussion on the fonnation of the Hebrew canon. More concretely, the question will be to know whether it is possible to discover some points of convergence among the principles that have governed the composition of the praise of the fathers in Sirach and the structure of the Hebrew canon, at least in its first two parts. A first section will examine the arguments of the two positions taken up (1). The second will try to describe what precisely is Sirach's purpose in his "praise of the fathers" (2). The last one will draw the conclusions from the analysis of the text in Sir 44-50 (3).

l. The two opposing views O. H. Steck relies mainly on literary clues to prove that in Ben Sirach's time (ca. 180 BeE) there already existed a "literary unit" comprising the three great and the twelve lesser prophets: 1. Sir 48:22-49: 10 quotes the three great prophets in the order which is that ofthe Hebrew canon. Moreover, he alludes to a certain number oftexts belonging to canonical books ascribed to these prophets 8 . Fiihrten zur Antwort (Tiibingen 1996) 130. This opinion is quite widespread. Cf. for example R. BECKWITH, The Old Testament Canon and the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI 1985) 72-73. 7 J. BARTON, Oracles 0 God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London 1986) 48, followed by D. M. CARR, "Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline ofthe Formation ofthe Tanakh and the Christian Bible," A Gift of God in Due Season. Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (eds. R.D. WEIS - D. M. CARR) (JSOTS 225; Sheffield 1996) 22-64, es38-39. 8 For Isaiah: Isa 10:32; 22:9-11; 36:1-22; 40:1-2; 49:8-13; 61:1-3. Ben Sirach therefore knows the three parts of Isaiah and, for him, they form one single book. For Jeremiah: 1:5, 10 (literal quotations); 11:19; 18:7; 20:1-2; 31:28; 37:11-16; 38:4-13. For Ezekiel: 1 and 10; 14:14,20. For more details, see the commentaries, among others W. SKEHAN -A.A. DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York 1987) 538-539; 543-544; P. C. BEENTJES, Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hunfunctie in Sirach 45:6-26 (Nieuwegein 1981); H.P. RUGER, "Le Siracide: un livre a la frontiere du canon," Le canon de I 'Ancien Testament. Safonnation et son histoire (eds. J.-D. KAESTLI - O. WERMELING) (Le Monde de la Bible; Geneve 1984) 47-69, 60-65.

186

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50)

2. Sir 49: 10 contains the first known mention of the "twelve prophets." For O. H. Steck it can only be a matter of one single volume containing the writings of the twelve minor prophets. Sirach actually quotes them as a group after speaking about Ezekiel, without making any distinction between them. As regards these twelve minor prophets, he does not follow chronological order, Amos, for example, does not come before Isaiah. Moreover, on the subject of Zorobabel (49:11), he mentions an oracle of Haggai (2:23), which again supposes that there existed at that time a written text ascribed to that prophet'3. According to Sir 48:22-49: 10, therefore, there were four prophetic scrolls in the order of the Hebrew canon: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets. 4. In the praise of the fathers the words "prophet" and "prophecy" and the verb "to prophesy" appear only in the section 46: 1-49: 10. The first person about whom "prophecy" is spoken of is Joshua, the successor of Moses "in prophecy," "in the prophetic function." On this point Sir is an innovator because no biblical book makes Joshua a "prophet." The other "prophets" are Samuel (46: 13, 15,20), Nathan (47: 1), Elijah (48: 1) and Elisha (48:8 H; 48: 13 G). Ben Sirach would therefore know a corpus that included the former prophets (Josh - 2 Kgs) and the latter prophets, that is to say the part of the Hebrew canon called C'N':!l. Against this argument which, at first sight, is flawless, D. Carr made some objections which led him to reject the hypothesis 1o: 1. Ben Sirach's praise of the fathers contains many allusions to the books of Chronicles which are part of the "Writings," not of the "Prophets." He therefore does not distinguish the last two parts of the Hebrew canon. 2. This eulogy does not end with the twelve minor prophets but continues with the mention ofZorobabel, Joshuah, Nehemiah (49: 11-13), then adds some persons belonging to the origins such as Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth andAdarn (49:14-16) and ends with the praise of the priest Simon (50:1-21). How are these elements to be integrated into a "prophetic canon"? 3. Sir does not, of course, use the word "prophet" after 49: 10; however, he is not always very logical in his procedure because several characters in section 46:1-49:10 are not called prophets (Caleb, the Judges, the kings ... ). 4. Consequently, it has to be said that Sir traces a kind of history of Israel that goes from the creation until the rebuilding of the temple, making free use of a certain number of writings that enjoyed an authority recognized within his community. Among the books quoted which do not belong to the Torah, some are in the second section of the Hebrew canon (the "Prophets"), others are not

9 10

See also 48:10 which quotes Mal 3:24 literally. CARR, "Canonization" (n. 7), 29.

1. The two opposing views

187

part of it. One cannot therefore conclude that Ben Sirach knew of a "canon" of the Prophets. Did D. Carr succeed in overthrowing O. H. Steck's hypothesis? In my opinion his objections do not all achieve their purpose. It will be enough to note some more important points. 1. The study of the text of Ben Sirach will show well enough that the praise of the fathers comprises not two but three parts: 44: 1-45:28 (from Noah to Phinehas), 46: 1-49: 10 (from Joshua to the twelve minor prophets), and 49: 1150:21 (rebuilding the temple)11 Ben Sirach distinguishes clearly the period of the prophets from the one that follows. He can of course quote Chronicles on David and Solomon, among others, but he does not confuse the different periods in the history of Israel. On the other hand, he depends more on the Deuteronomic history than on that of Chronicles. 2. Sirach is very logical as regards the use of the word "prophet." It is reserved for certain persons who are part of the period that goes from the conquest of the land to the exile (from Joshua to the twelve minor prophets). The second part of the Hebrew canon covers the same period. There are therefore clear analogies between Sirach's praise of the fathers and the actual Hebrew canon of the "Prophets." These observations deprive D. Carr's objections of their force. Nevertheless, it remains true that Sir 44-50 first intends to write history and not to go through a "sacred library." All the commentators on the text realize this and O. H. Steck is no exception 12. On the other hand, no one denies that Sirach used the known texts to put together his portrait gallery. The problem is therefore one of knowing what is the relationship between the history of Israel as Sirach presents it and the canon of Scripture or, to be more precise, a collection of sacred and authoritative books. To take a step forward we have to go back to the text to study certain elements of structure in it and certain principles of construction there. In particular we have to ask about the theology of the praise of the fathers.

11 The praise of the fathers is sometimes divided into two main parts: 44:16-45:25 (time of the covenants) and 45:26-50:24 (from Joseph to Simon the priest). Cf. Beentjes, quoted by GILBERT, "Siracide" (n. 1), col. 1431-1432. MACK, Wisdom (n. 2),37-64 (diagram 67) divides the hymn into three large parts: ancestors and covenants (44:17-45:25); prophets and kings (46:13-49:10); praise for Simon (50). These three parts are linked by transition passages: the conquest, deeds of Joshua, Caleb and the Judges (46: 1-12) and the restoration due to the initiatives of Joshua, Zorobabel, and Nehemiah (49:11-13). The second solution seems to take the textual elements into account better. However, one may wonder whether the intermediate periods ought not to be removed so as to pay more attention to Sirach's theological ideas. 12 STECK, Abschlufl (n. 6), 136.

188

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50)

2. Sir 44-50 and the periodization of the history ofIsrael My purpose is not to study the structure of the passage as such. Others have done so and it is not necessary to go over the question again. I would rather like to show that Sirach intends to present a history of Israel in three parts and that this tripartite structure corresponds roughly to that of the actual Hebrew canon. The matter is clearer for the first two parts and much less so for the last. This will not surprise anyone because it is known that the canon of the "Writings" was fixed very late. My aim will therefore be first of all to understand how Sirach sets out the story ofIsrael.

2.1. The prologue (Sir 44:1-15) It is worth while reading the prologue again to clarify Sirach's intention when he undertakes to eulogize the fathers. It is here that he actually tells us why he has chosen certain people and omitted others. In an opening paragraph (44: 1-7) Sirach draws up the list of "pious men" (H: 10n 'lDlN) or "famous men" (G: Iivl\Qu, EvI\6!;ou,). This list contains twelve categories of heroes who were famous in their time (44:3-6, 7)13. But the main reason for Sirach's choice is explained in the next paragraph (44:8-15), where he contrasts "those who have left a name" (44:8) with "those of whom there is no memory" (44:9)14 He is obviously going to concern himself only with the former (44: 10-15). In simpler terms, Sirach wants to eulogize people who are still remembered in his time. The idea of continuity and survival is essential in this perspective 15 . Many men have perished as if they had never existed (44:9). Others have survived because of their reputation (44:8.10.14.15) or their posterity (44: 12.13). In each of the sections to follow Sirach illustrates this perspective differently.

2.2. The Torah (Sir 44:16-23ay6 The first ancestors of post-exilic Israel are the patriarchs. This first part could be entitled: "the period of covenants,,17. The word n":l comes seven times in it, at least in the Hebrew text: 44: 12 (prologue); 44: 17 (Noah); 44:20 (Abraham); 13 See, among others, SKEHAN - DI LELLA, Ben Sira (n. 8), 500. 14 The translations are from the Hebrew text of Ben Sirach unless otherwise indicated. 15 MACK, Wisdom (n. 2),41-48, is very insistent on the importance of the idea of succession in the praise of the fathers. 16 On this part, see J. MARBOCK, "Die 'Geschichte Israels' als 'Bundesgeschichte' nach den Sirachbuch," Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (ed. E. ZENGER) (QD 146; Freiburg imBreisgau 1993) 177-197. 17 MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 39; MARBOCK, "Geschichte" (n. 15), 183-192.

2. Sir 44-50 and the periodization of the history of Israel

189

44:22 (Jacob); 45:15 (Aaron); 45:24 (phinehas); 47:11 (David). The word reappears in the last section when, in a prayer for Simon, Sirach asks God to "uphold for him the covenant made with Phinehas" (50:24 H). The purpose of these covenants is to safeguard the existence of the universe (Noah; cf. Gen 9:9), Israel (Abraham; cf. Gen 17) or the priesthood (Aaron and Phinehas). To Abraham God promises a numerous offspring (44:21), while to Jacob he promises the land as inheritance (44:23). These two promises run through the patriarchal stories as we now find them in Genesis. These covenants in general concern the posterity of the persons in question and therefore illustrate the theme announced in the prologue!8 This appears more clearly in the case of Noah (44: 18), Abraham (44:20-21), Aaron (44: 15) and Phinehas (44:24-25). For the latter, Sirach shows the superiority of the covenant with Aaron over that with David precisely on this point: David's passes to only one of his sons, whereas the covenant with Aaron passes to all his descendants. Sirach therefore contrasts individual with collective succession. In another connection, this passage underlines the capital role played by Moses in this first part of the history of the universe and ofIsraeP9 In general, the authors underline the importance of Aaron (45:6-22) who, along with Simon (50: 1-21), is the person who receives the most fully developed treatment. However, even if Moses is treated with fewer honours (18 stichs, 44:23c-45:5), he occupies a higher rank than Aaron2o The latter is "like Moses" (45:6), not the other way round. It is Moses who confers the investiture upon him (45: 15). Aaron receives legislative power (44: 17) but it is subordinate to that of Moses, since the law (""n) is given to Moses, not to Aaron (45:5). Besides, the word "law" only appears twice in all this section (45:5; 49:4). The first time, Sirach says that it is entrusted to Moses and the second that it was abandoned by the kings. Concerning Aaron, there is never any question of il,m. Lastly, Moses was the object of a very particular election (44:4), he is the only one to have seen something of the glory of God (45:3) and to have heard his voice (45:5);

18 This is no doubt the reason why there is no covenant with Moses, at least in the Hebrew text of Sirach 45: 1-5. Nowhere is there a question of the descendants of Moses. Cf. MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 39. MARBOCK, "Geschichte," (n. 15), 186, proposes a quite similar solution. He takes up an idea of A. JAUBERT, "La notion d'Alliance dans Ie judalsme aux abords de I'ere chretienne," (Patristica Sorboniensia 6; Paris 1963) 217, n. 361, which shows that Sirach gives prominence to an idea of covenant close to the priestly account. For P as for Sir, covenant is before all a unilateral pact whereby God guaranties a favour. For there are only two covenants, one with Noah for the whole universe (Gen 9: 1-17), and another with Abraham and the patriarchs, concerning Israel (Gen 17; cf. Exod 2:24; 6:4-5): P and Sir do not speak of covenant when the pact is bilateral and requires observance of a law by one of the parties. This is why he does not speak of the Sinai covenant. 19 See MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 39. 20 See for example LEE, Studies (n. 3), 12, n. 51 and 207 (with bibliography).

190

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50)

lastly he "received the commandments face to face" (45:5)2 1 Aaron is therefore a privileged heir but he is not a founder or pioneer. That role falls exclusively to Moses by right. The law / teaching is essential because it is going to make it possible for Israel to survive, and that is why Sirach calls it "law of life and understanding" (45:5). After the covenants with the patriarchs it is therefore a matter of one of the foundations of the life of the people ofIsrael. Its first guardians will be Aaron and Phinehas, that is to say, the priests. It is theirs in the first place to hand the Mosaic heritage on to future generations. As we have seen, Aaron receives the mission to teach the law and have it applied (45: 17)22. Phinehas, for his part, provides the transition between the first and second parts of Sir 44-50. He resists a rebellious people and obtains pardon for it (45:23). Thereby, he is a leading example of fidelity to the law, a matter that is going to appear again in the second part (46: 1-49: 10)23. The subject of posterity, a central element in the first part, is mentioned for the last time in the first part in connection with Phinehas (45:24-25). The next section, which speaks ofleaders, prophets and kings, no longer speaks of ancestors and so does not concern itself with their posterity. The only exceptions are Caleb (46:9) who bequeaths to his posterity the land that he obtained by his fidelity (46:10), David (45:25; cf. 46:11) and Solomon (47:22). But for David's descendants Sirach adds some important qualifications, as we have seen above (cf. 45:25) and in fact the kings disappear from the scene (48: 16; 49:4). The patriarchs and the priests are therefore the only ones who left a lasting posterity. As regards the "canon," four observations about this first section of the praise of the fathers are in order. (1) The first period or "time of covenants" correspond to the period covered by the Pentateuch. (2) Ben Sirach divides this period into three stages: universal history or the time of the origins, that is to say the epoch of Noah; the epoch of the patriarchal promises (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Sirach therefore knew this genealogy already but he does not mention Joseph at this poin!,4); the law and the priesthood connected with Moses, Aaron and Phinehas25 . The characters thus fonn three groups according to the scheme 1+3+3. (3) Lastly, Sirach knows of no division into five books, or he is not interested in it. The structure he proposes corresponds rather to a division of the time of the origins (Gen 1-11 or even 6-9); time of the patriarchs (Gen 12-36); period of Moses (Exod-Deut or Exod-Num). (4) Finally, 21 For the "face to face" between God and Moses, see Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; cf. the expression "mouth to mouth" in Num 12:8. 22 On the role of Aaron and Phinehas, in the praise ofthe fathers and its meaning for Sirach, see MARBOCK, "Geschichte" (n. 15), 187-188. 23 See 46:7,11,15; 48:22; 49:3; on infidelity, see 47:20, 23-25; 48:15-16; 49:4. 24 Cf. 49:15, but the text is suspect according to some exegetes. 25 The text underlines the links between these persons. See 45:1; 45:6 (Aaron is a "saint like Moses"); 45:23 (Phinehas is "the third in glory").

2. Sir 44-50 and the periodization of the history of Israel

191

Sirach gives pride of place to Moses, while underlining the decisive role of the priesthood in Israel's life26 Now this is the same principle that determined the formation of the Pentateuch. This ends with the death of Moses because, with the disappearance of the greatest of prophets (Deut 34: 10), the most important phase of God's revelation to Israel came to an end27 .

2.3. The time of the prophets or the period offidelity and infidelity (Sir 46:1-48:10) From Sir 46: 1 onwards the tone is set by the word "prophet" and cognates (46: 1, 13,20; 48: 1, 8; 49:7, 9, 10). Here again the prologue had announced the subject (44:3). Two people are at once political leaders and prophets, Joshua (46:1) and Samuel (46:13-14). From Nathan onwards (47:1) and the installation of the monarchy, political power is distinct from the prophetic mission. From the point of view of the formation of the canon it must be noted that in this section Sirach follows the Deuteronomistic History more than the Chronicler's. This goes against the opinion ofthose who insist on the affinities between Sir and 1-2 C)rr28 Actually, several clues show clearly that Ben Sirach borrows the kernel of his discussion and his ideas from the Deuteronomistic History. His contacts with the Chronicler are much more irregular29 . First of all, Sirach mentions several characters who do not appear in the Chronicler, such as Caleb, the Judges, Samuel, Elijah and Elisha30 Now these characters come in the order given in the Deuteronomistic History (Josh, Judg, 1-2 Sam, 1-2 Kgs). 26 On the priesthood in Sir, see S.M. OLYAN, "Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood," HTR 80 (1987) 261-286. 27 Cf. the recent exegesis of Deut 34: 10-12 by C. DOHMEN - M. OEMING, "Biblischer Kanon, warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie" (QD 136; Freiburg im Breisgau 1991) 54-68; R. Lux, "Der Tod des Mose als 'besprochene und erziihlte Welt'," ZThK 84 (1987) 395-425; N. LOHFINK, "Moses Tod, die Tora und die alttestamentlichen Sonntagslesungen," ThPh71 (1996)481-494. 28 See CARR, "Canonization" (n. 7), 39. 29 Cf. Sir 47:9-1 0 and 1 Chr 16. On the relationship between the praise of the fathers and the Chronicler, see MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 117-118. According to this author, Sirach and the Chronicler have four items in common: (1) the distinction between the acceptable kings and those who are not so; (2) the links between David and worship; (3) both recount a history that ends with their time; (4) they both recount history to justify the post-exilic community's cultic institutions. Items (1) and (3) hardly seem characteristic either of Sirach or of the Chronicler. The same could be said of the Deuteronomistic Historian. Items (2) and (4) are more interesting but they only appear in the description of David's reign (47:9-10) and in that of the post-exilic period (49:11-50:24) which the Deuteronomistic Historian does not speak about. Mack also notes the essential differences between Sir and 1-2 Chr. 30 Isaiah is mentioned by the Chronicler (2 Chr 32:20) but occupies a far less important place than in 2 Kgs 19-20. The other prophets are absent from the Deuteronomistic History as from Chronicles.

192

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50)

If the mention of David contains some liturgical elements that recall the description of that king by the Chronicler (1 Chr 16; 21-29) that of Solomon is completely different. The criticisms that Sirach makes of David's successor are not in the Chronicler and are even unthinkable in that book. Sirach, on the contrary, draws on the unfavourable descriptions of Solomon to be found in 1 Kgs 1O-1l. The only kings that escape criticism are three: David, Hezekiah and Josiah (49:4). The Chronicler adds two kings to this series: Asa (2 Chr 14-16) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17-20), and he devotes much space to them in his work. Here again Sirach is close to the Deuteronomistic Historian who does not pay any particular attention to Asa and Jehoshaphat. Some authors have been able to object that these two kings do not entirely escape the criticism in Chronicles (2 Chr 16:7-12; 19:2; 20:35-37) and that Sirach set them aside for that reason31 But the Chronicler also blames Hezekiah (2 Chr32:25, 31) and Josiah (2 Chr 35:22). Sirach's choice does not therefore entirely depend on the Chronicler's judgements on the kings. Finally, Sir does not speak ofthe Levites whereas they occupy a central place in Chronicles 32. Sirach actually speaks of Aaron's priesthood, not of the Levitical priesthood, and he recalls it during the first and last period of his historical reconstruction (44:6-22, 23-26 and 50:1-21). The priests are absent from the second period, in particular during the whole period from the construction of Solomon's temple (47: 13) until the destruction of Jerusalem (49:6). The authentic worship inaugurated by Aaron and Phinehas was to be re-established after the exile. The Chronicler, on the contrary, makes a "golden age" out of the period of David and Solomon, and the Levites share in all the monarchy's moments of glory. The difference between Sirach and the Chronicler is thus a considerable one. As regards the prophets as such, one thing has to be added. Sirach speaks of a "prophetic" period from Joshua to the exile of Judah, and he clearly shows that the prophets are the key persons of this period. On this point there is more than one point of contact between Sirach and the line taken by the Hebrew canon as regards the "Prophets." In the first place the history of the monarchy is a failure for Sirach as for the Deuteronomistic History. Secondly, the prophets are presented as critics of the royalty (cf. the Elijah and Elisha cycles; 2 Kgs 20: 12-29; 17: 13)33. Finally, the twelve minor prophets above all Ben Sira (n. 8), 543. 32 Cf. MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 118; OLYAN, "Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood" (n. 25),261-286. 33 MACK, Wisdom (n. 2), 120, states that Sirach "constructed his hymn without recourse to a Deuteronomistic view of Israel's history" . In view ofthe observations made in these pages it would be good to qualify this conclusion. For another view, closer to the one defended here, see J. MARBocK, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheoiogie bei Ben 31 SKEHAN - DI LELLA,

2. Sir 44-50 and the periodization of the history of Israel

193

announce the restoration ofIsrael: "They have healed Jacob 34 and have delivered it with the fidelity of hope" (49:19). This message of consolation comes in the final chapters of almost all the minor prophets: Hos 14:2-9; Joel 4:4, 18-21; Amos 9:13-15; Obad 19-21; Mic 7:8-20; Hab 3:1-19; Zeph 3:14-20; Zech 14:1-21; Mal 3:22-2435, not counting other oracles in the books. The phenomenon as such is striking and would no doubt deserve to be studied more closely36. These passages are for the most part later additions and Sirach would therefore be the witness to this rereading of the twelve minor prophets that makes them heralds of the salvation to come.

2.4. The time a/reconstruction (49:11-50:24) The last part differs from the one before in three matters. (1) It is no longer a question of prophets. (2) There is no more opposition between positive and negative characters. As in the first part, all the characters are positive. (3) Sirach is interested only in the rebuilding of the temple (49: 12) and Jerusalem (49: 13). The description of Simon the priest also begins with the reference to his work for the temple and the holy city (50: 1-3). The presence in this section of some persons not belonging to this period (Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth and Adam; 49: 14-16) poses a particular problem. For some authors these verses are an addition that could come from the hand of Sirach himself or one of his disciples. This reasoning, however, can only rest on internal reasons. These persons are out of place in this fresco. They should have appeared earlier, in the first section of the praise of the fathers. They do not play any particular role in the history ofIsrael, except Joseph, the "support of the people" (49:15), and few things in their destiny correspond to Sirach's major interests. No doubt Ben Sirach or one of his editors wanted, just before the last part dealing with Simon the priest, to insert at this point a series of people famous at that time because of their origin or their particular destiny37. However that may be, it is difficult to argue from a somewhat problematic passage.

Sira (BBB 37; Bonn 1971) 73, 95-96, 176-177; G. T. SHEPPARD, Wisdom as Hermeneutical Construct (BZAW 151; Berlin - New York 1980) 63-71; M. FISHBANE, "From Scribalism to Rabbinism: Perspective on the Emergence of Classical Judaism," The Gannents of the Torah (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN 1989) 64-78. 34 According to the Hebrew text. 35 Mal 3 :24 is quoted verbatim in Sir 48: 1O. 36 On this point see STECK, Abschlufl (n. 6),passim; for more details see B.A. JONES, The Fonnation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (SBLDS 149; Atlanta, GA 1995). On the oracles about salvation in the prophetic books see C. WESTERMANN, Prophetische Heilsworte im Alten Testament (FRLANT 145; G6ttingen 1985) 78-80 (list of texts). 37 On this point see MACK, Wisdom, 201-203.

194

The Praise of the Fathers in Sirach (Sir 44-50)

In this last part of his eulogy Sirach very sweepingly sununarizes the content of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, adding the character of Simon the priest. It is obvious that we have to explain why he does not speak of Ezra. For some, the book of Ezra is later than Sirach 38 . For others, Sirach removed Ezra because of his too close links with the Levites 39 . A third solution is surely preferable because it takes account of Ben Sirach's intention better. He is centring his last part on the rebuilding of the temple and Jerusalem. Now Ezra did not take part in this as directly as Zorobabel, Joshua, Nehemiah and Simon, the people who figure in this last part of the praise of the fathers. Ezra is more the man of the law of Moses than of the temple worship and, for that reason, did not interest Sirach40 . The differences between the Hebrew canon and the praise of the fathers are obvious. It is enough to note that Sirach is interested only in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of temple worship. Of course some texts, especially in Ezra-Nehemiah, allude to the same events. But it is also quite clear that Sirach in no way envisages the "Writings" as a whole in their canonical form. This can be confirmed by the prologue by the translator, who was Sirach's grandson and who uses stock phrases to speak of the Torah and the Prophets but is very vague when speaking of the third part of the canon: "the other [books] that follow [the Law and the Prophets]" (2); "the other books of our fathers" (10); "the other books" (25). Sirach himself speaks of the Law, the Prophets and the "wisdom of all the ancients" in 39,1. This last expression is certainly vaguer than the two others4 !. Therefore there really is a third category of books besides the Law and the Prophets but they do not yet form a wellrounded and clearly defined collection42

38

G.

GARBINI,

Storia e ideo!ogia nell'Israele antico (Brescia 1986) 208-235.

39 P. HOFFKEN, "Warum schweigt Ben Sirach fiber Esra?," ZAW 87 (1975) 184-201. 40 C. BEGG, "Ben Sirach's Non-mention of Ezra," EN 42 (1988) 14-18. For some other

solutions, see LEE, Studies (n. 3), 209-210 (with bibliography). He mentions three possible explanations: (1) Sirach would have considered Ezra's legislation on mixed marriages too severe. (2) Ezra is a scribe who deals only with the interpretation of the law of Moses. For Sirach, a scribe must be versed in all wisdom, so Ezra is not a model. (3) The third explanation is political. Ben Sirach preferred the solid political vision of Simon II to the quietism of Onias III his son who, on this point, was too much like Ezra. Sirach preferred not to mention Ezra in his praise of the fathers so as not to encourage Onias III in his conduct. These reasons are a little far-fetched, in my opinion. Sirach only mentions people who interest him. MACK, Wisdom (n. 2),119 (cf. 229, n. 10), takes up HOffken's theory (n. 38) ofSirach's aversion to the Levites and Ezra who was in league with them. 41 RUGER, "Le Siracide" (n. 8), 65-66; same opinion in BARTON, Oracles (n. 7), 280, n.31. 42 RUGER, "Le Siracide" (n. 8), 68: "One could say that in the time of Jesus Sirach as in that of his grandson, the Law and the Prophets were already available by way of completed collections, but that the third part of the canon, called the Writings, were still completely open". The analysis of the text made here confirms those views. On the Writings, see also

3. Some conclusions

195

3. Some conclusions This short survey allows one to draw some provisional conclusions. Sirach is hardly interested in the biblical books as such. His first aim was to run through the history of his people to point out the people who made it possible for them to survive the vicissitudes of their troubled history. However, Ben Sirach introduces a periodization principle into this reconstruction, a principle that was to be found, in large part, in the first two parts of the Hebrew canon. Contrary to the opinion of those who could express doubts on the matter, it is therefore pennissible to say that as from Sirach's time collections of scrolls enjoyed particular authority in educated circles and among the religious elite in Israel. This is true ofthe Torah, but also of the "Prophets". As for the "Writings," they were to reach their canonical fonn only later43 .

Benveen Text and Community: The "Writings" in Canonical Interpretation (Minneapolis, MN 1990). 43 I readily thank H.-W. Jiingling and S. Pisano for their judicious remarks made while this article was being written.

D. F. MORGAN,

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament 1. Introduction "The cradle of modem democracy is not only at Athens, but also at Jerusalem. The future of our freedom will depend on our will and ability to remember that origin." With that statement a specialist in the law of the ancient Near East, E. Otto, concluded an important monograph on Deuteronomyl. The statement may surprise, and it will no doubt give rise to debate. In fact, it will be necessary to define in what ways biblical law has been able to influence the constitutions of modem states in the contemporary west and the specialists will very likely say that the way that leads from the Old Testament to the fundamental documents of our democracies is relatively long and winding2 . In my opinion, however, E. Otto's thesis is not without foundation and that is what I would like to show in these few pages.

1.1. Bible and western literature The thesis defended by E. Otto is akin to the one the literary critic Erich Auerbach defended over fifty years ago in a work called, in its English translation: Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature3 • In it he maintains that the particular way of representing reality in western literature had two roots: classical Greco-Latin literature and the Bible. I do not dwell on Greco-Latin literature of which the influence does not have to be demonstrated. As for the Bible, E. Auerbach pointed out that its contribution was essential on 1 E. OTTO, Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsrefonn in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin - New York 1999) 378: "Die Wiege der Demokratie steht nicht nur in Athen, sondern auch in Jerusalem. Von der Bereitschaft und Fahigkeit, sich dieser Ursprung zu erinnern, hangt auch die Zukunft unserer Freiheit ab." 2 These documents are the Bill of Rights of 1689 that William III of Orange swore to observe before the English parliament; the Declaration of Independence of the United States proclaimed in Philadelphia in 1776; the Declaration of the rights of the citizen which went through three successive versions (Paris, 1789, 1793, 1795) and which summarized the ideals of the French revolution; finally, the universal Declaration of human rights voted in by the general assembly of the United Nations in New York on March 10th 1948. 3 E. AUERBACH, Mimesis: The Representation ofReality in Western Literature (Princeton, NJ 1953); English translation of E. AUERBACH, Mimesis. Die Darstellung der Wirklichkeit in der abendlandischen Literatur (Bern 1946).

1. Introduction

197

one point: it abolished the frontier between "styles," more concretely between the "elevated" style and the "lowly" style. In the classical world in fact the "elevated style" is reserved for tragedy and epic. In this kind of literature the heroes are kings or princes, or they belong at least to the upper classes of society. The actions described are themselves "elevated," too; in general they are about noble amorous intrigues or wars in which the heroes can accomplish extraordinary exploits. Whereas a king does not concern himself with the daily problems of his subjects or trivialities of ordinary life. Economic and social questions, or the lot of ordinary people are matters that cannot be put on the stage in classical tragedy or epic. The style, for its part, tends towards the sublime and in principle excludes any irony. On the other hand, the "lowly" style is reserved for comedy and satire. Here the heroes belong to the ordinary people; they are slaves, merchants, peasants, or artisans. The actions are commonplace and have nothing extraordinary about them. It is of course allowed to laugh at these characters who all belong to the lowest classes of the populace. The Bible, on the contrary, abolishes this distinction. Biblical heroes may belong to all classes of society in fact and actions that are worth describing do not necessarily have to be exceptional or extraordinary. In very simple terms, the Bible shows that it is not indispensable to belong to a privileged class to perform actions that leave an indelible mark on a life and, furthermore, it is not necessary that these actions be exploits out of the ordinary. The heroes in the Bible can be, and often are, ordinary people and their actions are just as ordinary. They do not always stand out by reason of their qualities and, in some cases, they are not even distinguished by their virtue. This does not prevent these ordinary actions, performed by ordinary heroes, from having an extraordinary effect. That is at least what the Bible wants to show in a large number of its stories. If! may be allowed to interpret Erich Auerbach's thought in this way, the Bible displays the extraordinary and unique aspects of the ordinary world4 . Or, to use simpler language, it reveals the density of every life and every action, even the most harmless. That is also the intention of many modem novels, still in Auerbach's opinion. Here, too, the heroes may belong to the common people and the plot of the novels may take its inspiration from the most ordinary events of everyday life 5 4 This statement certainly has to be qualified. The book of Esther, for example, is without doubt an exception. In another context, Homer in the Odyssey succeeds on more than one occasion in going beyond the norms for the epic geme by being simply human and sublime at once. This is particularly the case in the recognition scenes at the end of the book when Ulysses gets himself recognized by his spouse and his father. 5 Auerbach speaks of, among others, Stendhal, the brothers Goncourt and Virginia Woolf. Concerning the Bible, it would be possible, in my view, to show that as far back as then it uses the technique of the "slice oflife" and of "little tableaux."

198

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

1.2. Biblical law and western law What is the situation in the world of law? In my opinion it is quite similar. It is customary to derive western law from Roman law. Some, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, add the influence of old Germanic law to this. But very few speak of Biblical law. Yet it, too, also had a decisive influence on the development of westem law, no doubt in an indirect way. It was partly by way of canon law that this influence made itself felt. From this point of view Gregory VIII's refonn, in the opinion of a specialist in the matter like Harold Bennan, was one of the decisive moments in the history of westem law 6. The Dictatus Papae had repercussions on all the juridical constitutions of the period. Another specialist in law, Franyois Ost, has shown that it is possible to trace a line between Mount Sinai, where Moses transmitted to Israel the law ofYhwh its God, the hill of the Pnyx on the slopes of which Athenian democracy was organized and the Champ-de- Mars where the law ofthe French revolution was worked out'. Let us add to this the fact that the third version of the Declaration of the human rights, the one in 1795, in some of its parts draws explicitly on the gospel of Matthew, in particular the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). These few examples suffice, it seems to me, to give more probability to the thesis I wish to defend here. What was the particular contribution from biblical law? In a few words, it is similar to the contribution from biblical narrative in the realm of literature because biblical law abolishes class differences, just as biblical narrative, for the most part, knows nothing of the difference between "styles." In the Old Testament it is possible to find some modem ideas such as those of law based on the consensus of the members forming the juridical community and, reciprocally, of a community based on law recognized by all and not only on the "power" exercised by the authority; to this is added the general principle of the equality of all before the laws. Of course it will not be possible to illustrate this thesis in detail within the limited framework of this article. I shall therefore be content to speak of the nature of the codes of law in the ancient Near East and of some essential peculiarities of biblical law. 6 H. BERMAN, Law and Revolution: The Fonnation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, MA 1986). He shows that the Gregorian reform has its roots in Roman law, Germanic law with its insistence on honour, the oath, punishment, reconciliation and collective responsibility, and Biblical law that transmitted to it the idea of a world ruled by God himself, responsible for universal order, and supreme judge and lawgiver. 7 F. OST,Du Sinai" au Champ-de-Mars. L'autre et Ie meme aufondement du droit (Donner raison 7; Bruxelles - Paris 1999). 8 Here again many qualifications should be brought in. I am speaking especially about the principles of law, principles which have not always been applied with the same rigour at all times and in all the particular cases that the codes offer us.

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East

199

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East 2.1. Juridical documents/rom the ancient Near East It is essential to start the demonstration by clarifYing the nature of the codes or

collections of laws of the ancient Near East. As we shall see, many misunderstandings about this have to be dispelled. To put it briefly, biblical laws are not comparable to the laws in our codes of civil and criminal law.

2.2. Egyptian and Mesopotamian law Archaeological excavation in the last two centuries has brought many longforgotten juridical documents to light'- The great codes of Mesopotamia, such as the famous code of Hanunurabi, king ofBabylon lO must be mentioned first of all, to which it is fitting to add the less-known codes ofUr-namma (or Urnammu) ll, Lipit-Ishtar I2, Eshnunna 13 , the edict of Ammi-Saduqal 4 and the collections of Assyrian 15 , Neo-Babylonian 16 and Hittite 17 laws. 9 For a simple account see M.-J. SEUX, Lois de l'Ancien Orient (Cahiers Evangile - Supplement 56; Paris 1986) 9-11, from which we are taking the main part of this paragraph and the explanatory notes accompanying it. See also the map of Mesopotamia, 13. See also M. T. ROTH, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta, GA 1995, 22000). 10 Circa 1792-1750 BeE. The specialists hesitate between two spellings and two interpretations of the name. Some opt for Hammurapi, "[The god] Hammu heals", others for Hammurabi "[The god] Hammu is great". See A. FINET, Le code de Hammourapi. Introduction, traduction et annotation (Litteratures anciennes du Proche-Orient; Paris 21983) 7, n. 1. To locate cities, see also the maps in FINE T, Code de Hammourapi, 159-160. 11 A Sumerian king (2111-2094 BeE), founder of the third dynasty at Ur, a city in the south of Mesopotamia. Some ascribe this "code" to the son ofUr-nammu, Shugli. See S. LAFONT, Femmes, Droit et Justice dans I 'Antiquite orientale. Contribution a I' etude du droit penal au Proche-Orient ancien (OBO 165; Fribourg Suisse - G6ttingen 1999) 4, n. 8. This is the oldest "code" or "collection of laws" found so far. 12 King of Isin (1934-1924 BeE). Isin, nowadays Ishan Bahriyat, is in the region of Diwaniyeh (southern Iraq). Laws written in Sumerian. 13 Circa 1770 BeE. These are the first laws written in old Babylonian (Akkadian). Eshnunna is a city in Mesopotamia about 60 km north-east of Baghdad. This "code" was drawn up shortly before that ofHammurapi. On one ofthe tablets ofthis "code" the specialists have restored the name ofthe king Dadusha, lived during the first years of the reign ofHammurapi. 14 Ammi-Saduqa is the tenth king of the dynasty of Hammurapi (Babylon). He reigned from 1646-1626 BeE. This edict is the only complete example of a proclamation which the kings of that period made at the beginning of their reign and at regular intervals, generally every seven years. They mostly deal with the remission of debts and the return of land to owners who had had to give them up to their creditors to pay their debts. The "law of the jubilee" in Lev 25 almost certainly arose out of this custom. 15 Compiled under the reign of Tiglath-Pileser 1'1 1076 BeE. These laws were found at Assur, the former capital of Assyria (nowadays Qal 'at Shirqat on the right bank ofthe Tigris, 112 km south ofMossul).

200

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

Egypt, too, has had a long legislative tradition, but we have little left of it. The oldest extant collection of Egyptian laws actually goes back to the Achaemenid empire. The Persian king Darius (522-486 BC) in about 510 BC gave orders to codifY the law of Egyptian temples. The compilation was done in two languages, demotic, the language of ancient Egypt, and Aramaic, the diplomatic language of the Persian empire. It is not easy to explain why Egypt has provided us with so few juridical documents in comparison with Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Some put it down to the materials used. The cuneiform tablets and stelae of Mesopotamia were better able to resist the wear and tear of time than the Egyptian papyri destroyed by humidity!8 But the Egyptians did not use only papyrus (and in any case many papyri have reached us in a good state of preservation); it is therefore surprising that no juridical document was carved on stone. The reasons for the difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt are, in my opinion, more cultural than merely material. One reason is linked to the fact that the Egyptian empire was relatively more homogenous and stable than the empires of Mesopotamia which brought together within them diverse populations whose juridical traditions were as different as their languages and cultures. The juridical configuration of the Mesopotamian empires was very diversified, all in all. The law therefore had of necessity to be unified. The many codes we possess witness to these efforts. Along the same lines, it is interesting to note that the first real "code" of Egyptian laws is the work of a foreign king, Darius I of Persia. It was when Egypt was part of a foreign empire for the first time and in a stable way that it was necessary to put a certain number of laws and customs in writing 19 . A second reason for the difference between Mesopotamian and Egyptian law derives from the way of conceiving royal power in the two empires. The Pharaoh of Egypt was considered a god and the link between the king and legislation was too close for a "science of law" independent of the monarchy to develop20 Pharaoh and the law were one and it was therefore more difficult to conceive of a law that might enjoy a certain autonomy, even within the restricted circles of the scribes and judges. This connection was looser in Mesopotamia, a very diversified region, which explains the existence of many codes. 7th century BeE. An empire that developed in Anatolia mainly from the 15 th to the 13 th centuries BeE. Hittite laws spread over a long period going from the middle of the 17th to the beginning of the 12th century BeE. The tablets were found at Hattusa, the capital of the Hittites, nowadays Boghazkoy which is in the centre of modern Turkey, on a bend in the river Kizirlimak. 18 LAFONT, Femmes, Droit et Justice, 2. 19 In fact it is mainly a matter of the rights and privileges of the temples that Cambyses, Darius' predecessor, had abolished. 20 See E. OTTO , "Recht/Rechtswesen im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament," Theologische ReaZenzyclopadie 28 (Berlin - New York 1997) 197-210, es198. 16 17

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East

201

2.3. The nature of Mesopotamian "collections of law" Another problem meriting our attention is that of the nature of these codes, a problem of which the solution to a great extent governs the interpretation of the law of the ancient Near East and of the law of Bible in particular. There are at least five theories about this that should be briefly expounded21

2.3.1. The codes of law belong to "prescriptive law" or "positive law" According to this theory, defended especially by historians of Roman law and specialists in the French language, codes of law are the reflection of the positive law of the period22 . In other words, it is a matter of laws that were applied or that the sovereign wanted to have applied in all his empire. The code of Hammurapi would therefore be equivalent to "Roman law" or a kind of "N apoleonic Code" before its time. Some texts may give the impression that that is how things really are. The epilogue of the code of Hammurapi, for example, is often quoted to this effect. In it the king declares his intentions in a way that, at first sight, leave no room for doubt: "Let the oppressed one in an affair come before my statue 'King of the Law,' let him have my written stele read, let him hear my precious ordinances. May my stele show him the solution to his affair, may his heart expand!"23 This theory, however, comes up against some important difficulties. As far as we know there are several copies and duplicate of the Code of Hammurapi. But how could this law have been known in a huge empire at a time when the means of communication and spread of information were far from being what we know today? Next, the codes are incomplete and so the judges had to refer to other sources of law to settle cases that were not provided for by the codes. They could appeal to customary law, precedents or their own experience and even their own authority. It should not be forgotten that the "judges" in the ancient Near East like those in the Bible are in fact political leaders. "To judge" is a synonym of "to govern" in the Semitic languages24 . The distinction between legislative, executive and juridical power is a modern invention. It is therefore the judge 21 For a summary, see E. OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law," Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (ed. B. M. LEVINSON) (JSOTS 181; Sheffield 1994) 160-196, esp. 160-163; ID., "Recht/Rechtswesen," 199-200. 22 See, for example, E. SZLECHTER, "La 'loi' dans la Mesopotamie ancienne", Revue internationale des droits de l'Antiquite 3/12 (1965) 55-77; LAFONT, Femmes, Droit et Justice, 8-13 (bibliography 8, n. 24); for the bibliography, see also OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms," 160, n. 1. 23 Translation by FINET, Code de Hammurapi, 137 (Rubric xxv). 24 In Hebrew the verb toEltti means at the same time "to judge," "to rule" and "to govern."

202

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

who "makes the law," and we have to rid ourselves of the idea of a judge who consults a code before passing sentence. Besides, and here there is a major problem, the procedure adopted at the trials that have come down to us clearly show that, in the concrete cases submitted to them, judges applied different rules to those of the great codes such as Hammurapi 'S25. Moreover, the relatively large number of trial procedures that have been found do not make any reference to the codes that we know, apart from a few very rare exceptions26 . Only two texts specifically mention a "stele" on which was inscribed the total of salaries or the list of current charges in the market. The two cases are isolated ones and, moreover there is still a certain number of problems to be cleared up. In the first case, the text that talks about a dispute between an employer and his workmen could refer to a law in the Code of Hammurapi (§§ 273-274) but the figures of the Code do not correspond to the ones in the document. Actually, the workmen are asking for three times what the code allows for. In the second case, the stele has not been found. It may be that in both cases we are dealing with a particular stele on which had been written either the total of the wages, after agreement between employer and workmen, or the current charges in the market of the city where the text of the inscription was found. Mesopotamian law has thus not been unified by the codes. The theory of "positive law" is still defended nowadays, but with many qualifications, which makes it necessary to pose the question again, starting with the fonn of the "codes" or, better, the collections of laws27 .

2.3.2. Royal propaganda If the codes do not correspond to positive law, are they perhaps just works of

propaganda? That is at least what J. J. Finkelstein says28 According to this author, collections of law are "monuments" to the glory of sovereigns and their 25 A fact noted by B. LANDSBERGER, "Die babylonischen Termini fill Gesetz und Recht," Festschrift/tir Koschacker, II (Leiden 1939) 219-234. 26 ROTH,Law Collections, 5-7. 27 S. LAFONT, Droit et Justice, 11, alleges that the decrees of the kings of France took a long time to impose themselves and for a long time came up against local customary laws. That, she states, in no way detracted from the juridical value of the laws promulgated by the king. The problem, however, is to know what is the concrete value of a law, not just its theoretical value. What is this value if the law is not applied and violations not sanctioned? In any case, the kings, where necessary, had means other than the "law" to impose their will. The specialist in law will notice, however, that the question posed here shows that concepts of law can vary from one culture to another. In the Roman law tradition it goes without saying that law draws its legitimacy from the will of the legislator, in this case from the will of the sovereign. In the more empirical Anglo-Saxonjuridical tradition the law that prevails is the one that is applied concretely (common law). 28 J.J. FINKELSTEIN, "Ammisaduqa's Edict and the Babylonian 'Law Codes'," Journal o/Cunei/onn Studies 15 (1961) 91-104; ID., "A Late Old Babylonian Copy of the Laws of

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East

203

purpose is above all to prove before the gods and the people that they made "law and justice" reign. This explanation is not to be set aside, as we shall see in what follows. It poses a problem, nevertheless, because it does not take into account an aspect of the question which should not be overlooked: why did some sovereigns in particular - and they are in fact quite a few in number - feel the need to use this kind of ideological propaganda? Why was it not used by the Pharaohs of Egypt, for example? There are many ways of magnifying or exalting royal power, and political propaganda is very ingenious and does not lack the means. The question is therefore to know for what reason and for what purpose the king, in certain cases, used collections of laws to provide additional support for his power. Furthermore, some specialists, like E. Otto, point out that "royal propaganda" is present only in the prologues and epilogues to the collections of laws which are different from the laws in origin and literary genre. The laws themselves come from another milieu, that of the scribes, and it is in the schools of scribes that their key to the interpretation of the great ancient codes lies hidden29

2.3.3. The theory a/jurisprudence or applied law If the first theory, the one about "prescriptive law" or "positive law," draws much of its inspiration from the juridical tradition of the western world influenced by Roman law and the codes of Napoleon, the theory of jurisprudence bears the clear stamp of the Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition and the famous common law 30 . According to these specialists, the codes of law of the ancient Near East would have developed like the "codes" of Great Britain and of all the countries that have adopted that tradition, for example Canada and the United States. These codes would therefore be manuals in which sentences passed by judges were compiled31 In this connection it is useful to recall that one of the words that the Old Testament frequently uses when speaking of the

Hammurapi," Journal of Cuneifonn Studies 21 (1967) 39-48; ID., "On Some Recent Studies in Cuneiform Law," JAOS 90 (1970) 243-256. 29 E. OTTO , "Aspects of Legal Reform," 161. 30 On this concept see, among others, the classic work by F. POLLOCK - F. W. MAITLAND, The History of English Law (Cambridge 1898, 21968). 31 See especially R. HAASE, Einfiihrung in das Studium keilschriftlicher Rechtsquellen (Wiesbaden 1965) 22-25. Cf. also R. WESTBROOK, "Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes, " RB 92 (1985) 247-264; ID., "Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation," ZA 79 (1989) 201-222. For a fuller bibliography see E. OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms," 162, n.13.

204

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

"laws" contained in the codes is actually the word "sentence" or "judgment" (in Hebrew C'CEltli~)32 Most of the time these sentences were preserved because they contained particularly difficult cases which thus required a more developed science of law. The simplest cases were settled by "customary law" known to all so it was not important to keep a written account of them. This would explain why the codes are incomplete and as a rule deal with somewhat exceptional cases. According to this theory the codes would therefore be first and foremost witnesses to the ' jurisprudence: of the time in which they were written33 . The "laws" are not - as in the first theory - rules or "canons" to be followed for taking decisions in courts of justice but rather the reflection ofpractice 34 . Judges are in a way the "authors" of the collections of laws that tell us therefore about what they did rather than what they ought to do. This theory explains a large number of obscure points and helps at best to explain the origin of the "laws" that have been compiled in the codes. Two points, however, call for further explanation. Firstly, who chose, drew up and transmitted these "sentences" of the judges? Secondly, what value could these "codes" have acquired from being written down and thus passed from the domain of oral tradition and customary law to that of literary "monuments" ordered by kings and carried out under their orders? 2.3.4. Literary exercises or "descriptive law" A fourth group of specialists thinks that most collections of laws are mainly school exercises. E. Otto is one of the most ardent defenders of this theory35. According to these authors the scribes, who had to get ready for various administrative tasks, studied writing and the administration of justice in "schools" provided for that purpose, generally at the court of the kings or princes 36 • Those favouring this opinion draw on certain characteristics in ancient codes to support their thesis. Thus, according to these authors, this is why the codes 32 See, among others, Bxod 21: 1 (beginning of "covenant code"); cf. 24:3; Lev 26:46; Num 36:13; Deut 4:45; 5: 1; 6: 1; 12: 1; 26: 17-17, etc. 33 S. LAFONT, Femmes, Droit et Justice, 11, objects that this theory confuses "origin and meaning of the laws." The sentences passed by judges are at the origin of the laws but these sentences acquire the force of law only when they are ratified by the lawgiver, in this case the king of Mesopotamia. This objection holds in the case of a juridical world influenced by Roman law but not in one in the old Germanic tradition or in the Anglo-Saxon tradition where custom is the authority. 34 See especially WESTBROOK, "Cuneiform Law Codes," 201-222. 35 See, among others, OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms," 161-163; an opinion first defended by F. R. KRAus, "Bin zentrales Problem des altmesopotamischen Rechts: Was ist der Codex Hammurapi?," Genava 8 (1960) 283-296. 36 These schools are the famous edubbas or "houses of the [clay] tablet" of Sumerian and Akkadian culture.

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East

205

quite often contain some very complex cases which look like being "school cases," or at least "specific cases." Collections of laws therefore can hardly provide judges with complete "codes" which it is enough to consult and apply. Rather, they contain "examples" enabling them to find their bearings in the exercise of justice. Judges went by analogy, which left them a wide margin of freedom in the decisions to be taken. In ordinary cases they referred to customary law. Furthermore, it has been proved - and this is a weighty argument - that certain juridical texts were part of the curriculum in schools for scribes 37 . It must be admitted that this theory is not without foundation. But there is a difficulty. If the codes are in origin school exercises, they do not exactly appear as such because they are proclaimed by kings and therefore bear the seal of political, and not just "academic" authority, if one may use this modern tenninology in connection with centres offonnation for scribes. Besides, even exercises for scribes have a link with "justice" in its concrete application and that is what we have to explain. 2.3.5. Archives In my opinion the question of the character and function of the collections

of laws can be solved by starting with quite a commonplace observation: it is a matter of written works. Now, the ancient world gave a special place to anything written, for a number of different reasons 38 . First of all, things in writing were rare and precious. Few people knew how to read and write. This was even rarer in societies that had developed complicated writing systems such as cuneifonn signs in Mesopotamia or hieroglyphics in Egypt. Most likely, the powers in position at the time took no interest in inventing simpler writing systems that might have made available to all a learning of which they preferred to keep the monopoly. Only the rich and powerful were in a position to maintain classes of scribes working for them. The longer the apprenticeship lasted the more it cost, which means that writing remains an exclusive privilege of the powerfu1 39 . Having things in writing and setting up archives or libraries therefore underlines the monarch's power and increases his prestige40 . That For the texts and bibliography, see OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms, " 161, llll. 9-11. On this point, see especially P. R. DAVIES, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY 1998) 85-87. 39 This is also the case in the great empires ofthe Far East like China and Japan. Merchant civilizations, like those ofthe Phoenicians, Greeks and Arabs consequently preferred simpler systems, that is to say with alphabetic systems. 4 0 On setting up libraries in antiquity, especially in Mesopotamia and the Greek world, see N. M. SARNA, "The Order of Books," Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of 1. Echvard Kiev (ed. C. BERLIN) (New York 1971) 407-413; D. GEORGI, "Die Aristoteles- und Theophrastausgabe des Andronikus von Rhodus. Bin Beitrag zur Kanonsproblematik," Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift fur Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. BARTELMUS et al.) (OBO 126; Fribourg Suisse - G6ttingen 1993) 45-78; 37 38

206

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

remark is in line with the theory that sees the workings of "royal propaganda" in the codes oflaw. But there is more. What is written has a quality it shares with great architectural monuments: it outlives its authors. Writing continues in time and so confers a new dimension on words, that of permanence or perenniality. Several biblical and nonbiblical texts are along these lines. One is in the book of Job. The hero of the book wishes that his complaint be not forgotten, which is why he says (19:23-24): If my words could be written down, If they could be carved as an inscription With graver and lead Carved into the rock for ever!

The last words ofthis quotation are those which, for our purposes, are the most important: writing remains "for ever," unlike the spoken word that can leave no durable trace. Verba volant, scripta manent, said the Ancients. The same idea comes in a text from Isaiah (30:8): Now go, write [this oracle] on a tablet in front ofthern, Carve it on a document, Let it be for a day to corne, For ever and always41.

This idea is taken up, this time in the juridical world, concerning edicts or royal decisions. It is quite interesting to see that these texts almost all go back to the Persian period. Actually, it is in the late books of Esther (1: 19; 8:8) and Daniel (6:9, 13, 16) that the most explicit statements on the matter are found. For these texts, the laws of the Medes and Persians "do not pass away." Put into modern juridical tenns, this means that these laws are irrevocable42 . The principle is particularly true of decrees put in writing. Esth 8:8 could not be clearer about this "Every edict drawn up in the name of the king and sealed with his seal is irrevocable" (cf. also Esth 1: 19)43 One should therefore not be surprised if the "law" of the Old Testament must be put in writing. Moses himself is charged with committing it to writing see the commentary byN. LOHFINK, "Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?," Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischer Literatur III (SBAB 20; Stuttgart 1995)

65-142,esp.91-104.

'-P?,

41 Some translate the last stich: "Let it be a witness for ever" reading "as witness" instead "for ever." The correction (one vowel) is minimal. See, for instance, the translation of the New Revised Standard Version (1989): "so that it may be for the time to come as a witness forever." 42 F. CRUSEMANN, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des aluestamentlichen Gesetzes (Miinchen 1992) 406 = The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law

of'.v?

(Edinburgh 1996). 43 The text of Esther 8:8 says literally that everything written in the name of the king is irrevocable.

2. Codes of law in the ancient Near East

207

in two important stories in the Pentateuch, Exod 24:444 and Deut 31 :9, 24. In this same chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, Moses entrusts this written law to the Elders and the Levites who are enjoined to read it to all the people once every seven years (31:9)45 Still in Deuteronomy, one particular law specifies that the king must have a copy of the law made for himself and read it every day (Deut 17: 18, 19). The king must therefore have a "library" and that library must contain at least one book, that of the law I instruction (Torah), namely Deuteronomy. In this connection it is of course useful that Josiah's refonn, as recounted in the story in 2 Kings 22-23 is also based on the reading of a "book" or a "scroll" (1!l0) discovered in the temple46 For the Bible, therefore, the king is subject to the law and "law" takes the place of monarchical power as supreme principle of organization of the lives of the people. Along the same lines, Ezra's mission culminates in the reading of the book (or "scroll") of the Law I Instruction of Moses (Neh 8:2). The text in Ezra 7: 14 supposes that the scribe Ezra possesses a written copy of this law. The postexilic community is therefore explicitly founded on the written Torah and not on monarchical power.

2.4. Some conclusions To sununarize this first matter in a few words I think one has to bear in mind three essential elements if one wants to explain the origin of the "codes" or "collections" of the laws of the ancient Near East. At the outset, there is more than likely the practice of justice in all the milieus where it was exercised (vil44 Moses wrote the law in the "book" or on the "scroll," then read it aloud before all the people who answer by promising to observe that law. On this text and its function see J.-L. SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib 13; Rome 1990) 49-50; J. SONNET, "Le Sinal dans l'evenement de sa lecture. La dimension pragmatique d'Exode 19-20," NRT 111 (1989) 322-344. 45 According to Deut 31 :24-26 Moses also asks the Levites to place this "book" or "scroll" of the law in the ark of the covenant. The book will be a "witness" against Israel (34:26). On the public reading of the law, see J. W. WATTS, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 59; Sheffield 1999); on Deut 31, see J.P. SONNET, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Biblical Interpretation Series 14; Leiden 1997) 134-147. 46 I shall not discuss the historicity of this chapter here. The bibliography on 2 Kings 22 is immense. See, among others, N. LOHFINK, "Zur neuer Diskussion fiber 2 K6n 22-23," Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung. Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. LOHFINK) (BETL 68; Leuven 1985) 24-48; C. CONROY, "Reflections on the Exegetical Task: Apropos of Recent Studies on 2 Kgs 22-23," Pentateuchal andDeuteronomist Studies: Papers Read at theXIIIth Congress Leuven 1989 (eds. C. BREKELMANS - J. LUST) (BETL 94; Leuven 1990) 255-268, esp. 256, n. 6; N. LOHFlNK, "Deuteronome et Pentateuque. Etat de la recherche," Le Pentateuque. Dibats et Recherches (ed. P. HAUDEBERT) (LD 151; Paris 1992) 38, n. 7; see also J. SONNET, "Le 'livre trouve': 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalite narrative," NRT 111 (1989) 322-344.

208

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

lages, towns, provinces, countries, empires). Jurisprudence, the experience of judges - not to be confused with today's professional judges - and procedures hallowed by custom and tradition form the raw material of ancient collections of law, Then, and this is the most important stage, this raw material is passed over into the hands ofthe scribes, It is in the "schools" that the laws were discussed, studied, commented on, sometimes even invented on the basis of other similar cases, compiled, arranged and finally put in writing according to the proper criteria for editing and which, once again, only rarely correspond to those of our modem codes47 . Lastly, the final stage is the one of royal archives and of the official proclamation of the law by the sovereign or the competent authority This stage is of a more formal than properly literary or juridical character, It has its importance, however, because it gives codes their definitive character. Codes make their entry into the archives or royallibraries because they bear witness to the desire of sovereigns to work for organic and durable justice. These few points will now make it possible to broach the matter of biblical law and to outline its characteristics better.

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

3,1, The "place" of Old Testament law The preceding conclusions about ancient Near Eastern law cannot apply as a whole to the Bible for a very simple reason, but from one which the study of biblical law has perhaps not yet drawn all the conclusions48 : Israel's law is not proclaimed by Israel's kings, None of the codes in the Old Testament is in fact ascribed to a king, not even to David or Solomon. Israel's legislator is in fact Moses who preceded the monarchy and never saw the promised land. Israel's law is therefore not connected with the monarchy. Furthennore, according to Deut 17: 18-19, the king is even expressly subject to the law, And King Josiah, the only one to proclaim a law throughout the whole history of 47 On this point see OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms," 161-163, a thesis which this author takes up in many articles and monographs. Studies on the style and structure of ancient codes go back to H. PETSCHOW, "Zur Systematik und Gesetzestechnik im Codex Hammurapi," ZA 57 (1965) 146-172; ID., "Zur 'Systematik' in den Gesetzen von Eshnunna," Festschrift/tir M.DavidII (ed. J.A. ANKUM et al.) (Leiden 1968) 131-143; for a more complete bibliography, see OTTO, "Aspects of Legal Reforms," 162, n. 12. 48 My point of view is more synchronic than diachronic. It is clear that Israel's law contains laws from different periods and that some of these laws were drawn up at least in part during the period of the monarchy. Still, it has to be explained why the codes are ascribed to Moses, a person who goes back before the monarchy.

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

209

Judah, certainly does not proclaim his own code of law. Historians and exegetes debate the historicity of this story and wonder whether it not a pia fraus (a "pious fraud"). One thing is certain, however: the law found in the temple was never called the "law of Josiah." There is a second difference, a less obvious one, that separates Old Testament law from other collections oflaws from the ancient Near East: the law of Moses is proclaimed in the desert before the people enter the land. It is therefore not strictly and wholly tied to a territory. Now, in the ancient and modem world, law and territory are usually inseparable. It is normal for the law to be valid solely in the territory in which that law is promulgated and recognized4 '. King (or legitimate authority) and territory are the two pillars of ancient and modem law. Exceptions to this rule are somewhat rare. Biblical law is one of them. The desert is not really a "territory" in the proper sense of the term. Rather, it is the non-territory par excellence since it is not administered or claimed by anyone. When Israel leaves Egypt it does not pass through a territory ruled by a sovereign. Nor does it conquer any territory where it might proclaim its own law and live according to its own laws. It lives for a symbolical period offorty years in a territory that is literally a no man's land, "nobody's" territory. Historically, this "desert" corresponds to a well-known situation in Israel's history, in this case the post-exilic period. We have enough reasons for thinking that the Pentateuch, in its present fonn, was compiled during this complex period in Israel's history50 At this time Israel is being built up again without having (full) possession of its territory and without monarchy since it is administered by the Persian authorities. This explains why Israel's law is born in the "desert": Israel can reconstitute itself after the monarchy and without the monarchy because it is older than the monarchy and older than the entry into the land. What could exist before the monarchy can also exist after its disappearance. So what are the bases of Israel's law if it is tied - at least in origin - neither to the monarchy nor to a territory? The answer to this question is not without importance 51 . As we shall see, this is where Israel's law shows its greatest modernity.

49 In Plato's Crito, for example, the personified laws addressed to Socrates who has been condemned to death are the laws of Athens and they insist on the fact that Socrates must obey them because he is an Athenian. 50 J.-L. SKA, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 217-229; OTTO, "Recht/Rechtswesen," 202-203. 51 Cf. on this point the essential difference between Roman and Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) law. According to Imerius (Guarnerio), a jurist from Bologna (11th_12th centuries), this difference arises out of their principle of legitimacy. Law, in the Roman system, draws its legitimacy from the will of the legislator, limited only by natural law, whereas Germanic law is based on common law. On more than one point, biblical law is closer to Germanic law.

210

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

3.2. The divine authority of biblical law The authority on which Israel's law rests is first and foremost divine authority. It is proclaimed by God himself on Mount Sinai and transmitted by Moses. In this matter Israel is of course hardly making any innovations, since the code of Hammurapi, for example, is entrusted to the king by the divinity (Marduk or Shamash). Israel's originality lies elsewhere. In fact, biblical tradition draws some unexpected conclusions from this basically quite traditional fact. In the Bible, divine authority is not really ofthe same kind as human authority and certainly does not impose itself in the same way. Being responsible before God is therefore in a way not being responsible before "anyone." The study of the law of Israel here touches on theology. The prohibition of any representation of the divinity which is found right at the beginning of Israel's legislation (Exod 20:4-6; cf. Deut 5: 8-1 0) is in confirmation of this. God cannot be represented in any "fonn" in this world because he is not a being in this world. God therefore cannot belong to any human legal system nor can he be compared - in the last analysis - with any of them. In the domain of law as in theology or mysticism, "notions" of God have necessarily to be purified of everything human and too human about them. Being legally responsible before God therefore means being faced with a kind of juridical "void" that is related to the "desert" in which Israel's law is proclaimed. This simple truth has a first important consequence on the juridical basis of Israel's law. !fthe authority that guarantees the legitimacy of the law, sees to its application and, if need be, sanctions its non-application is not the authority of a sovereign or a human government, the people are left with their own responsibility. In the desert, the people can only rely on themselves and depend on themselves. "God" in the long run refers them to the collective conscience and personal conscience. In simpler tenns and from a strictly juridical point of view Israel's law was not to be "territorial," like so many other laws, it was to be above all "personal." Besides, this law cannot be imposed by force. Israel is free and no one has come to take Pharaoh's place. In these circumstances, Israel chooses an original path: the covenant with God on the basis of a law promulgated by him and handed on by Moses (see Exod 24:3-8; cf. 19:3-8; Deut 28:69). The theology that emerges from these fundamental texts in the Pentateuch, from the point of view that interests us, establishes three fundamental axioms of the juridical constitution of the people of Israel: equality before the law, development of law, and consensus as basis of law.

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

211

3.2.1. Equality before the law This first point does not require long explanations. As the people are before God, that is to say, they are not in the presence of any human juridical institution, they cannot be divided into "rulers" and "ruled," into a "governing class" and "subjects." All the people are on the same footing before God, all are subjects and no one among the people can claim superior authority because the "sovereign," God himself, does not belong to the human race and does not exercise any kind of human authority. In the Old Testament, therefore, democracy was born at the same time as theocracy. It is because God is Israel's only true "sovereign" that all are equal before the law promulgated by this God. This idea may seem paradoxical; still, it is hard to dispute its logic. Democracy was born in Israel when "power" was conceived as a transcendent institution and completely different from all other forms of authority present in the human sphere. When the ultimate authority maintaining the law is no longer of this world, it is possible to conceive a society of which all the members are fundamentally equal before the law. The division between rulers and ruled does not affect the people any more; it is identified with the distinction between creator and creature, between immanent world and transcendent world.

3.2.2. The evolution of law Israel's law is a "divine law," which means "sacred" and consequently, we would say immediately, untouchable, inalienable, immutable. Who can really claim the right to change anything in a law proclaimed by God himself? E. Otto states in consequence that biblical law can hardly change since it does not come under human institutions 52 . That is partly true. One would nevertheless have to distinguish, in my opinion, between the Decalogue, the only part of the law directly transmitted by God to the people, and the rest of the law transmitted by Moses 53 The simple fact of introducing a human link in the transmission leaves room for future adjustments. "Moses" - and it does not matter for the moment what "Moses" may stand for in Israel's tradition - is entrusted with the task of transmitting and interpreting the law for the people. Whoever can lay claim to authority similar to that of Moses can therefore himself interpret and adapt the law. During the post-exilic period these were the priestly families and the Elders s4 52 OTTO, "Rechts/Rechtswesen," 203. 53 See Exod 20:1; Deut 5:4 and Exod 20:18-21, 22; Deut 5:23-30; 6:1. 54 SKA, Introduction, 226-229. For the official recognition of the Elders as inheritors of the Mosaic tradition, see Num 11: 1-30 (11 :11-17.24-25). For an detailed study on this topic, see F. Cocco, Sulla catedra di Mosc. La legittimazione del potere nell'Israele post-esilico (Nm 11; 16) (Collana biblica; Bologna 2007). For a detailed and interesting analysis of the strategies used by biblical writers to introduce changes when necessary in an otherwise unchangeable law, see in particular M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel

212

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

It should also be added that the God of the Bible is not exactly of the same kind as many of the divinities in the history of religions. He is not the guarantor of the established order. This God ofthe exodus is before all the one who makes Israel responsible and ceaselessly calls upon it to rethink its law according to situations and circumstances. The God of the Old Testament therefore does not stop the people from developing or changing its laws. The contrary is rather the case. The transcendent God who appears in the post-exilic writings refers the people back to its full responsibility. He places the people's destiny and survival back in its hands. It is therefore up to the people to think the law out or think it out again so as to ensure its survival among the nations.

3.2.3. Juridical authority in Athens and in Jerusalem However, it should be added - and granted to E. Otto - that the divine origin of Israel's law also determines the way in which this law can be modified and, on this point, Jerusalem is different from Athens. In the Bible it is not exactly the people or the city (ltO'-,,) that makes laws for itself. If it is God who transmits his law to Israel through Moses, those who modifY the law will therefore have to possess an authority like that of Moses and in the post-exilic period, as mentioned above, this means the civil and religious authorities in Jerusalem. In Israel, as also in Greece, de jure democracy becomes de facto oligarchy.

3.3. Covenant and consensual or contractual law How is a juridical relationship established with this transcendent God? This is the question that comes to mind innnediately as soon as "law / teaching of God" is mentioned. The problem is complex, because it is unthinkable that law could exist without the idea of civic responsibility. But how can this responsibility towards a God who cannot be identified with any known human authority be conceived? It is here that the theology of covenant comes into play. Questions about this notion of covenant are very numerous 55. Within the limits of this essay it will be enough to start from an indisputable fact: the (Oxford 1985); B. M. LEVINSON, "The Case for Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora", Theory and Method in Biblical and Cunei/onn Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (ed. B.M. LEVINSON) (JSOTS 181; Sheffield 1994) 37-59; ID., Deuteronomy and the Henneneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford- New York 1997); ID., "'You Shall NotAdd to It': Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel",Numen 50 (2003) 1-51 = L'Henneneutique de I 'innovation: Canon et exegese dans I 'Israel biblique (Le livre et Ie rouleau 24; Bruxelles 2005) [French translation with annotated bibliography]. 55 Works by Perlitt, Kutsch, McCarthy, Lohfink, Otto, etc., should be quoted. For the bibliography, see D. J. MCCARTHY, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions, (Growing Points in Theology; Oxford 1972); ID., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnEib 21A; Rome 21978); R.A. ODEN, "The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel," Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

213

Pentateuch, in its present redaction, makes Israel's legislation part of a "covenant" (n'i:l) with God, whatever the precise meaning that has to be given to that word may be. The laws stipulate what this covenant is (Exod 19:5; 24:8; cf. Deut 5:2). Now the notion of covenant contains at least one element on which everyone should agree, that of "contract." These contracts are of different kinds, but their conunon purpose is to establish a new relationship between individuals or groups, a relationship not provided by nature and existing only from the time when the contract becomes effective 56 . In the Bible, this contract or "covenant" requires the people's consent. This consent is mentioned at least three times in the Book of Exodus (Exod 19:8; 24:3, 7). It is possible, of course, to dilate on the quality of this consent and on the degree of freedom of the members of the people in these circumstances. Nevertheless, it remains true that Israel's law is founded on this agreement on the part of all the people and that is what must hold our attention for the moment. In its version of the events, the Book of Deuteronomy is very insistent on the fact that all the members of the people were present at the time of the conclusion of the covenant (5:2-3, 22). Other texts are even more explicit. For example Deut 29:10-14 which describes the covenant in the plains of Moab - a covenant which is in fact a renewal of the covenant at Horeb for the generation that was to enter the land - says clearly that this covenant will be concluded with all the members of the people. The text gives a complete list of them: the chiefs of tribes, the Elders, the officials, all the men, children, women, foreigners living among the people, even the most lowly, from those whose work it is to chop wood to those who draw water (29: 10). Deut 31: 10-13 is another example of the same thing. In this text Moses asks the Levites to read the law to the people once every seven years. All must be present at this ceremony: men, women, children and even the foreigners living in the cities ofIsrael (31: 12). When Josiah has the book of the law found in the temple read he, too, summons the general assembly: the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. D. MILLER - P. HANSON - S.D. McBRIDE) (Philadelphia, PA, 1987) 429-447; R. DAVIDSON, "Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel", The World of Ancient Israel. Sociological, anthropological and political perspectives (ed. R. E. CLEMENTS) (Cambridge, UK 1989) 323-347; G.B. MENDENHALL - G.A. HERION, "Covenant," Anchor Bible Dictionary I (New York 1992) 1179-1202; S.B. PORTER - J. C. R. DE Roo (eds.), The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 71; Leiden - Boston 2003). 56 MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant, 20-21: "[ ... ] we are dealing with a social necessity: the formation of reliable relationship beyond the natural family relation." See also MENDENHALL - HERION, "Covenant," 1179: "A 'covenant' is an agreement enacted between two parties in which one or both make promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance."

214

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

the priests, the prophets, all the people, from the smallest to the greatest (2 Kgs 23:2). The reading ofthe law and the conclusion ofthe covenant require the active participation of all the people (2 Kgs 23:2-3). A final last great assembly of the same kind is described in the book of Nehemiah in chap. 8. Ezra the scribe reads the law in the presence of an assembly formed of the men, women and all those capable of understanding (Neh 8: 1_2)57 The insistence on this public reading of the law before the assembly of all the people intends to stress the formal aim of gaining the consent of all at the moment of the proclamation of the law58 . Whether it deals with the events going back to the beginnings in the desert, that is to say the conclusion of the covenant on Sinai (Exod 19:3-8; 24:3-8) which becomes the covenant on Horeb in Deuteronomy (Deut 5:2), a covenant renewed on the plains of Moab (Deut 29: 10-15), with the covenant that sets the seal on the reform of Josiah (2Kgs 23) or, lastly, with the proclamation of the law that lays the foundations of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, each of these decisive moments from the point of view of Israel's law requires the participation of all members of the people. In this sense one may state that Israel's law is founded on consent and that it is a matter of "consensual" or "contractual1aw." To put it in modern tenns, law in Israel is enforced only after the people gives its consent. Still, it must be added that only the texts at Exod 19:8; 24:3, 7 mention in all clarity the public act of this consent of the assembly of the people. These texts from Exodus are essential from another point of view because they are the first and are quite obviously intended to determine the whole ofIsrael's law. In the ideal account of Israel's history offered in the Pentateuch, it is at this moment that Israel defines its status, one of "royal priesthood and holy nation" (Exod 19:6). Israel, therefore, gives itself its juridical "constitution" and its "rights" (the law / teaching), which enables it to become a "nation," although it possesses neither territory nor monarchy. The covenant on Sinai does indeed coincide with the birth of Israel as a juridical entity.

3.4. The competence of Moses Israel's law is based on the people's consent. Yet the law is not based on the authority of a king proclaiming it and seeing to its application. But then, what is the authority of the legislator? God's authority, as I tried to show, is totally 57 One can add the accounts of the assembly at Sichem (Josh 24) or the assembly summoned by Samuel before setting up the monarchy (1 Sam 12). These assemblies, however, are of minor interest for our purposes because the law is not read publicly at them. But cf. Josh 24:25-26; 1 Sam 10:25. 58 On this particular point, see J. W. WATTS, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 59; Sheffield 1999).

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

215

different from that of human legislators and monarchs. This divine authority, however, is represented in the world of humans by a mediator, Moses who, in Israel's tradition, is the legislator par excellence. What is Moses' authority? Is it a king's? In the traditions of the ancient Near East the king is normally the representative of the divinity. In no way, therefore, will Israel have innovated. The answer to this objection is very simple: Moses is not a king and there is nothing of the oriental monarch about him. He possesses neither palace, territory, sceptre nor throne. He has no bodyguard; he has no army. He has not been anointed and he has no successor, that is to say he does not found a dynasty. His "authority" comes to him from elsewhere. The Pentateuch defines Moses as a "prophet." His career begins, not with an anointing like that of monarchs, as I have just said, but with a "calling" characteristic of prophets (Exod 3: 14:10). Deut 34:10-12, the text that concludes his mission and in a way constitutes the epitaph that the narrator inscribes on the man of God's tomb, in fact even the greatest of all the prophets of Israel: 10 No other prophet comparable to Moses has arisen in Israel. Him Yhwh knew face to face, 11 him Yhwh sent to accomplish all these signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, in front of Pharaoh, all his servants and all his COlllltry, 12 he with his strong hand carried out this mighty deed in the sight of all Israel.

The authority of Moses is not in the political or economic order. He is neither rich nor powerful. His authority is defined in terms of "knowledge": Yhwh knew Moses face to face (Deut 34: 10). There is one text that is quite explicit about this. It is Num 12:6-8. Moses' authority has just been contested by his brother Aaron and his own sister Miriam. Yhwh then appears to settle the dispute and takes the side of Moses without mincing matters 59 : If there is a prophet ofYhwh among you, it is in vision that I reveal myself to him it is in dream that I speak to him. 9 But this is not so with my servant Moses, my man of trust, in charge of all my house. 10 Mouth to mouth do I talk to him, with full clarity and no enigmas, and he can contemplate the face ofYhwh. 8

In the "heavenly court" Moses occupies a choice position60 . He is the man

of trust who is personally received by God. That is why he has direct contact Some parts ofthe text are difficult to translate, but the general meaning is clear enough. By his calling, the prophet becomes a member of the heavenly court, which enables him to know God's plans and to speak of them with authority. See especially Jer 23:18,22; Amos 3:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 15:8; the prophet can intervene in this counsel and intercede for his people (Amos 7:1-6; Jer 15:1; 18:20). On God's "plan" see Isa 5:19; Jer 23:20. 59 60

216

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

with God, and not indirect contact like the other prophets, and the message he transmits is of quite a different quality. The authority of Moses is therefore in the order of "knowing." Moses is not rich or powerful, he is competent61 . Israel's juridical tradition underscores this point more than other traditions in the ancient Near East. In short, Moses is the great lawgiver, long before the kings who in fact must observe the law of Moses, as in constitutional monarchies. On the other hand the law in a way replaces the king as supreme authority in the organization of the life of the people, in Israel as in Greece 62 .

3.5. The exhortative style of Israel's legislation Anyone reading Israel's laws cannot fail to be struck by the particular style of some statements. In fact, the laws are seldom drawn up according to the usual canons oflaw, at least those with which we are familiar. Instead of the dry and objective statements typical of legal literature the Bible contains many laws of which the style is closer to the homily than to the legislative code. Exhortations or justificatory sentences in certain cases take the place of sanctions laid down for offences. Deuteronomy especially is distinctive by its exhortative style, but this style is also present in the other books, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers 63 . Here are some examples 64 : You shall neither exploit nor oppress the emigrant, for you were emigrants in the land

of Egypt (Exod 22:20). If you take your neighbour's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it to him by sunset, for it is his only covering. In what else would he sleep? And if he should cry out to me, I shall hear him, for I [YhwhJ am compassionate (Exod 22:25 26). \¥hen you corne across your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back

(Exod 23:4). You shall take no gift, for a gift blinds the clear-sighted and compromises the cause of

the just (Exod 23 :8). 61 In this context it is normal that the law is sometimes compared to a form of "wisdom" (Deut 4:5-8 [especially4:6]; Sir 24:23-29). On this aspect see J. BLENKINSOPP, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford 21995); M. GILBERT, "La loi, chernin de sagesse," La loi dans I 'un et I 'autre Testament (ed. C. FOCANT) (LD 168; Paris) 93-109. 62 Cf. OTTO, "Rechts/Rechtswesen," 202-203, who stresses the analogy with Hellenic legal tradition. For Pindar (Fragment 169), "the law is the sovereign of all" (vo~Os (, :n;aV'twv paOv,Ei.is) (quoted by OTTO, "Rechts/Rechtswesen," 202). 63 On this, see J. VERMEYLEN, "Un programme pour la restauration d'Israel. Quelques aspects de la loi dans Ie Deuteronome," La loi dans l'un et I 'autre Testament (n. 61),45-80, especially 46-52. 64 Texts taken from NRSV (1989 edition).

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

217

If there is a poor person among you, one of your brethren, in one of your cities in the land Yhwh your God is giving you, you shall not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted towards your needy neighbour, but you shall open out your hand to him and grant him all the loans he may need (Deut 15:7 8).

Be holy, for I am holy, I, the LORD, your God (Lev 19:2).

In all these examples the style is more that of paraenesis, of moral counselor

exhortation than oflegal "obligation." The laws make no allowance for sanctions in case of omission or infringement, either. It means that the force of the law in Israel tries to convince rather than to constraint. We are not very far from the "law written on the heart" that is observed because of inner conviction (Ier 31:31-34).

3.6. Collective responsibility 65 There is a last characteristic of Israel's law which is worth emphasizing. I wish to speak about collective responsibility. This feature of biblical law is quite often misunderstood. It is somewhat ingenuous to say that according to this principle the group is punished for the sin of one individual. The principle of collective responsibility is not just a principle of criminal law. It is not even the sphere in which it is first applied. Collective responsibility in fact extends to all areas of law, from its first fonnulation until when it is put to concrete use, for example in finalizing contracts, regulating collective transactions, settling disputes, and passing judgment on offences and applying sanctions 66 . The principle of collective responsibility is therefore just another formulation of principles encountered earlier, such as the quality of all before the law and of law based on the consent of everyone. In Israel, all are responsible before "God," which means that the people as such have the duty to see that law and justice prevail, a task that normally falls on the king in the ancient world.

3.6.1. Collective responsibility and the lack ofprecision in biblical law This principle helps to explain a good number of peculiarities of biblical law and, more concretely, some blanks that cannot fail to surprise the modem lawyer. In many biblical laws procedure is not explained at all. Nothing is said, for example, about how or before whom a complaint should be made, who sees to making inquiries and establishing the facts, who hears the various On this principle, see P. MAHON, "Responsabilite," DBSX, col. 357-365. Cf. H. BERMAN, Law and Revolution, 4, who speaks of "law in action," quoting L.L. FULLER, The Morality of Law (New Haven, CT 21964) 106: "Lon L. Fuller has defined law as 'the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules.' This definition rightly stresses the primacy of legal activity over legal rules." Law therefore is not content with the making and applying of rules; one of its tasks is also to encourage co-operation and to facilitate "voluntary arrangements." 65

66

218

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

parties, how they can defend their respective points of view, who accuses and who defends, who pronounces sentence and how sanctions can be applied. Of course, common law, which was the most important source of law at this time, must have settled many points. Yet that also means that society provided itself with means for settling differences and seeing that justice ruled or was restored if necessary. If the procedures are not spelled out, it is because everyone knew them and everyone knew how to act in practice. Law therefore presupposes a responsibility, a conscience and the collective practice of a law that is not codified but without which it is impossible to understand the exercise of law. This is especially true of the laws ofthe "Covenant Code" (Exod 21-23) and of the "Law of Holiness" (Lev 17-26). The laws in Deuteronomy (Deut 12-26) are more precise as regards procedures although there, too, many laws are still very vague on points that our modem codes hasten to clarify. Some examples, drawn from the different biblical codes, perfectly illustrate the point I have just developed. The first comes from the "Covenant Code" (Exod 21-23): "Whoever insults his father or mother shall be put to death" (Exod 21: 17). In this precise case the law does not say, among other things, who must carry out the sentence. Deut 19:5 requires that at least two witnesses be heard at the preliminary hearing of a criminal matter, but that law in no way states who must investigate these matters. According to Lev 19: 10, "No lay person must eat what is holy; nor must the guest or the employee of a priest eat what is holy". But who has to have this law obeyed? And what sanction is there in case of infringement? Cases of this kind can be multiplied at will. These will be enough, I think, to show that biblical law can hardly be understood without reference to the principle of "collective responsibility" which, of course, can be applied in very different ways according to the cases.

3.6.2. Collective responsibility and the priority of the right of the victim" Collective responsibility includes a correlative aspect: the right of victims prevails over questions of culpability. In simpler tenns, biblical law concerns itself above all with compensating victims or restoring their rights without necessarily having to decide exactly who is at fault or who is right and who is wrong. It is more important to right the wrongs. Here again it is the community that is deputed to look after the victims and not only the one responsible for the harm suffered. "The logic of an objectivist [that is to say, a legal system concerned mainly with the victims or 'objects' ofthe offence] system will exclude the possibility that the wronged victim be not 'in-demnified', 'compensated.'" Consequently, there will always be somewhere someone to repair 68.

67 68

See MAHON, "Responsabilite," 364-365. Ibid., 365.

3. The specific characteristics of biblical law

219

This legal system is better understood, obviously, in an agricultural or pastoral society living in small villages or in small towns and composed of extended families. This system also supposes a world where living conditions are precarious. It does not take much to put survival in jeopardy. An apparently unimportant hurt can cause enormous harm and cast a family into misery. Moreover, to secure the survival of society it is essential to secure the survival of all its members. This is why it is so important to right serious wrongs as quickly as possible. 3.6.3. Some examples

Several examples can illustrate that the right of the victim has a special place in biblical law. The first crime in the Bible, that of Cain, makes it clear that God is not content with investigating the matter, identifying the culprit, pronouncing sentence and introducing a clause after the petition for reprieve by the condenmed man (Gen4:1-16). A later addition says that God gave Eve another son, Seth, "in the place of Abel because Cain killed him" (4:25). The text shows how great the need there is to "compensate" the victim and to reestablish justice for him/her, as far as that is possible. In the New Testament, the parable of the Good Samaritan describes a crime since brigands attack and rob a traveller on the road. But the parable is solely concerned with knowing who is going to look after the person in danger of death - in this case the most important thing - and is not concerned with knowing how the culprits will be caught. In more modem terms, the parable brings out only the duty to help people in danger. The story of the cure of the man born blind (John 9) illustrates the same principle in a different way. The disciples ask the question about blame, which indeed shows that even in the biblical and Semitic world this question had its importance. In fact they want to know who is responsible for the blindness, the blind man himself or his parents. Jesus, on the contrary, brings in the principle mentioned above: for him, the young man's blindness is "for the glory of God," and he cures the man born blind. According to this story it is of little importance to determine the "cause" of the trouble or to identify the "culprit." The important thing above all is to put an end to the trouble. The judgment behind Matt 25 is along the same lines. The Son of man, at the time of this judgment, does not separate the cUlprits from the innocent. The criterion for separation is very different. He / she is "saved" who contributed actively to struggling against injustice; he/ she is "condenmed" who did nothing to come to the help of the victims of injustice. Even the account of the Passion in the gospels obeys this principle. The death of Jesus is certainly considered a crime since an innocent person is condemned to death and executed. The gospel accounts, however, are not really

220

The Law of Israel in the Old Testament

concerned with determining precisely the degree of culpability of the various actors in the drama. They are more concerned with proving the innocence of the accused. In this context the resurrection is understood as the moment when God himself assumes the task of re-establishing justice for the innocent victim (Acts 3: 13-15). But nothing is said about the punishment of the guilty. In this case, as in so many others, biblical1aw places the accent elsewhere, because it was above all important that the plan of the gospel be not truncated by the tragic events that might apparently have proved Jesus' enemies right. God shows which side he is on.

4. Conclusion There is a deep-seated prejudice against certain parts of the Old Testament in the minds of readers of the Bible, especially against the laws. This prejudice is of course an old one and may even have its roots in statements by Paul against the law. It is to be hoped, however, that attitudes change gradually and that recent studies on the matter may finally convince people ofthe importance ofthis part of the biblical tradition which is at the origin - directly or indirectly - of a certain number of essential axioms of western law.

Narrator or Narrators? l. The question It is not uncommon to meet the word "narrator" in exegetical works on the stories in the Old as well as the New Testament, even if it not always easy to find an exact definition for it, still less a detailed description.! Many people, no doubt incorrectly, do not distinguish the narrator from the real author of the texts 2 Others make the distinction but without really taking it into account in their analyses. A third group speaks of the narrator in each of the stories analysed and implicitly supposes that the narrator is one and the same person in each case. These three opinions can be defended, but they also have some difficulties in them. It is important to distinguish between the "narrator" and the real author of the text, at least in theory if not in practice. As everyone knows, there is sometimes a big gap between the personality of a writer or artist as it comes through in his / her work and what can be gleaned from a glance at his/her biography. To take just one example, Tolstoy the writer describes the most involved situations in his novels, analyses them with unsurpassed artistry, and brings out the slightest twists, whereas Tolstoy the man did not manage to do the same thing during his life. Transparency rules in Tolstoy's novels, whereas his life has many shady areas. If there is an obvious link between the two facets of his personality it is not close enough for one to be able purely and simply to identifY one with the other. This is why the "voice" that comes through in a novel by Tolstoy is certainly that of Prince Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy, who was the father of thirteen children and died alone in a country railway station after abandoning home and family, but above all it expresses a side of his personality which in the long run

1 On the concept of "narrator" in narrative analysis, see, among others, M. STERNBERG, The Poetics ofBiblical Nmrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama ofReading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomingtonl985) 32-35, 58-85, 127, 412-415; S. BAR-EFRAT, NmrativeArt in the Bible (JSOTS 70; Sheffield 1989) 13-45; J.-L. SKA, "Our Fathers Have Told Us": Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib 13; 2Rome 2000) 39-63 (with bibliography); D. :MARGUERAT - Y. BOURQUIN, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Nmrative Criticism (London 1999) 25-28; J. FOKKELMAN, Reading Biblical Nmrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville, KY 1999) 55-72. 2 This is frequently the case with exegetes who go in for traditional methods (source criticism, redaction criticism, etc.).

222

Nmrator or Narrators?

only comes out in his literary work. It is not uncommon, in fact, for artists to try to achieve in their work what they were not able to achieve in their lives. 3 Moreover, as the specialists in this matter point out, the "narrator" of a story possesses powers not possessed by any ordinary person; in particular he / she can know the secret thoughts of his/her characters, be present at scenes without any witnesses, be in several places at once or even predict the future with certainty.4 What is quite nonnal in a story is impossible in everyday life. To take just one example, the narrator of Gen 1 describes a series of events at which no one was present since they took place before the creation of the first human couple (Gen 1:26-28)5

2. Biblical Authors and Narrators That said, the problem of the "author" takes a particular twist when we start on the biblical writings because we know practically nothing about the "authors" who wrote the texts. 6 And if we do know something about them, as we do in the case of some prophets, it is still and almost exclusively from the works that have been handed down to us. There are no documents that make it possible to compile a "biography" of the biblical writers. Hence we can only know that side of their personality which is revealed in their works without really being able to compare this personality with the one manifested in everyday life. In other words, it is practically impossible to compare the "literary personalities" with the "historical personalities." [fwe can without difficulty hear the voice of the biblical "narrators" and sketch their "literary portraits," at least summarily, it has become much more difficult for us to find out the real authors of biblical texts which have reached us. 7 3 The remark, attributed to Mozart, will also come to mind: "Perhaps I am vulgar, but my music isn't." 4 On this matter, see the very enlightening article by W. KAYSER, "Qui raconte le roman?," Poetique du recit (eds. R. BARTHES - W. KAYSER - W. C. BOOTH; Paris 1977) 59-84. See also W. C. BOOTH, The Rhetoric o/Fiction (Chicago/London 21983) 67-86. 5 On the similarity between modem literature and that of the Bible in this matter, see BOOTH, The Rhetoric o/Fiction (note 4), 17, 18, ll. 10. o This point is forcefully stressed by, among others, STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (note 1), 124: "Apart from their hopelessness, therefore, the scholarly endeavours to recover the man from the writing go against the very principle that impelled him to don the mask of anonymity." 7 Cf. ibidem, 69: "Normally the historical writer (Dante, Balzac, Joyce) is given, relatively speaking at least, whereas his artistic self or surrogate [the narrator] is a construct that the interpreter pieces together from the text as an embodiment of its art." Or again "The biblical narrator is a plenipotentiary of the author, holding the same views, enjoying the same authority, addressing the same audience, pursuing the same strategy, self-effacement included" (italics ours).

3. Anonymity of biblical narrators

223

3. Anonymity of biblical narrators Still on the subject of biblical writers, another important fact is to be noted. Not only are their real personalities unknown to us but, what is more, they are for the most part anonymous. 8 We have to wait for the prophetic books or the wisdom literature for literary works to be ascribed to definite personalities. This is why one talks normally of the "book ofIsaiah," the "book of Jeremiah," etc., and, as everyone knows, Proverbs is ascribed to Solomon (Pr 1: 1) as is the Canticle of Canticles (Ct 1:1)9 These late ascriptions are not to be taken literally, but it is important to note that this feature only exists in that part of the Old Testament. None of the books in the Pentateuch or among the "former prophets" (Josh-2 K) have been ascribed to a "writer." Apparent exceptions only confirm the rule. If a "book of Joshua" and two "books of Samuel" really exist it has nothing to do with books written by Joshua or Samuel but with works that give prominence to these persons. In this sense one could speak of a "book of Ruth" or a "book of Esther." Besides, still in the narrative parts of the Bible, we have to wait for some very late books such as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah before seeing a writer aware of himself, that is to say a narrator speaking in the first person (cf. Ezra 7:27-9:15; Neh 1-7:10;12:31-13:31Jlo The same thing is also present in the prophetic books, especially at a later stage. So it is that the use of "I" is quite sporadic in the oldest books such as Amos (cf. Amos 7: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9; 8: 1-3; 9: 1-4) and Hosea (cf. 3: 1-5), but it becomes more frequent in the more recent books such as Isaiah ll and Jeremiah,12 to become the normal thing in the book of Ezekiel which is almost entirely written in the first person. 13 Here, too, as can be noted, the phenomenon is quite late and tends to more noticeable during the post-exilic period. In the poetic books there are many pieces written in the first person, in the Psalms, among others, 8 This fact has often been noted. See, for example STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Nmrative (note 1), 65-67: "Biblical narrative exhibits such a rage for impersonality as must lead to the conclusion that writers actively sought the cover of anonymity. In this they outdo even the notorious, and somewhat overstated, namelessness of ancient writing"; see also FOKKELMAN, Reading Biblical Narrative (note 1),55. 9 This is also the case in Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) (Cf. Ecd 1: 1). 10 Cf. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Nmrative (note 1), 12-13; 73. 11 Cf. Isa5:1; 6:1-11; 8:1-4, 5, 17-18; etc. 12 Cf. Jer 1:4-19; 3:1; 4:19-20, 23-26; 8:18-23; etc. The "confessions of Jeremiah" especially come to mind here, Jer 11:18-23; 12:1-6; 15:10, 15-20; 17:14-18; 18:18-23; 20:7-13,14-18. 13 Nearly all the book is written in the first person and when God speaks he addresses the prophet directly. Only once do we find the expression: "There was a word of the Lord for Ezekiel" (1:3), but the book resumes thereafter in the first person (1:4). Conversely, the expression "there was a word from Yhwh forme" is very frequent (almost 40 times: Ezek 3:16; 6:1; 7:1; 11:14; 12:1,8,17,21,26; 13:1; 14:2, 12; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 11; 18:1; 20:2; 21:1, 6,13, 23; 23:1; 24: 1, 15; 25:1; 27: 1; 28:1, 11,20; 30: 1; 33: 1, 23; 34: 1; 35: 1; 36: 16; 37: 15; 38: 1); the expression occurs elsewhere, e. g. Jer 1:4, 11, 13; 2:1; 13:3,8; 16: 1; 18:5; 24:4; Zech 4:8; 6:9.

224

Nmrator or Narrators?

but in the book of Sirach, one of the deuterocanonical books, we meet for the first and only time with a colophon in which the author reveals his own name (Sir SO:27-29Jl4 Something similar, although more discreet, is to be found in the preface and epilogue by the "abridger" of the second book of Maccabees, another late deuterocanonical book (2 Mac 2:19, 32 and IS:37-39Jl5 The author of the book of Qohelet uses a literary device to introduce a narrator represented as Solomon who speaks in the first person (Qoh 1:12), while the voice of the narrator presents the same person in the third person in Qoh 1: 1. 16

4. Authors and narrators in the Pentateuch and the historical books To return to the Pentateuch and the historical books (the "former prophets" in Jewish tradition), things are very different; the writers are, and remain, anonymous and do not speak in the first person. Yet it is true that for a long time the opinion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch prevailed. I7 Discussion on this point went on for a long time and there are still some who hold this opinion. However, it is useless to look in the Bible itself for clear and indisputable statements in this matter. Even Sirach, in his eulogy of Moses (Sir 44:23-4S:1-S), says nothing about the latter's possibly being a writer. We have to wait for Flavius Josephus and the Talmud for Moses to become the author ofthe first five books of the Bible 18 However, the Pentateuch offers a basis for the ascription. Indeed, there are several texts that speak explicitly of literary activity on the part of Moses, as, for instance, Exod 17: 14; 24:4; 34:27; Num 33:2; Deut 31:9.24 1 9 In the first case Yhwh gets Moses to write an account of the battle against Amaleq in "the book," but it is not specified which is the book in question. In the other cases it is a question of a legal document: "the 'words ofYhwh' on the basis of which the alliances in Exod 24:8 and Exod 34:27 were to be concluded," or again the Law entrusted to the Levites carrying the Ark of the Covenant, a law which was to be read every seven years (Deut 31:9-10,24). Lastly, in Num 33:2, Moses sets down in writing all the stages gone through by Israel in the desert. The book ofSirach was probably written about 180 BeE. Composed after 160 BeE. 16 Just as Job speaks in the first person in the dialogues, but a narrator speaks of him in the third person in the prologue and epilogue. Likewise, a "narrator" speaks in the introduction to everything said by the interlocutors in the central dialogue. 17 On this point see, among others, J. BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; New York 1992) 1--4. 18 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 1:37--40; Talmud: Baba Bathra 14b-15c; cf. Mishna Brurah, note 21. 19 See STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Nmrative (note 1), 66. 14 15

4. Authors and nwrators in the Pentateuch and the historical books

225

It is obvious that none of these texts suppose that Moses wrote anything else.

Those parts of the Pentateuch that are ascribed to him may be important and even essential but they do not make up the whole. One must say then that, within the five books of the Law, Moses is never presented as the author of all the Pentateuch 20 One could put the question differently and ask whether Moses is not in some way the "narrator" of the Pentateuch, that is to say the "voice" that tells the story and proclaims the laws. Is this really the case? One would be tempted to rule out a priori saying that Moses could have recounted what happened before his birth (Exod 2: 1-10) or described his own death (Deut 34: 1-12). Nonetheless, from a strictly literary point of view - I am speaking here of the narrator and not the author - "Moses" as the omniscient (all-knowing) narrator could very well recount what he himself as a real or supposed person was not able to observe· 21 He could even, still as the omniscient narrator, recount his own death. The literary device is well known and there is no point in dwelling on it." Despite that, it is clear that the character Moses is not the "narrator" in the Pentateuch. He is certainly very much present in these five books, most of all in the book of Deuteronomy where his voice predominates from one end to the other.23 But it is nonetheless true that Moses is never "the" narrator in the Pentateuch. Even in Deuteronomy, where the voice of Moses is everywhere, it is possible to hear the voice of a narrator, as discreet as he is anonymous, at certain strategic points as, for instance, in the introduction (Deut 1: 1-5) and the conclusion (34: 1_12).24 There really is a narrator superimposed on Moses, even 20 Cf. ibidem, 66: "Nowhere are Moses' recording activities identified with Pentateuchal discourse as a whole, nor always or straightforwardly with the corresponding parts of the discourse." See also, just to give one more example, D.J.A. CLINES, "Pentateuch," The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed. B.M. METZGER et al.) (New York 1993) 579-582, esp. 580: "[ ... ] it has long been recognized that [ ... ] [Moses] cannot have been the author [ofthe Pentateuch] and that the Pentateuch is in fact anonymous." 21 On the concept of omniscient narrator, see SKA, "Our Fathers Have Told Us (note 1), 44-45; it was thought up by P. LUBBOCK, The Craft of Fiction (The Traveller's Library 5; London 1921) 115. 22 Cf. BOOTH, The Rhetoric of Fiction (note 4), 17-18, n. 10: "[ ... ] the question of how Moses could have written an account of his own death and burial may be indispensable in historical criticism but can be easily overdone in literary criticism"; see also STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Nwrative (note 1), 61: "Given divine inspiration, Moses could compose the rest of the Bible as well as the Pentateuch to the last letter." Divine inspiration, in antiquity, was used to explain a certain number of problems which literary theories explain today. 23 See R. M. POLZIN, Moses and theDeuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington, IN 21993) who analyses the interplay of the different "voices" in Deuteronomy. See also J.-P. SONNET, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Biblical Interpretation Series 14; Leiden 1997) 252-252; N. LOHFINK, "Die Stimmen in Deuteronomium 2," BZ 37 (1993) 209-235. 24 See also Deut 4:41-43; 4:44 and 45-51a; 27: la, 9a, lla; 28:69-291a; 31: 1-2a, 7, 9-10a, 14-25,30; 33:44-45a, 48-52; 33:1. Deut 33:14-25 and 33:48-52 contain divine utterances addressed directly to Moses. The other texts are by the narrator himself.

226

Nmrator or Narrators?

in Deuteronomy itself. This narrator's voice is, moreover, much more audible in the rest of the Pentateuch. All this leads us to a fairly obvious conclusion: the narrator in the Pentateuch is not Moses. He is of course very like Moses, he enjoys similar authority and he often fades out so as to let Moses speak or to adopt his point of view but he does not get confused with him and, moreover, he remains anonymous. 25

5. A number of narrators? So far, I have spoken of "the voice" in the singular, without prejudging the question which everyone asks, of course, about whether the Pentateuch and the historical books are recounted by one or several "voices." The question arises immediately once research takes account of the results of the literary criticism of the Pentateuch and of what is called Deuteronomistic History, the narrative body that goes from Joshua to the second book of Kings. The results of this research, which has been going on for almost 250 years, that is to say, at least since Astruc,26 have not come up with perfectly convincing results and we are far from having reached a consensus on some essential questions.27 However, it is difficult to maintain that the Pentateuch or the Deuteronomistic History were written at one go by one author. Several hands were at work and we have enough proof of this. There are then several "authors" or "writers." At this stage it is not necessary to distinguish clearly between writer, author, redactor, editor, or compiler. The essential question that arises, from the narrative and literary point of view, is to know whether there are also several "narrators" or whether there is only 25 Cf. STERNBERG, The Poetics ofBiblical Narrative (note 1), 77, who is speaking about an author, but what he says is also true for a narrator: "What [the] linkage of writing and authority implies is not that the author [of the Pentateuch] is Moses but that he must be Moses-like." 26 Jean ASTRUC, Conjectures sur la Genese. Introduction et notes de Pierre Gibert (Paris 1999); the original work bears the title: Conjectures sur les Memoires dont il parait que Moise s'est servi pour composer Ie Livre de la Genese, avec des Remarques qui appuient ou eclaircissent ces Conjectures (Brussels 1753). On the mystery ofthe place of publication and the publisher, see Pierre Gibert's reflections in the introduction to the Conjectures. 27 On the Pentateuch, cf., among others, A. DE PURY - T. ROMER, eds.,LePentateuque en question. Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible a la lumiere des recherches recentes (Le Monde de la Bible 19; Geneve 32002) 9-80; J.-L. SKA, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 139-234; A.F. CAMPBELL - M.A. O'BRIEN, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis, :MN 1993); for the Deuteronomic History, see in particular A. DE PuRY - T. ROMER - J.-D. MACCHI (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic History in Recent Research (JSOTS 306; Sheffield 2001); A. F. CAMPBELL - M.A. O'BRIEN, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis, :MN 2000); T. ROMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London - New York 2006).

5. A number of narrators?

227

one "voice" in which all the versions of the same story are fused, along with the opinions or theologies of the various authors, redactors, and editors. This would mean, in other words, that the text as a whole is sufficiently harmonious and unified to allow their being "recited" by one "voice." For it is somewhat difficult to imagine, even for an audience in olden times, that the same voice, the "narrator's," could adopt contradictory opinions on one and the same subject, or recount two contradictory versions of the same event. Now this is indeed the case. There is no point in piling up the examples; there are many of them in all the introductions to the Pentateuch or the historical books. This means, in very simple terms, that there cannot be a single "narrator" in the Pentateuch or the historical books, at least if one gives this term its traditional significance. The divergences between certain parts are too considerable to be taken in by one single "voice." It is no doubt possible to think of one single "voice," but a very high price must be paid for that; some would say that it is too high. It must be admitted that that this "voice," which could be that of the final redactor or the last redactors of the Pentateuch, for example, does nothing else than repeat very faithfully what the other "voices" had already said. According to good logic, this means that that "voice" does not create the unity of the story, since it in no way suppresses the divergences, but juxtaposes and arranges them so that they come together in a "concert" of voices. This final "narrator" is thus more of an orchestra director than a musician. Now we know that the "narrators" are in fact musicians. They are the ones who play the music we hear, and that means that it is not played by a soloist. A man like Hermann Gunkel, very sensitive to this side of things as regards the book of Genesis, had said earlier on that Israel had not produced a biblical Homer28 By that he meant that the stories were brought together without anyone trying to integrate them perfectly into a single plot or to give the whole a stylistic and narrative "form" that would make a harmonious whole of it. The editors, on the contrary, chose to make a work similar, at least in part, to that by Charles and Pierre Perrault or the brothers Grimm. They no doubt went further in assembling and setting out the stories, and that is perceptible in the story of Jacob and especially in the story of Joseph but this does not prevent their work from being closer to that of those "collators" or "editors" than to that of a Homer. This means that the "narrator" in the Pentateuch, like the narrator in the Deuteronomic History, is in fact more than one narrator, not just one. The text sounds forth several "voices," or a concert of voices. This concert is not perhaps always to our taste and we have other ideas about polyphonic harmony. 28 H. GUNKEL, Genesis (G6ttingen 31910) xcix. Before him, Karl David Ilgen had said that the book of Genesis had no author, but rather a compiler, an arranger, a collator: "Das Werk [hat k]einen Verfasser, sondern nur einen Zusammensetzer, einen Zusammenordner, einen Sammler"; cf. K.D. ILGEN, Die Urkunden des erstenBuchs von Moses [. ..] (Halle 1798) 344.

228

Nmrator or Narrators?

The important thing, however, is to notice that these stories speak in the plural. To get them to speak in the singular, to want to hear only one voice, would mean to mutilate them, suppress one oftheir essential characteristics or impose a straight-jacket on them. The texts of the Pentateuch and the historical books are irreducible plurals.

6. The plural narrator of a plural tradition of a plural people How do we explain this phenomenon? In the framework of this short article it is not possible to give an exhaustive answer to this question. I shall therefore content myself with an outline. In my opinion Israel's official traditions reflect the plurality of the community that gave rise to them. It is not possible, here again, to enter into the details of the discussions on the matter. But I think that, nonetheless, we are here putting our finger on the point where the synchronic and diachronic methods pass the baton to each other. The question that narrative analysis asks can hardly be answered without recourse to history, that is to say diachrony. Now studies on the history of Israel show quite clearly that the post-exilic community, the one that gave the texts in our possession their definitive, or almost definitive, fonn, is not a community perfectly united around a central power. 29 There is no "dominant voice"; there is no absolute power that could impose one single opinion. Unanimity does not exist; on the contrary, there is a plurality of groups each of which has its own "voice in the chapter."3o Historians mention, among other things, the opposition between North and South, Samaria and Jerusalem, Jerusalem the capital and Judah the province, the urban elite and the great landowners in the Judean countryside, the Jerusalem clergy and the "elders," the ones who came back from the Babylonian exile (the gold) and the people who stayed in the country (the "people of the land"), and the conservatives belonging to the establishment and the progressives belonging to groups given to prophecy and eschatology3 ! The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomic History are the reflection of this pluralism. In cultures where, on the other hand, there was an absolute power, like that of a sovereign it is much easier to find perfectly unified literary works. Israel, 29 Cf. among others E.-M. LAPERROUSAZ -A. LEMAIRE (eds.), La Palestine a l'epoque perse (Etudes annexes de la Bible de Jerusalem; Paris 1994); J. W. WATTS (ed.), Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (Atlanta, GA 2001). 30 Unanimity is often suspect, however. It is enough to recall the story in 1 Kings 22 where four hundred prophets unanimously predict the success of the military campaign planned by Achab. 31 Cf. O. H. STEcK,Der Abschluss der Prophetie imAlten Testament. Ein Versuchzur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Biblisch-theolgische Studien 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991). See also J.-L. SKA, Introduction (note 27),309-325.

7. The anonymous naJrator, spokesman of tradition

229

it seems, was allergic to this form of absolute power; the diversity of the traditions and redactions that we find in the Old Testament is one of the many proofs of the resistance on the part of the people of the Bible to any form of totalitarianism. One must in fact remember that Israel never knew absolute power for long. One could think of Omri's dynasty32 But this dynasty did not reign long enough to impose its views and definitively unify their kingdom's culture and traditions. Besides, Israel, unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt or Greece for example, was unable to experience long periods of stability and economic prosperity - indispensable conditions for the production of large-scale literary works, This is one of the reasons why there is no biblical Homer or Herodotus. The history ofIsrael is too chequered, chopped up and shaken up for it to be possible to produce works similar to those of the classical writers. Mesopotamia and Egypt experienced such periods and were thus able to produce more unified and, especially, more extensive literary works. The multiplicity of "voices" in the great narrative sequences in the Bible is therefore the reflection of a complex society with its powerful internal tensions and of a history with many ups and downs.

7. The anonymous narrator, spokesman of tradition There is still one problem to be solved: why are so many biblical narrators anonymous? It is not easy to answer this question. There are, however, some parallels in ancient and modern literature. Folktales, for example, are anonymous because they belong to a people's collective memory. Their composition goes back to time inunemorial and it is impossible to find any trace of their authors. Folktales only have "narrators," or else they have been collected and edited by scholars whom one could call "collectors" or "compilers," This is the case, for example, with Perrault, father and son, in France,33 the brothers

32 The principal members of this dynasty are Omri (885-876 Be), Achab (875-853 Be), Achazias (853-852 Be), Joram (852-841 Be). The dynasty was overthrown by Jehu in 841 Be. Cf. S. TIMM, Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus (FRLANT 124; G6ttingen 1982). 33 The first edition of these tales was published between 1691 and 1694 by Charles Perrault, the publishing house being Coignard, official printer to the French Academy. The second collection was published in 1697 by Barbin, publisher of the main classical authors; the preface is signed by Pierre Perrault, son of Charles. The two collections were brought together in 1781. For further details, see Perrault. Contes. Edition de Jean-Pierre Collinet, Paris, Gallimard, 1981.

230

Nmrator or Narrators?

Grimm in Germany,34 and Italo Calvino in Italy." These learned people were able to rework the tales but no one would say they are their authors. In this sense the biblical authors are also close to narrators of the epics of ancient Greece, so well described by Scholes and Kellogg 36 : "The epic storyteller is telling a traditional story. The primary impulse that moves him is not a historical one, nor a creative one; it is re-creative. He is retelling a story, and therefore his primary allegiance is not to fact, not to truth, not to entertainment, but to the mythas itself - the story as preserved in the tradition which the epic story-teller is fe-creating. The word mythos meant precisely this in ancient Greece." Those few lines are extremely clear and surely provide the best solution to our problem. Like the narrators in ancient Greece the biblical narrators are for the most part the spokesmen oftheir people's tradition. They are not the authors of these traditions and do everything to disappear behind them. They do not seek to give infonnation on what has happened as historians do, nor do they try to be original and creative like the writers in all ages (and that is really why they want to remain anonymous), but they want to provide the best and most essential versions of Israel's living tradition, the ones that will make it possible for the people to survive all the uncertainties of its history. Other, more official, texts, like the constitutions of our states, do not have authors, although in many cases it is known who the persons are who devised and drew up the texts. I take this example because it is quite close to what the Pentateuch intends to be in its definitive fonn. The reason why constitutions are anonymous, as are many other official texts, is quite easy to grasp. These texts are really intended to be the reflection of a common will. Quite unlike laws promulgated by the sovereigns or princes of the ancien regime, the constitutions of our modern states are the expression and product of common consent. They are - ideally - the work of all the people or, at least, they claim to reflect, as far as possible, what the people explicitly wish in the essential points of public life. Like modern constitutions, the Pentateuch is a "work in common," the work of a plurality which is in no way seeking to iron out its differences but wants to be representative ofthat choir of sometimes discordant voices. In that sense, anonymity is a condition of greater objectivity; the story is more important than the narrator or narrators. 37

34 The brothers Jacob (Ludwig Karl) and Wilhelm (Karl) Grimm published their Kinderund Hausmarchen between 1812 and 1815. 35 Fiabe italiane raccolte e trascritte da Italo Calvino. Vol. I-II (Torino 1956). 36 R. SCHOLES - R. KELLOGG , The Nature ofNmrative (New York 1966) 12. 37 Cf. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (note 1), 123-124.

Conclusion

231

Conclusion Historical studies on the biblical texts, like literary studies on them, especially the Pentateuch and the historical books, lead us to draw the same conclusion: the Bible is plural. It is related by several narrators, just as it is written by several authors. One could, strictly speaking, admit that it may have one or more "presenters" or "commentators," that is to say one or more narrative processes that interpret one by one the various "voices" composing the text and allow themselves occasionally to add an explanatory note, a further precision, a new exegesis or even a correction. 38 But the presenter's "voice" in any case closely follows the various melodies and tonalities present in the writings; it certainly does not confuse them. The polyphonic nature of the Bible is in fact one of its basic characteristics, and it is essential to be aware of this in exegesis, whether synchronic or diachronic.

38 Cf. especially the works by S. SANDMEL, "The Haggadah within Scripture," JBL 80 (1961) 105-122, and of M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York 1985).

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors l The terms 'redactor' and 'redaction' have often been used in recent years in

the fields of both Old and New Testament biblical exegesis. My purpose, in this short paper, is not to discuss the terminology as such, but the presence, in

biblical texts, of what is usually called in exegesis 'redactional activity.' The existence of such activity has recently been challenged in a vigorous way by John Van Seters who prefers to speak of 'authors.' I will first give a short summary of J. Van Seters' argument and I will then try to answer his objections.

l. John Van Seters' critique of the current use of the word 'redactor' The main line of Van Seters' argumentation is simple: he charges those who use the term 'redactor' with anachronism. He proves his point in two different ways. First, he speaks of the origin of 'redaction criticism' in New Testament studies. Second, in an inquiry about the origin of the terms 'redactor' and 'redaction,' he establishes that they are a nineteenth-century anachronism.

1.1. The Documentary Hypothesis and New Testament Redaction Criticism 2 The point of departure is the documentary hypothesis about the formation of the Pentateuch. According to the classical formulation of this hypothesis by one of its major proponents, Julius Wellhausen, at the origin of the Pentateuch as we know it we find four different sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly Writer, and Deuteronomy, each of which offers an independent and complete 'history' of the origins of Israel. Successive redactors combined these sources.

For instance the Jehovist combined the Yahwist with the Elohist, and a final, priestly redactor or editor is responsible for the present shape ofthe Pentateuch. These 'redactors' or 'editors,' however, rarely interfere with the text and their 1 This is the text of the Sigmund Mowinckellecture delivered at the Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, on the 20th of September 2004. 2 J. VAN SETERS, "An Ironic Circle: Wellhausen and the Rise of Redaction Criticism," ZAW 115 (2003) 487-500.

1. John Van Seters' critique of the current use of the word 'redactor'

233

activity is minimal. This is the reason why it is so easy to identify today the different sources because the 'redactors' left them mostly intact and added only here and there a few words in their work of conflation. The term 'redactor' underwent a radical change when it was adopted by New Testament scholarship around 1955, Some famous scholars such as W, Marxsen or H. Conzelmann speak of Redaktionsgeschichte, a Gennan tenn which is usually translated by the English Redaction Criticism 3 In these studies, the tenn 'redactor' actually acquired a new meaning because it was used to describe an activity of collecting, rearranging, re-elaborating, and reshaping older material. This 'editorial' or 'redactional' activity, according to I. Van Seters, is more adequately described as that of an 'author' in the full sense of the word. The irony, he says, is that these 'redactors' are now found almost everywhere in the Pentateuch where they replace the older sources and their authors. Therefore, a tenn introduced by I. Wellhausen is now used to tear down his whole construction. In the meantime, however, the tenn radically changed meaning although many exegetes did not notice this semantic alteration. I. Van Seters is of course aware ofa possible objection that could be raised against his theory, namely that the tenn 'redaction' can be used in two different senses. In a first, passive sense, it is tantamount to 'edition' or 'publication' of a literary work. In a second, and more active sense, it means' editorial activity' and can correspond to what New Testament scholars imply when they speak of Redaction Criticism 4 . His answer to this possible objection is given in another article where he shows that only in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did the tenn come to be used in this second sense. It is therefore an anachronism as we will see in the next paragraph.

1,2, The Biblical redactors: a nineteenth-century anachronism' It is possible to sum up Van Seters' thesis in a few propositions concerning the different periods he analyses in his meticulous and exemplary study (a) The notion of editor stems from humanistic studies and was used to explain the origin and transmission of classical texts. The first evidence for the existence of 'editors' (for Van Seters, 'editor' and 'redactor' are more or less synonymous) stems from the Alexandrian scholars and their 'editions' (ekdoseis) of classical works. 6 The most famous among them is Aristarchus. 3 Cf. H. CONZELMANN, Die Milte der Zeit. Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 17; Tiibingen 1954); W. MARXSEN, Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (FRLANT 67; G6ttingen 1956). 4 Cf. VAN SETERS, "An Ironic Circle," 489, n. 5. 5 J. VAN SETERS, "The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism," JNSL 29 (2003) 1-19. 6 VAN SETERS, "The Redactor in Biblical Studies," 8-9.

234

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

These Alexandrian grammarians only indicated with special signs what they considered as interpolations in the text, and they also produced commentaries on classical works. Their scholarly editions, however, were never meant to be 'final redactions' or 'standard editions' made for publication. As is well-known, there are many similarities between the activity of the Alexandrian grammarians and that of the biblical 'scribes' (so/, rfm) and masoretes, In the Jewish and Christian editing of biblical texts, the 'scribes' proposed emendations, minor corrections, and used various critical signs to indicate unusual features in a text. But they were also much more conservative than the Alexandrian grammarians because they never suggested a real correction of the biblical textJ Van Seters insists on this point which is essential for him because it means that the idea of 'redactors' who sometimes radically reshape ancient biblical texts is difficult to reconcile with what we know about the scribes of the first centuries C, E, Moreover, Van Seters also pinpoints another basic distinction, that between grammarians (grammatikoi or grammateis in Greek and sojerim in Hebrew) and the rabbis or 'sages' who interpret and comment the Bible, The first sage is Ben Sirach (cf Si 51,27), For this reason, Van Seters rejects M, Fishbane's idea of 'Biblical Interpretation' and innerbiblical exegesis, because we cannot identify, as Fishbane does, scribe and sage, editor and interpreter. s (b) The modern term 'editor' goes back to the Renaissance, Two factors were at work at this time, namely the renewed interest in classical literature and the invention of the printing press. The 'editors' of the Renaissance are simply persons who stand between the ancient text and its printed version. Their activity is limited to text criticism and the production of a standard version of an ancient text. These editors, according to Van Seters, never conflate different independent versions of a text, they do not rearrange or re-elaborate texts, they do not give them a new framework, nor do they introduce new interpretations or new ways of understanding early texts, It is thus difficult to compare them with the 'biblical redactors' of contemporary exegesis. (c) The modem idea of an 'editor' arose in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, One of the first examples is found in Richard Bently's work This scholar 'corrected' Milton's Paradise Lost, affirming that an 'editor' had introduced several interpolations into the original text. 9 The most influential personality, however, is a specialist in Homer, F.A. Wolf, as is clear from his renowned study, Prolegomena ad Homerum (Halle 1795), This author sees a strong similarity between his own work and that of the 7 Van Seters refers to Saul LIEBERMAN, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine of the I Century B. c.E. - IV Century CE. (New York 1962). 8 M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985). 9 VAN SETERS, "The Redactor in Biblical Studies," 3.

2. Afirst answer to J. Van Seters' objections

235

Alexandrian editors such as Aristarchus. But Wolf goes one step further and speaks of redaction history, asserting that the Homeric epics are the product of a long literary process. Originally independent poems (or sources) were collected and joined together by a certain Peisistratus and a kind of editorial committee around 550 B. C. E. This is the origin of the so-called 'Peisistratus recension' of Homer. 10 Wolf was very influential, and contemporary important biblical scholars such as J. G. Eichhorn and K. D. Ilgen were in touch with him and they applied similar methods to the Pentateuch and to other parts of the Bible, for instance the Gospels. The point that Van Seters wants to drive home is very clear: the notion of 'redactor' or 'editor' which is so frequent in recent biblical studies is an anachronism and should be abandoned, first of all because of its dubious origins.

2. A first answer to J. Van Seters' objections The problematic notion, in my opinion, is not exactly that of the editor or redactor, but the very notion of 'author' in ancient times, both in Greece and in Israel. I will first formulate this idea in the form of a general thesis and I will then buttress it with a series of arguments. Let me start from a very simple observation, namely that most ancient texts are anonymous, especially in biblical literature, since they are not the works of individuals, or not considered as such, but works belonging to the 'tradition' of the conununities. ll The 'author' or 'writer' is the mouthpiece of the conununity and 'says,' interprets and actualizes the tradition, the conunon possession of all the members of the community. The task of 'writers,' therefore, is not exactly to express any personal or original ideas and to find the best means in order to convey them to their readers. Their task is twofold. First, they are to be spokespersons of the common tradition, to be the living tradition for their contemporaries; second, they are to 'actualize' the tradition or traditional texts because the 'writer' is always a bridge between past and future. This is the basic reason why there is 'editorial,' 'redactional' or 'compositional' activity in antiquity. The ancient writers were not later editors of ancient authors, but living channels of transmission of ancient - mostly anonymous - and collective traditions; their task was to 'actualize,' to give new life, to these traditions. There was little interest in the past as such, but in the past that could inform, shape, and inspire the present. Hence the work of these 'channels of transmission' was not only to transmit, but also to adapt, correct, adjust, and interpret the tradition for the present. 10 At the same time, Herodotus was also considered a mere 'compiler' by a certain number of scholars; see VAN SETERS, "The Redactor in Biblical Studies," 8. 11 The first biblical text which is 'signed' by its real author is the apocryphal book of Ben Sirach (cf. Si 51:27).

236

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

Hence my argumentation endeavours to show three points (1) that there are 'redactors' in biblical texts and that these 'redactors' are to be distinguished both from ancient 'authors' and later 'editors;' (2) that these redactors intervene to 'actualize' the texts; (3) but that they also preserve the tradition(s) and the sources at their disposal because they interpret ancient texts through corrective additions, not through suppressions and substitutions. The following examples illustrate and bolster these three points in one way or another.

2.1. There are 'redactors' or living channels of transmission My first point is that one must admit the existence, in biblical literature in general and especially in the Pentateuch, of interventions which we should distinguish from the activity of modern authors or editors. In other words texts once written are modified in a way which is different from what we can call an author's work, because the text is not completely reshaped, but actualized through succinct and relevant additions, This work is also different from simple editorial activity because an editor may cancel interpolations, but he or she would not purposely add important sections to the original text The starting point of my argumentation is a recent article by E, Ulrich, a specialist in Qumran literature. 12 In his comparison between biblical and Qumran texts, he underscores the variety of textual traditions and, conversely, he affirms that the monopoly of the Masoretic Text (MT) is a late development My point is slightly different because I intend to show, with the help of the same examples, that there is a redactional or editorial activity that took place after the text had already been written down, There are enough illustrations of this fact when one compares biblical texts with Qumran literature, the LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, There are, for instance, two different versions of Isaiah at Qumran, lQIsIsaa and lQIsab , one more complete and one more fragmentary, the latter in almost complete agreement with the MT, These two versions can hardly be attributed to the same 'author' in the modem sense ofthe word. To take another example, the Qururan fragment of the Book of Exodus, 4QpaleoExodm , is close to the Exodus in the Samaritan Recension, which contains many additions (verses or even paragraphs). The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, is unique in introducing after Exod 20: 17 - in a key position, then, because it makes it a part of the Decalogue - a divine order to build an altar on Mount Gerizim.13 This illus12 E. ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls," CEQ 66 (2004) 1-24, esp. 3-4. 13 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus, " 4, referring to P. W. SKEHAN, "Exodus and the Samaritan Recension from Qumran," JBL 74 (1955) 435-440; id., "Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text," JBL 78 (1959) 21-25, esp. 22. For the full publication of the text of 4QpaleoExodm , see Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek

2. Afirst answer to J. Van Seters' objections

237

trates and confirms two specific points about biblical tradition: 'pluriformityof the text and the process of development in the text in antiquity. '14 The second point, textual development in antiquity, is exactly what I want to prove in my discussion with I. Van Seters. When we turn to 4QNumb we come to similar conclusions. There is general agreement between this Qumran text and the Samaritan Pentateuch, except for specifically Samaritan theological points. 'The Samaritans had simply chosen one of the circulating Iewish texts and minimally revised it in accord with their own beliefs.'15 4QJosh' contains later modifications. In the Qumran text, the building of an altar (Josh 8:30 - MT) precedes the circumcision (Josh 5 - MT) and the conquest (Josh 6ff. - MT). According to 4QJosh' the altar was built at Gilgal, immediately after crossing the Jordan and this is also what Josephus tells us in the Jewish Antiquities (5.1.4 § 20). The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Old Latin place this altar on Mount Gerizim (Deut 27:4), whereas the MT places it on Mount Ebal. Thus the MT is the third in a series of divergent versions. I6 We can add that these different versions hardly come from different 'authors' but are more likely explained as the reworking of the same or similar 'sources' in different areas or at different times. In 4QJudg' we have, according to Ulrich, a clear example of an interpolation. In the story of Gideon, the Qumran MS skips from v. 6 to v. 11 in chap. 6 (MT). Judg 6:7-10 is often labelled as a Deuteronomistic theological interpolation, as Wellhausen had already observed, and this is confirmed by the Qumran MS.17 The Book of Ieremiah confirms, if it is still necessary, the existence of redactional hands in biblical texts. As is well known, the LXX is shorter than MT (16% less) and the chapters are ordered in a different way, especially with respect to the oracles against the nations. IS 4QIer" confirms in a dramatic way the existence of a Hebrew text in agreement with the LXX which is hence a faithful translation not of the MT, but of an alternate and earlier Hebrew form

Biblical Manuscripts (eds. P. W. SKEHAN - E. ULRICH - J. E. SANDERSON) (DJD 9; Oxford 1992) 53-130. The second point illustrated by Ulrich, namely the use of the perfect, God "has chosen [Mount Gerizim]," in contrast to the future "God will choose [Jerusalem]" as Israel's central shrine, comes however from the Book of Deuteronomy, and not from the Book of Exodus (ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus" 4 and 12-13.). I thank Professor Magnar Kartveit for drawing my attention to this imprecision in E. Ulrich's article. 14 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus," 4. b 15 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus," 5; see N. JASTRAM, "29. 4QNum ," Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (eds. E. ULRICH - F.M. CROSS, et a1.) (DJD 12; Oxford 1994) 205-267. 16 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus," 5; see E. ULRICH, "47. 4QJosh\" Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (eds. E. ULRICH - F. M. CROSS, et a1.) (DID 14; Oxford 1995) 143-152. 17 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus," 6; see J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, "49. 4QJudg a," Qumran Cave 4.IX, 161-164. 18 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Assen/Minneapolis, :MN 22001) 320.

238

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

of Ieremiah. 19 In the case of Jeremiah, the MT and 4QJera are later versions, whereas in the case of Exodus and Numbers the MT contains a version older than those of Qumran and the Samaritan Pentateuch 20 The LXX of Jeremiah (cf. W. Robertson Smith et a1.), along with the LXX of Daniel and Esther, are different 'editions' of the same texts or books. 2 1 We can thus conclude with a good degree of certainty that there were 'redactors' in antiquity, and especially in the biblical world. It is actually difficult to explain the phenomena listed above without resorting to the work of 'second hands,' the hands of people who felt authorized to alter extant texts, already put in writing. As we have seen, especially in the case ofthe Samaritan Pentateuch, the texts were adapted to the needs of a particular community. This holds true, of course, for the MT as well, as the location of the altar on Mount Ebal in Deut 27:4 amply demonstrates.

2.2. Redactors as custodians of ancient sources I intend to show in this paragraph that 'editorial' or 'redactional' activity is the best explanation of the observation made by generations of exegetes, namely the presence of 'inconsistencies' or 'incoherencies' in series of narratives belonging to the same textual units. In other words, there are evident signs that the 'editors' tried to preserve the tradition as far as it was possible. They intervened only when it was indispensable, for instance when they felt obliged to correct, actualize or adjust earlier texts because of new circumstances, new preoccupations, or new mentalities. But they left the texts more or less in their original shape, although inconsistencies appear when one compares the different episodes integrated in larger narrative units. The presence of inconsistencies between the episodes in larger units is therefore a sign that the 'editors' did not entirely reshape the individual narratives units received from the tradition. For this reason it is difficult to call 'authors' those who compiled and organized earlier texts at their disposition in order to transmit larger narrative compositions to further generations. This type of literary work is attested, as we will see, in oral poetry, in the Gilgamesh epic, in Homeric literature and in the Bible, especially in the Pentateuch.

19 E. Tov, "71b. 4QJerb," Qumran Cave 4.X The Prophets (eds. E. ULRICH et al.) (DID 15; Oxford 1997) 171-176. 20 Tov, Tex tual Criticism, 319-327. The opposite view is defended by a minority. Cf. G. FISCHER, "Jer 25 und die Fremdv6lkerspriiche: Unterschiede zwischen hebraischen und griechischem Text," Bib 72 (1991) 474-499; ID., "Zum Text des Jeremiabuches," Bib 78 (1997) 305-328. 21 See W. R. SMITH, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (London 21892) 103-124; cf. the summary in J. ROGERSON, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (Philadelphia, PA 1985) 277: "[ ... ] in considering the authorship of biblical books, [ ... ] the argument could not be construed in terms of modem notions of authorship."

2. Afirst answer to J. Van Seters' objections

239

The basic unit is therefore the single narrative or the short narrative cycle. Some of the pioneers of modern critical exegesis and forefathers of the documentary hypothesis, namely R. Simon, J. G. Eichhorn and K. D. Ilgen also observed that the biblical writers did not rework their sources as the Greek historians used to do. 22 Even Wellhausen, the 'mastennind' of the documentary hypothesis, recognizes that in the patriarchal narratives, the single narratives have preserved their individuality and originality within the' Jehovist' source. Wellhausen's text deserves to be quoted in full: "One more trait must be added to the character of the J ehovis!. Each of his narratives may be understood by itself apart from the rest; the genealogy serves merely to string them together; their interest and significance is derived from the connection in which they stand. Many of them have a local colour which bespeaks a local origin; and how many of them are in substance inconsistent with each other, and stand side by side only by compulsion! The whole literary character and loose connection of the Jehovist story of the patriarchs reveals how gradually its different elements were brought together, and how little they have coalesced as unity" (italics mine)23 J. Tigay, in a work on the Gilgamesh epic often quoted in Pentateuch studies, explains that at the origin of the Gilgamesh epic we find several separate poems, each with its own plot and theme.24 The first full version, the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic, assembled several of these poems in one composition which describes the different adventures of the hero and his friend Enkidu, and unifies the poem around one theme, the search for immortality. Tigay's intention was to prove the validity of the documentary hypothesis, but his study in the Gilgamesh epic favours the hypothesis of conflation and reworking of several independent short narratives rather than that of compositeness, namely the combination of long, complete and independent documents into a larger one. 25 22 J. G. EICHHORN, Einleitung in das Alte Testament III (G6ttingen 41823) 38: "Ohne Urtheil und Kritik stellt man w6rtlich zusammen, was, und wie man es findet. [ ... ] Man gab lieber die Quellen, die man vorfand, selbst, stellte [die] Erziihlungen, wo sie von einander abwichen, neben einander, und griff dem Leser durch Wahl und Urtheil nicht vor [ ... ]."; K. D. ILGEN, Die Urkunden des Jerusalem Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt [. ..] (Halle 1798) 344: "[ ... ] das Werk [hat k]einen Verfasser, sondern nur einen Zusammensetzer, einen Zusammenordner, einen Sammler." 23 J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin 1878); English translation: Prolegomena to the History ofAncient Israel (Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series; Atlanta, GA 1994) 327. One should notice that these words are written by Wellhausen, not by Gunkel! 24 J. 'fIGAY, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia, PA 1982); ID., "The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic," Empirical Modelsfor Biblical Criticism (ed. J. 'fIGAY) (Philadelphia, PA 1985) 21-52. 25 Cf. R.P. GORDON, "Compositeness, Confiation and the Pentateuch," JSOT 51 (1991) 57-69 (62-63). Tigay himself admits this implicitly when he compares the formation of the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic, unified around a common theme, the quest of immortality, with

240

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

In other words, Tigay's work bolsters the views of Gunkel ('Genesis ist eine Sanunlung von Sagen')26 rather than that ofWellhausen and his school. Homeric studies - which are often paralleled with the research about the composition of the Pentateuch - also support the idea that the long poems we know are actually compilations of originally independent poetic pieces. This work of compilation was thorough, however, and the final product has a unity of style, form, organization and plot which is difficult to find in the Bible. Nonetheless, we can say that there is a strong parallelism in the process of formation of the Homeric poems and of the Pentateuch. The point of departure of my argumentation is the 'inconsistencies' in Homer (' Even Homer nods '). 27 Before we discuss Homer, however, it is useful to quote one example of 'inconsistency' mentioned by A. B. Lord in his work on oral poetry, The Singer of Tales, an example which is similar to phenomena exegetes pin down in their work on biblical narratives. The hero, in a Yugoslav song recorded by A. B. Lord, is very poor and his mother has to borrow armour and a horse from an uncle. In a following scene, the same hero is recognized because he bears the armour of an enemy he defeated in single combat. In simple words, this hero acquired armour twice. 28 According to A.B. Lord's explanation, the bard concentrates on one episode at a time and does not pay attention to possible contradictions between single episodes. His conclusion is that 'each episode has [ ... J its consistency.'29 When we pass to Homer, we can observe similar tensions, especially in the different recognition scenes at the end of the Odyssey.3o Many critics wonder why three recognition scenes (the bow, the bath, and the secret of the bed) are necessary before Penelope eventually recognizes Ulysses. There are surely signs of conflation in oral tradition, although the final product has its clear logic, since death (the killing of the rivals) is followed by cleansing, and then by being reunited with the wife. A clearer case of inconsistency is found in the following scene where Ulysses is recognized by his father Laertes. In this case, the beginning of this last recognition scene seems to be independent of the rest of the story. It could really be placed somewhere else. In the first place, Ulysses wears his armour when he goes out to meet his father and this does not fit a scene of recognition that supposes disguise (Odyssey, 24,205-411). In the second place, at the beginning of the scene, Ulysses pretends that he just arrived on the island ofIthaca (24,259). The scene probably supposes a disguised the patriarchal narratives in Genesis which are "held together by the divine promises" (TIGAY, "The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives," 34-35). 26 H. GUNKEL, Genesis (G6ttingen 31910) vii. 27 A.B. LORD, The Singer o/Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24; Cambridge, MA 1964) 94-95; 176-185. 28 LORD, The Singer o/Tales, 94-95. 29 Ibid., 95. 30 Ibid., 176-179.

2. Afirst answer to J. Van Seters' objections

241

Ulysses, the Ulysses that has just arrived on the island, and has not yet gone to the city. Afterwards, he mentions however that Penelope already recognized him (24,404-407). According to A. B. Lord, three other places were possible for the recognition scene by the father: (1) Odyssey 15, 389, when Ulysses asks the swineherd Eumaeus about his parents; or (2) after 15, 495, at the end of Eumaeus' story; or (3) 16,298, after the recognition by Telemachus 3 1 In this latter scene, Ulysses requests that his son not say anything about their meeting to Laertes, his father, to Eumaeus, or to anyone else. This is a clear sign that these people could have recognized him at this point in the story. We have thus good reasons to believe that even in a unified literary work such as the Odyssey we can still identify signs of earlier fonns of the poem, and, in particular, the existence of earlier independent units. To be sure, I. Van Seters would rejoin that nobody considers Homer as the 'redactor' of the Odyssey because he may have used and re-elaborated earlier poems. The mere presence of inconsistencies in a literary work is not sufficient to deny its writers the title of 'author.' My answer is twofold. First, with Gunkel we must acknowledge that there is no 'biblical Homer' and that the Pentateuch, in particular, cannot be compared to the Odyssey as far as unity of style and composition is concemed.32 Second, inconsistencies in the Bible, especially in the Pentateuch, are more frequent than in Homer and show that the biblical 'writers' wanted to preserve their sources in a way which is at variance with that of the great Greek poet. The following examples tend to reinforce this last affinnation. Some of these examples come from the Pentateuch, others from the historical books in order to show that the technique of composition I want to identifY is present throughout biblical literature. The first example is taken from Exod 7-11, the so-called Plague Narrative. Within the so-called Yahwist source (or the non-priestly source, to use more neutral language) the animals die several times. The rabbis already noticed the problem." First, pestilence kills all the livestock of the Egyptians in Exod 9:6, horses, donkeys, camels, herds, and flocks alike (cf. 9:3). But in 9:19-21,25 hail strikes in its turn everything that is in the open field in Egypt, both humans and animals. In 10:25, Moses asks Pharaoh whether the Egyptians are disposed to give animals to the Hebrews for their sacrifices, since the king of Egypt 31 Ibid., 180. 32 GUNKEL, Genesis, xcix. 33 For different solutions to this problem and further bibliography, see B. JACOB, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart 1997 [Hebrew 1943]) 230; M. GREENBERG, Understanding Exodus (New York 1969) 158-159, 189; B.S. CHILDS, Exodus: A Commentary (London/Philadelphia, PA 1974) 157: "the narrative style should not be overtaxed" ; W. H. C. PROPP, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York 1998) 313, 331, 347; J. C. GERTZ, Tradition und Redaktion in der Ex oduserzahlung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; G6ttingen 2000) 131, n. 207 (with Greenberg, Gertz considers the expression "all the flocks of Egypt" as hyperbolic).

242

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

forbids the Hebrews to leave the country with their flocks. The Egyptians, we must conclude, still possess flocks at this moment ofthe narrative. In 12:29 (cf. 11: 15), in the last plague, 'the Lord strikes down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn ofthe prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn ofthe livestock.' Eventually, in 14:7-9, the reader may ask where do the horses of Pharaoh's army come from (cf. 14:28; 15:1,4,19,21). There are clear signs, in this particular case, that the composer or compiler of the narratives preserved individual stories,

with their own logic, within the larger narrative cycle. [fthis compiler had been the author of the whole sequence, he would surely have avoided such a blatant and obvious discrepancy between the single narratives. In the same narrative section there is a similar case with respect to Moses and Pharaoh. In Exod 10:28-29 Pharaoh expels Moses and threatens to kill

him should he dare to come back to the royal palace. Moses retorts that he will never see Pharaoh's face again. But in 11 :4-8 Moses must speak to Pharaoh again, at least according to 11: 8 which says, '[Moses lleft Pharaoh in hot anger.' Several solutions to this problem have been proposed, but the very first point to admit is that the writers (composers or compilers) of this text did not feellike harmonizing the different versions and creating a smoother text. 34 An intelligent explanation was proposed by B. Lemmelijn who sees in Exod 11 a redactional unit which aims at creating a link between the first nine plagues and

the tenth one, the death of the first-born.35 [ would add that this is particularly clear with respect to 11: 1-3 and 4-8. A final example comes from the book of Kings. When one reads these books with a critical eye, one can observe that the Jerusalem treasure was plundered

many times, on certain occasions within a short span of time. 36 The first (anachronistic) mention of the Jerusalem treasure appears in Josh 6:19,24, where it is said that the silver and gold, the vessels of bronze and iron found in Jericho should be 'put into the treasury of the house of the Lord.' The second mention of this treasure is in 1 Kgs 7:51. This time Solomon adds to this treasure all the precious objects dedicated by his father David to this purpose. 34 For a discussion of the problem, see among others E. OTTO, "Erwagungen zum iiberlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung und 'Sitz im Leben' des jahwistischen Plagenzyklus," VT26 (1976) 3-27 (7-13); CHILDS, Exodus. 132-133; PROPP, Exodus. 313-314,341-342; J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, KY 1994) 108 (10:28-29 belong between 10:8a and 8b; this is an elegant solution, but we must explain why an awkward 'redactor' or 'editor' [???] displaced the verse and created a rather problematic text); ID., "The Plagues of Egypt: Ancient Tradition or Literary Invention?" ZAW98 (1986) 31-39 (32, n. 9). 35 B. LEMMELIJN, "Setting and Function ofExod 11 :1-10 in the Exodus Narrative," Studies in the Book ofExodus. Redaction -Reception -Interpretation (ed. M. VERVENNE) (BETL 126; Leuven 1996) 443-460. 36 Cf. M. LIVERANI, Oltre laBibbia. Storia antica di Israele (Roma/Bari 2004) 114, 143, 147, 148, 163 .

2. Afirst answer to J. Van Seters' objections

243

After this, all the texts mentioning the treasure tell us that it was plundered or used to pay tribute. It is plundered for the first time by Pharaoh Shishak under Roboarn (1 Kgs 14:26), then by Jehoash of Israel after he defeated Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14: 14), and finally by the Babylonian army after the conquest of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24: 13). According to other accounts, the same treasure is used to pay tribute, for instance, by Asa of Judah who decides to conclude a covenant with Ben Hadad of Damascus against Baasha ofIsrael (1 Kgs 15: 18), by Jehoash of Judah who pays tribute to Hazael of Damascus (2 Kgs 12: 19), by Ahaz who pays tribute to the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:8), and by Hezekiah who pays tribute to Sennacherib, king of Assyria when the latter comes and besieges Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18: 15). The only exception is 2 Kgs 20: 13 where the same king Hezekiah shows the treasures of Jerusalem to the envoys of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon. What treasures did Hezekiah show to the Babylonian emissaries if he had just paid an enormous tribute to Sennacherib? This is the kind of question that biblical authors prefer to shun, as is well-known. The obvious purpose of the story is contained in Isaiah's prophecy in 20:14-19 which predicts the end of Jerusalem and the plundering of its treasures by the very same Babylonians whom Hezekiah so warmly welcomed. My point, however, is that there had to be a treasure any time this treasure was necessary for the sake of the individual unit. The logic, once again, is that of the single unit, not of the whole composition. We have here another piece of evidence that biblical writers were different from modern authors, or even Greek and Latin authors, who would cancel or avoid most of these patent discrepancies within a literary work. There are of course many examples of this kind37 . Manuals, introductions, and commentaries are full of such cases. I only want to underscore the most obvious conclusion that we must draw from these observations, namely that the biblical writers cannot be equated with classical or more modem writers, and this is because of their special respect for their 'sources.'

2.3. The 'redactors' as interpreters of ancient texts Biblical writers not only respected their sources, but they also adapted them to new circumstances. A first example is the journeys of the patriarchs. For instance, it is possible to show that theological texts, i. e. divine oracles, 37 Let me mention at least two other 'inconsistencies' within ancient sources. In Joseph's dreams his mother Rachel is present along with his father (Gen 37:9-10), although she had already died according to 35:19-20. Attributing both texts to different sources does not solve the problem because there is only one mention of Rachel's death in the whole book of Genesis. In the Pentateuch and the historical books, Amalek is exterminated several times, in Ex 17:13-14(16) by Joshua (cf. Nrn 24:20; Dt25:17, 19), in 1 Sam 14:48 and 15:8 by Saul, and in 1 Sam 30:17 by David (minus 400 men who flee on camels).

244

A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors

serve to give new interpretations to the patriarchal journeys. This is the case of Gen 12:1-4a which is inserted between 11:31-32 and 12:4b-5, 26:2-5, inserted between 26: 1 and 6, 28: 13, commenting on Jacob's journey initiated in 28: 10; 31:3 (cf. 31:2 and 5), and 46: Ib-5a, inserted between 45:25-28 and 46:5b-7. 38 In this way, the journeys ofthe three patriarchs, Abraham in Gen 12, Isaac in Gen 26, Jacob in Gen 28, 31 and 46, are the result not ofhurnan, but of divine initiatives and they are all related to the promised land where all of them are to come (Abraham), to stay in (Isaac), or, eventually, to return to (Jacob). We can also mention, among many other possible instances ofthis particular technique of composition, the fact that the rituals in Leviticus become, in the present context, revelations of God to Moses and Aaron. 39 The so-called Covenant Code (Exod 21:22-23:19) receives a new introduction and conclusion that makes it a word of God transmitted to Moses 4o Moses' return to Egypt after Pharaoh's death is now the consequence of a long vocation narrative (Exod 3: 1-4: 18 is slotted in between 2:23a and 4: 19)41

3. Conclusion Terminology is, to be sure, a question of convention. We may quibble for a long time about the usefulness and pertinence oftenns such as 'author,' 'editor,' or 'redactor.' My purpose, in this short survey, is to show that we can assume that the biblical writers are surely not 'authors' in the modern, and romantic, sense of the word. They are surely different from the geniuses and great personalities of the Romantic Movement. Whether we should avoid the terms 'redactors' and 'editors' and speak of 'compilers' and 'composers' is a question I leave open to further discussion. 42 In any case, we always have to define in a precise way the tenns we use. But one thing at least is certain, namely that the tenn 'author' surely is problematic and does not really describe with enough precision the multifarious activity of the biblical writers. 38 Cf. among others E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Viitergeschichte (W:MANT 57; Neu-

kirchen-Vluyn 1984) 297-301, 331-338. 39 ULRICH, "Our Sharper Focus" 14-15; ID., "From Literature to Scripture: The Growth of a Text's Authoritativeness," Dead Sea Scrolls Discoveries 10 (2003) 3-25, esp. 9. 40 See Exod 20:22-21:1; 24:1-11. Cf. CHILDS, Exodus, 453-8; J. DURHAM,Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX 1987) 318; E. OTTO, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 3,2; Stuttgart 1994) 24. 41 M. NOTH, Uberliejerungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart 1948 = Dannstadt 1960) 32, n. 103; the idea is already present in Bemardus Dirk EERDMANS, Alttestamentliche Studien III. Das Buch Exodus (GieJ3en 1910) 16. 42 For a discussion on the concept of authorship in biblical literature, see among others R E. BROWN, "Enduring Problems in Canonicity," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (eds. RE. BROWN-J.A. FITZMYER-RE. MURPHY) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1990) 1051-1052.

3. Conclusion

245

To conclude these short reflections, let me at last quote a sentence by Gerhard von Rad on the very question we have discussed at length: "Denn keines der Stadien in dem unendlichen langen Werdegang dieses Werkes [des Hexateuchs] ist wirklich iiberholt; etwas hat sich von jeder Phase erhalten und ist als bleibendes Anliegen bis in die Letztgestalt des Hexateuchs durchgegeben worden."43 And to stess a little more my point, let me quote John Van Seters himself, "[ ... ] the Yahwistic source is itself a compilation and therefore 'redactional' [ ... J the seams in the Yahwistic combination or rearrangement are still visible." Unbelievable or not, the word "redactional" is used by our author about the Yahwist. 44

43 G. VON RAD, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament I (TBii 8; Miinchen 1958) 85. 44 J. VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist in Exodus - Numbers (Louisville,

KY - Kampen 1994) 457.

Old and New Perspectives in Old Testament Research "What one author now declares to be a Mosaic text, another declares it afterwards to be post-Mosaic; where one finds nothing but the rust of antiquity, and feels that one is being sent back to the time preceding Moses, the other discerns evident traces of novelty, and feels that one is being moved to the time of the Babylonian exile; where one admires the work of a genius and of the superior nature of a golden time, the other finds the fabrication of a decadent taste, of a depressed spirit, and of an anxious imitative industry in an iron age; where one hears echoes of the free nomads' powerful1anguage among the tents in Arabia, the other perceives nothing but the gibberish of a Chaldaean slave bearing heavy chains near the Euphrates or the Kebar. In short, one only presumes, thinks, believes, surmises, guesses, but one knows nothing, one understands nothing, one recognizes nothing [ ... ]".1 These ironical and pessimistic words could have been written yesterday. They were however written more than two hundred years ago, in 1798, by Karl-David Ilgen, often remembered - and unfortunately so - only for his "invention" of a second Elohist. He was speaking of the many divergent opinions about the dates proposed for the different documents recently found in the Pentateuch. His judgment can be summarized in the famous dictum of the old Latin author Terence, Quat homines tot sententiae. 2 And with Qohelet, we could add, in view of the present state of things, nihil novi sub sole - "there is nothing new under the sun" (Qoh 1:9), 1 "Was einer itzt [jetzt] fill ein Mosaisches Stuck erklart, das erklart ein anderer zu einer andem Zeit als ein Nachmosaisches; wo der einer nichts als Rost des Alterthums erblickt, und sich in die Zeiten vor Moses hinausgeriickt fiihlt, da sieht der andere die deutlichen Spuren der Neuheit, und fiihlt sich in die Zeiten der babylonischen Exils versetzt; wo der eine ein Produkt des Genies und der emporstrebenden Natur aus dem goldenen Zeitalter bewundert, da findet der andere ein Machwerk des gesunkenen Geschmacks, des niedergedruckten Geistes, und des angstlich nachahmenden FleiBes in dem ehemen Zeitalter; wo der eine die Kraftsprache des freyen Nomaden zwischen den Zelten Arabiens wiedertanen hart, da vemimmt der andere nichts, als das Kauderwalsch eines Chaldiiischen mit Fesseln beladenen Sklaven am Euphrat oder Chaboras; kurz, es wird nur gewiihnt, gemeint, geglaubt, gemuthmaJ3t, geahnt, nichts gewuJ3t, nichts eingesehen, nichts erkannt." - Karl-David ILGEN, Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihre Urgestalt zum bessern Verstandni}3 und richtigern Gebrauch derselben in ihrer gegenwartigen Form aus dem hebraischen mit kritischen Anmerkungen und Nachweisungen auch einer Abhandlung tiber die Trennung der Urkunden (Halle 1798) xi-xii. 2 Publius Terentius Afer, Phonnion, 454.

1. The forces at work in present-day Pentateuchal exegesis

247

and the next verse is even more to the point: "Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has been already in the ages before us" (Qoh 1: 11). What Ilgen said two centuries ago still holds true in many ways of the present state of affairs in Old Testament exegesis. There is, to say the least, much discussion, much confusion, but also little understanding, and little agreement among scholars in the different fields of Old Testament research. Every day new theses are defended and published, and the next day they are contested and refuted. Several times people deplore the lack of consensus in Old Testament exegesis, especially in what concerns the Pentateuch. One can either regret it or take advantage of this situation to propose and promote new viewpoints, new methods, and new hypotheses. My purpose, in this short contribution, is however neither to describe nor to judge the present situation, but to try to understand why we arrived at such a multiplicity of opinions. Why is there so much disagreement, why are there so many contradictory views on the same topics, why are they so many conflicting opinions and methods in the field of biblical exegesis? Is our culture a culture of dissent? These are the main questions that I will endeavour to answer by reading some pages of the history of Old Testament exegesis. I will begin my investigation (1) with an overview of recent developments in the exegesis of the Pentateuch to draw a more precise picture of the situation, in particular of the different forces at work in contemporary Old Testament exegesis. In the second place, I will inquire about the remote and less remote causes ofthese inner tensions. This inquiry begins with Josephus' Contra Apionem (2) and goes on to a reading of Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (3). The comparison between these two authors will enable us to understand and characterize better some new tendencies in modern Old Testament exegesis (4).

l. The forces at work in present-day Pentateuchal exegesis There are, in my opinion, two major areas of Old Testament exegesis, especially of the exegesis of the Pentateuch, where questions are hotly debated. First, several recent works attacked from inside and from outside the old and traditional historical-critical hypotheses about the formation of the Pentateuch, in particular the classical so-called documentary hypothesis (J, E, D, Pl. Second, the history of ancient Israel is - prima facie - at present a fierce battlefield between "minimalists" and "maximalists" where the two camps fight with equal energy and determination to establish either a recent or an early date for biblical traditions.

248

Old and New Perspectives in Old Testament Research

1.1. Unity or disunity of the Pentateuch? The discussions about the formation of the Pentateuch and, more radically, about the methods of reading biblical texts, are symptomatic of the present climate in other fields of Old Testament exegesis. For this reason I will deliberately limit my inquiry to the Pentateuch and only occasionally refer to other fields of biblical research. The major changes in studies on the Pentateuch occurred, as every one knows, during the 1970's. Most of the time, however, the usual presentations of these developments only speak of some challenges to the documentary hypothesis. The discussion, it seems, was for the most part restricted to a small group of exegetes and regarded the theories attached to famous names such as Wellhausen, Gunkel, von Rad, and Noth. Every one will remember titles of books published in those recent years: Frederick V. Winnett,3 Thomas L. Thompson: John Van Seters,' Hans Heinrich Schmid,' Rolf Rendtorff' ... One tends to forget, however, that in those same years several publications challenged much more radically the whole exegetical enterprise dominated, up to the early 1970's, by a certain number of prominent German exegetes. These dissident voices came, for the most part, from the English-speaking world and questioned not only the results oftheLiterarkritik, Formgeschichte, Redaktionsgeschichte, Oberlieferungsgeschichte, and Traditionsgeschichte, but the very historical-critical methodology that had a kind of monopoly in the exegetical world in those days. Whether their criticisms and objections were really to the point or not is not my main question here. Nor is my problem, at this stage, to evaluate the critical and hermeneutical foundations of their proposals. My main concern is to show that the debate was somewhat broader than one usually believes and that the classic Introductions to the Pentateuch do not always present a complete picture of the actual debate, of its ins and outs and of its deeper implications. Quoting a few more important names will suffice to show that more was at stake than, say, the nature and date ofthe Yahwist or the Priestly Writer. Let me quote a few names and a few titles to buttress my point. In 1968, James Muilenburg entitled his presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, "Form-Criticism and Beyond," a title that manifests the clear intention to "go beyond" a certain way of doing exegesis and to introduce new "Re-examining the Foundations," JBL 84 (1965) 1-19. L. THOMPSON, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Nmratives (BZAW 133; BerlinNew York 1974). 5 J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, eN -London 1975). 6 H. H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Yahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (ZUrich 1976). 7 R. RENDTORFF,Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtlicheProblem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin - New York 1976). 3

4 T.

1. The forces at work in present-day Pentateuchal exegesis

249

ways of reading the Bible, especially poetic texts. 8 A few years later appeared Sean E. McEvenue's The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer 9, Jan Peter Fokkelman's Narrative Art in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Studia Semitica Neerlandica; Assen/ Amsterdam 1975), David J.A. Clines' The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTS 10; Sheffield 1978). In between, Brevard S. Childs had published his classical commentary on Exodus IO and two years before, James A. Sanders had published his Torah and Canon. II One can add the names of Robert Alter I2 and Meir Sternberg. I3 These works are of different kinds, they follow different methodological paths, and belong to different cultural horizons. They have nonetheless one common element, namely their more or less explicit refusal only to investigate sources and redactions and to dedicate their energies, or at least some of their energies, to other purposes. S. E. McEvenue occupies a middle position in this panorama because his thesis, on the one hand, presupposes an agreement about the existence and the extension of sources within the Pentateuch, in particular the Jahwist (J) and the Priestly Writer (P), and, on the other, he does not try to modifY, clarify, or improve the documentary hypothesis, but he thoroughly studies the stylistic features and narrative techniques of one of the sources, namely the Priestly Writer. He does not reject the historical-critical method, he does not criticize it either, but builds up on a (supposed) consensus to explore new fields. Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders, with their special interest in the canonical text, occupy a special position with respect to historical-critical research. 14 Their 8 J. MUILENBURG, "Form Criticism and Beyond," JBL 88 (1969) 1-18; on this topic, cf. M.A. SWEENEY - B. BEN ZVI (eds.), The Changing Face ofFonn Criticism for the TwentyFirst Century (Grand Rapids, MI 2003). 9 S.B. McEvENUE, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnEib 50; Rome 1971). Along the same lines, one could mention a few more titles: N. LOHFINK, Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5-11 (AnEib 20; Rome 1963); G. BRAULIK, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1-40 (AnEib 68; Rome 1978); c. CONROY, Absalom Absalom! Nmrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20 (AnEib 81; Rome 1978); R. POLZIN, Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. I. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York 1980 = Bloomington - Indianapolis, IN 1993). 10 B. S. CHILDS, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM - Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974). 11 J.A. SANDERS, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia, PA 1972). 12 R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Nmrative (New York 1981). 13 M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Nmrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN 1985). 14 On Childs' exegesis, see R. RENDTORFF, Canon and Theology (Overtures to Biblical Theology 30; Minneapolis, :MN 1994); J.H. SAILHAMER, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids, MI 1995); P.R. NOBLE, The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Henneneutics of Brevard S. Childs (Biblical Interpretation Series 16; Leiden 1995); A. SANECKI, Approccio canonico: tra storia e teologia, alia ricerca di un nuovo paradigma post-critico. L'analisi della metodologia canonica diB. S. Childs dal punto di vista cattolico (Tesi gregoriana - Teologia 104; Roma 2004).

250

Old and New Perspectives in Old Testament Research

work is more a complement than an alternative to it. Fokkelman and Clines are much more explicit in their rejection ofthe historical-critical method. For them exegesis cannot be limited to a quest for sources or geneticism. 15 To put it in simple words, the explanation ofthe origin of a given text is not the explanation of a text. Everyone will recognize in this statement one of the main tenets of the New Criticism which fiercely fought for the autonomy both of the literary work and the literary science that studies it. 16 To sum up this first inquiry, one can say that the main debate in the exegesis of the Pentateuch is about the alleged unity of the text. Is there a final redaction of the Pentateuch that gave it a unified form? Is it possible to read the text as a unity? In other words, is it possible to read the Pentateuch or parts of it in its final shape, prout iacet? Or are the inner contradictions of the text of such a nature that any systematic "synchronic" reading of the text is impossible? Several recent titles witness to the actuality of the debate, especially the collective books published by Johannes C. de Moor and Walter Dietrich. 17 There is also an ongoing discussion betw"een Norbert Lohfink and Eckart Otto on this topic 18

1.2. How "old" is the Old Testament? A second debate must be mentioned in this brief inquiry, namely the discussion about the history of Israel. On the one hand, some historians and exegetes defend the reliability and antiquity of many biblical narratives. On the other, a group of scholars consider that the biblical texts are not reliable because they were written very late, in Hellenistic times, without any intention to inform about the past, but only to legitimate the existence of the post-exilic 15 In this respect, Alter coined the famous expression "excavative exegesis" - The Art of Biblical Narrative, 13. 16 See J.-L. SKA, "La 'nouvelle critique' et l'exegese anglo-saxonne," RSR 80 (1992) 29-53; D. F. WATSON - A. J. HAUSER, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Leiden 1994). 17 J. C. DE MOOR (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS 35; Leiden 1995); W. DIETRICH (ed.), David und Saul im Widerstreit -Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit. Beitriige zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches (OBO 206; Fribourg: Academic Press - G6ttingen 2004). 18 N. LOHFINK, "Prolegomena zu einer Rechtshenneneutik des Pentateuch," Das Deuteronomium (ed. G. BRAULIK) (Osterreichische Biblische Studien 23; Frankfurt 2003) 11-55 (11: "[Den Pentateuch] lese ich "synchron"); E. OTTO, "Wie 'synchron' wurde in der Antike der Pentateuch gelesen? ," Das Mannafollt auch heute noch. Beitriige zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (eds. F.-L. HOSSFELD - L. SCHWIENHORST-SCH